I'm not so sure about that (in regards to testing - the basis of which stems from the scientific method).
You can't test precambrian evolution. We can simply observe from fossil remains that it is the most likely solution to a hypothesis (which I'm fine with).
We currently have never observed evolution occur (at a molecular scale). Again, we just see the result (like in the e. coli long term evolution experiment). I.e. by the scientific method evolution is a largely untestable phenomenon. We see the end results, but we haven't been able to reproduce or observe naturally occurring evolution on any grand scale (yet!!!). That's OK really. Hell, we've only been able to easily decode genomes in the last 15 or so years.
One also basically can't do squat with gravitational force except observe the end result of it. The hypothetical graviton has never been observed or detected (afaik).
Well said. You remind me about a pet peeve I have.
In the end of movie credits, the individual orchestra members, having put in more hours of practice and dedication than anyone else to be able to contribute to a movie production, do not get individual credits in the end credits. It is instead normal just to credit the orchestra as a whole. The conductor, orchestrator, song writer, famous solo artists or groups will always get individual credit. All the musicians - nothing.
I could say "Darth Vader" and most people could instantly hum the march. Or "Jaws" and people could hum the classic opening from the brass. Or maybe "Alien" and people would think of the music that scares them shitless (it's not the alien that is scary, it is the sudden noise from the orchestra). I think all of these musicians deserve full credit for their work. Especially if in many movies they give credit to things like "babies born during production" or other non-contributors.
"Any device that can't pass testing and demonstrate that the balance is in the favour of false positives simply will not be used. Period."
Except if you're in a third world country where they don't have standards and where even something that is only right even only half of the time is infinitely better than nothing.
"> There's a difference between "meets none of the standards" and "compliant, but untested".
No there isn't. You comply with the standard when the pass the tests. You comply with nothing before that point."
Yes, there is actually. You can run the test yourself and meet all the standards yet not get certified because you are not an official testing body. E.g. I can get NASA to test that the bicycle helmet I made meets the Australian Standards, and you can bet your arse that it'll be an accurate result, yet it still won't be certified since they aren't certified to test it.
No, you can't say he didn't. There is simply no record that he did. Considering the vast majority of what he said is not recorded, I'd say it's in the realm of possibility that he said it to someone but we'll never truly know whether or not he did.
Trying educating a country suffering a smallpox epidemic, oh wait - we wiped it off the face of the earth with vaccines. If you are suffering through disease epidemics, the epidemic will cripple every other endeavour you try to do. In other words, the internet is useless if you are suffering from a disease epidemic.
Try educating a country without the internet. A much easier task. There are huge and successful systems dedicated to doing just that.
"If there was an indication of bomb or drug making activity, then more pooper snoopers could be temporarily installed upstream."
This would be trivial to defeat using slow release chemical cocktails placed in the sewers (which are easily accessible by the public) to give false positives at dozens of other locations.
"I would think this would be an excellent way to identify meth houses"
There are peer reviewed papers on this very topic (for identifying drug users and manufacturers). It's also been successfully tested. Again, easily defeated.
"I'm willing to bet the answer is the latter, not the former."
You're probably right. The USA story is going to be very different from how it is in Australia. It can work though, you just need to do it right. Although that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.
"never understimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes"
So true.
Users here are happy to pay a little extra for a 1TB plan if they need it. I think the fact that we don't have good cable TV penetration has driven us to use the internet to supplement our viewing needs. We do have the problem of a lack of competition (21 million people in a country about the size of the USA - yep, a serious lack of competition occurs).
iinet (a popular and large Australian ISP) offers these price points (which are fairly indicative of other ISP's prices):
I don't know how that compares to what the USA has. I guess if you're getting unlimited data transfer for less money than what we get 100GB for then you're going to feel ripped off no matter what.
The goal of wikipedia's admins is to drive off new editors, and anyone who tells you differently is likely a wikipedia admin.
Well said.
I think admins privileges need to have a limited time. E.g. You are only an admin for 3 months. This would keep fresh people rotating through.
There is no requirement on wikipedia to ever discuss an edit (prior to or post editing) on a talk page, it's a suggestion only (as part of the 5 pillars). In any case Ignore All Rules trumps all. But there seems to be an admin consensus that it is a rule, supporting your statements.
Bandwidth is the rate at which data is delivered (which can affect the total data transferred in a given time slot if you reach the bandwidth saturation point). E.g. 50Mbits/s offers greater bandwidth than 10Mbits/s.
