Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:so what? (Score 1) 285

You're mixing up capability with likelihood. Total risk is the product of the two. The U.S. has had nuclear-capable ICBMs for over 50 years now, but has never used them. So while it has had the capability for a long time, the proven likelihood that it'll use them is very low, even when it's been provoked. The reason people (not just the U.S.) is concerned about North Korea's capability is because its leadership is extremely erratic and unpredictable, so the likelihood it would actually use ICBMs is a lot higher than existing nuclear powers'.

On the contrary, NK has had nuclear weapons for quite a while and has never used them beyond testing. As with any mutual-assured destruction weapon, showing a capability for something does not indicate anything about willingness to use them at any time except a doomsday scenario.

Depending on the success of this test, and certainly prior to this point, NK only had MAD capability against its immediate neighbors, China, South Korea, and Japan. The only deterrents they had against US invasion were indirect, through threats on US allies. A working ICBM gives them a better ability to deter the type of regime change we pulled in Iraq.

Comment Re: Well, he did admit to breaking Swedish law... (Score 1) 327

The charge has never been rape. That's just the way it has been reported in the media. The "crime" he is charged with in Sweden has no equivalent in the UK or US and the woman was pressured into making it by the police once they figured out who the complaint was against. She only wanted a STD test done.

You keep saying this, and people keep pointing out that penetrating a sleeping woman without her consent, after she's told you "no", is rape in not just Sweden, but both the UK, and the US (not that the latter is relevant). At some point will you admit that fact?

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 2) 327

Ok, I keep hearing "rape" being brought up but, the charge is not quite what it seems. The women in question did not go to the police with charges of sexual assault. One of them discovered that the condom came off, during consensual sex, and after she was unable to locate him, went to the police to locate him for the purpose of taking a STD test.

That'd be the sexual assault charge. The rape charge is from the other situation where he penetrated a woman while she was sleeping, knowing she did not consent, having been explicitly told "no" before she went to sleep. That's the one that the UK courts said "yes, that's rape, even under British law."

Comment Re:Censor the censors? (Score 1) 668

It depends on the triggers in question. Trigger warnings about rapes and such - yes, they're a good thing. Trigger warnings about things like mentioning slavery, because supposedly someone is "forced to relive the suffering of their ancestors" and is "traumatized" by it, are bullshit.

Why is that bullshit? Not that I think that situation has ever actually happened, but you don't believe in educating people? You think kids should sign up for a class and not be given a syllabus, and have no idea what they're going to learn? Why is it 'bullshit' to give people more information?

In many cases, those trigger warnings are also implicit. In a sense that if you're going to go to a history class, then, yeah, you can be expected to deal with historical topics such as slavery or treating women as property - this shouldn't require a trigger warning.

My music history class never touched on either of those. Perhaps not every history class is the same, and people should know in advance what the class will cover?

Similarly, if you're going to a stand-up comedy, you can expect to hear jokes involving ethnic stereotypes and gender roles, for example - and this shouldn't require a trigger warning, either.

Not that it has. Cleese was complaining about colleges, not stand-up comedy shows. Which is like a college professor complaining about stand-up shows. Maybe they should stick to worrying about their own jobs?

Either way, college kids who want their university to shut down an event because they dislike an invited guest is a situation where we can assume that they know what they expect to hear (and be offended by) in advance. If they don't actually know but still want to shut it down because they don't like the person specifically, then it's pure ad hominem on their part, and should be dismissed with prejudice without wasting any time on it.

And they have been, and what's your point? Cleese was saying that they shouldn't even be allowed to ask for it to be shut down, because the very idea of shutting things down is so offensive to him that he needs a blanket and nice cup of tea. He's asking for them to be censored because they asked for other events to be censored. How about just saying "no, you can hold your own event?" Why does everyone, on both sides immediately jump to "we cannot allow them to speak"?

Comment Re:Censor the censors? (Score 1) 668

You know what's an easy way to avoid "triggering" and offensive terms? Don't go to stand-up comedy. Especially when you know in advance that the comic in question is offensive to you.

