Method of producing an authentication code (CA), comprising cycles for reading binary words (Mn) out of a secret memory (21) comprising a plurality of binary words, wherein, at each cycle, the address for reading a word out of the secret memory (21) is generated from an address generating binary word (GA) forming the result of a combination operation (Fc, ) of words (M1 to Mn) read out of the memory during previous cycles, characterised in that it comprises a transform operation of the address generating word (GA) consisting in logically combining at least one bit (g'0, g'1, g'2) of the address generating word (GA) with at least one bit (r1, r4, r6) of a pseudo-random shift register (26).
Without inspecting the software, and knowing what the HID attorney is asserting, there is no way of forming a legal opinion... and this is in no way a legal opinion, just a recitation of the first patent claim and some questions. But it does look like the method requires using a "pseudo-random shift register" and a "secret memory" among other things. Do the people who are said to infringe actually use this method? Does the code require that such a register and memory be used, or are there ways the code could be used without infringing all of the elements in the claim? Is the target of the letter simply caving to avoid consulting a lawyer?
Unfortunately, the last mile tends to be a natural monopoly, as far as municipal planners are concerned. They don't want companies to come in and compete over the easiest to serve neighborhoods, and leave people in less dense areas out of luck. Planners like that often lose votes. So they have to make a company agree to cover everyone, and then make sure no competitor comes in and serves just the easy areas. See? It just ends up being a monopoly.
So rather than have some new private company come in and take over the monopoly, cities are just deciding to provide services themselves. They do it with roads, sewers, water, and other utilities. Why not internet? You need right of ways, permits, etc. But you don't need to be a genius entrepeneur to run fiber and connect people to the Internet.
And, BTW, Kessler doesn't have much good to say about the food industry, and putting sugar in everything. If you don't believe Kessler, you can also listen to this Robert Lustig, who also has a law degree and a medical degee, like Kessler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's a long video, but it changed my life. Mark Hyman also helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... When I realized how addicted to sugar I was, I was able to treat sugar like a highly addictive substance, and overcome my addiction. I gave it up in May, and feel better than I ever have since I was a kid. I no longer have heart burn or attacks of the blues. I have more energy, better concentration, and I've lost 20 pounds.
I have puzzled about this myself for a long time. I have come up with two possibilities for why there might be a difference. First, speed matters when forming addictive behaviors. It doesn't matter that cocaine and crack cocaine are the same chemical. It matters that crack goes into your system much faster because it is smoked. I learned in my first year psychology course in college that people taking cocaine reported feeling the highest not when they had the most cocaine in their system, but when the level in their bloodstream was rising the fastest. THAT is when they feel high, and that is the feeling they crave. Rate of change into the blood stream is addictive. So, even though the metabolism may first break down sucrose into fructose and glucose, that speed difference might be akin to the speed difference between cocaine going in your nose or in your lungs. It might be just enough of a difference to make you more obese than sugar, over a long period.
Second, I have heard that HFCS is not merely fructose and glucose. It also has impurities from the process of making it, specifically enzymes that convert starches in corn to fructose. You are eating those enzymes with HFCS. Might it not affect your metabolism? Don't rush too quickly to ideological conclusions based on assumptions. Real world testing does matter.
Anyway, I gave up sugar and HFCS in May. I began to think of them as the addictive equivalent of cigarettes (which I quit ten years ago). Cutting back doesn't work, and never worked for me. Cold turkey is the only way to deal with nicotine, and now sugar. Since May, I no longer have heart burn, I have more energy, better concentration, I don't get the blues very often, and I have lost 20 pounds. From the way my body feels today, I *know* I'm going to live longer.
It's not about nuclear itself. We just can't trust the people running the industry, and that includes government oversight. They will cut corners and claim cost overruns every chance they get. It turns out that big business is just as funky as a traveling carnival show... They're all a bunch of hucksters. This is what makes nuclear look bad.
