Are there any sites that are specifically for publishing anti-patents?
To my mind, the anti-patent would be a published invention that, instead of granting a monopoly on a technology, would assure that it would remain in the open, as it would be an invention "patented" to someplace other than the USPTO.
This would qualify as a prior art publication.
If all these anti-patents are published to one location, perhaps it would give the USPTO a one-stop source for qualifying prior art to prevent junk patents from being accepted.
All one would need to do is register their invention to this publisher in exactly the same way (minus the cash requirement) as one would submit a patent.
Technology that makes "First Posts" more efficiently.
I wonder if this could also use a person's mental moods to affect moderation on Slashdot... flamebait and trolls would be identified almost immediately, due to immediate surges in irritation that tends to lead to flame posts.
Also, insightful, interesting and informative posts would instigate deeper thoughts, thus at least bringing them a higher rating.
That's understandable, but if you have the spammer's identity, doesn't that mean that you can also have the authorities deal with the now-known spammer?
I didn't set it; it was set by default by the Debian Project. Just because I was aware enough to shut it off doesn't mean jack if someone who isn't doesn't know to turn it off.
You forget the security element, however. By spoofing one's site to seem like something else, what one does is prevent a potential web-attacker from knowing what exploits are likely to be at your system.
It's not practical for marketing, true. But security is far more important than marketing, due to the fact that marketing using security as an element is always a bit more beneficial than the "everybody else is doing it" argument... despite appearances.
NX's main advantage is that it helps prevent any overflowing data from executing.
This, simply put, would eliminate the vast number of buffer-overflow exploits out there, because if overflowed data cannot execute, it cannot perform any viral activities.
If everybody agreed, it would be because we'd be speaking newspeak... as long as people are free, they're going to disagree, which is where the whole concept of pure anarchy breaks down, and why chaos is the natural result.
Disagreements between two people who fervently believe opposing points of view (vi vs. EMACS, Republican vs. Democrat, Christianity vs. Islam vs. everyone else, and so on) are eventually going to get to a point where one is going to go their way, the other's going to go theirs, and join with people of their stripe.
Human nature being as it may, some will reach a point where their beliefs are the True Path (usually those who are too lazy to actually reason their beliefs out), and hatreds begin. From hatred... well, if I have to explain that, then I'd be very disappointed in y'all.
Here, among those of us who actually discuss and debate (other than trolls and first-post monkeys) things, yes, we'd be an intellectual anarchy. But it's a limited anarchy, since we still have to abide by the rules that govern the moderation system. If not, we lose the strength of voice pretty quick... which, while not important to trolls and monkeys, are pretty important to those of us who actually come here to discuss "stuff that matters."
First, we need a way to make people view web pages in a PNG-compliant browser. Seems to me that the "best viewed at..." lines always seemed to get the public attention toward a specific browser. It worked quite well for IE. People perceived the line as meaning that those web pages used advanced features that only worked in the shiny, new Internet Explorer.
However, now the tables have actually turned. IE is no longer the shiny and new browser. It's getting dated. It no longer supports the internet standards, and MS certainly has more important concerns right now than adding new features to their web browser. It's an open window for any internet jackal to climb in and tear the place apart.
How hard would it be to use PNG, and add the "best viewed" line to make the viewers realize there are new web features that Microsoft (their generic name for the IE browser in this context) doesn't support. When they see the art is off-kilter, they can either tolerate it, or get the recommended browser.
One thing to note is that this will not affect the actual usability of the site. People will still be able to do their shopping, reading or downloading without any issue other than the flawed look to the alpha-transparency graphics. They will see WHY it's best viewed with (insert browser of preference here) and go and get it (especially since it's "free stuff," and when presented as such, it's a major temptation for the customer).
Finally, don't worry about the 90%. It's shrinking now. All you need to worry about is converting those who you know. It's not difficult; just burn a copy of The OpenCD for each person, and allow them to see how easy these programs really are. If someone asks about popup or spyware problems, simply inform them that it's their browser causing these problems, and point them to (insert browser here).
