Don't bother with EFF. If you have a computer that can brute force primes of that size, the NSA will pay you way more than 100K for it. The EFF is really looking for more techniques, not power.
Ummm...pardon, but, yes: you misinterpreted, Let me fix that for you:
1) Current autonomous robots... are hard to control.
2) The military (and possibly terrorists) want to put really big guns on autonomous robots, which will be much harder to control
3) Therefore you are NOT going to worry.
An poorly controlable robot, of course can do damage. But if a terrorist can bring in an object of that mass, he can just bring in a bomb. A primitive bomb that weighs as much as a hi-tech robot can do more damage than the robot itself. So
I don't worry about attempted hi-tech improvements yet.
Until someone can build an automatic vacuum cleaner that does not try to eat my cat, or an automated lawnmower that does not trim the newspaper, I'm not going to worry.
Even if the tech does reach that level, building a military bot is another level beyond that. And somehow, I think that it is not going to be well understood by guys whose concept of hi-tech is a retractable box knife.
It's gonna be a longgg time before I worry.
And that grass would have never ever burned from some other cause?
Let's not blame the careless smoker too much. Some neglectful party had to leave all that grass untrimmed, waiting for a spark.
In some cases it would not. Suppose company A builds products A1 and A2. Product A1 uses ideas covered by patents P1 and P2. Product A2 uses patent P1 and P3. Company A owns all three patents.
If company A wants to sell product A1 to company B, they can. They licence P1 to B and sell P2 to B.
However, if all of the ideas in product A1 are covered in one patent, and all of the ideas in A2 are covered in another patent, then the patents overlap. If A were to sell one to company B there would be great confusion about who owns the overlaped idea. So company A cannot sell either patent.
Sounds like a great way for big corporate interests to stamp out little competitors. Just force them to overvalue their IP (so they are at a disadvantage in servicing it) or buy it out from under them. That is a very valid criticism. So let's see if I can make an improvement...
Instead of having the assesment burden on the owner of the IP, let's put it on the collector of taxes, or the buyer of the IP.
Every idea is assumed to be worth a nominal hundred bucks until the govt tax collecting agency can find a bidder. Once they have a notarized bid ( maybe with some percentage deposit ) then they go to the owner of the IP and inform him that his idea is now worth more than a hundred dollars, and he should start paying more taxes on it.
The IP owner then has two choices: He can assent and start paying the tax, or he can agree to sell it. If he agrees to sell it, the govt collects the money, gives it to the IP owner. They also collect a few percent fee for their services, so that the whole process is fee-based rather than taxpayer-supported.
If the owner of the IP is broke, he need not submit just for financial reasons. The 'notice of value' is a negotiable item, and a bank would be willing to accept it as collateral on a loan - because they can cash it in if the loan defaults. The big corporation would have to be careful about trying to squeeze the little guy, for in doing so, they give him collateral to start a competing business with the IP.
In many cases merely a large amount is considered proof of intent to deal. Here in California, over an ounce of pot is considered proof of intent ( although in practice it seems that you have to have a duffle bag full before they actually prosecute. ) The theory is that there is no other reasonable interpretation of your actions/circumstances.
Back to TFA, it seems that putting large numbers of copyrighted works on a server falls under the same logic. ( I don't necessarily agree with the law, I'm just describing the logic behind its application )
"...natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp..." So what if I'm sitting real close to someone who is wearing spandex or nylon or some other artificial fabric? Does it eat through those?
Re:AMD did it to themselves
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
And they went with trusted computing. That was the last straw for me. I would have continued to buy from them despite the flaws listed in parent post, if they just continued to build computers that I could trust.
The jury is middle aged, middle class, small-C conservative. It draws people who make decisions in society - wield real power - simply because they are able - and willing - to put in whatever time and effort is needed to get the job done. Sorry, but I've gotta call you dead wrong on this. It draws mostly from people who are NOT decision makers. The people who end up on juries are the mostly the compliant ones who leave decision making up to others.
This is how ALL the parties involved want it. The real decision makers want to get back to their decision-making jobs, not be one of twelve, so they find a way out. The prosecution and the defense attorneys do not want someone who makes decisions; they want someone who can be led and instructed. So does the judge.
The whole system is designed to filter in people who can be controlled and led.
My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords. And exactly why is this a problem? If your parents are totally and completely incompetent, go to child protective services now, for you have more important issues than passwords. Otherwise, quit undermining your parents and let them raise your sister. You can contribute if you want by teaching her about computers, but do it in assistance to your parents, not in opposition.
Valleywag ( the first link in TFA ) says "Valentine surely told his bosses of this fact [ that he had signed with Amazon ]." but offers no evidence to back it up. I don't really want to defend Microsoft, and while they are sure guilty of a multitude of sins, they might be innocent of this one.
Lots of people make future employment agreements without telling their current employers. Indeed, in my experience both as employee and employer, the majority do not tell.
Get rid of all the security gates, the x-rays, the bomb-sniffing dogs. Let people walk into an airport as easilty as into a supermarket.
Have a large room with plenty of tables near the gate. All passengers go in with their luggage. They can work it out among themselves. When all passengers are satisfied, then they board the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooops! Please ignore my previous post.