Data usage caps is what these ISPs are talking about. This is the default practice in Australia and it works just fine. You pay more money for more data transferred each month. E.g. You pay $50 for 150GB of data transfer each month and another person pays $80 for 300GB data transfer each month.
In Australia, when you have reached your maximum amount of data transfer that you have paid for, you then have a bandwidth restriction applied, e.g. you have your 20Mbit/s of bandwidth restricted to 512Kbit/s for the remainder of the month. You may further purchase data blocks to increase your data usage cap and derestrict your bandwidth if you have already transferred data up to your limit (in any given month).
"Why didn't you understand what I said the first time?" I'm saying you don't know if I did or didn't. The word "context" has a specific meaning in computing, and you're not using "context" in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(computing). So I repeat, if you think I don't understand, define the scope of your usage of the phrase "different context" and I'll tell you if I've interpreted it correctly or not.
"Different user spaces don't simply apply a different set of permissions," No, different user spaces will apply different sets of permissions. I.e. they will arbitrarily allow access to, or restrict access to data (executables are data, access to hardware is data, etc.).
"they alter the entire working state of the machine." No, it is simply a graduated access level (but, as per the patent, it's not necessarily always more access). The general working state of the machine will be the same, (everything still 100% works), what is restricted is access (arbitrarily). In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
"It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed." That is possible if they want to do implement it like that. Please note, the patent doesn't give specific implementations, instead it gives generalisations. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
"Increasing access mode just adds to what's available - it doesn't take anything away, as changing user does on traditional OSs." Changing access modes arbitrarily changes what's available to the user - it can add or take away features. It's in the patent. If you haven't already, I suggest you go read it. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
"It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me." I'm firmly of the opinion that you haven't read the patent. I hesitate to say you don't understand it because for all I know you may well understand it and just be trolling, but you are not displaying acumen in interpretation of the patent or how the patent claims are achievable in existing OSs (or not achievable as per my challenge).
"It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me." Bwahahahahahahaaha, so ironic, so funny.
You're boring me. If you can't meet my challenge (and you haven't) then I don't care to engage in further conversation.
Suggesting someone else doesn't understand some non-defined statement of "different contexts" is poor form. You firstly define what you mean by "different contexts" and then I'll tell you if I understand it or not.
"Nobody said it was."
Really, because the patent itself does.
Stop it with the "you don't understand" bullshit - it's a pathetic ploy employed by people insecure with their own arguments.
They have several levels of user space that are defined by different gestures. Each user space is logged into by a predetermined gesture. To iOS this can be either a totally different user or the same user and differing levels of access - it's arbitrary because the result is the same - they . Resources allocated as per the registered gesture.
From the patent:
The abstract - "A method, apparatus, and system for accessing at least a portion of a device based upon an access input. An access input is received. The access input includes information for gaining access to one or more functions of the device. A user access mode of the device is changed from a first access mode to a second access mode based upon at least in part on the access input. An application is selected in the device in response to changing from the first access mode to the second access mode. At least a portion of the output of the selected application is provided."
Please not the use of terms first access mode and second access mode. These are equivalent to a user space. They are further defined below as modes having restricted "access" (i.e. permissions) to resources.
"In some embodiments, particular gestures can be associated with various operating access modes wherein a category of applications may be made readily available for access, while other categories of applications may be restricted until a full log-in is detected by the device. For example, based upon a first detected gesture, access to a set of entertainment applications (e.g., games, music applications, etc.) may be provided. Likewise, based upon a second gesture, access to communication applications, (e.g., email application, SMS application, etc.) may be provided. In this manner, access to particular applications may be restricted due to the security restrictions provided by the device, wherein the security may be overcome based upon the predetermined pattern of gestures or other access inputs, without the burdens of a complete log-in to the device. In this manner, different accesses to different applications (or categories of applications) may be provided to different users. For example, a parent may provide access to a minor child for only the entertainment category of applications, e.g., gaming applications, music applications. etc. Moreover, further restrictions can be maintained with regard to other applications types, such as productivity applications, e.g., word processing applications and the like."
and
"In this manner, various types of gestures or access input signals may be provided to a device 100 to gain access to the device 100. The access may include an unlocking feature, a display of one or more selectable applications, initiation of an application, etc. Further, in one embodiment, the device 100 may display one or more application-representation graphics, e.g., an icon, that may be selectable by the user based upon an access input. In one embodiment, the user may touch one icon while performing a second gesture, e.g., a touch gesture, such as a particular pattern on the touch screen, or enter a voice gesture, such that immediate access to the selected application may be provided. These access functions may be performed without requiring a full log-in to the device. In this manner, secondary restricted users may only be allowed certain applications, while the primary user(s) of the device will have further enhanced access, or complete access, to any application based upon the specific access input detected by the device 100."