*grin* And if their needs revolve around nothing more than internet access and document creation, you are go for recommending Linux!;)
The computer wants you to hunt those evil commies, but you are not a high enough clearance to know the map or the rules! Sounds like a game to me......wait a minute...
Hence the reason Novell did not do away with the various acquired brand names; such should give them an instant mindshare into the Linux arena. What is the first thing you think of when you hear SuSE? Just as I thought. Ximian? Uh huh.
Just out of curiosity, I ran this through the "writing lint" program, diction.
Here was the output: -- 1: If [one -> When used as a pronoun, it must be used consistently: One must manage one's money carefully.] examines the Macintosh camp, [one -> When used as a pronoun, it must be used consistently: One must manage one's money carefully.] is faced with a choice:
7: In the works of Steve Wozniak, a predominant concept is the distinction [between -> (choose "between" 2 options and "among" 3 or more)] figure and ground.
9: But if the Macintosh camp holds, we have to choose [between -> (choose "between" 2 options and "among" 3 or more)] the Jobist image and capitalist subconceptual theory.
14: [Hubbard -> Double word.] implies that the works of Jobism are empowering.
14: Thus, an abundance of theories concerning cultural deconstructivism [may -> = Do not confuse with "can".] be discovered.
27: [However -> Means "in whatever way, to whatever extent" inside a sentence and "nevertheless" at the beginning of a sentence.], Wozniak suggests the use of the Jobist image to read class. --
If nothing else, this should make a useful tool for grammar-checking documents to the nth degree.
I've used QTPartEd with Knoppix (3.3 & 3.4), and found that every single change required a reboot in order to allow a second or a third to occur. When wanting to, for example, shrink a Windows partition, and add a Linux partition, and then format the Linux partition with reiserfs, that basically requires two reboots.
The biggest difference I can see between security in the two systems is the default login.
The default login for Windows is an administrator account. I know of a couple programs in Windows that require administrator access for use. ADMINISTRATOR ACCESS TO BE USED!!!
However, I have yet to see any non-administrative program in Linux that needed root access... some versions of Netscape, if I recall, wouldn't even start if the user was root.
Now, when you're not a root user, there's only two locations that you have the potential to destroy... your homedir, and the tempdir. Neither will affect the system's running to any major extent, especially if disk quotas are implemented.
So, (usually) instead of reinstalling an operating system in the event of a virus, the worst that needs to happen is that the dotfiles need to be deleted and remade.
I do say usually because there was that recent incident with the kernel crash code that appeared recently (that could crash Linux if run, even from userspace), so I will admit incidences can happen even then. But so far, the cause and the solution have been found quickly. However, other than such situations, there's still no excuse for a user to be running at all times as superuser.
Did I hear this right... Legislature is not creating enough laws for you? Personally, I prefer a less-intrusive government. If I find my provider reading my mails, i switch providers.
Knowing another person's credit card numbers are not in themselves illegal; USING them is.
Same applies for private messages. They can read your messages to their hearts' content... provided you're fool enough to keep it all plaintext. However, once those messages are used for purposes such as extortion, conning unsuspecting parties, or using the information in the action of some actual criminal activity, THEN it becomes illegal.
This is, in fact, the reason people use credit cards at all; the recipient and channel should be trusted before the transaction is enacted. If the trust proves to become false, then the company will fall to pieces when customers migrate away en masse.
Well, in the US, Snail Mail is actually a government function; when an official stamp is placed on the envelope that covers the actual message, it's become the government's responsibility to keep the message safe until it reaches the recipient, and there are strict laws regarding unauthorized reading of postal mail.
