My pet theory is that it will make it difficult for worms to scan a block of addresses for open ports. With a gazillion addresses, 99.99....% will be unassigned. That is unless some dork decides IP6 addresses should be logical. Sheesh...
Doh! I actually wrote that, but somehow edited it out without thinking. So much for thinking (and editing) before posting. Thanks for catching my goof.
But I see smaller fish every day. The baby cichlids I'm raising are as small as 2 mm. It's funny watching them act just like adults. Defending turf from each other, looking for food, running from 200 mm adults (different species), and so on. I can't help but think how such complex actions are being controlled by so few neurons.
With all the warning about how even looking at the code could cause trouble, I can't help but think of it as MS's version of the Tar Baby http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm
Just an interesting side note, but a friend of mine gave a speech in communications class in college on just that subject. It turns out that taxes on ammunition in New Mexico goes towards buying and maintaining wild-life preserves. As a hunter, he was pleased to point out the benefit everyone gets from his hobby.
Or a bit of trivia my brother pointed out to me: The US has a 100 year supply of guns, but only a 2 year supply of ammo.
My real problem is that my mom bought a PC at Christmas. While visiting (she's a couple time zones away), I did a little tuning (firewall, firefox, openoffice, etc.) Symantecs pisses me off so it got uninstalled (replaced with Avast). But... did the uninstall really clean everything up? I can't check in person and I'm not going to walk my mom through rootkit detection unless neccessary.
Thanks for the details on the Pavel patent. I was too lazy to check into it. Yeah, that sort of patent irritates me as well. Now I understand where you were coming from. We used to run into that problem with doctors giving suggestions. They'd tell us they wanted something to do X faster. If we came up with a product that did X faster, they would insist it was their idea and should get royalties. Sorry, but expressing a need is not the same as meeting that need. Sounds like Pavel did the same thing.
Let me expand a bit on the 30 years bit. I took a verbal shortcut by saying "work." I meant be successful. The original idea may work, but not well enough to be widely useful. Take DNA sequencing. It's been possible for decades and I'd be surprised if it wasn't patented. Great breakthrough. Revolutionary. But it was slow and impractical. Then comes PCR. Same technique, but tweaks the process in a way that makes it vastly more practical. So which do you allow? The original invention, which worked and held great potential, or PCR, which is just a refinement? The PCR patent has made the inventor extremely wealthy, and deservedly so. Nice to see a scientist hit the jackpot for once.
My point was that when a patent is filed, it's not immediately apparent if it's practical. It may take a second breakthrough, sometimes in a different field, for it to be really useful.
"Never been applied properly" is a bit extreme. As for your examples, they are the exception to the rule. They are high profile just as your local news always leads off with murders. Doesn't mean every home harbors a murderer. It means that the system isn't 100% perfect. Well duh! What system is? But your point of things should actually operate is a good one. The patent office should have some sort of "demo" portion. And they used to. Maybe it should be reintroduced by having inventors present their invention on demand at the examiner's discretion.
At the moment, there is no difference between hardware and software patents. Your code can be infringing even if it's free. And the patent publically publishes 18 months after application, usually well before issuing. Patents are in force for 20 years from date of application. Don't know where you got 7 years dude.
After reading the article, I have to say the author has a poor grasp of patents. Yes, he has 70, but by his own admission they were trivial. He's also using terminology loosely. Do numerous patents get granted for trivial stuff? Yes. But the patent office has never been given a narrow definition of novel and non-obvious. Not their fault, talk to congress and the SCOTUS about that.
As far as only granting broad patents, those can be just as trivial as narrow. A broad patent may not have enough details worked out to be useful. I think he was trying to say that only economically important or scientific breakthroughs should be granted patents, everthing else being narrow. Nice idea, but it only works with 20/20 hind sight. Some times it's the guy, 30 years after the first broad patent is filed, that figures out the critical specification to make the whole thing work.
As far as his comments about venture capitalists, so what? If they aren't bright enough to figure out good technology from bad, good patents from bad, that's their own fault. Making it easier for the dumbs ones to become rich isn't very motivating.
So all the article ends up being is the random musings from someone ill informed. Fix the system if you must, but don't listen to this guy.
Lack of diversity during certain phases is a good thing. It improves the signal to noise ratio in the statistics. It's why they use identical white mice. It's a bad move, when you extrapolate. Which is what someone did in your example. Luckily they erred on the safe side. Still, a good study should move from the narrow to the broad.
In general, humans are pretty genetically uniform. But some crucial differences do pop up. Heck, think of testing something as benign as dairy products. Most of the world can't drink milk.
Fun bit o' trivia: a significant number of chemicals that cause cancer in rats, don't in mice. And visa versa. Makes you wonder how reliable those tests are extrapolated to humans!
I'm a bit confused. This seems to be about monitoring international emails and phone calls. And from the article "Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States." The rest of the article confirms this is legal. Can someone explain what the difference now is? Is it that rather intercept outside the US, they intercepted inside the US? But the exact same type of communications it was ok to intercept before?