Ah, so we're in agreement that people should be informed in advance of whatever triggering or offensive things may occur, and if they can't deal, they can bugger off? In other words, trigger warnings are good things?

Comment Censor the censors? (Score 1) 668

So people on college campuses are asking for things like trigger warnings and avoiding offensive terms, and the response is to get incensed about "censorship" and say that those people shouldn't be allowed to ask for those things?

For example, from TFA:

"[Psychiatrist Robin Skynner] said: 'If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior,'" Cleese said. "And when you're around super-sensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next."

So Cleese is essentially saying he's super-sensitive about super-sensitive people since he can't relax around them, and he wants them silenced so he can feel better. I thought the Brits were supposed to be masters of irony.

Comment Re:Feminists deplatform Richard Dawkins from NCSS (Score 0) 668

Great video that explains the situation:

Dawkins was deplatformed for twitting this satirical (and hilarious) video.

Feminists Love Islamists

Please, everybody here, take an active stance and post that video on your twitter and/or facebook accounts. Let the feminists/Islamists know that there censorship efforts are counter productive.

(i) No, I'm not watching some half hour video of someone talking. I can read faster than he can talk. Give me a transcript if you want your ideas spread.

(ii) What's a "feminist/Islamist"? That's like saying "atheist/Evangelical".

(iii) It's "their".

Comment Re:seems conceited (Score 1) 412

And as far as his comments about black-body radiation from such a structure, it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable for a civilization capable of such engineering such a megastructure in the first place, to have figured out how to convert heat energy into something more usable/consumable.

I think the easiest explanation for that comes from the premise of the Dyson Sphere itself - you're building the thing because you want to capture the solar output energy, so simply putting an optical shell around it and having it radiate that energy in IR doesn't actually help you. Obviously, you're using solar panels and/or mirrors to capture the energy and then retransmitting it to your preferred processing site. Maybe you've got bunches of microwave transmitters on the surface beaming high power (but narrow and not visible from Earth) rays to orbiting factories that are running particle accelerators to make antimatter for your spaceships. Maybe they're even beaming it out beyond that solar system, but to another one that's not in line with the Earth.

The "sun generates X energy, so a Dyson Sphere should radiate X energy as IR" incorrectly assumes that you build the sphere for funsies and never attempt to use that energy.

Comment Re:Now... (Score 1) 412

There's another possibility that's just as far out, and would explain the missing IR.

It's a traffic hub for small FTL ships.

While an interesting idea, you'd have the same problem as the comets - half a million "small" FTL ships that are 200 kilometers wide, except that's a huge-ass ship, so you're really talking about many billions of reasonably sized ships. It takes a lot of such ships to block an appreciable amount of the solar output.

Comment Re: RF? (Score 4, Insightful) 935

So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.

It's called a gun lock... every responsible owner has one for each gun or rifle they have. Gun lockers/safes are good options, too.

One of the major points in the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller was over trigger-locks - Heller, the allegedly "responsible gun owner" didn't want to use a trigger lock, which DC required. SCOTUS held by a narrow majority that the requirement was unconstitutional because it made it "impossible" to use the gun for self-defense.

Comment Re:In other words, a software patent (Score 1) 73

Yeah you're wrong on every point. That means you're trying.

... says the guy who cherry-picked and only responded to a few points here and there. You're conceding that I'm right on all the other ones, yes? For example, did you follow that link to Google Patents and see all of the thousands and thousands of issued European software patents? Or are you still a "denier==terrorist" per your signature?

>>that means that the only way to really protect your business software.

Yeah, you protect your business by providing excellent software which is itself a natural barrier to entrance.

I notice you quoted me out of context and even modified the quote. Let's see the whole thing:

... that means that the only way to really protect your business software, other than patents, is to require proprietary formats that aren't interoperable. And that's bad for consumers.

You completely disregarded the entire point about proprietary formats, which are bad for consumers. It's almost like you don't actually care about the public... a funny position for someone allegedly arguing against giant corporations.

If you look at the world of IDEs, people have very strong preferences for one over the other. There are no software patents involved protecting anyone. In fact, even giving away the stuff for free is NOT enough to make enough people switch from IntelliJ to Eclipse, for example, to put IntelliJ out of business. All with no software patents.