However, unless the message is placed in a security envelope (the inner lining of a security envelope is covered with random patterns), actually sealed and/or folded inward on itself, a message can potentially be read through the paper of the envelope, or even removed and replaced without the recipient ever becoming aware of it. A regular envelope is no guarantee against possible reading if the letter's not properly folded.
Now, in email, sending a completely unprotected email is like reading a postcard. Placing the message into a zipfile would be like sending such a message in a plain envelope without proper folding procedure. Finally, using encryption on your messages would be secure enough to be trusted that none but the recipient would be able to make heads or tails of the gobbledygook that makes up the message.
I actually agree with the ruling, for several reasons.
1: This will bring more attention to privacy tools like any OpenPGP-compatible program, such as the GNU Privacy Guard, than any law preventing law-abiding citizens from thumbing through your emails.
2: The ISP is providing a service using their own equipment. While laws might help, remember that it IS their OWN damn equipment, and if they choose to, there's little you can do if you're not aware of it.
3: The ISP is not the only point in which any mail can be read. Any number of mail backbones can also store a message for perusing later. This is especially true in the case of those undeliverables that are logged for later review. To focus the blame on an ISP is a fallacy.
Personally, I think that people should have little fire lit under them to get themselves protected. I will admit that it's a bit of a bother now, but as soon as vendors see the market value of such systems, how long until it's easy enough for aunt Maude?
Slashdot Mirror
Are there any sites that are specifically for publishing anti-patents?
To my mind, the anti-patent would be a published invention that, instead of granting a monopoly on a technology, would assure that it would remain in the open, as it would be an invention "patented" to someplace other than the USPTO.
This would qualify as a prior art publication.
If all these anti-patents are published to one location, perhaps it would give the USPTO a one-stop source for qualifying prior art to prevent junk patents from being accepted.
All one would need to do is register their invention to this publisher in exactly the same way (minus the cash requirement) as one would submit a patent.
THAT'S all we need...
Technology that makes "First Posts" more efficiently.
I wonder if this could also use a person's mental moods to affect moderation on Slashdot... flamebait and trolls would be identified almost immediately, due to immediate surges in irritation that tends to lead to flame posts.
Also, insightful, interesting and informative posts would instigate deeper thoughts, thus at least bringing them a higher rating.
That's understandable, but if you have the spammer's identity, doesn't that mean that you can also have the authorities deal with the now-known spammer?
*chuckle* Not unless I have a trusted 3rd party sign it. I mean the inclusion of "the web of trust," rather than JUST an encrypted hash.
...but wouldn't similar results apply if both parties used digital signatures in their mail?
How is this any different? Or am I missing something?
...not the default... the setting for google.com in the "site-specific identification" section by default.
I didn't set it; it was set by default by the Debian Project. Just because I was aware enough to shut it off doesn't mean jack if someone who isn't doesn't know to turn it off.
You forget the security element, however. By spoofing one's site to seem like something else, what one does is prevent a potential web-attacker from knowing what exploits are likely to be at your system.
It's not practical for marketing, true. But security is far more important than marketing, due to the fact that marketing using security as an element is always a bit more beneficial than the "everybody else is doing it" argument... despite appearances.
When on Google, my debian system with Konqueror defaults to stating it's Windows XP with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0
I can change it, but how many other browsers falsely identify themselves for the sake of extra security against the internet?
NX's main advantage is that it helps prevent any overflowing data from executing.
;)
This, simply put, would eliminate the vast number of buffer-overflow exploits out there, because if overflowed data cannot execute, it cannot perform any viral activities.
Can you say security? I knew you could.
If everybody agreed, it would be because we'd be speaking newspeak... as long as people are free, they're going to disagree, which is where the whole concept of pure anarchy breaks down, and why chaos is the natural result.
Disagreements between two people who fervently believe opposing points of view (vi vs. EMACS, Republican vs. Democrat, Christianity vs. Islam vs. everyone else, and so on) are eventually going to get to a point where one is going to go their way, the other's going to go theirs, and join with people of their stripe.