You can say that about *any* energy technology. We can't trust the people running/regulating the solar, oil, gas, wind, coal, geothermal, electric utility, and hydroelectric industries, because they will cut corners and claim cost overruns, compete unfairly, mudsling at competitors, pollute, pillage, profit, and pass costs on to the public any way they can. And that would only be a half-truth. The other half of the truth is that they would also produce usable energy for the public. Your statement is a call for government/corporate reform overall-- a reform of the system, not a valid criticism of a single sector that is different from other parts of the energy sector.
“An Internet Forum will Guide the Elected IParty Member. An internet forum, similar to slashdot.org, would be available for the discussion of topics which may be voted on by the elected IParty members. The forum would provide a kick-off article to introduce a topic, and then allow a moderated discussion of the topic to inform the voting membership. Any member could post a comment. Dues paying members could moderate the discussion, marking particular comments as informative, interesting, funny, insightful, troll, flame-bait, etc. Viewers of the forum could set their preferences to see only particularly good comments. At the end, the membership could vote.”
The website continues,
“One option is that the voting could be weighted, according to one or more factors. For example, weights might be assigned according to expertise (vocational or academic, for example) on a particular subject, membership status, dues paying status, number of years as a member, etc. Another option is that voting could be unweighted, and strictly proceed on a one-man one vote scheme. A third option would be to tally the votes both ways, weighted and unweighted, to better inform the elected IParty representative. An additional option would be to allow voting by proxy, so that members could allocate their votes to another member with expertise on a particular subject.”
Can these techniques be used to improve the democratic elements within our republic?"
Link to Original Source
"Leading health experts  today urge the deployment of alternative trial designs to fast-track the evaluation of new Ebola treatments. In a letter to The Lancet, 17 senior health professionals and medical ethicists, from Africa, Europe, and USA, argue that although randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide robust evidence in most circumstances, the lack of effective treatment options for Ebola, high mortality with the current standard of care, and the paucity of effective health care systems in the affected regions means that alternative trial designs need to be considered."
Link to Original Source
And your point about board members not wanting to fire the janitor at the behest of a 99% shareholder because the board members want clean toilets? Are you on glue?
1. Carbon dioxide absborbs infrared radiation better than other components of our atmosphere. Thus, when the planet heats up on the bright side, carbon dioxide lets the light through, because it is transparent to visible light. Then, when the earth rotates, the warmed earth radiates heat into space. I learned to calculate "blackbody radiation" in college, and I understand the basic principle here. So increased carbon dioxide traps more heat. It is somthing like putting a layer of foil on your house to prevent radiative losses. You probably have such a layer of foil on your own house.
2. Burning fossil fuels in the atmosphere releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The amount we are putting into the atmosphere is significant, and above all historic levels.
3. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are above all historic levels.
From these three points, it is reasonable to hypothesize that AGW is real. Going back to the earlier point, we have no set of planets to confirm with double blind experiments. The system is incredibly complex, and there is no hope for absolute certainty without said set of planets. There are many subsystems and interlinks and feedback components, so each time we look at something that seems to suggest AGW, there is always room for doubt that other causes are in play. But doubting at this point is not very reasonable. It's as if someone took a gun from a drawer, pointed it at another person, fired the gun, and the other person dropped. I would suggest that the one person shot the other. Science? Not according to you. We don't know the gun was loaded with live ammunition. What if it was a blank, and the other person dropped for an unrelated reason, such as a heart attack? We don't know this. What if this is just a movie set, and we are watching a movie being filmed? Yes, yes, all great questions. While you were asking, the murderer escaped. ("But we don't know he was a murderer!" Do you like having words put in your mouth to make you seem ridiculous?).
Here's the thing. Nobody wants to take away your car, or outlaw electricity. Stop listening to the fear mongers. They are sitting on a trillion dollars worth of fossil fuel reserves, and they want you to be scared that [admitting AGW] = [walk to work, if you even have a job left]. Actually, a domestic renewable energy industry would create more non-exportable jobs, and more middle class, healthy and clean jobs than fossil fuel production. So here's your new equation. [admitting AGW] = [drive a Tesla to work].