In other words, wouldn't they be happier with TERMINALS?
I'm with you, of course, I'm of the opinion that the trends are but a pendulum between central and distributed. I'd say we're still on the waxing side of the central ethos, but give it time and people will eventually want their data back.
However, I think it's all pretty neat. I for one am tired of the two decades of Microsoft that we are waking up from. People are seeing that the field of computers is much more diverse (which comes as no surprise for the people here on Slashdot, but now Grandma is asking "PC or Mac?")
We all are thinking "yawn" but c'mon, the industry needed a big shake up, and while technically we all here see this becoming nothing more than what we had in the 1970. We are changing the vendor from being one to anyone on the Intertubes. We are changing the equipment from being just a terminal to anything that can have a web browser. We are changing the people who create the content from those locked in a warm basement with punch cards, to a varity of diverse people from artist to programmers and everything in between. However, more importantly, this is showing the general consumer that there isn't just one computer to rule them all.
Slashdot users can smirk all they want about how this was already crystal clear to us, but the fact that even Microsoft's position is now challenged, forecasters say that Apple cannot stay at the top, and Google is all over the place unpredicable; means that the rule of alpha vendor may just be in fact ending, hopefully.
I think the problem is that people forget consumer protection laws. If something does not work out of box it fails merchantability (see UCC Article 2 subsection 2-314 paragraph 2 for a clearer picture.)
DVDs can and do have manufactoring flaws, I reject the notion that exercising the right to merchantability requires the party to enter into agreements with third party services. I can see where this kind of monitoring service would be great for items that are still in working condition, but if it is broke, the person who sold it to you, unless stated "as-is", has the implied duty to repair and if it cannot be repaired, replace the item in question.
Consumers should reject this whole notion on bad-out-of-box items, especially Blu-Rays and DVDs.
1. Your employees are jerks. I hate talking to them, they are not people friendly. Every time I go to BestBuy, I cannot count the number of times where an employee follows me all around the store and asks what I think about whatever it is that I'm currently looking at. I wouldn't mind that so much but then when I finally find whatever it is that I came for, no one is within a 100 mile radius of me?! WTF?!
2. My ears hurt after leaving your store. I think it might be the employee that is trying to sell dude over there a new 346" HDTV that has said HDTV set to where the volume has to rival any 747 that might also want to take off in your store. Literally I travel to BestBuy with earplugs.
3. Your prices suck. That is all there is to that.
4. I feel bad for coming to your store. I hate to keep beating on the employee gong, but when I go to the local BestBuy, employees look so soulless and that in turn makes me feel bad for coming to your store in the first place. No one is happy to be in a BestBuy. I can't put my finger on it exactly but it just seems so, loud, dull, and annoying at BestBuy.
5. I miss CompuUSA and for some reason or another, I always go into BestBuy looking for computer parts first, until I realize, oh yeah the selection is pathetic at best. Of course, people say that I could just jump on the Internet and ask them to ship whatever to the store, but if I get on the Internet, I'm not surfing over to BestBuy.
6. Yeah that whole Amazon.com and them not collecting sales tax, yeah that's a big problem for BestBuy. I have no idea how they get away with it but I've seen lot of friends head to BestBuy to look at the product, yank out phone, and order the exact same thing from Amazon. They like it because it is usually free shipping and by paying no sales tax, they usually save about $5.00 to $20.00. (Local sales tax being 10%)
I've got no idea how BestBuy can turn the tide, but it sucks to walk into a BestBuy. It's not a very happy experience.
I totally agree with parent. Firefox has absolutely nothing to worry about here. Not only for the fact that Microsoft has enough fights on its hands as is, but that if it wanted to start a war in the browser space, it would get schooled by the DOJ and then they'd (DOJ) start poking their heads into all of Microsoft's other battles.
Additionally, the is very little technology that is common between Firefox and Netscape. Firefox has evolved past it's 0.8 code and so for there to be anything left in Firefox that is a major bit from Netscape would be a big surprise.
Here is the location for one that I've seen USGS and TVA surveying for sometime now. When I asked the guy what they were doing, they said they were looking into how easy it would be to slip a hydro-electric generator here.
As you can see, it already is dammed so I'm not sure what ecological effects adding a generator would add, but I doubt that it would be any worst that the current situation of algae bloom happening every five to six weeks at the location.
which will help protect the database from future baseless legal actions and disruptions.
From them maybe. The current warfare of the patent/copyright system has come to a point where, even if one line of defense does not seem to work, companies are free to pursue a different course of action and see if they cannot get different results. Hence why, to many, the current system is broken. It simply is no longer being used for the reason for which it was created.
you'd know why it matters and you would have saved yourself all that typing.
Woosh! Point was totally missed and I am totally not surprised by that outcome. It must be a chore to talk to you in person, what with the inability to discern an idea when it is blatantly presented to you. Are you sure you speak English or are you processing this all through an online translator? At least then you may have had a reason for totally missing what I was saying. No I take that back, there isn't a reason. You simply confound all that is logic and bring new depths to what being oblivious to patently obvious cues to, hopefully and uselessly, stoke whatever intellect that you may have had, which granted at this point seems to be on a scale the rivals the lightest particles in the universe.
I think I shall return to the comfort of my coffee here and simply regard this as yet another attempt to foray into the ever decaying world of intelligent thought. Thank you for providing me with evidence that we still haven't slowed down on the production of ignorance.