All of these features have been available in unix for over 30 years. The only differen
On a PCs, for several decades now, you can allow access to any resource, e.g. applications, files, local networking, internet access, etc. to any arbitrary level in any arbitrary combination.
If one can allow totally arbitrary combinations of access then Apple's patent is covered by preexisting software.
Changing "password" to "gesture" does not make it novel. Each gesture is the exact equivalent to a password, and it unlocks (or locks) predetermined resources.
So if he used the OSI model to describe his network topology how would it change the gist of his argument?
I could argue that there is a network running within your pc (because there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_(computing) ). It's just local, and the devices communicating to each other are only millimetres apart. It won't change anything if anyone does or doesn't acknowledge that.
For patent protection the implementation and idea must both be new. E.g. I can make a new machine that makes bullets. I can't patent the generalised process of making bullets or bullets themselves, these ideas and physical implementations already existed. I can patent the specifics of my implementation of a new machine though, because there are very different new ideas that have gone into my machine.
Software patents are by definition ideas. There is nothing physical there, only lines of thought transcribed into mathematical instructions for a computer. This is a major reason that software does not deserve patent protection.
Since this idea is not new, they should not have been granted a patent on it. Trivial changes to the idea or implementation of something do not make it novel.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure about that (in regards to testing - the basis of which stems from the scientific method).
You can't test precambrian evolution. We can simply observe from fossil remains that it is the most likely solution to a hypothesis (which I'm fine with).
We currently have never observed evolution occur (at a molecular scale). Again, we just see the result (like in the e. coli long term evolution experiment). I.e. by the scientific method evolution is a largely untestable phenomenon. We see the end results, but we haven't been able to reproduce or observe naturally occurring evolution on any grand scale (yet!!!). That's OK really. Hell, we've only been able to easily decode genomes in the last 15 or so years.
One also basically can't do squat with gravitational force except observe the end result of it. The hypothetical graviton has never been observed or detected (afaik).
Well said. You remind me about a pet peeve I have.
In the end of movie credits, the individual orchestra members, having put in more hours of practice and dedication than anyone else to be able to contribute to a movie production, do not get individual credits in the end credits. It is instead normal just to credit the orchestra as a whole. The conductor, orchestrator, song writer, famous solo artists or groups will always get individual credit. All the musicians - nothing.
I could say "Darth Vader" and most people could instantly hum the march. Or "Jaws" and people could hum the classic opening from the brass. Or maybe "Alien" and people would think of the music that scares them shitless (it's not the alien that is scary, it is the sudden noise from the orchestra). I think all of these musicians deserve full credit for their work. Especially if in many movies they give credit to things like "babies born during production" or other non-contributors.
"These studies"
These studies are not listed anywhere in the article.
So all the assertions made are anecdotal news crap until shown otherwise.
"the decent and honest thing ... is to not attribute the quotation to him"
I agree.
And the argument should not be pigeon holed to first world health.
Third world countries will be very interested in affordable ECG.
"Any device that can't pass testing and demonstrate that the balance is in the favour of false positives simply will not be used. Period."
Except if you're in a third world country where they don't have standards and where even something that is only right even only half of the time is infinitely better than nothing.
"> There's a difference between "meets none of the standards" and "compliant, but untested".
No there isn't. You comply with the standard when the pass the tests. You comply with nothing before that point."
Yes, there is actually. You can run the test yourself and meet all the standards yet not get certified because you are not an official testing body. E.g. I can get NASA to test that the bicycle helmet I made meets the Australian Standards, and you can bet your arse that it'll be an accurate result, yet it still won't be certified since they aren't certified to test it.
No, you can't say he didn't. There is simply no record that he did. Considering the vast majority of what he said is not recorded, I'd say it's in the realm of possibility that he said it to someone but we'll never truly know whether or not he did.
My mind is already made up. You should be able to determine it from my words.
Public health is way more important than most people think.
Note: in no way have I suggested the internet is not useful or good.
Trying educating a country suffering a smallpox epidemic, oh wait - we wiped it off the face of the earth with vaccines. If you are suffering through disease epidemics, the epidemic will cripple every other endeavour you try to do. In other words, the internet is useless if you are suffering from a disease epidemic.