Human nature being as it may, some will reach a point where their beliefs are the True Path (usually those who are too lazy to actually reason their beliefs out), and hatreds begin. From hatred... well, if I have to explain that, then I'd be very disappointed in y'all.
Here, among those of us who actually discuss and debate (other than trolls and first-post monkeys) things, yes, we'd be an intellectual anarchy. But it's a limited anarchy, since we still have to abide by the rules that govern the moderation system. If not, we lose the strength of voice pretty quick... which, while not important to trolls and monkeys, are pretty important to those of us who actually come here to discuss "stuff that matters."
Here's a suggestion to change this.
;)
First, we need a way to make people view web pages in a PNG-compliant browser. Seems to me that the "best viewed at..." lines always seemed to get the public attention toward a specific browser. It worked quite well for IE. People perceived the line as meaning that those web pages used advanced features that only worked in the shiny, new Internet Explorer.
However, now the tables have actually turned. IE is no longer the shiny and new browser. It's getting dated. It no longer supports the internet standards, and MS certainly has more important concerns right now than adding new features to their web browser. It's an open window for any internet jackal to climb in and tear the place apart.
How hard would it be to use PNG, and add the "best viewed" line to make the viewers realize there are new web features that Microsoft (their generic name for the IE browser in this context) doesn't support. When they see the art is off-kilter, they can either tolerate it, or get the recommended browser.
One thing to note is that this will not affect the actual usability of the site. People will still be able to do their shopping, reading or downloading without any issue other than the flawed look to the alpha-transparency graphics. They will see WHY it's best viewed with (insert browser of preference here) and go and get it (especially since it's "free stuff," and when presented as such, it's a major temptation for the customer).
Finally, don't worry about the 90%. It's shrinking now. All you need to worry about is converting those who you know. It's not difficult; just burn a copy of The OpenCD for each person, and allow them to see how easy these programs really are. If someone asks about popup or spyware problems, simply inform them that it's their browser causing these problems, and point them to (insert browser here).
*grin* And if their needs revolve around nothing more than internet access and document creation, you are go for recommending Linux!
Of course. The computer wants you to be happy.
...wait a minute...
The computer wants you to hunt those evil commies, but you are not a high enough clearance to know the map or the rules! Sounds like a game to me...
Hence the reason Novell did not do away with the various acquired brand names; such should give them an instant mindshare into the Linux arena. What is the first thing you think of when you hear SuSE? Just as I thought. Ximian? Uh huh.
You did remember to omit the ads, section headers, and demonstration results?
Here's what I got after stripping anything non-paragraph-based from the article:
readability grades:
Kincaid: 12.0
ARI: 13.3
Coleman-Liau: 11.4
Flesch Index: 55.6
Fog Index: 14.7
Lix: 48.9 = school year 9
SMOG-Grading: 12.1
Seems results may vary.
Just out of curiosity, I ran this through the "writing lint" program, diction.
Here was the output:
--
1: If [one -> When used as a pronoun, it must be used consistently: One must manage one's money carefully.] examines the Macintosh camp, [one -> When used as a pronoun, it must be used consistently: One must manage one's money carefully.] is faced with a choice:
7: In the works of Steve Wozniak, a predominant concept is the distinction [between -> (choose "between" 2 options and "among" 3 or more)] figure and ground.
9: But if the Macintosh camp holds, we have to choose [between -> (choose "between" 2 options and "among" 3 or more)] the Jobist image and capitalist subconceptual theory.
14: [Hubbard -> Double word.] implies that the works of Jobism are empowering.
14: Thus, an abundance of theories concerning cultural deconstructivism [may -> = Do not confuse with "can".] be discovered.
27: [However -> Means "in whatever way, to whatever extent" inside a sentence and "nevertheless" at the beginning of a sentence.], Wozniak suggests the use of the Jobist image to read class.
--
If nothing else, this should make a useful tool for grammar-checking documents to the nth degree.
