No matter what the case is they should NEVER have used ActiveX.
Yeah, and fuck-you-shima should never have been built where a tsunami could flood it. We are ruled by stupid people, and eventually this will produce a catastrophe big enough to annihilate all of humanity.
Anyway, we're all sorry for you and we'll all cry ourselves tonight hugging our loved ones thanks to your heartfelt tale,
Idiot. I wish you, or any of your relatives won't have to live through anything like this.
My mother once experienced some mysterious illness which paralyzed have of her face, doctors couldn't find out what it was, and she was suffering from this over a year.
My father has unexplained lower back pains.
Maybe you missed the part about "diagnosing people with no symptoms".
Then let me contribute my story. Two years ago, I had weird tingly sensations in my left arm, which over time developed into rather nasty upper back pains. My doctor couldn't find out what it was, and all he could do was prescribe treatments for the symptoms...
Eventually, I was fed up, and went to an osteopath. Public health care here considers osteopathy like quackery, and doesn't re-imburse this treatment. But now, get this: the osteopath not only fixed the problem, but also found the reason: one of my ribs was dislodged, pressing on one of the back muscles (causing the stinging pain at that spot) with its back part, and against the brachial nerve with its front part (explaining the tingling sensation in my arm).
And now the part about "symptomless" condition: the most recent event in my life that could have caused such rib dislodgment occurred 4 years ago, which was 2 years earlier than the onset of symptoms...
Moreover, may cancers and similar conditions are treatable if detected early enough (before showing symptoms), but once pain starts it's too late.
Then if A, B and C are thrown out, my defenses can be too because they are no longer relevant to the case because I no longer need to defend myself.
That's assuming that the judge throws out your defenses for A, B and C, and none for D. For a simple case, he would probably get it right, but just imagine the following situation:
Oracle accuses Google of A, B and C.
Google has defense X against A, Y against A, Z against B and C, and T against C.
Judge throws out A, B, X, Y and Z, leaving Oracle only with C, and Google only with T.
Google has still defence T, but Z, which could also have been used against C as well is gone. So Google now has a weaker case.
Given that we are talking about multiple claims of the same patent, the situation where one item of prior art could be used to defend against multiple claims is rather likely.
the judge is just shrinking the body of what needs to be reviewed because he found that a number of claims had no merit and that removing those claims made some of the prior art examples unnecessary.
If that is all he did, you would have a point. But it is just as well possible that Google too brought excessive amounts of prior art per claim, some of which the judge might have wrongly considered irrelevant (even against the claims that were still remaining)
that the keys that are also in my pocket would quickly make interesting holes in the device
... as they would on any other large-screen phone (well, scratches). I know, happened to my Nokia E61i:-(
Now I'm lots more careful, and use one of those leader pouch thingies for my keys.... Or am just really careful to put keys into right pocket if phone is in left.
Each patent contains multiple claims (usually nested into each other like Russian dolls, from the broadest claims to the most specific). The broader variants have the advantage of striking more implementations (less easy to work around), but have the disadvantage of being more vulnerable to prior art (if they happen to cover a pre-existing implementation by somebody else). By listing multiple claims (from broadest to most specific), the patent holder gets advantages of both narrow and broad claims, without having to do any prior-art research himself.
So, "132 claims from seven patents" just means that Oracle claimed that Android was infringing on an average of 18 claims per patents (...which were very probably very similar to each other, differing only in scope...)
Google tried to have these claims struck by pointing out prior art (implementations that would infringe, but were actually done prior to the patent, thus showing that the patent (... or rather: the relevant claims...) was not really novel...), and found hundreds of them.
Then the judge told both parties to "keep it simple" by only sticking to the most relevant claims and defences.
Isn't the chlorine the material that is exchanged? Not the actual electrodes?
Indeed, you are right. Both electrodes absorb salt ions: chlorine is taken up by the silver electrode and sodium is taken up by the manganese dioxide electrode.
Hmmm, impressive how the manganese dioxide can stabilize the sodium, hehe...
Wouldn't this "leach" material from the electrodes into the water?
Normally, batteries work by leaching material from one electrode into the water, while precipitating ions on the other. By draining the battery, you actually "consume" one of the electrodes. Recharging work if the process can be reversed.
However, if the electrolyte is changed between charging and decharging, effectively the manganese dioxide or silver ions dissolved are now gone, which has two effects:
pollution
electrode whose ions are gone cannot regenerate
It could work with ions naturally present in water (such as the sodium from the salt...). Unfortunately, however, a sodium electrode dipped in water would make a nice firework, but not a battery...