And what do those have? Proprietary formats! Just like I said, and you excised from my quote. Most people recognize that those are bad, and would prefer to freely be able to port their work between competing products.

That's a figure from the patent, it's not what the patent covers. The only part of the patent that has legal weight are the claims

The information provided in the drawings is exactly isomorphic tot he information provided in the claims. Patent lawyers know people have a hard time reading claims (by design.. patent language is a product of a priesthood which self-consciously seeks to protect itself by bartering in obscuritanism ) and like to make this argument also. If you read the claims and look at the diagrams, they are describing the same set of affairs, encryption keys and all.

Translation: "You're right, Theaetetus. I was wrong when I claimed they were patenting a flow chart. They're actually patenting an implementation recited by the claims, and I don't know how to read those, so I was confused and pointed to the block diagram instead."

No problem, and I'm happy to help you learn to read patent claims. They're actually not confusing at all, if you take your time. Honestly, the only words you may need to learn are "comprising" and "consisting".

You're just undermining your position by revealing that a humdrum and natural application of encryption keys (what else are they for except exchanging information securely over a public network) is now off limits to everyone but Dropbox.

Nope, I'm tearing apart your allegation that the patent prevents all file-sharing. You've now moved those goalposts to "a natural application of encryption keys" which certainly wasn't anywhere in your original post. Don't worry, we can all see the holes in the turf from where they used to be and will avoid tripping over them.

Maybe you'll eventually even move the goalposts to what the patent actually covers, rather than claiming it covers the world... Oh, wait:

To wit: there is no set of classes, no interaction between any objects and no alternative architecture of any kind which is permitted by this patent.

You're now claiming this patent covers any "interaction between objects".
Oooookay. Well, give you credit for doubling down. Not sure if it's going to actually convince anyone, though.

Comment Re:In other words, a software patent (Score 2) 73

Yeah, otherwise known as a "software patent". It's worth clarifying what a software patent is not, the better to understand what it is and why it's so pernicious and why they're banned (yes, they are) in the EU and pretty much everywhere else in the world except AU. and JP.

They're also banned in the US - there are no patents on pure software per se, which is the same rule used by the EU and everywhere else (including the AU and JP). Instead, this is a patent on a method of using an electronic device; a product that includes executable code; and a computer system including a processor, memory, and program module, and includes various additional limitations that apparently aren't taught or suggested by the prior art.

Alternately, look at this and then come tell us again how software patents are banned in the EU.

Software patents are not patents on specific ways for causing a machine to perform a useful function. That type of IP is the IP we call "copyright". Copyright does prevent your code, your (virtual) machine, from being ripped off.

Copyright protects only that specific code. Rewrite the code, and it's not copyright infringement. TinyTower doesn't infringe the copyright of DreamHeights. Farmville doesn't infringe the copyright of FarmTown. Open Office doesn't infringe the copyright of Microsoft Office.
Copyright is useful when someone wants that specific item: we want to see the latest Avengers movie, not some Bollywood "Revengers" knock-off (caveat: some of us want to see that). We want the latest Taylor Swift album, not Sailor Tift's album (caveat: some of us want neither). It's why movies and books and music are pirated - we want those exact items.
But that doesn't apply to most software. In fact, copyright is generally useless for software, and particularly for business software: your average office worker doesn't care if they're using Numbers or Excel or Google Sheets, as long as the functionality is there and they're interoperable... and that means that the only way to really protect your business software, other than patents, is to require proprietary formats that aren't interoperable. And that's bad for consumers.

You have to find a relatively original way to achieve the same effect, but the *idea* of what you're doing is not patentable. Copyright naturally delivers all that to computer IP.

As noted above, TinyTower/DreamHeights; Farmville/FarmTown; MS Word/Writer; Excel/Calc; etc., etc. Those all use the same exact ways to achieve the same effect, but because they don't actually involve copied code or graphics, they're not copyright infringements.

