Comment Re:Surprised Assange has no idea what censorship i (Score 1) 241
Sounds like you just logically disproved the existence of "self censorship". Or maybe you don't consider it to be a kind of censorship, despite its suggestive name...
Sounds like you just logically disproved the existence of "self censorship". Or maybe you don't consider it to be a kind of censorship, despite its suggestive name...
Why does it say that google hasn't commented?
It has. It told the press about these cherry-picked examples. Straight from the PR textbook.
I think we saw it 20 years ago with VB and Delphi and similar RAD products. It democratized business computing, allowing every hotel to have a computerized checkin system tailored to its needs, every X business to have a Y system.
The scenario you posed it's interesting but you asked the wrong question. If a person says "searching for John Smith results in the following five search results and I'd like you to remove them" -- it doesn't matter which John Smith people were searching FOR... it only matters which John Smith they were GIVEN.
The question relating to your scenario is "how does google know that the page is about the requestor". Could be solved by making it a perjury to submit a false request, or requests go via notaries, or something like that.
Except the wayback machine ALREADY responds to requests to delete pages (via robots.txt), and when it gets one it deletes the entire history of that page as well.
You shouldn't be able to patent arranging some lights and positioning a camera.
Amazon didn't patent "arranging some lights and positioning a camera" in general.
They patented ONE SPECIFIC arrangement of lights and camera position. Presumably a particular arrangement that they spent a lot of time and effort to achieve, and wasn't obvious to them when they started, and one that they hadn't found documented or explained or taught elsewhere.
When you patent a machine, you're patenting "arranging some gears and positioning some cogs". When you patent a drug, you're patenting "arranging some atoms and positioning them right".
Claims 2 and 25 aren't that specific...
It's a kind of patent-drafter's game, mixing specific claims (like claim 1) and general claims (2, 25) and then making progressively narrower claims from the general ones (3 -- 24). They do this to cover their bases, to make it more likely to have the patent granted, and to help them have something they can fight in court.
Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography? I'm not a photographer but I've had my picture taken for "promotional" reasons and already knew about this. I've even created a similar setup here when posting stuff online. Took me 10 seconds to find this page: http://www.raydobbins.com/phot... What, exactly, are they trying to "patent" and why does this examiner still have a job? It's obvious that we need to have crowdsourcing prior art as an official part of the patent process.
"What exactly are they trying to patent?" -- it says so right there in the first claim, and it's stupid that you spent more time looking up prior art of what you *ASSUMED* the patent was about, rather than actually reading the patent.
They patented the combination of a white cyclorama background, with the object on an elevated platform, the combination of four rear light sources in a particular geometry behind the elevated platform, and some technical tricks to make the elevated platform be imperceptible.
I sincerely doubt that your promotional picture was taken on an elevated platform with four lights behind you and some looking down onto the platform. The website you linked was nothing like what the patent is doing either.
I'm not concerned at all. In an emergency I'll put it in neutral, and use brakes and steering wheel. I'll definitely NOT be messing around with ignition, be it key or button. Don't have enough hands.
If I understand, your question is basically, "why is the human brain's amygdala hard-wired to produce emotional responses in this way?"
There's no really good answer, other than "it just is" and maybe some handwaving about evolutionary psychology.
They did examine heartbleed.
Cortana is optimized too for American accents in this release.
Not much of a problem. I have a strong English accent, and the same technique works with Cortana as speaking abroad... I just speak LOUDLY AND CONDESCENDINGLY.
I've heard something similar...
If devs have to LIVE with the consequences of their bugs or race conditions or misfeatures, by having to manually fix up customer accounts, or reboot the server, or just click through too many screens, then it really focuses their minds on what are the important bugs to fix, helps them triage more effectively, helps direct their coding energy in the right place.
PS. This is only for devops work on the systems running YOUR software. If course it doesn't apply to what most people in this thread are discussing, doing devops work for code you didn't write.
one reason that security-related code is best done in low level languages is that the implementer has absolute control over sensitive data. For example, consider an server which acquires a passphrase from the client for authentication purposes. If your implementation language is C, you can receive that passphrase into a char array on the stack, use it, and zero it out immediately.
That scenario actually explains why security-related code is best done in MANAGED languages using something like SecureString
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u... -- this way, you still have API control to zero it out immediately, but you also benefit from the fact that you can make it ReadOnly, the fact that it's encrypted, the fact that it was authored by someone who's more expert in security than you and has had more eyes to review it than your ad-hoc solution.
You can also do CtrlAltDel, down, down, enter.
Or you know press the power button on your desktop or laptop or tablet.
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.