Without looking it up, tell me how many points Apple raised against Samsung in that case.
See there is your problem. What does it matter? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between if I did look it up or not. You believe that there is some sort of real interaction to be had in computers. Please do us few that are left on this planet a favor and bury yourself in your gadgets and toys. Because, ultimately that is what they are to you, toys.
Oh goodie, one more person educated solely on sensationalist headlines.
So wait a second aren't you the guy that just said:
Actually I was referring to the physical casing of it, i.e. the very thing the 'rounded-rectangle patent' case is all about.
Care to do any backpedaling? <flamebait>Or are you just like most other Apple users, too stupid to have anything that actually works.</flamebait> I'll tell you what, I would love Apple to win or whatever and for 98% of the world to be stuck on an iPad or whatever they've come up with by then. I'm tired of retarded end-users who think they know a thing or two but in the end have about as much knowledge as this trashcan at the side of my desk. The more of them that move into the walled-in world of Apple, the less I have to deal with them.
By the way if you want to make assumptions on my education that's fine, Slashdot has been going down the tubes for quite some time now, however your assumption that Apple's iPad design is unique is laughable at the very least and definitely puts your knowledge of technology into question. For to say,
Actually I own a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and yes they copy-catted the iPad to a stupidly obvious level.
implies a belief in iPad being the original and the Galaxy Tab being the copy-cat, when neither made it to the mark first by a long shot.
However, it does not matter to me one bit. I wish for all the world to waste their money on these idiotic devices, I think what the world needs is fewer people with real computers in their hands, it seems to not have worked out well thus far to give every single man, woman, and child something that is actually useable as an intelligent device. Hell, I can tell you for sure that basically every CEO, CFO, and HR rep on this planet have absolutely no "good" reason to own any computing device, the fact they they carry around anywhere in the area of five to seven on their person, simply states that we are all doing ourselves a disservice on scales that are impossible to comprehend.
Of course that last part was most likely a waste of time on someone named MobileTatsu-NJG. Oh well, just chalk it up to more intellectual entropy.
the very thing the 'rounded-rectangle patent' case is all about.
First off it's a design patent big difference from patent in the standard sense. Secondly, there so much prior art to rounded rectangle this patent has no choice but to be nuked. I have in my hands right now a cell phone circa 2003 that is rounded rectangular with just a screen and a slide out keyboard. Oh look, I also have here in my collection an LG Chocolate circa 2006. It's quite rounded rectangular. Oh look here is a credit card, it too is round rectangular. Oh look the formula for the area of a rounded rectangle is A = a * b + 2 * r *(a + b) + pi * r^2; I know this because here in this math book copyright 1976 is a rounded rectangle.
Apple wouldn't be the first to have a patent tossed out of court, because the notion of patenting a shape is ridiculous. Can we please move past the rounded rectangle? Apple wasn't the first to use the shape. Hell they weren't even the first to use the shape for a phone Hell phones weren't even the first ones to use it in electronic devices.
actually maybe you have and you just thought it was a Tab.
All you fancy whipper snappers and your phablets. You know how much I love plopping down $500 - $600 on a device and can't even compile a C program in a reasonable amount of time, on it. No you both have it wrong. Both iPhone and Samsung Galaxy Tab suck. I can buy a $500 laptop that smokes anything your phablets can do, hell smokes anything they can do and brews tea for me while playing a soothing classical waltz, tells me the weather in three different locations while typing a document, and compiling a kernel whist I sip said tea. Hell, can you even do SVG artwork on one of these damn things? Oh look I can for only $8.99Oh look, I can do it on my $500 laptop for free.
Stupid phablets, stupid fanbois, mumble mumble, get off my damn lawn!
There is a lot that is different here. I think someone needs to enumerate them and I'm sure someone else has already done so. However, since I can find no enumeration actively, I'll do so here. I beg forgiveness to anyone who's already done this because they've most likely done a better job than myself.
Microsoft v Sun - This wasn't a patent case. This was mostly a breach of contract case. Microsoft signed an agreement with Sun Microsystems at the time, to implement a version of the JVM for Microsoft Windows. This was actually par for the course in the start-up days of Java, to have a JVM, the OS maker had to write the JVM and only if they had a signed agreement could the OS maker do so. (It's one of the reasons Microsoft felt really compelled to start.NET)
Back on track... Microsoft put some value added stuff in their JVM that basically made java byte code developed for MS-JVM incompatible with other JVMs. Namely, RNI and J/Direct to name a few. This was strictly not what Microsoft agreed to in the deal. It was found in court that Microsoft had made the MS-JVM specifically with the idea to hijack Java altogether as part of a wider embrace, extend, and extinguish that involved Netscape as well. Bytecode from another vendor would run on MS-JVM, but if the same source was compiled with Microsoft's javac (java compiler) then the bytecode would fail on every other JVM out there. This was especially true with the implementation of Java Sockets which explicitly loaded two different libraries. One for other bytecode and one for MS bytecode.
Now the biggest problem, other than Microsoft had signed an agreement to not do this, was that Microsoft was calling this Java and cited that the agreement allowed them to slap a Java logo on their product. Sun took offense to that idea and additionally sued their butts for trademark infringement. That last part is what is important here. Trademark infringement.
Let's switch over to Google...
