Interesting idea. Unfortunately, ideas cannot be patented. Which was more or less the whole basis for the opinion of that judge (that, in general, software patents are not valid patents).
Your argument would seem, then, merely to show that saying that an idea can be implemented in hardware also doesn't make it patentable.
I think what is confusing you here is that any specific implementation of your idea in hardware might be patentable (assuming your idea has been implemented in an original, innovative fashion) --- it is the implementation which is patentable, not the idea.
The pictures of the affected area show a diameter of roughly 40 cm created on the solar array structure, confirming an impact from the back side, as suggested by the satellite’s attitude rate readings.”
> binary executable portability, which isn't even an issue for Android at all
On the contrary, the AC which replied to you has shown that, as expected, the hardware on which Android runs is evolving quite quickly. If you were to install Linux would you choose to install a 32-bit version compiled for a Pentium processor?
> Google could have just created a standard compiler for Java (the language) to produce ARM assembly if they were so in love with that particular language
They would then be dependent on Oracle for any extensions they would want to add, or anyway be in the same boat they are today, more or less. The fact that the patent side of the case was thrown out very early in the proceedings means that Google's judgement was quite good (surprisingly so, since all cases, once they get to court, have a large element of luck).
Java is not just a "particular language", it was and still is one of the most widely used languages in the world, especially in the segment of devices like smartphones. You have to put Google's decision in context, when they made this decision Android had exactly 0% market share. Your argument is clouded by Android's subsequent success.
Did Intel happen to pay for one or more independent reviews of the security of this setup? Has Intel published the results of these reviews?
Until then, I'll more or less assume that its security is still in question, thank you. (That doesn't mean I won't use it, of course. All kinds of insecure systems are useful).
And even with such reviews, it would probably be prudent to assume that the signing keys have been compromised, at at least the nation-state level.
Well, no matter whether the allegations are true or not, we now presumable have one highly motivated and capable pair of eyeballs which will carefully audit all new commits to the TOR code base.
The other possibility is that he'll fork and ignore TOR development altogether. Might be OK, but only if he can convince enough people to run nodes on his competing network. His competing network might be able use TOR as an exit route (running an exit node is the highest risk part of such a network).
I wonder if McDowell actually got permission to post that twit --- the ToU of space-track.org seem pretty strict:
The User agrees not to transfer any data or technical information received from this website, or other U.S. Government source, including the analysis of data, to any other entity without prior express approval. See, 10 USC 2274(c)(2).
There are quite a few sources of legally free music, like Jamendo and ccMixter. And it's also easy to find non-free music which is not funding whoever it is exactly you don't want to fund. Often direct from the artist!
Even though I've only done it once or twice, my personal favorite way is to buy from good local acts at a live venue.
You lack imagination (even though I sympathize with your feelings).
Had never heard of him, and after searching I discovered that he is on death row, even though there was no "hard" evidence that he murdered his wife. Could you explain, then, how he is a good example to use to justify weakening encryption for all of society? His case would seem to be exactly the opposite --- a good example how, even if encryption of all our devices were impregnable, most criminals are stupid and it wouldn't help them anyway (hey, that's even the subject of your post!)
I don't think it's possible to reliably show that encrypted data certainly exists. I also do not think it is always possible to prove that someone has the capability of decrypting data --- Bruce Schneier has proposed a scenario for people crossing borders where a long random key is used which is sent to the destination ahead of time so that any request for a decryption key could be truthfully answered with "I don't have the key". Assuming the trusted third party has been instructed to destroy the key in the case that the traveler is delayed, that scenario is indistinguishable from the scenario where the person is lying.
but to doubt the foundation of society because you're unhappy with the way the government finally nailed a scumbag, that's a dangerous road.
I have no doubt about the value of "the rule of law", but I have plenty of doubts about its implementation. I can be very unhappy with the way the government decided to run the Megaupload case without necessarily disagreeing that quite possibly Megaupload deserved to be shut down or be forced to change how it did business (and ditto for Dotcom).
The adversial court system pretty much demands that both sides use any trick available.
If I were to accept this, as you seem to blithely do, then I guess that yes, I would have to doubt the value of "the rule of law". I not only reject this, I find that the court system is designed to actively discourage many such tricks. I rather doubt that this "testimony" (the economic damage part) will be actually used if Dotcom comes to trial. It would be ripped apart by any reasonable defense attorney (or more likely, preemptive action would be taken to prevent it from being presented to the jury). It seems to me that the DOJ is just covering its public relations ass, here (or even more likely, its corporate relations ass).
> "the rule of law" is basically a precondition for civilization
And you are very satisfied with "the rule of law" in the US currently, and do not sense any problem with its functioning?
To me, it seems to be functioning worse and worse as time progresses, and I even feel that this trend is, unfortunately, accelerating. The debacle which is the Megaupload case is just the tip of the iceberg.
