yes, illinois is a 2 party state. however, can someone please put this wording into accurate sense?
Are they saying that it's not illegal if you're recording someone committing a tort? The way the news article was worded seems confusing to me. Can someone translate for me?
" 'The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself," Isn't committing a tort a wrong?
who said improving AV programs is going to increase security? Those things are completely unrelated.
There are issues of user security, issues of network security, and a whole load of other aspects that come before the antivirus issue can ever come into play.
okay, if it matches x number of filters, it's spam, right?
So how is that strictly probability though? That would seem quite absolute. Isn't that more "100% once it matches"? I'm trying to wrap my head around how this is different or how this is exclusively probability? Maybe the example is bad. I don't know, and I don't want to attack it. Sorry, ac's comment didn't help explain though:(
can I get a simpler explanation of what this can do for you? I understand it says it will be used for probability, but what does that really let you *do*?
the main point is up to doesn't advertise an actual speed. It only advertises a maximum.
If we say "your connection is 6mb/s" then you should be able to expect that. If we say "your connection is up to 20mb/s" then that doesn't tell you squat as far as what your actual speed is.
only if they weren't the ones who built it up in the first place. If it's hops along an ISP's own backbone you better believe they can control the speeds. It's one more reason for packet inspection (whether deep or otherwise), one of the few legitimate reasons even.
Meanwhile, I guess it depends on population in a given area. I pretty much see the speeds as promised by comcrap in my area, as much as I hate them. I am also but a few miles outside of a major metro city.
This was an 8 month trial. Trials themselves usually take years. So the question is, what happened? I too see a default judgement for blizzard. So as usual, nothing big is happening here but plenty will upon appeal.
I'm guessing a lot of the questions asked on slashdot were not covered in the case, if it was that short.
yes,but due to Bilski it just became a hell of a lot easier for people to attack patents/have them invalidated in court. Again, this is why I said the patents are unimportant. The questions behind this case will only be found out when we have time to see what exactly is being claimed here, as naming patents does not tell us everything.
uh, GPL actually doesn't prevent anyone from selling GPL'd software for a price. Just gotta leave source available. It's not that different from a Best Buy selling an Ubuntu CD for $40 or so.
The rest I don't know much about. I was under the impression that basically all of Java was GPL'd, but other comments seem to show me that I am wrong about that.
I'm not that knowledgeable programming side yet but I do know that there is a Dalvik Cache. So if that's related to their Dalvik IP (by name alone - so inquiring here), that might be an issue - however that's not something that Google has been putting into the OS.
My only other guess is - could it be related to the JIT compiler that android is including in 2.2?
It didn't add requirements. It just said machine and transformation is not the end all be all. So now courts have leeway to come up with their own ways to invalidate patents.
Again, we don't know the whole picture until the court case moves forward.
the patents themselves mean pretty much nothing, (hello? Bilski scotus ruling?)and also because Java is licensed under the GPL. So unless google is breaking GPL (very unlikely), it'll be hard to get a clear picture of what is going on at all until this case moves forward.
Although originally, I would think that it's laziness, if it's this easy for them to have a template for a bill, why don't they do something to make it easily trackable when people are making changes (version tracking)?
Slashdot Mirror
why would google do that? I think you're mixing them up with bing.
and so by association this implies guilt?
come on man, that's a crock. Chicago has some of the highest crime rates in the world, but that doesn't mean everyone's a criminal.
is this supposed to be your first step? If so, posting on slashdot doesn't count on abandoning it.
it's at groklaw.com
thank you. I would +1 mod ya if I could while posting. That's what I had thought, but wanted to make sure.
yes, illinois is a 2 party state. however, can someone please put this wording into accurate sense?
Are they saying that it's not illegal if you're recording someone committing a tort? The way the news article was worded seems confusing to me. Can someone translate for me?
" 'The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself," Isn't committing a tort a wrong?
Actually, it's more like the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
who said improving AV programs is going to increase security? Those things are completely unrelated.
There are issues of user security, issues of network security, and a whole load of other aspects that come before the antivirus issue can ever come into play.
I was really hoping they'd be buying them out to shut them down.
one can only hope, anyway.
beyond that though, is there really some benefit here or is this just to "make sure it works better on intel" or something?
I didn't imagine security research from mcafee is any better internally than intel just working with them anyway.
is that really a probability thing though?
okay, if it matches x number of filters, it's spam, right?
So how is that strictly probability though? That would seem quite absolute. Isn't that more "100% once it matches"? I'm trying to wrap my head around how this is different or how this is exclusively probability? Maybe the example is bad. I don't know, and I don't want to attack it. Sorry, ac's comment didn't help explain though :(
can I get a simpler explanation of what this can do for you? I understand it says it will be used for probability, but what does that really let you *do*?
the main point is up to doesn't advertise an actual speed. It only advertises a maximum.
If we say "your connection is 6mb/s" then you should be able to expect that. If we say "your connection is up to 20mb/s" then that doesn't tell you squat as far as what your actual speed is.
only if they weren't the ones who built it up in the first place. If it's hops along an ISP's own backbone you better believe they can control the speeds. It's one more reason for packet inspection (whether deep or otherwise), one of the few legitimate reasons even.
Meanwhile, I guess it depends on population in a given area. I pretty much see the speeds as promised by comcrap in my area, as much as I hate them. I am also but a few miles outside of a major metro city.
People are pretty much waiting for a replacement to current social networking. I give it 3-5 years tops for something ad-hoc to replace facebook.
This was an 8 month trial. Trials themselves usually take years. So the question is, what happened? I too see a default judgement for blizzard. So as usual, nothing big is happening here but plenty will upon appeal.
I'm guessing a lot of the questions asked on slashdot were not covered in the case, if it was that short.
yes,but due to Bilski it just became a hell of a lot easier for people to attack patents/have them invalidated in court. Again, this is why I said the patents are unimportant. The questions behind this case will only be found out when we have time to see what exactly is being claimed here, as naming patents does not tell us everything.
uh, GPL actually doesn't prevent anyone from selling GPL'd software for a price. Just gotta leave source available. It's not that different from a Best Buy selling an Ubuntu CD for $40 or so.
The rest I don't know much about. I was under the impression that basically all of Java was GPL'd, but other comments seem to show me that I am wrong about that.
I'm not that knowledgeable programming side yet but I do know that there is a Dalvik Cache. So if that's related to their Dalvik IP (by name alone - so inquiring here), that might be an issue - however that's not something that Google has been putting into the OS.
My only other guess is - could it be related to the JIT compiler that android is including in 2.2?
Wha?
It didn't add requirements. It just said machine and transformation is not the end all be all. So now courts have leeway to come up with their own ways to invalidate patents.
Again, we don't know the whole picture until the court case moves forward.
the patents themselves mean pretty much nothing, (hello? Bilski scotus ruling?)and also because Java is licensed under the GPL. So unless google is breaking GPL (very unlikely), it'll be hard to get a clear picture of what is going on at all until this case moves forward.
that I was wrong? yes.
well yes, you are correct. I guess I typed a bit fast there.
what if I said "damn, going 160mph on the highway last weekend kicked ass" even if I had done no such thing. You going to say it's still evidence?
no, it's hearsay.
maybe you might want to learn your law, as that is exactly what hearsay is.
okay, and the possibility that the man could have been BS'ing?
What if I had a post saying I went 200MPH (in a car that can do maybe 120 tops) on my facebook. Is someone going to assume it's fact, too?
Most places, including canada, rely on actual evidence, of which there is none.
Although originally, I would think that it's laziness, if it's this easy for them to have a template for a bill, why don't they do something to make it easily trackable when people are making changes (version tracking)?