Don't bother with EFF. If you have a computer that can brute force primes of that size, the NSA will pay you way more than 100K for it. The EFF is really looking for more techniques, not power.
The NSA reports a record recruiting year from students at the Univ of Utah. "They are some very talented cryptography students.", says NSA spokesman.
No, you would think that he would not have learned that...with 90% certainty.
Ummm...pardon, but, yes: you misinterpreted, Let me fix that for you:
1) Current autonomous robots... are hard to control.
2) The military (and possibly terrorists) want to put really big guns on autonomous robots, which will be much harder to control
3) Therefore you are NOT going to worry.
An poorly controlable robot, of course can do damage. But if a terrorist can bring in an object of that mass, he can just bring in a bomb. A primitive bomb that weighs as much as a hi-tech robot can do more damage than the robot itself.
So I don't worry about attempted hi-tech improvements yet.
Until someone can build an automatic vacuum cleaner that does not try to eat my cat, or an automated lawnmower that does not trim the newspaper, I'm not going to worry.
Even if the tech does reach that level, building a military bot is another level beyond that. And somehow, I think that it is not going to be well understood by guys whose concept of hi-tech is a retractable box knife.
It's gonna be a longgg time before I worry.
And that grass would have never ever burned from some other cause?
Let's not blame the careless smoker too much. Some neglectful party had to leave all that grass untrimmed, waiting for a spark.
It got washed away.
In some cases it would not. Suppose company A builds products A1 and A2. Product A1 uses ideas covered by patents P1 and P2. Product A2 uses patent P1 and P3. Company A owns all three patents.
If company A wants to sell product A1 to company B, they can. They licence P1 to B and sell P2 to B.
However, if all of the ideas in product A1 are covered in one patent, and all of the ideas in A2 are covered in another patent, then the patents overlap. If A were to sell one to company B there would be great confusion about who owns the overlaped idea. So company A cannot sell either patent.
I think GP found a fatal flaw in the whole idea.
Heck, 7.6 billion years is ok by me; Chun the unavoidable will have been at my elbow by then.
Instead of having the assesment burden on the owner of the IP, let's put it on the collector of taxes, or the buyer of the IP.
Every idea is assumed to be worth a nominal hundred bucks until the govt tax collecting agency can find a bidder. Once they have a notarized bid ( maybe with some percentage deposit ) then they go to the owner of the IP and inform him that his idea is now worth more than a hundred dollars, and he should start paying more taxes on it.
The IP owner then has two choices: He can assent and start paying the tax, or he can agree to sell it. If he agrees to sell it, the govt collects the money, gives it to the IP owner. They also collect a few percent fee for their services, so that the whole process is fee-based rather than taxpayer-supported.
If the owner of the IP is broke, he need not submit just for financial reasons. The 'notice of value' is a negotiable item, and a bank would be willing to accept it as collateral on a loan - because they can cash it in if the loan defaults. The big corporation would have to be careful about trying to squeeze the little guy, for in doing so, they give him collateral to start a competing business with the IP.
In many cases merely a large amount is considered proof of intent to deal. Here in California, over an ounce of pot is considered proof of intent ( although in practice it seems that you have to have a duffle bag full before they actually prosecute. ) The theory is that there is no other reasonable interpretation of your actions/circumstances.
Back to TFA, it seems that putting large numbers of copyrighted works on a server falls under the same logic. ( I don't necessarily agree with the law, I'm just describing the logic behind its application )
Sunlight?
This is some new kind of LED, right?
"...natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp..." So what if I'm sitting real close to someone who is wearing spandex or nylon or some other artificial fabric? Does it eat through those?
And they went with trusted computing. That was the last straw for me. I would have continued to buy from them despite the flaws listed in parent post, if they just continued to build computers that I could trust.
...we all looked at the door. But your client didn't." If they all looked at the door, how could they see what his client did?This is how ALL the parties involved want it. The real decision makers want to get back to their decision-making jobs, not be one of twelve, so they find a way out. The prosecution and the defense attorneys do not want someone who makes decisions; they want someone who can be led and instructed. So does the judge.
The whole system is designed to filter in people who can be controlled and led.
Otherwise, quit undermining your parents and let them raise your sister. You can contribute if you want by teaching her about computers, but do it in assistance to your parents, not in opposition.
He had the foresight to make himself am essential part of company A at exactly the time that company B wanted to begin competing with A.
Valleywag ( the first link in TFA ) says "Valentine surely told his bosses of this fact [ that he had signed with Amazon ]." but offers no evidence to back it up. I don't really want to defend Microsoft, and while they are sure guilty of a multitude of sins, they might be innocent of this one.
Lots of people make future employment agreements without telling their current employers. Indeed, in my experience both as employee and employer, the majority do not tell.
Get rid of all the security gates, the x-rays, the bomb-sniffing dogs. Let people walk into an airport as easilty as into a supermarket.
Have a large room with plenty of tables near the gate. All passengers go in with their luggage. They can work it out among themselves. When all passengers are satisfied, then they board the plane.
I think you are confusing the citizens of the USA with the government of the USA.
( It's a common mistake; the government does it all the time. )
And it will cut down on those annoying cell phone conversations.
...if they chose the eclipse date at all. Isn't Wednesday the 20th, not the 21st?
It's pure coincidence. I don't have Gmail; I never heard of the Gmail word of the day until now.