To get back to the case in question, don't you find it peculiar that the DOJ would make a condition of this plea bargain to be that the programmer in question "testifies" to the dollar amount of the economic damage to the rightsholders? Even if he had knowledge of exactly how many files were infringing and their download counts, he couldn't possibly be qualified to make such an estimate. Or is he an expert in economics and the movie industry, also?
Your post is soooo meta. Even if the AC reply was really the troll himself (possibly quite likely, it's been a long, long time since I saw someone here fall for it), your post would have made itself be true.
I find it amusing that even someone defending Megaupload thinks that it would have been possible to know, a priori, that files uploaded by its clients were infringing. Viacom v. YouTube, anyone?
Now if it refused to take down files after being notified by the rightsholder, that's something else. In the case in question, the DOJ claims that Megaupload had the responsibility to take down all files similar or identical to those which it was notified were infringing, but it's not clear to me that that is a valid argument (I suppose it depends on how the takedown requests were formulated).
> So legally speaking, everything is exactly as it should be.
You really haven't been following the details of this case, I suppose (just joking, yes, I actually know that you slobber over every detail, because you really, really dislike Kim Dotcom). "Legally speaking", you're not supposed to make up weird new interpretations of laws, like what the DOJ has been doing, even if what you want to accomplish might be good for society (not that I'm convinced about that, but anyway). "Legally speaking", you're not supposed to deny the accused access to evidence which might help his defense. Etc., etc.,...
Most importantly, personally I'd say that "legally speaking" isn't that important here. What is important is that governments shouldn't be doing things which ethically speaking are questionable.
The new formula is introduced before the expiration of the first patent. Patients who have been "weened" over to the new formula (via, for example, artificially limiting the supply of the old formula) will be less likely to go back to the old formula when it becomes generic.
So yes, the generic manufacturers will be able to use the old formula; they just end up with a smaller market of customers for it, at least initially.
> I'm sorry, that's just an insane ruling. REQUIRING a company to manufacture a specific product???
As opposed to granting them a limited monopoly? I haven't read the ruling, but I rather think that the company would have the choice to not manufacture the old version but instead have the patent revoked so competitors could manufacture it.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting idea. Unfortunately, ideas cannot be patented. Which was more or less the whole basis for the opinion of that judge (that, in general, software patents are not valid patents).
Your argument would seem, then, merely to show that saying that an idea can be implemented in hardware also doesn't make it patentable.
I think what is confusing you here is that any specific implementation of your idea in hardware might be patentable (assuming your idea has been implemented in an original, innovative fashion) --- it is the implementation which is patentable, not the idea.
Alice.
Chew on this:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Sorry, Michael, I guess we Earth dwellers just don't have the technology your Martian foster parents had... </humor_attempt>
Actually, it's not a hole, just an "affected area" (from URL http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit...)...
> binary executable portability, which isn't even an issue for Android at all
On the contrary, the AC which replied to you has shown that, as expected, the hardware on which Android runs is evolving quite quickly. If you were to install Linux would you choose to install a 32-bit version compiled for a Pentium processor?
> Google could have just created a standard compiler for Java (the language) to produce ARM assembly if they were so in love with that particular language
They would then be dependent on Oracle for any extensions they would want to add, or anyway be in the same boat they are today, more or less. The fact that the patent side of the case was thrown out very early in the proceedings means that Google's judgement was quite good (surprisingly so, since all cases, once they get to court, have a large element of luck).
Java is not just a "particular language", it was and still is one of the most widely used languages in the world, especially in the segment of devices like smartphones. You have to put Google's decision in context, when they made this decision Android had exactly 0% market share. Your argument is clouded by Android's subsequent success.
Remember kiddies: Information Sharing is Strength!
But don't get confused --- only some kinds of information... you know, the ones which don't pay our campaign budgets...
Really, this just cries for someone to make a parody mashup using MLP.
Laws / legislation is often illogical and not what an engineer / geek type would think would be the best solution for society.
Did Intel happen to pay for one or more independent reviews of the security of this setup? Has Intel published the results of these reviews?
Until then, I'll more or less assume that its security is still in question, thank you. (That doesn't mean I won't use it, of course. All kinds of insecure systems are useful).
And even with such reviews, it would probably be prudent to assume that the signing keys have been compromised, at at least the nation-state level.
Well, no matter whether the allegations are true or not, we now presumable have one highly motivated and capable pair of eyeballs which will carefully audit all new commits to the TOR code base.
The other possibility is that he'll fork and ignore TOR development altogether. Might be OK, but only if he can convince enough people to run nodes on his competing network. His competing network might be able use TOR as an exit route (running an exit node is the highest risk part of such a network).
The variety of spam I get is quite interesting, and probably has to do with how many different times I've done that.
I'm both an over-80 fundamentalist Christian woman AND a bisexual 30-year old WIccan!
Bummer about the mission.
I wonder if McDowell actually got permission to post that twit --- the ToU of space-track.org seem pretty strict:
> piracy the only sound and reasonable choice.