Done like this, the hacker would not need to bother figuring out the password 1234 at all, but instead he would use opqr directly (derived via the constant DB salt xyz...)
If all the client needs to communicate is a hashed password, then the client only proves that he has the hashed password, and not the plaintext. Ergo, the hashed value is a password equivalent, and the DB actually stores password equivalents.
It could be made to work with hashing algorithms that are "splittable" (for example, using discrete exponentiation and relying on the fact that discrete logarithm is a "difficult" problem).
If b is a given number, p the unknown password, and b^p=h , then calculating h from b and p is easy, but going back from h to p is difficult.
So, if the database stores h, all the server needs to do is make up a challenge c, and send C=b^c to the client. Client calculates A=C^p to the server, which is actually equal to b^(c*p) = b ^ (p*c) = (b^p)^c = h^c, which the server can calculate.
So, a man-in-the-middle cannot figure out the password (because that would involve taking the discrete log of A in base C), an intruder having access to the DB cannot get hold of the plaintext password (because that would involve taking the discrete log of h in base b), and he cannot use the hash as a "password equivalent" either (because that would involve taking the discrete log of C in base b).
If the government or someone with with sufficient resources wants to track you - they're probably gonna be able to track you.
What about a spouse? They won't have access to your cell phone company's tracking data, and they probably wouldn't want to shell out money for a P.I. right now (... or know where to find one...), but they have very easy access to your desktop computer and might know that your backup password is the first name of your oldest son, just like any other password that you have.
not to mention the stuff the cook dropped on the floor and didn't put back in the bowl
A, those wasteful cooks... Hey, please could someone explain to this guy that you only throw away food from the floor if there's a guy from sanitary inspection who is watching...
Slashdot Mirror
miaow!
No matter what the case is they should NEVER have used ActiveX.
Yeah, and fuck-you-shima should never have been built where a tsunami could flood it. We are ruled by stupid people, and eventually this will produce a catastrophe big enough to annihilate all of humanity.
At least, these pseudo-archeologists will have to shut up 20 months from now...
Hopefully not while OBL still has his teeth...
The best outcome possible, in my opinion, was have this guy rot in solitary for the rest of his life in a Federal prison...
In solitary? Why let such a nice hot piece of Arabian ass go wasted in such a way?
However, it is rarely regarded as a serious treatment for back pain.
Anyway, we're all sorry for you and we'll all cry ourselves tonight hugging our loved ones thanks to your heartfelt tale,
Idiot. I wish you, or any of your relatives won't have to live through anything like this.
My mother once experienced some mysterious illness which paralyzed have of her face, doctors couldn't find out what it was, and she was suffering from this over a year.
My father has unexplained lower back pains.
Maybe you missed the part about "diagnosing people with no symptoms".
Then let me contribute my story. Two years ago, I had weird tingly sensations in my left arm, which over time developed into rather nasty upper back pains. My doctor couldn't find out what it was, and all he could do was prescribe treatments for the symptoms...
Eventually, I was fed up, and went to an osteopath. Public health care here considers osteopathy like quackery, and doesn't re-imburse this treatment. But now, get this: the osteopath not only fixed the problem, but also found the reason: one of my ribs was dislodged, pressing on one of the back muscles (causing the stinging pain at that spot) with its back part, and against the brachial nerve with its front part (explaining the tingling sensation in my arm).
And now the part about "symptomless" condition: the most recent event in my life that could have caused such rib dislodgment occurred 4 years ago, which was 2 years earlier than the onset of symptoms...
Moreover, may cancers and similar conditions are treatable if detected early enough (before showing symptoms), but once pain starts it's too late.
Then if A, B and C are thrown out, my defenses can be too because they are no longer relevant to the case because I no longer need to defend myself.
That's assuming that the judge throws out your defenses for A, B and C, and none for D. For a simple case, he would probably get it right, but just imagine the following situation:
Oracle accuses Google of A, B and C.
Google has defense X against A, Y against A, Z against B and C, and T against C.
Judge throws out A, B, X, Y and Z, leaving Oracle only with C, and Google only with T.
Google has still defence T, but Z, which could also have been used against C as well is gone. So Google now has a weaker case.