Ethically this would seem the same. Intercept here, there, seems the same (note, I didn't say good or bad, just same). As someone pointed out, ethical and legal are not the same. So is it more of a legal issue? Is there just enough wiggle room the Whitehouse was able to come up with some sort of logic permitting it? Again, having a logical argument, doesn't mean it's ok.
The licence plates used to say "New Mexico, Land of Enchantment." But eventually they decided to work on clear up a few misconceptions first and changed it to "New Mexico USA." A bit of self-depricating humor.
Why? An example: When my Uncle drove back from Canada years ago, the US border guard asked for ID. It was a NM drivers license. The guard wasn't going to let him in until a Canadian guard explained that NM is a US state.
As the t-shirt says: "Cleaner than Old Mexico"
Or a classic one you find from time to time in NM: "Land of the Flea, Home of the Plague." NM still has the plague. I can remember being taught in school "Don't pick up dead animals!" NM also has the Sin Nombre strain of Hanta. And a few years back they had an outbreak of anthrax. They buried the dead cows in the local land fill...
Ah yes, NM. Old Mexico's crazy cousin to the north.
After finishing my BS at NMSU, I started applying to grad schools. Georgia Tech sent me the application for foreign students and Purdue wanted proof I spoke english. I decided they must be a bit overated if they couldn't handle basic geography.
He's dead on. I grew up in NM and went to school in Cruces. The state loves the strange (go to Sante Fe some day) and the dangerous (Los Alamos, Sandia, White Sands). A space port? It's in the blood. The first liquid fueled rocket by Goddard was launched in Roswell, V2's were tested at White Sands, and in general, people love to launch and blow stuff up. You've got a thousand PhD types blowing the crap out of anything they can get their hands on. If they'd put it on cable, it'd be the top red-neck channel. A friend even got college credit in explosives while working at Sandia. The biggest disappointment for locals will be that the spaceships won't blow up. "Another dud!"
As for 3rd world, a couple of interesting facts (which might be outdated). NM has the highest school dropout rate and the highest PhD per capita. AND the bordor patrol has a station NORTH of Las Cruces. Putting it south of there would interfer with international commuters.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad it doesn't do arabic. I know at least 140,000 customers that could really use it, like, yesterday.
It would be ironic if you were a twin. The unauthorized copy twin would be too much to ask for.
Oh, and happy birthday.
I thought MS offered indemnification. Guess I was confused. Guess that was just server software. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /topics/ipi.mspx
My pet theory is that it will make it difficult for worms to scan a block of addresses for open ports. With a gazillion addresses, 99.99....% will be unassigned. That is unless some dork decides IP6 addresses should be logical. Sheesh...
We're just talking about two evil guys with huge egos, tons of power, lots of minions, trying to rule the planet. Gates vs. Jobs? Yeah, same thing.
Would you settle for smallest average size?
Just trying to find some middle ground....
Doh! I actually wrote that, but somehow edited it out without thinking. So much for thinking (and editing) before posting. Thanks for catching my goof.
Now no skull, that's cool!
But I see smaller fish every day. The baby cichlids I'm raising are as small as 2 mm. It's funny watching them act just like adults. Defending turf from each other, looking for food, running from 200 mm adults (different species), and so on. I can't help but think how such complex actions are being controlled by so few neurons.
With all the warning about how even looking at the code could cause trouble, I can't help but think of it as MS's version of the Tar Baby http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm
Just an interesting side note, but a friend of mine gave a speech in communications class in college on just that subject. It turns out that taxes on ammunition in New Mexico goes towards buying and maintaining wild-life preserves. As a hunter, he was pleased to point out the benefit everyone gets from his hobby.
Or a bit of trivia my brother pointed out to me: The US has a 100 year supply of guns, but only a 2 year supply of ammo.
My real problem is that my mom bought a PC at Christmas. While visiting (she's a couple time zones away), I did a little tuning (firewall, firefox, openoffice, etc.) Symantecs pisses me off so it got uninstalled (replaced with Avast). But ... did the uninstall really clean everything up? I can't check in person and I'm not going to walk my mom through rootkit detection unless neccessary.
For those of us who dislike the pre-installed Symantec software and uninstall it first chance we get, is there still a vulnerability?
Thanks for the details on the Pavel patent. I was too lazy to check into it. Yeah, that sort of patent irritates me as well. Now I understand where you were coming from. We used to run into that problem with doctors giving suggestions. They'd tell us they wanted something to do X faster. If we came up with a product that did X faster, they would insist it was their idea and should get royalties. Sorry, but expressing a need is not the same as meeting that need. Sounds like Pavel did the same thing.