In this case we are now dealing with Oracle v Google. The case between the two isn't a single point of law that's being brought up, just like the Sun v Microsoft was contractual, trademark, and anti-trust. What Google did was create a new virtual machine, which is not illegal. However, their choice programming language borrows the Java programming language syntax, which while not illegal, does draw the platform as a whole and the virtual machine in question. Google doesn't brand their platform as being Java and they've signed no contract with Oracle or Sun before that, agreeing that they would stick to the Java spec.
Oracle brings up the issue that Google's implementation pollutes the Java ecosystem, but there again, Google makes no claims to their VM being Java. That said, Oracle still takes issue that you have things like java.lang.String and so forth. Mind you that the Oracle java.lang.String and Google java.lang.String are two different beast. Which brings us to the underlying issue.
Google's implementation of the Java Language Spec (JLS), at least the parts that they borrow, did not come from code that is under Oracle's protection. It came from the Apache Harmony project which is under a different license than the JLS. Thus one point to argue in court is, is it legal to make an implementation of a language, even part of it, that is neither a standard (ISO/ECMA) and not under an open license (remember this was what all the brew-ha-ha was with the Apache split from the JCP.) I can write my own C++ compiler because it is a standard (ISO) so long as I don't use any methods that others have patented. I can write my own Python compiler because it is under an open license, again so long as I obey the license and don't use any already patented methods. Java, however, is neither a standard or under an open license (an implementation is open sourced called OpenJDK but Java the language is still not under an open license.)
Because of this, think of the API (the names of the functions
That's only a search area of 195 acres. Also depending on the area and direction/speed of movement (if any) it would be easy for someone to start eliminating some of the places you could be hiding in. Also depending on the environment, it would not be that hard to cover that large an area with enough people.
Just because it doesn't pinpoint you, doesn't mean you need to be giving anyone a general direction to be looking in.
If you happen to travel to the USA then getting tracked by GSM is the least of your problems with all the surveillance they have there now
Oh please... Having been to many places in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (North and Republic); I can say that they are the ones with this problem and not the USA. They have police CCTV even out in the sticks. Here in the USA we're still doing good to have a telephone line out in the boonies.
I'll have to admit that Google sometimes seems to have good ideas but they lack that final step to make them great services. Case in point the different ways one can upload information to Google's current services but the lack of some "unified" cloud storage. However, I don't blame them one bit with as acrimonious as copyright holding groups have become with online storage.
I'm sure that the total features, like sharing for example, will be lacking to say the best. There again, I would have to question anyone who solely believes it to be a simple oversight on Google's part. The Megaupload shutdown is still pretty fresh in people's mind and a lot of legitimate users loss a lot of data due to "collateral damage." Trust is not easily won back by the general consumer and the United States government has burned a lot of people as far as online storage goes. That's not to say that people won't come back, just that a lot of people are going to be looking at what happens when three to seven percent of the user base starts using the service for illegal means and causes everyone to loose data?
A lot of people say that we should encrypt our files in the cloud, but let's face it. Not every user is going to be doing this. It has been shown that it won't matter if your files are encrypted or not. If other people are using the site for illegal purposes, your stuff, encrypted or not, is gone with no recourse. That's going to put a lot of pressure on Google to do something about it. Who knows what rules will be in place on a Google cloud drive, if they happen to open one. However, if Google does, the rules are definitely going to include language that is there as a direct result of the Megaupload shutdown.
The sad thing about it all, is that no matter what protections put into place, copyright holders are so venomous that they will punch holes in anyone's case. At some point these groups are going to find loopholes in Google's ToS and system protections. It will be on these faults they will seek to hang Google out to dry. Because, that's what they do, they tear down any new model that poses a threat to their model. It's economic Darwinism and it prevents new and innovative ideas from ever coming to market. That's what several online companies are bitching about and they cannot seem to get politicians or the general public to understand that, without resorting to large grandiose schemes that run the risk of numbing people to the issue. Eventually the public is going to have the mindset of, "Oh, look Wikipedia is protesting something else today...yawn."
There is a severe lack of laws that define the rights entitled to users of the Internet. It was akin to the Wild, Wild West in the early days, but the continued lack of laws have allowed bullies and outlaws to form, with companies that just want to get shit done caught in the middle. We literally have people who come in and extort others just like bandits come to the small town and take all the food! On the opposite side you have those who give them the middle finger and do whatever they can do simply because it is illegal. The best part is that as this goes on, the legislative branch just tosses the issue to the courts to decide (sans any kind of guidance from said former branch.) If this was happening in real life and not on the Internet, there would not be a dry up of ideas in the movie and book industry! They could just do documentaries and biographies and the shit would be better than anything Michael Bay could come up with.
So yeah, just gently scratching the surface and there comes a butt load of reason's for Google to not do a cloud drive, or to cripple it beyond belief. Reasonable laws are needed for the Internet and that's not going to come from politicians or companies, that can only come from the users of the Internet that use this resource everyday in their lives. There again, that's the group of people that's going to be the hardest to convince something is needed and to have them see the point through
He he. Like you point of view. It's true, sad but true. So I guess to clarify, in theory, an amendment is needed. However, the true issue is that people really do give a flying f***, until it hits them.
Well ignoring your entire post about the article, yeah I think the same way but that's not what is important here (nor do I think it is what the poster intended but I could be wrong), the grand-parent has a point, and so those the original poster. The Interstate commerce clause is overly used by Congress.