Try educating a country without the internet. A much easier task. There are huge and successful systems dedicated to doing just that.
The internet does not equal education.
"Handing out vaccines isn't going to structurally improve lives"
Yes it will. From both an individual health and public health perspective it is a game changer with massive improvements in people's lives.
"There's no room in business for humor."
I disagree. John Cleese explains it best:
http://videosift.com/british/video/Why-laughing-during-something-serious-isnt-disrespectful
"If there was an indication of bomb or drug making activity, then more pooper snoopers could be temporarily installed upstream."
This would be trivial to defeat using slow release chemical cocktails placed in the sewers (which are easily accessible by the public) to give false positives at dozens of other locations.
"I would think this would be an excellent way to identify meth houses"
There are peer reviewed papers on this very topic (for identifying drug users and manufacturers). It's also been successfully tested. Again, easily defeated.
Without an agreed upon definition of privacy this is a fairly futile discussion.
"I'm willing to bet the answer is the latter, not the former."
You're probably right. The USA story is going to be very different from how it is in Australia. It can work though, you just need to do it right. Although that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.
"never understimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes"
So true.
Users here are happy to pay a little extra for a 1TB plan if they need it. I think the fact that we don't have good cable TV penetration has driven us to use the internet to supplement our viewing needs. We do have the problem of a lack of competition (21 million people in a country about the size of the USA - yep, a serious lack of competition occurs).
iinet (a popular and large Australian ISP) offers these price points (which are fairly indicative of other ISP's prices):
$59.95 - 100GB
$69.95 - 250GB
$89.95 - 500GB
$109.95 - 1000GB
I don't know how that compares to what the USA has. I guess if you're getting unlimited data transfer for less money than what we get 100GB for then you're going to feel ripped off no matter what.
The goal of wikipedia's admins is to drive off new editors, and anyone who tells you differently is likely a wikipedia admin.
Well said.
I think admins privileges need to have a limited time. E.g. You are only an admin for 3 months. This would keep fresh people rotating through.
There is no requirement on wikipedia to ever discuss an edit (prior to or post editing) on a talk page, it's a suggestion only (as part of the 5 pillars). In any case Ignore All Rules trumps all. But there seems to be an admin consensus that it is a rule, supporting your statements.
Bandwidth is the rate at which data is delivered (which can affect the total data transferred in a given time slot if you reach the bandwidth saturation point). E.g. 50Mbits/s offers greater bandwidth than 10Mbits/s.
Data usage caps is what these ISPs are talking about. This is the default practice in Australia and it works just fine. You pay more money for more data transferred each month. E.g. You pay $50 for 150GB of data transfer each month and another person pays $80 for 300GB data transfer each month.
In Australia, when you have reached your maximum amount of data transfer that you have paid for, you then have a bandwidth restriction applied, e.g. you have your 20Mbit/s of bandwidth restricted to 512Kbit/s for the remainder of the month. You may further purchase data blocks to increase your data usage cap and derestrict your bandwidth if you have already transferred data up to your limit (in any given month).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_(computing)
"feminists were all cool"
Where does anyone say that all feminists were cool with it?
Note, all is different to some.
You can't meet the challenge = ignore.
"Why didn't you understand what I said the first time?"
I'm saying you don't know if I did or didn't. The word "context" has a specific meaning in computing, and you're not using "context" in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(computing). So I repeat, if you think I don't understand, define the scope of your usage of the phrase "different context" and I'll tell you if I've interpreted it correctly or not.
"Different user spaces don't simply apply a different set of permissions,"
No, different user spaces will apply different sets of permissions. I.e. they will arbitrarily allow access to, or restrict access to data (executables are data, access to hardware is data, etc.).
"they alter the entire working state of the machine."
No, it is simply a graduated access level (but, as per the patent, it's not necessarily always more access). The general working state of the machine will be the same, (everything still 100% works), what is restricted is access (arbitrarily). In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
"It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed."
That is possible if they want to do implement it like that. Please note, the patent doesn't give specific implementations, instead it gives generalisations. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
"Increasing access mode just adds to what's available - it doesn't take anything away, as changing user does on traditional OSs."
Changing access modes arbitrarily changes what's available to the user - it can add or take away features. It's in the patent. If you haven't already, I suggest you go read it. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.
"It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me."