You forgot apropos... after all, how else will you know which 42 commands allows you to screw your system up?
I've used QTPartEd with Knoppix (3.3 & 3.4), and found that every single change required a reboot in order to allow a second or a third to occur. When wanting to, for example, shrink a Windows partition, and add a Linux partition, and then format the Linux partition with reiserfs, that basically requires two reboots.
Or perhaps I'm not doing it right...
The biggest difference I can see between security in the two systems is the default login.
The default login for Windows is an administrator account. I know of a couple programs in Windows that require administrator access for use. ADMINISTRATOR ACCESS TO BE USED!!!
However, I have yet to see any non-administrative program in Linux that needed root access... some versions of Netscape, if I recall, wouldn't even start if the user was root.
Now, when you're not a root user, there's only two locations that you have the potential to destroy... your homedir, and the tempdir. Neither will affect the system's running to any major extent, especially if disk quotas are implemented.
So, (usually) instead of reinstalling an operating system in the event of a virus, the worst that needs to happen is that the dotfiles need to be deleted and remade.
I do say usually because there was that recent incident with the kernel crash code that appeared recently (that could crash Linux if run, even from userspace), so I will admit incidences can happen even then. But so far, the cause and the solution have been found quickly. However, other than such situations, there's still no excuse for a user to be running at all times as superuser.
Yes. A Government needs to adapt; everything does.
However, a government shouldn't adapt solely to prevent it's constituents from also needing to adapt.
Did I hear this right... Legislature is not creating enough laws for you? Personally, I prefer a less-intrusive government. If I find my provider reading my mails, i switch providers.
Good old capitalism at work.
That defeats the purpose... the recipient might just decide to forget you exist... ...
*thinks he'll respond to a few spam ads...*
Knowing another person's credit card numbers are not in themselves illegal; USING them is.
Same applies for private messages. They can read your messages to their hearts' content... provided you're fool enough to keep it all plaintext. However, once those messages are used for purposes such as extortion, conning unsuspecting parties, or using the information in the action of some actual criminal activity, THEN it becomes illegal.
This is, in fact, the reason people use credit cards at all; the recipient and channel should be trusted before the transaction is enacted. If the trust proves to become false, then the company will fall to pieces when customers migrate away en masse.
Well, in the US, Snail Mail is actually a government function; when an official stamp is placed on the envelope that covers the actual message, it's become the government's responsibility to keep the message safe until it reaches the recipient, and there are strict laws regarding unauthorized reading of postal mail.
However, unless the message is placed in a security envelope (the inner lining of a security envelope is covered with random patterns), actually sealed and/or folded inward on itself, a message can potentially be read through the paper of the envelope, or even removed and replaced without the recipient ever becoming aware of it. A regular envelope is no guarantee against possible reading if the letter's not properly folded.
Now, in email, sending a completely unprotected email is like reading a postcard. Placing the message into a zipfile would be like sending such a message in a plain envelope without proper folding procedure. Finally, using encryption on your messages would be secure enough to be trusted that none but the recipient would be able to make heads or tails of the gobbledygook that makes up the message.
I actually agree with the ruling, for several reasons.
1: This will bring more attention to privacy tools like any OpenPGP-compatible program, such as the GNU Privacy Guard, than any law preventing law-abiding citizens from thumbing through your emails.
2: The ISP is providing a service using their own equipment. While laws might help, remember that it IS their OWN damn equipment, and if they choose to, there's little you can do if you're not aware of it.
3: The ISP is not the only point in which any mail can be read. Any number of mail backbones can also store a message for perusing later. This is especially true in the case of those undeliverables that are logged for later review. To focus the blame on an ISP is a fallacy.
Personally, I think that people should have little fire lit under them to get themselves protected. I will admit that it's a bit of a bother now, but as soon as vendors see the market value of such systems, how long until it's easy enough for aunt Maude?