Point of fact, it will take an amendment to the United States Constitution to really fix it since a law cannot supersede the Constitution. However, I don't think the majority of people see the Interstate Commerce clause as something that applies to their life. However, I'm just putting my two cents out there. I'll go away now.
the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something."
Yes that's exactly what a investigator would say. The quote doesn't break the law by forcing people to swab. That's the thing, you still have the option to refuse. Dragnet style investigations aren't anything new, it's just the newest label is terrorist. Police officers are out there to catch criminals and if they have no clue as to who to catch, they'll suspect everyone till they, "find their man."
I won't get into the whole legal thing, but basically police officers can say pretty much whatever they want to say about the public at large or to anyone who refuses to cooperate. It's when they *do* something that impedes your freedom that they've crossed the line. However, the story that you gave above, is pretty normal rhetoric.
1. Make everyone feel like a criminal
2. Give a path to salvation (ie: mouth swab)
3. Make the path to salvation optional (to keep it legal) and damn those who do not comply
4. Annoy the hell out of anyone who doesn't comply
5. Stop short, of crossing boundaries, but hey the guy probably isn't a lawyer so let's test the waters.
6. Profit!
I'm not saying that it's moral and at times it could be illegal, but there again, you'd need to be a lawyer to know the diff. [sarcasm]You a have problem with that? The you must be terrorist[/sarcasm] Seriously though, this tactic only works when people buy into the message, so you're looking at a problem of the people and not so much as the cops.
Email? Hell, snail mail? Fax? Smoke signals? Telephone/telegraph? I mean Facebook isn't the end-all, be-all of communications. From what I've heard we've been seemingly doing it for quite some time before Facebook.
You almost have a point there, so I'd rank you comment slick but not slick enough; unlike Apple, I can customize the interface to my liking if I want in FF and I can just switch DE in Ubuntu.
Someone has already beaten every one else to the punch.
However, you need Ice Cream Sandwich and you will need access to a disassembler. Also, you cannot use this exploit for "one-click" root access as the only program that is in the Android stack that runs setuid root, is run-as. That command is statically linked so you will still need adb access so that you can disassemble the program to find it's exit call.
So there is still a fair amount of work left to be done to make this an exploit that can be used in the "wild" for Android devices. However, as a fair note. A little crowd sourcing to compile a list of offsets for different devices could greatly speed up the process. I'm actually curious if Google will patch this in there kernel.
Take two sheets of paper and sit them side by side. Write a message on one sheet of paper and then on the other, without the aid of a computer, write the same message in Triple-DES. Not impossible, but not likely. The court understands the difference between written word, physical safe, and encrypted data. All have different sets of standards for judgement. Therefore, your example that you give would be handled differently by a court than encrypted data on a computer, so the comparison is moot.
A judge cannot rule you to unscramble your message. However, there has been instances where the unknown hurt the defense of the person. For an example, if a US citizen sent another country encoded messages, and once caught, refused to decode the message. In turn the government would not be able to determine the damage. Thus the penalty would be very grave. However, in this case the government already has enough evidence to convict.
I also want you to note that I used key as opposed to combination. A judge can order a person to hand over keys, but a combination lock safe not so. The reason being is that it requires the person to verbally or in title (writing it down on a sheet of paper) give the combination, which in turn is protected from the 5th amendment. The main difference is that a key is physical and a combination is mental. However, the judge did not order the person to give their password, the judge order the person to hand over the decrypted contents. Again, the contents are not kept in the mind, they are kept in the computer. The judge cites that judges in the past have indeed ordered people with combination lock safes to provide the contents or find themselves in contempt. If they cannot remember the combination or are not physically able to do so, is another story. It is this, "we are not asking you to tell us something in your mind, but you must hand over something that physically exists" idea that the judge is using in this case.
Again, the person in question is walking a very narrow line. If the government find any thread that shows cause for alarm, then the judge can quickly escalate the situation by showing that unknown or untold damage has been done. In that case, the defendant is pretty much at end-game. The idea is to show that damage has been done but the full extent can never be determined, since the contents of the drive were never decoded.
There have been other cases where damage could never been readily seen. Much like when an officer is invited into your home but never gets a glimpse of the massive amount of heroin you have hiding in your oven. The officer could have opened the oven and seen it, but in doing so, has conducted an illegal search. Likewise, there have been cases where people have been accused of using a computer to commit a crime, but because no visible damage could be found, they cannot prove anything about the crime. Again, the government has reason to believe that the person in the article has committed bank fraud. Enough evidence that they have started a grand jury hearing for discovery.
However, the whole issue is really needing an official high court ruling.
I'll leave you with this thought. If someone kidnaps a child and stuffs them in trunk, do they have a legal right to plea the fifth when an officer orders them to open the trunk? Likewise, if doctor notes on a botch operation are encrypted on a drive, do you believe that the doctor can plea the fifth?
Not really. However you do seem to be on the same line as I was getting at. However one thing...
it would be great to have a technological solution "just in case".
I totally disagree with this whole notion that computers will save us somehow. That's MPAA/RIAA thinking. Computers won't save squat because the laws aren't made by computers, they are made by people. So unless you find some method to have computers stack the deck of law/judge in your favor, I would seriously recommend that you pass on relying on computers to save your butt.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, wouldn't they be happier with TERMINALS?