Given that we are talking about multiple claims of the same patent, the situation where one item of prior art could be used to defend against multiple claims is rather likely.
the judge is just shrinking the body of what needs to be reviewed because he found that a number of claims had no merit and that removing those claims made some of the prior art examples unnecessary.
If that is all he did, you would have a point. But it is just as well possible that Google too brought excessive amounts of prior art per claim, some of which the judge might have wrongly considered irrelevant (even against the claims that were still remaining)
Google don't need to defend themselves against the claims that have been thrown out.
The judge not only threw out claims, but also some of Google's prior art examples.
that the keys that are also in my pocket would quickly make interesting holes in the device
... as they would on any other large-screen phone (well, scratches). I know, happened to my Nokia E61i :-(
Now I'm lots more careful, and use one of those leader pouch thingies for my keys.... Or am just really careful to put keys into right pocket if phone is in left.
Into a bag? Yeah right!
So, "132 claims from seven patents" just means that Oracle claimed that Android was infringing on an average of 18 claims per patents (...which were very probably very similar to each other, differing only in scope...)
Google tried to have these claims struck by pointing out prior art (implementations that would infringe, but were actually done prior to the patent, thus showing that the patent (... or rather: the relevant claims...) was not really novel...), and found hundreds of them.
Then the judge told both parties to "keep it simple" by only sticking to the most relevant claims and defences.
Isn't the chlorine the material that is exchanged? Not the actual electrodes?
Indeed, you are right. Both electrodes absorb salt ions: chlorine is taken up by the silver electrode and sodium is taken up by the manganese dioxide electrode.
Hmmm, impressive how the manganese dioxide can stabilize the sodium, hehe...
Normally, batteries work by leaching material from one electrode into the water, while precipitating ions on the other. By draining the battery, you actually "consume" one of the electrodes. Recharging work if the process can be reversed.
However, if the electrolyte is changed between charging and decharging, effectively the manganese dioxide or silver ions dissolved are now gone, which has two effects:
It could work with ions naturally present in water (such as the sodium from the salt...). Unfortunately, however, a sodium electrode dipped in water would make a nice firework, but not a battery...
I see what you did there...
But apparently the moderators didn't...
First they found the flight recorder of Air France 447 on the bottom of the freaking ocean, and then they found Osama bin Laden.
What, so quickly? They should have chosen deeper waters for his burial!
Done like this, the hacker would not need to bother figuring out the password 1234 at all, but instead he would use opqr directly (derived via the constant DB salt xyz...)
As long as the client can do the hashing,
If all the client needs to communicate is a hashed password, then the client only proves that he has the hashed password, and not the plaintext. Ergo, the hashed value is a password equivalent, and the DB actually stores password equivalents.
It could be made to work with hashing algorithms that are "splittable" (for example, using discrete exponentiation and relying on the fact that discrete logarithm is a "difficult" problem).
If b is a given number, p the unknown password, and b^p=h , then calculating h from b and p is easy, but going back from h to p is difficult.
So, if the database stores h, all the server needs to do is make up a challenge c, and send C=b^c to the client. Client calculates A=C^p to the server, which is actually equal to b^(c*p) = b ^ (p*c) = (b^p)^c = h^c, which the server can calculate.
So, a man-in-the-middle cannot figure out the password (because that would involve taking the discrete log of A in base C), an intruder having access to the DB cannot get hold of the plaintext password (because that would involve taking the discrete log of h in base b), and he cannot use the hash as a "password equivalent" either (because that would involve taking the discrete log of C in base b).
The only allegation is that they COULD do it because they have a piece of equipment that could do it.
Why would they spend money on a piece of equipment if they do not intend to ever use it?
If the government or someone with with sufficient resources wants to track you - they're probably gonna be able to track you.
What about a spouse? They won't have access to your cell phone company's tracking data, and they probably wouldn't want to shell out money for a P.I. right now (... or know where to find one...), but they have very easy access to your desktop computer and might know that your backup password is the first name of your oldest son, just like any other password that you have.
not to mention the stuff the cook dropped on the floor and didn't put back in the bowl
A, those wasteful cooks... Hey, please could someone explain to this guy that you only throw away food from the floor if there's a guy from sanitary inspection who is watching...
it's like a power beacon of energy that's a universal sign of intelligence.
hehe... wantonly the risking destruction of its entire own habitat is a "universal sign of intelligence" of a civilization? NOT!
Wrong color.
w00t!
The banana phone already comes with a peal, whereas for the iPhone, you need to shell out extra to get a protective shell.