There are quite a few sources of legally free music, like Jamendo and ccMixter. And it's also easy to find non-free music which is not funding whoever it is exactly you don't want to fund. Often direct from the artist!
Even though I've only done it once or twice, my personal favorite way is to buy from good local acts at a live venue.
You lack imagination (even though I sympathize with your feelings).
> make life of the next Scott Peterson too easy
Had never heard of him, and after searching I discovered that he is on death row, even though there was no "hard" evidence that he murdered his wife. Could you explain, then, how he is a good example to use to justify weakening encryption for all of society? His case would seem to be exactly the opposite --- a good example how, even if encryption of all our devices were impregnable, most criminals are stupid and it wouldn't help them anyway (hey, that's even the subject of your post!)
> and existence of encrypted data
I don't think it's possible to reliably show that encrypted data certainly exists. I also do not think it is always possible to prove that someone has the capability of decrypting data --- Bruce Schneier has proposed a scenario for people crossing borders where a long random key is used which is sent to the destination ahead of time so that any request for a decryption key could be truthfully answered with "I don't have the key". Assuming the trusted third party has been instructed to destroy the key in the case that the traveler is delayed, that scenario is indistinguishable from the scenario where the person is lying.
Microsoft's information about this botnet says that it disables all antivirus software. Not exactly hard to notice.
And yet 3M computer users are happy to host it.
No matter what other posts say about various OSs here, I don't think anything would make a difference: PEBCAK.
I have no doubt about the value of "the rule of law", but I have plenty of doubts about its implementation. I can be very unhappy with the way the government decided to run the Megaupload case without necessarily disagreeing that quite possibly Megaupload deserved to be shut down or be forced to change how it did business (and ditto for Dotcom).
If I were to accept this, as you seem to blithely do, then I guess that yes, I would have to doubt the value of "the rule of law". I not only reject this, I find that the court system is designed to actively discourage many such tricks. I rather doubt that this "testimony" (the economic damage part) will be actually used if Dotcom comes to trial. It would be ripped apart by any reasonable defense attorney (or more likely, preemptive action would be taken to prevent it from being presented to the jury). It seems to me that the DOJ is just covering its public relations ass, here (or even more likely, its corporate relations ass).
> "the rule of law" is basically a precondition for civilization
And you are very satisfied with "the rule of law" in the US currently, and do not sense any problem with its functioning?
To me, it seems to be functioning worse and worse as time progresses, and I even feel that this trend is, unfortunately, accelerating. The debacle which is the Megaupload case is just the tip of the iceberg.
To get back to the case in question, don't you find it peculiar that the DOJ would make a condition of this plea bargain to be that the programmer in question "testifies" to the dollar amount of the economic damage to the rightsholders? Even if he had knowledge of exactly how many files were infringing and their download counts, he couldn't possibly be qualified to make such an estimate. Or is he an expert in economics and the movie industry, also?
After reading "Queen of Angels" by Greg Bear, I don't even see why anyone would want to attempt to do this....
"Overrated"? This is genius!
Your post is soooo meta. Even if the AC reply was really the troll himself (possibly quite likely, it's been a long, long time since I saw someone here fall for it), your post would have made itself be true.
> Merely knowing that infringing files are stored
I find it amusing that even someone defending Megaupload thinks that it would have been possible to know, a priori, that files uploaded by its clients were infringing. Viacom v. YouTube, anyone?
Now if it refused to take down files after being notified by the rightsholder, that's something else. In the case in question, the DOJ claims that Megaupload had the responsibility to take down all files similar or identical to those which it was notified were infringing, but it's not clear to me that that is a valid argument (I suppose it depends on how the takedown requests were formulated).
I gotta admit this post is quite amusing... someone should moderate it Funny...
> So legally speaking, everything is exactly as it should be.
You really haven't been following the details of this case, I suppose (just joking, yes, I actually know that you slobber over every detail, because you really, really dislike Kim Dotcom). "Legally speaking", you're not supposed to make up weird new interpretations of laws, like what the DOJ has been doing, even if what you want to accomplish might be good for society (not that I'm convinced about that, but anyway). "Legally speaking", you're not supposed to deny the accused access to evidence which might help his defense. Etc., etc., ...
Most importantly, personally I'd say that "legally speaking" isn't that important here. What is important is that governments shouldn't be doing things which ethically speaking are questionable.
Mod up for Obama reference.
The new formula is introduced before the expiration of the first patent. Patients who have been "weened" over to the new formula (via, for example, artificially limiting the supply of the old formula) will be less likely to go back to the old formula when it becomes generic.
So yes, the generic manufacturers will be able to use the old formula; they just end up with a smaller market of customers for it, at least initially.
> I'm sorry, that's just an insane ruling. REQUIRING a company to manufacture a specific product???
As opposed to granting them a limited monopoly? I haven't read the ruling, but I rather think that the company would have the choice to not manufacture the old version but instead have the patent revoked so competitors could manufacture it.