I'm with you, of course, I'm of the opinion that the trends are but a pendulum between central and distributed. I'd say we're still on the waxing side of the central ethos, but give it time and people will eventually want their data back.
However, I think it's all pretty neat. I for one am tired of the two decades of Microsoft that we are waking up from. People are seeing that the field of computers is much more diverse (which comes as no surprise for the people here on Slashdot, but now Grandma is asking "PC or Mac?")
We all are thinking "yawn" but c'mon, the industry needed a big shake up, and while technically we all here see this becoming nothing more than what we had in the 1970. We are changing the vendor from being one to anyone on the Intertubes. We are changing the equipment from being just a terminal to anything that can have a web browser. We are changing the people who create the content from those locked in a warm basement with punch cards, to a varity of diverse people from artist to programmers and everything in between. However, more importantly, this is showing the general consumer that there isn't just one computer to rule them all.
Slashdot users can smirk all they want about how this was already crystal clear to us, but the fact that even Microsoft's position is now challenged, forecasters say that Apple cannot stay at the top, and Google is all over the place unpredicable; means that the rule of alpha vendor may just be in fact ending, hopefully.
but a bad thing if it's for DVD's
I think the problem is that people forget consumer protection laws. If something does not work out of box it fails merchantability (see UCC Article 2 subsection 2-314 paragraph 2 for a clearer picture.)
DVDs can and do have manufactoring flaws, I reject the notion that exercising the right to merchantability requires the party to enter into agreements with third party services. I can see where this kind of monitoring service would be great for items that are still in working condition, but if it is broke, the person who sold it to you, unless stated "as-is", has the implied duty to repair and if it cannot be repaired, replace the item in question.
Consumers should reject this whole notion on bad-out-of-box items, especially Blu-Rays and DVDs.
1. Your employees are jerks. I hate talking to them, they are not people friendly. Every time I go to BestBuy, I cannot count the number of times where an employee follows me all around the store and asks what I think about whatever it is that I'm currently looking at. I wouldn't mind that so much but then when I finally find whatever it is that I came for, no one is within a 100 mile radius of me?! WTF?!
2. My ears hurt after leaving your store. I think it might be the employee that is trying to sell dude over there a new 346" HDTV that has said HDTV set to where the volume has to rival any 747 that might also want to take off in your store. Literally I travel to BestBuy with earplugs.
3. Your prices suck. That is all there is to that.
4. I feel bad for coming to your store. I hate to keep beating on the employee gong, but when I go to the local BestBuy, employees look so soulless and that in turn makes me feel bad for coming to your store in the first place. No one is happy to be in a BestBuy. I can't put my finger on it exactly but it just seems so, loud, dull, and annoying at BestBuy.
5. I miss CompuUSA and for some reason or another, I always go into BestBuy looking for computer parts first, until I realize, oh yeah the selection is pathetic at best. Of course, people say that I could just jump on the Internet and ask them to ship whatever to the store, but if I get on the Internet, I'm not surfing over to BestBuy.
6. Yeah that whole Amazon.com and them not collecting sales tax, yeah that's a big problem for BestBuy. I have no idea how they get away with it but I've seen lot of friends head to BestBuy to look at the product, yank out phone, and order the exact same thing from Amazon. They like it because it is usually free shipping and by paying no sales tax, they usually save about $5.00 to $20.00. (Local sales tax being 10%)
I've got no idea how BestBuy can turn the tide, but it sucks to walk into a BestBuy. It's not a very happy experience.
I totally agree with parent. Firefox has absolutely nothing to worry about here. Not only for the fact that Microsoft has enough fights on its hands as is, but that if it wanted to start a war in the browser space, it would get schooled by the DOJ and then they'd (DOJ) start poking their heads into all of Microsoft's other battles.
Additionally, the is very little technology that is common between Firefox and Netscape. Firefox has evolved past it's 0.8 code and so for there to be anything left in Firefox that is a major bit from Netscape would be a big surprise.
Here is the location for one that I've seen USGS and TVA surveying for sometime now. When I asked the guy what they were doing, they said they were looking into how easy it would be to slip a hydro-electric generator here.
As you can see, it already is dammed so I'm not sure what ecological effects adding a generator would add, but I doubt that it would be any worst that the current situation of algae bloom happening every five to six weeks at the location.
....is like using sign language to compose a novel.
I had to write Marlee Matlin's Biography you insenitive clod!
which will help protect the database from future baseless legal actions and disruptions.
From them maybe. The current warfare of the patent/copyright system has come to a point where, even if one line of defense does not seem to work, companies are free to pursue a different course of action and see if they cannot get different results. Hence why, to many, the current system is broken. It simply is no longer being used for the reason for which it was created.
you'd know why it matters and you would have saved yourself all that typing.
Woosh! Point was totally missed and I am totally not surprised by that outcome. It must be a chore to talk to you in person, what with the inability to discern an idea when it is blatantly presented to you. Are you sure you speak English or are you processing this all through an online translator? At least then you may have had a reason for totally missing what I was saying. No I take that back, there isn't a reason. You simply confound all that is logic and bring new depths to what being oblivious to patently obvious cues to, hopefully and uselessly, stoke whatever intellect that you may have had, which granted at this point seems to be on a scale the rivals the lightest particles in the universe.