I'm firmly of the opinion that you haven't read the patent. I hesitate to say you don't understand it because for all I know you may well understand it and just be trolling, but you are not displaying acumen in interpretation of the patent or how the patent claims are achievable in existing OSs (or not achievable as per my challenge).
"It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me."
Bwahahahahahahaaha, so ironic, so funny.
You're boring me. If you can't meet my challenge (and you haven't) then I don't care to engage in further conversation.
Suggesting someone else doesn't understand some non-defined statement of "different contexts" is poor form. You firstly define what you mean by "different contexts" and then I'll tell you if I understand it or not.
"Nobody said it was."
Really, because the patent itself does.
Stop it with the "you don't understand" bullshit - it's a pathetic ploy employed by people insecure with their own arguments.
They have several levels of user space that are defined by different gestures. Each user space is logged into by a predetermined gesture. To iOS this can be either a totally different user or the same user and differing levels of access - it's arbitrary because the result is the same - they . Resources allocated as per the registered gesture.
From the patent:
The abstract - "A method, apparatus, and system for accessing at least a portion of a device based upon an access input. An access input is received. The access input includes information for gaining access to one or more functions of the device. A user access mode of the device is changed from a first access mode to a second access mode based upon at least in part on the access input. An application is selected in the device in response to changing from the first access mode to the second access mode. At least a portion of the output of the selected application is provided."
Please not the use of terms first access mode and second access mode. These are equivalent to a user space. They are further defined below as modes having restricted "access" (i.e. permissions) to resources.
"In some embodiments, particular gestures can be associated with various operating access modes wherein a category of applications may be made readily available for access, while other categories of applications may be restricted until a full log-in is detected by the device. For example, based upon a first detected gesture, access to a set of entertainment applications (e.g., games, music applications, etc.) may be provided. Likewise, based upon a second gesture, access to communication applications, (e.g., email application, SMS application, etc.) may be provided. In this manner, access to particular applications may be restricted due to the security restrictions provided by the device, wherein the security may be overcome based upon the predetermined pattern of gestures or other access inputs, without the burdens of a complete log-in to the device. In this manner, different accesses to different applications (or categories of applications) may be provided to different users. For example, a parent may provide access to a minor child for only the entertainment category of applications, e.g., gaming applications, music applications. etc. Moreover, further restrictions can be maintained with regard to other applications types, such as productivity applications, e.g., word processing applications and the like."
and
"In this manner, various types of gestures or access input signals may be provided to a device 100 to gain access to the device 100. The access may include an unlocking feature, a display of one or more selectable applications, initiation of an application, etc. Further, in one embodiment, the device 100 may display one or more application-representation graphics, e.g., an icon, that may be selectable by the user based upon an access input. In one embodiment, the user may touch one icon while performing a second gesture, e.g., a touch gesture, such as a particular pattern on the touch screen, or enter a voice gesture, such that immediate access to the selected application may be provided. These access functions may be performed without requiring a full log-in to the device. In this manner, secondary restricted users may only be allowed certain applications, while the primary user(s) of the device will have further enhanced access, or complete access, to any application based upon the specific access input detected by the device 100."
All of these features have been available in unix for over 30 years. The only differen
That's fair enough that you don't like that, but it's pretty much a different topic and doesn't really change his argument.
On a PCs, for several decades now, you can allow access to any resource, e.g. applications, files, local networking, internet access, etc. to any arbitrary level in any arbitrary combination.
If one can allow totally arbitrary combinations of access then Apple's patent is covered by preexisting software.
Changing "password" to "gesture" does not make it novel. Each gesture is the exact equivalent to a password, and it unlocks (or locks) predetermined resources.
So if he used the OSI model to describe his network topology how would it change the gist of his argument?
I could argue that there is a network running within your pc (because there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_(computing) ). It's just local, and the devices communicating to each other are only millimetres apart. It won't change anything if anyone does or doesn't acknowledge that.
For patent protection the implementation and idea must both be new. E.g. I can make a new machine that makes bullets. I can't patent the generalised process of making bullets or bullets themselves, these ideas and physical implementations already existed. I can patent the specifics of my implementation of a new machine though, because there are very different new ideas that have gone into my machine.
Software patents are by definition ideas. There is nothing physical there, only lines of thought transcribed into mathematical instructions for a computer. This is a major reason that software does not deserve patent protection.
Since this idea is not new, they should not have been granted a patent on it. Trivial changes to the idea or implementation of something do not make it novel.
"Examples?"
Examples of what?