Let me expand a bit on the 30 years bit. I took a verbal shortcut by saying "work." I meant be successful. The original idea may work, but not well enough to be widely useful. Take DNA sequencing. It's been possible for decades and I'd be surprised if it wasn't patented. Great breakthrough. Revolutionary. But it was slow and impractical. Then comes PCR. Same technique, but tweaks the process in a way that makes it vastly more practical. So which do you allow? The original invention, which worked and held great potential, or PCR, which is just a refinement? The PCR patent has made the inventor extremely wealthy, and deservedly so. Nice to see a scientist hit the jackpot for once. My point was that when a patent is filed, it's not immediately apparent if it's practical. It may take a second breakthrough, sometimes in a different field, for it to be really useful. "Never been applied properly" is a bit extreme. As for your examples, they are the exception to the rule. They are high profile just as your local news always leads off with murders. Doesn't mean every home harbors a murderer. It means that the system isn't 100% perfect. Well duh! What system is? But your point of things should actually operate is a good one. The patent office should have some sort of "demo" portion. And they used to. Maybe it should be reintroduced by having inventors present their invention on demand at the examiner's discretion.
Nice of you to label your comments.
At the moment, there is no difference between hardware and software patents. Your code can be infringing even if it's free. And the patent publically publishes 18 months after application, usually well before issuing. Patents are in force for 20 years from date of application. Don't know where you got 7 years dude.
After reading the article, I have to say the author has a poor grasp of patents. Yes, he has 70, but by his own admission they were trivial. He's also using terminology loosely. Do numerous patents get granted for trivial stuff? Yes. But the patent office has never been given a narrow definition of novel and non-obvious. Not their fault, talk to congress and the SCOTUS about that.
As far as only granting broad patents, those can be just as trivial as narrow. A broad patent may not have enough details worked out to be useful. I think he was trying to say that only economically important or scientific breakthroughs should be granted patents, everthing else being narrow. Nice idea, but it only works with 20/20 hind sight. Some times it's the guy, 30 years after the first broad patent is filed, that figures out the critical specification to make the whole thing work.
As far as his comments about venture capitalists, so what? If they aren't bright enough to figure out good technology from bad, good patents from bad, that's their own fault. Making it easier for the dumbs ones to become rich isn't very motivating.
So all the article ends up being is the random musings from someone ill informed. Fix the system if you must, but don't listen to this guy.
Somehow I always felt that humans had been tricked into spending billions finding cures for diseases in mice. Was Douglas Adams onto something?
Lack of diversity during certain phases is a good thing. It improves the signal to noise ratio in the statistics. It's why they use identical white mice. It's a bad move, when you extrapolate. Which is what someone did in your example. Luckily they erred on the safe side. Still, a good study should move from the narrow to the broad.
In general, humans are pretty genetically uniform. But some crucial differences do pop up. Heck, think of testing something as benign as dairy products. Most of the world can't drink milk.
Fun bit o' trivia: a significant number of chemicals that cause cancer in rats, don't in mice. And visa versa. Makes you wonder how reliable those tests are extrapolated to humans!
I'm a bit confused. This seems to be about monitoring international emails and phone calls. And from the article "Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States." The rest of the article confirms this is legal. Can someone explain what the difference now is? Is it that rather intercept outside the US, they intercepted inside the US? But the exact same type of communications it was ok to intercept before?
Ethically this would seem the same. Intercept here, there, seems the same (note, I didn't say good or bad, just same). As someone pointed out, ethical and legal are not the same. So is it more of a legal issue? Is there just enough wiggle room the Whitehouse was able to come up with some sort of logic permitting it? Again, having a logical argument, doesn't mean it's ok.
Just curious.
The licence plates used to say "New Mexico, Land of Enchantment." But eventually they decided to work on clear up a few misconceptions first and changed it to "New Mexico USA." A bit of self-depricating humor.
Why? An example: When my Uncle drove back from Canada years ago, the US border guard asked for ID. It was a NM drivers license. The guard wasn't going to let him in until a Canadian guard explained that NM is a US state.
As the t-shirt says: "Cleaner than Old Mexico" Or a classic one you find from time to time in NM: "Land of the Flea, Home of the Plague." NM still has the plague. I can remember being taught in school "Don't pick up dead animals!" NM also has the Sin Nombre strain of Hanta. And a few years back they had an outbreak of anthrax. They buried the dead cows in the local land fill... Ah yes, NM. Old Mexico's crazy cousin to the north.
After finishing my BS at NMSU, I started applying to grad schools. Georgia Tech sent me the application for foreign students and Purdue wanted proof I spoke english. I decided they must be a bit overated if they couldn't handle basic geography.
He's dead on. I grew up in NM and went to school in Cruces. The state loves the strange (go to Sante Fe some day) and the dangerous (Los Alamos, Sandia, White Sands). A space port? It's in the blood. The first liquid fueled rocket by Goddard was launched in Roswell, V2's were tested at White Sands, and in general, people love to launch and blow stuff up. You've got a thousand PhD types blowing the crap out of anything they can get their hands on. If they'd put it on cable, it'd be the top red-neck channel. A friend even got college credit in explosives while working at Sandia. The biggest disappointment for locals will be that the spaceships won't blow up. "Another dud!"
As for 3rd world, a couple of interesting facts (which might be outdated). NM has the highest school dropout rate and the highest PhD per capita. AND the bordor patrol has a station NORTH of Las Cruces. Putting it south of there would interfer with international commuters.
Dow bought Union Carbide, not J&J.