I think I shall return to the comfort of my coffee here and simply regard this as yet another attempt to foray into the ever decaying world of intelligent thought. Thank you for providing me with evidence that we still haven't slowed down on the production of ignorance.
Without looking it up, tell me how many points Apple raised against Samsung in that case.
See there is your problem. What does it matter? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between if I did look it up or not. You believe that there is some sort of real interaction to be had in computers. Please do us few that are left on this planet a favor and bury yourself in your gadgets and toys. Because, ultimately that is what they are to you, toys.
Oh goodie, one more person educated solely on sensationalist headlines.
So wait a second aren't you the guy that just said:
Actually I was referring to the physical casing of it, i.e. the very thing the 'rounded-rectangle patent' case is all about.
Care to do any backpedaling? <flamebait>Or are you just like most other Apple users, too stupid to have anything that actually works.</flamebait> I'll tell you what, I would love Apple to win or whatever and for 98% of the world to be stuck on an iPad or whatever they've come up with by then. I'm tired of retarded end-users who think they know a thing or two but in the end have about as much knowledge as this trashcan at the side of my desk. The more of them that move into the walled-in world of Apple, the less I have to deal with them.
By the way if you want to make assumptions on my education that's fine, Slashdot has been going down the tubes for quite some time now, however your assumption that Apple's iPad design is unique is laughable at the very least and definitely puts your knowledge of technology into question. For to say,
Actually I own a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and yes they copy-catted the iPad to a stupidly obvious level.
implies a belief in iPad being the original and the Galaxy Tab being the copy-cat, when neither made it to the mark first by a long shot.
However, it does not matter to me one bit. I wish for all the world to waste their money on these idiotic devices, I think what the world needs is fewer people with real computers in their hands, it seems to not have worked out well thus far to give every single man, woman, and child something that is actually useable as an intelligent device. Hell, I can tell you for sure that basically every CEO, CFO, and HR rep on this planet have absolutely no "good" reason to own any computing device, the fact they they carry around anywhere in the area of five to seven on their person, simply states that we are all doing ourselves a disservice on scales that are impossible to comprehend.
Of course that last part was most likely a waste of time on someone named MobileTatsu-NJG. Oh well, just chalk it up to more intellectual entropy.
the very thing the 'rounded-rectangle patent' case is all about.
First off it's a design patent big difference from patent in the standard sense. Secondly, there so much prior art to rounded rectangle this patent has no choice but to be nuked. I have in my hands right now a cell phone circa 2003 that is rounded rectangular with just a screen and a slide out keyboard. Oh look, I also have here in my collection an LG Chocolate circa 2006. It's quite rounded rectangular. Oh look here is a credit card, it too is round rectangular. Oh look the formula for the area of a rounded rectangle is A = a * b + 2 * r *(a + b) + pi * r^2; I know this because here in this math book copyright 1976 is a rounded rectangle.
Apple wouldn't be the first to have a patent tossed out of court, because the notion of patenting a shape is ridiculous. Can we please move past the rounded rectangle? Apple wasn't the first to use the shape. Hell they weren't even the first to use the shape for a phone Hell phones weren't even the first ones to use it in electronic devices.
actually maybe you have and you just thought it was a Tab.
All you fancy whipper snappers and your phablets. You know how much I love plopping down $500 - $600 on a device and can't even compile a C program in a reasonable amount of time, on it. No you both have it wrong. Both iPhone and Samsung Galaxy Tab suck. I can buy a $500 laptop that smokes anything your phablets can do, hell smokes anything they can do and brews tea for me while playing a soothing classical waltz, tells me the weather in three different locations while typing a document, and compiling a kernel whist I sip said tea. Hell, can you even do SVG artwork on one of these damn things? Oh look I can for only $8.99 Oh look, I can do it on my $500 laptop for free.
Stupid phablets, stupid fanbois, mumble mumble, get off my damn lawn!
There is a lot that is different here. I think someone needs to enumerate them and I'm sure someone else has already done so. However, since I can find no enumeration actively, I'll do so here. I beg forgiveness to anyone who's already done this because they've most likely done a better job than myself.
.NET)
Microsoft v Sun - This wasn't a patent case. This was mostly a breach of contract case. Microsoft signed an agreement with Sun Microsystems at the time, to implement a version of the JVM for Microsoft Windows. This was actually par for the course in the start-up days of Java, to have a JVM, the OS maker had to write the JVM and only if they had a signed agreement could the OS maker do so. (It's one of the reasons Microsoft felt really compelled to start
Back on track... Microsoft put some value added stuff in their JVM that basically made java byte code developed for MS-JVM incompatible with other JVMs. Namely, RNI and J/Direct to name a few. This was strictly not what Microsoft agreed to in the deal. It was found in court that Microsoft had made the MS-JVM specifically with the idea to hijack Java altogether as part of a wider embrace, extend, and extinguish that involved Netscape as well. Bytecode from another vendor would run on MS-JVM, but if the same source was compiled with Microsoft's javac (java compiler) then the bytecode would fail on every other JVM out there. This was especially true with the implementation of Java Sockets which explicitly loaded two different libraries. One for other bytecode and one for MS bytecode.
Now the biggest problem, other than Microsoft had signed an agreement to not do this, was that Microsoft was calling this Java and cited that the agreement allowed them to slap a Java logo on their product. Sun took offense to that idea and additionally sued their butts for trademark infringement. That last part is what is important here. Trademark infringement.