Software patents are patents on all ways to cause a machine to perform a generally describable function. It's not the specific implementation performing the useful function that is being protected- it's the ability to achieve the same ends in any way whatsoever.

Not at all - "software patents", like any patents, cover a specific implementation. In fact, claiming just the result - "the ends" - is unpatentable.

In this case, the "ends" are sharing files. You claim that the patent covers every way to share files, right? Like "copying a file to disk and giving it to a friend"? Well, let's see... Nope. The word "disk" only shows up once in the specification and nowhere in the claims. Nor do the claims bear any relation to copying a file to a disk and sharing it. You couldn't possibly infringe the patent by copying a file to a disk and giving it to a friend, and therefore, no, the patent doesn't cover that.

It seems like you don't actually understand what a patent is, or what parts of it are important. For example:

So like the RIM patent debacle, this patent covers things unbelievably abstract and covers things like this:

For people who don't follow links, it's a picture of little labeled boxes representing computers, with arrows being drawn between the little boxes to signify what info gets passed between what computers and when. That's what they're patenting. That's what the patent in the 750 million dollar RIM/NTP case did- took THIS info out of a data base NOW and sent it to THAT computer who did THIS with that info.

That's right folks, we are patenting flowcharts. Read it and weep-

That's a figure from the patent, it's not what the patent covers. The only part of the patent that has legal weight are the claims. The rest of the patent is merely there to help interpret what's in the claims. Also, you'd have done better to link to Figure 4, which actually is a flow chart.

What the patent actually covers is this:

1. An electronic-device-implemented method, the method comprising: using the electronic device, generating a symmetric encryption key associated with a content item;
encrypting the content item using the symmetric encryption key;
encrypting the symmetric encryption key using a public encryption key for a recipient to generate an encrypted symmetric encryption key;
providing the encrypted symmetric encryption keys and information specifying the recipient to a synchronization computer that communicates, via a shared network, with at least one electronic device associated with the recipient; and
communicating the encrypted content item to instances of a client application executing on the at least one electronic device via secure peer-to-peer distributed sharing.

It's really about double layered encryption. Without taking a position on whether there's other prior art out there for this (there may well be, I haven't done a search), this isn't just "peer-to-peer file sharing". If you don't encrypt a symmetric encryption key, then you can happily share files all you want, even over BT, without ever getting even close to infringing this patent.

Same basic result - sharing files - but the patent only covers a specific implementation.

Now the part that you seem to be confused about is that patents cover any way of doing that implementation - so, it's no different if you code it in C or C# or Swift or COBOL or Java, or if you make it bigendian rather than littleendian, or if your variables are all named after composers as opposed to artists, or any other changes that would make your version not copyright infringement. And that's the way it should be for the reasons noted above.

Comment Re:It's three pages? (Score 1) 127

Jeffrey Dixon, of HINSHAW Law, do you feel proud now of your prowess, and your 'management' of eight assistants? You are really powerful. I should fear you. Boo-gah boo-gah!.

I know your boss, personally. So, really just shut the f*ck up about being a gigantic patent stud, when all you really do is put into text the ideas of actual inventors, geniuses, professors, etc.

Feel proud that you are able to reduce descriptions of brilliant ideas into legalese. That is a monkey-talent that not every person can learn.

As for having brilliant ideas. . . Well, you have none; otherwise you would be an inventor/scientist/etc. — You are simply a scribe – one who serves at the leisure of your intellectual superiors.

Yes, I see you looked me up on LinkedIn. You deserve a medal for that. Or at least a certificate!

Lol, nope. Wrong guy. Sorry, Mr. Dixon, for drawing the ire of Sir Holo of Slashdot, Lord of the Inept Googling.

Comment Re:It's three pages? (Score 1) 127

I only know what my patent attorney tells me.

I will likely be initiating an interference proceeding.

Oh well, back to my 30 patents, of which a family of 20 is being heavily and overtly infringed.

Well, far be it from me to recommend against entering into a proceeding that could cost anywhere between $20k-$200k, without a guarantee of getting a patent at the end of it. Good luck to you. I'll go back to the 3000 patents on my docket and the 8 associates I oversee.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire