A more interesting side to this story is how people were able to figure out which airport she was flying to just by googling her name: https://www.twitter.com/Zac_R/status/414249210641653761/photo/1?screen_name=Zac_R

I'm not sure how that was possible by google - but it sure is a creepy thing.

The person who made that tweet ( @Zac_R ) was apparently able to talk to Justine's father before she landed, and took the pictures of her at the airport:

https://www.twitter.com/Zac_R/status/414278786449158144

But were they offered that amount in cash? Or restricted shares of some sort which would not be able to be liquidated for a long time in which the value of those shares can plummet?

I thought our Canadian Intelligence was busy guarding our Maple Syrup Reserve.

*--jeffk++

I personally prefer the ISC license: http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC

Specifically because it does not have the advertising clause - i.e. I do NOT want 3rd parties to be using my company name in their advertising.

*--jeffk++

Two weeks ago I did an experiment - uber from the airport to my hotel cost $60 including the automatic tip. Taxi from the hotel to the airport was $50!not including tip. The über ride was great, the driver was nice, the car was clean, the trip was safe. On the taxi ride the Prius was falling apart, you could see the airbag peeking out from the hole in the dash, the signal lights did not work, the driver was shifty and allots killed a couple on a Harley by cutting them off on the freeway since the taxi driver was not looking and couldn't signal. The taxi ride was scary. The consensus amongst my group was that uber wins and I don't want to take a creepy taxi unless uber really is not available. This happened in Seattle, three weeks ago.

In this example, X and Y are each providing a different subnet address. Your device just moved to a different network and now has a different IP address. This is not a design error but an appropriate design. Multipath TCP is a standard that allows your device to have uninterrupted mobility.

I still don't understand why apple is exposed to patent lawsuit when their system is based on proprietary extensions to standards.... The existing standards can be used to implement FaceTime point to point - so are these patents really encompassing NAT traversal of UDP??

So if there were an article on a news site about top secret news but it was pretend and wasn't really top secret would you still have to wipe your computer? If yes, then you will be wiping your computer often. If no, then you get acknowledgment if a leak is actually true or not.

Also see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6090

9. Intellectual Property

      Concerns about intellectual property have slowed the adoption of ECC
      because a number of optimizations and specialized algorithms have
      been patented in recent years.

      All of the normative references for ECDH (as defined in Section 4)
      were published during or before 1989, and those for KT-I were
      published during or before May 1994. All of the normative text for
      these algorithms is based solely on their respective references.

Good point; There are implementation techniques and specific curves which are patented and it is possible to make an implementation that is not patented. For example: http://dnscurve.org/crypto.html

IEEE Std 1363a defines a method to to Elliptic Curve Crypto that is not patent encumbered.

Please re-read my posting. IEEE is very clear about patent disclosure for essential patents. IEEE does not state what FRAND actually means. Samsung is free to charge $0.00 for red hat to release ptpd, and is free to charge much more than that per device to apple for other patents which are less interesting! And in both of those cases, FRAND is satisfied.

Ah, jeez. If you think this is the first time someone noticed that different computers give different results,

Well, apparently the people who wrote the software that this whole article was about did not know that their software was broken because of this. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00352.1

All patents related to IEEE standards are listed on the IEEE website:

http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/patents.html

Any companies that have essential patents for an IEEE standard are required to disclose them and give letters of assurances that they will license them to users under FRAND conditions. Samsung did do this.

In my opinion, the terms that Samsung offered were not "Reasonable" and were completely out of line compared to all other license fees associated with IEEE standards. Typically these fees are "one time fees per company, often less than $1000.00 USD". I feel that this causes a "chilling effect" with all existing IEEE standards until IEEE defines what exactly "Reasonable" means. (disclaimer: I am technical editor for two IEEE standards)

Of course that in itself can be a huge problem for GPL and any open source implementations - for instance see the patents that Samsung has on Precision Time Protocol ( http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/loa-1588-samsung-12apr2007.pdf ) which were blocking RedHat from releasing ptpd: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556611 - It looks like in this ptpd case, Samsung was reasonable and allows people to do time stamping of packets for free as in GPL.

Regardless of my opinions, ITC said the fees to Apple were reasonable. I guess here the government steps in and says that the fees still stand but the ruling can't block the shipment of devices.

The difference here is that Samsung did agree to license essential patents for an IEEE standard under FRAND with the IEEE and then refused to do so.