Let's switch over to Google...
In this case we are now dealing with Oracle v Google. The case between the two isn't a single point of law that's being brought up, just like the Sun v Microsoft was contractual, trademark, and anti-trust. What Google did was create a new virtual machine, which is not illegal. However, their choice programming language borrows the Java programming language syntax, which while not illegal, does draw the platform as a whole and the virtual machine in question. Google doesn't brand their platform as being Java and they've signed no contract with Oracle or Sun before that, agreeing that they would stick to the Java spec.
Oracle brings up the issue that Google's implementation pollutes the Java ecosystem, but there again, Google makes no claims to their VM being Java. That said, Oracle still takes issue that you have things like java.lang.String and so forth. Mind you that the Oracle java.lang.String and Google java.lang.String are two different beast. Which brings us to the underlying issue.
Google's implementation of the Java Language Spec (JLS), at least the parts that they borrow, did not come from code that is under Oracle's protection. It came from the Apache Harmony project which is under a different license than the JLS. Thus one point to argue in court is, is it legal to make an implementation of a language, even part of it, that is neither a standard (ISO/ECMA) and not under an open license (remember this was what all the brew-ha-ha was with the Apache split from the JCP.) I can write my own C++ compiler because it is a standard (ISO) so long as I don't use any methods that others have patented. I can write my own Python compiler because it is under an open license, again so long as I obey the license and don't use any already patented methods. Java, however, is neither a standard or under an open license (an implementation is open sourced called OpenJDK but Java the language is still not under an open license.)
Because of this, think of the API (the names of the functions
That's only a search area of 195 acres. Also depending on the area and direction/speed of movement (if any) it would be easy for someone to start eliminating some of the places you could be hiding in. Also depending on the environment, it would not be that hard to cover that large an area with enough people.
Just because it doesn't pinpoint you, doesn't mean you need to be giving anyone a general direction to be looking in.
If you happen to travel to the USA then getting tracked by GSM is the least of your problems with all the surveillance they have there now
Oh please... Having been to many places in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (North and Republic); I can say that they are the ones with this problem and not the USA. They have police CCTV even out in the sticks. Here in the USA we're still doing good to have a telephone line out in the boonies.
I'll have to admit that Google sometimes seems to have good ideas but they lack that final step to make them great services. Case in point the different ways one can upload information to Google's current services but the lack of some "unified" cloud storage. However, I don't blame them one bit with as acrimonious as copyright holding groups have become with online storage.
I'm sure that the total features, like sharing for example, will be lacking to say the best. There again, I would have to question anyone who solely believes it to be a simple oversight on Google's part. The Megaupload shutdown is still pretty fresh in people's mind and a lot of legitimate users loss a lot of data due to "collateral damage." Trust is not easily won back by the general consumer and the United States government has burned a lot of people as far as online storage goes. That's not to say that people won't come back, just that a lot of people are going to be looking at what happens when three to seven percent of the user base starts using the service for illegal means and causes everyone to loose data?
A lot of people say that we should encrypt our files in the cloud, but let's face it. Not every user is going to be doing this. It has been shown that it won't matter if your files are encrypted or not. If other people are using the site for illegal purposes, your stuff, encrypted or not, is gone with no recourse. That's going to put a lot of pressure on Google to do something about it. Who knows what rules will be in place on a Google cloud drive, if they happen to open one. However, if Google does, the rules are definitely going to include language that is there as a direct result of the Megaupload shutdown.
The sad thing about it all, is that no matter what protections put into place, copyright holders are so venomous that they will punch holes in anyone's case. At some point these groups are going to find loopholes in Google's ToS and system protections. It will be on these faults they will seek to hang Google out to dry. Because, that's what they do, they tear down any new model that poses a threat to their model. It's economic Darwinism and it prevents new and innovative ideas from ever coming to market. That's what several online companies are bitching about and they cannot seem to get politicians or the general public to understand that, without resorting to large grandiose schemes that run the risk of numbing people to the issue. Eventually the public is going to have the mindset of, "Oh, look Wikipedia is protesting something else today...yawn."
There is a severe lack of laws that define the rights entitled to users of the Internet. It was akin to the Wild, Wild West in the early days, but the continued lack of laws have allowed bullies and outlaws to form, with companies that just want to get shit done caught in the middle. We literally have people who come in and extort others just like bandits come to the small town and take all the food! On the opposite side you have those who give them the middle finger and do whatever they can do simply because it is illegal. The best part is that as this goes on, the legislative branch just tosses the issue to the courts to decide (sans any kind of guidance from said former branch.) If this was happening in real life and not on the Internet, there would not be a dry up of ideas in the movie and book industry! They could just do documentaries and biographies and the shit would be better than anything Michael Bay could come up with.
So yeah, just gently scratching the surface and there comes a butt load of reason's for Google to not do a cloud drive, or to cripple it beyond belief. Reasonable laws are needed for the Internet and that's not going to come from politicians or companies, that can only come from the users of the Internet that use this resource everyday in their lives. There again, that's the group of people that's going to be the hardest to convince something is needed and to have them see the point through
He he. Like you point of view. It's true, sad but true. So I guess to clarify, in theory, an amendment is needed. However, the true issue is that people really do give a flying f***, until it hits them.
Well ignoring your entire post about the article, yeah I think the same way but that's not what is important here (nor do I think it is what the poster intended but I could be wrong), the grand-parent has a point, and so those the original poster. The Interstate commerce clause is overly used by Congress.
Point of fact, it will take an amendment to the United States Constitution to really fix it since a law cannot supersede the Constitution. However, I don't think the majority of people see the Interstate Commerce clause as something that applies to their life. However, I'm just putting my two cents out there. I'll go away now.
the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something."
Yes that's exactly what a investigator would say. The quote doesn't break the law by forcing people to swab. That's the thing, you still have the option to refuse. Dragnet style investigations aren't anything new, it's just the newest label is terrorist. Police officers are out there to catch criminals and if they have no clue as to who to catch, they'll suspect everyone till they, "find their man."
I won't get into the whole legal thing, but basically police officers can say pretty much whatever they want to say about the public at large or to anyone who refuses to cooperate. It's when they *do* something that impedes your freedom that they've crossed the line. However, the story that you gave above, is pretty normal rhetoric.
I'm not saying that it's moral and at times it could be illegal, but there again, you'd need to be a lawyer to know the diff. [sarcasm]You a have problem with that? The you must be terrorist[/sarcasm] Seriously though, this tactic only works when people buy into the message, so you're looking at a problem of the people and not so much as the cops.
tech savvy enough for IRC, or even Skype
Email? Hell, snail mail? Fax? Smoke signals? Telephone/telegraph? I mean Facebook isn't the end-all, be-all of communications. From what I've heard we've been seemingly doing it for quite some time before Facebook.
You almost have a point there, so I'd rank you comment slick but not slick enough; unlike Apple, I can customize the interface to my liking if I want in FF and I can just switch DE in Ubuntu.
What's so funny about that Onion clip is, remove the wheel and you have an iPad.
Someone has already beaten every one else to the punch.
However, you need Ice Cream Sandwich and you will need access to a disassembler. Also, you cannot use this exploit for "one-click" root access as the only program that is in the Android stack that runs setuid root, is run-as. That command is statically linked so you will still need adb access so that you can disassemble the program to find it's exit call.
So there is still a fair amount of work left to be done to make this an exploit that can be used in the "wild" for Android devices. However, as a fair note. A little crowd sourcing to compile a list of offsets for different devices could greatly speed up the process. I'm actually curious if Google will patch this in there kernel.
How is encryption any different?
Main difference, a computer is involved.
Take two sheets of paper and sit them side by side. Write a message on one sheet of paper and then on the other, without the aid of a computer, write the same message in Triple-DES. Not impossible, but not likely. The court understands the difference between written word, physical safe, and encrypted data. All have different sets of standards for judgement. Therefore, your example that you give would be handled differently by a court than encrypted data on a computer, so the comparison is moot.
A judge cannot rule you to unscramble your message. However, there has been instances where the unknown hurt the defense of the person. For an example, if a US citizen sent another country encoded messages, and once caught, refused to decode the message. In turn the government would not be able to determine the damage. Thus the penalty would be very grave. However, in this case the government already has enough evidence to convict.
I also want you to note that I used key as opposed to combination. A judge can order a person to hand over keys, but a combination lock safe not so. The reason being is that it requires the person to verbally or in title (writing it down on a sheet of paper) give the combination, which in turn is protected from the 5th amendment. The main difference is that a key is physical and a combination is mental. However, the judge did not order the person to give their password, the judge order the person to hand over the decrypted contents. Again, the contents are not kept in the mind, they are kept in the computer. The judge cites that judges in the past have indeed ordered people with combination lock safes to provide the contents or find themselves in contempt. If they cannot remember the combination or are not physically able to do so, is another story. It is this, "we are not asking you to tell us something in your mind, but you must hand over something that physically exists" idea that the judge is using in this case.
Again, the person in question is walking a very narrow line. If the government find any thread that shows cause for alarm, then the judge can quickly escalate the situation by showing that unknown or untold damage has been done. In that case, the defendant is pretty much at end-game. The idea is to show that damage has been done but the full extent can never be determined, since the contents of the drive were never decoded.
There have been other cases where damage could never been readily seen. Much like when an officer is invited into your home but never gets a glimpse of the massive amount of heroin you have hiding in your oven. The officer could have opened the oven and seen it, but in doing so, has conducted an illegal search. Likewise, there have been cases where people have been accused of using a computer to commit a crime, but because no visible damage could be found, they cannot prove anything about the crime. Again, the government has reason to believe that the person in the article has committed bank fraud. Enough evidence that they have started a grand jury hearing for discovery.
However, the whole issue is really needing an official high court ruling.
I'll leave you with this thought. If someone kidnaps a child and stuffs them in trunk, do they have a legal right to plea the fifth when an officer orders them to open the trunk? Likewise, if doctor notes on a botch operation are encrypted on a drive, do you believe that the doctor can plea the fifth?
You seem to be thinking of an honest government.
Not really. However you do seem to be on the same line as I was getting at. However one thing...
it would be great to have a technological solution "just in case".
I totally disagree with this whole notion that computers will save us somehow. That's MPAA/RIAA thinking. Computers won't save squat because the laws aren't made by computers, they are made by people. So unless you find some method to have computers stack the deck of law/judge in your favor, I would seriously recommend that you pass on relying on computers to save your butt.
Where's the fun in that?
Well the idea was to just do what makes you happy but I'm quickly finding out that my choice of words may not have had that effect.