Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Prior Art: MMUSIC (Score 5, Informative) 116

by anwaya (#43601759) Attached to: British Telecom Claims Patents on VOIP Session Initiation Protocol
The IETF MMUSIC (Multiparty Multimedia Session Control) Working Group started working on Session Protocols in 1993.

Initial Internet drafts for a Session Invitation Protocol and a Simple Conference Invitation Protocol were prepared in 1996, and merged to a single first draft of SIP by December 1996 (slide 10), with further drafts (2-12) leading up to the publication of RFC 2543 in March of 1999 (slides 11-13, ibid.).

I don't see anything that says BT had a hand in anything to do with SIP up to 1996. More than half the patents BT claims (Exhibit C) were filed after RFC 2543 was published.

I hope this information is a useful starting point for some SIP vendor.

Comment: Of course it's like that if that's what it takes. (Score 4, Interesting) 259

by anwaya (#43474635) Attached to: Higgs Data Could Spell Trouble For Leading Big Bang Theory
By coincidence I went to Stephen Hawking's lecture at Caltech last night, and one of the concepts he discussed was Feynman's "sum over histories" idea.

If the evolution of a stable universe requires the Higgs field to start out at a metastable point, and if variations in those initial conditions lead to universes which collapse rather than inflating, then "the amplitude" (i.e. the probability that they are the outcome that we turn up in) for those other states is zero. Why? Because those universes all collapse long before we could show up.

On the other hand, if Steinhardt is correct, then his result shows there is a path to here-and-now through the metastable point, and if that's what it takes to get here, then that's enough: that's what it takes. The amplitude of the entire wave function for the Steinhardt path is non-zero, unlike the functions for the ones that collapsed.

Comment: Re:Vote (Score 5, Insightful) 707

by anwaya (#41860747) Attached to: In the 2012 U.S. presidential election:
Why on earth do you think the banks were regulated in the first place? The 1933 Banking Act, aka Glass-Stegall, which separated retail banking and merchant banking, was introduced to stop the banks from runnig amok. What happened when that act was repealed? The banks ran amok again.

You know, you seem to be under the impression that recorded history began when you were born. The fact is it goes back considerably earlier. Where Regulation exists, it exists for a purpose, unrelated to your birth.

Comment: Re:snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (Score 5, Funny) 160

by anwaya (#41580543) Attached to: DNA Analysis Probes the End of Human-Neanderthal Sex

You know what they say:

"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"

(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')

Next time you rhyme 'Neanderthalensis'
Leave that task to an amanuensis,
Or someone who doesn't sit on fences:
They'd just still need to know what your sense is.

Comment: Re:Helpful Explanation and Anecdote (Score 1, Informative) 271

by anwaya (#40243851) Attached to: CryptoCat Developer Questioned At US-Canadian Border

"Brutal" is perhaps a little extreme: "Authoritarian" may be more appropriate.

I also have an anecdote. I moved to the US in 1994, and at one time, maybe I overstayed my visa-waiver, or maybe the I-94 was lost, either by me or the airline or US Immigration. In 1995 I got an H1-B and I've had a Green Card now for over 10 years. Every time since 9/11 it's a toss-up when I go through Immigration to enter the US whether the the DHS will Select me for Secondary Screening, even though I am a legal, documented immigrant, my papers are in order, and the only flag raised has to be a tiny one, at least 16 years old. And yes, it takes the goons an hour.

Comment: Re:Insurance? (Score 3, Insightful) 419

Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.

Do you think that corporations should be free to aggregate as much power over individuals as they possibly can, as they will if unregulated? Because that's an excellent way to maximise shareholder return on investment. Or is it possible that the problems of corporate tyranny would be just as bad as the problems of tyranny by the state?

Comment: Re:Shit Like This... (Score 5, Insightful) 345

by anwaya (#39756591) Attached to: US Judge Say Kim Dotcom May Never Be Tried or Extradited

This would have never gone down with a liberatarian administration.

You may be right: for example, the extremely wealthy backers of the MPAA and RIAA would simply pay top dollar to a platoon of mercenaries, who would level the data centers and murder everyone that provided the services. If there were still a DoJ and Court system, they would already have bought off all the prosecutors and judges. Case closed.
Or do you think this wouldn't happen under a Libertarian administration either? If so, what do you understand to be the Libertarian proposal for a system of justice?

Comment: Re:It's the 80s all over again (Score 1) 123

by anwaya (#39709779) Attached to: Dutch Pirate Party Dragging BREIN To Court
Statistically, there is a good chance -- 99 to 1, in fact - that you are part of the 99%, like me. If we had gone to the General Assemblies, we could have set the direction: for decisions were arrived at by consensus, which means it takes no more than one "no" to stop the group from moving in a particular direction.

So if you object to the outcomes of the Occupy movement's meetings, then next time, show up. We're all invited.

Comment: Tail wags dog (Score 2, Insightful) 311

by anwaya (#39461083) Attached to: US Puts Tariff On Chinese Solar Panels

You are very short sighted. Governments shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. That is how you end up with zombie banks sucking the life force out of the economy dragging us down into an unending depression.

Thank you so much for pointing out that it's the tail that wags the dog. Seriously, I thought it was the other way round, that the banks first lobbied for deregulation and then, when their irresponsible betting threatened to collapse the entire system, they effectively held the fate of the financial system to ransom until the government agreed to bail them out. And no, you can't nationalize the banks: that would interfere with the sacred operation of the Free Market!

Now I know I got it completely wrong. How naive of me. How short sighted. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Comment: Samizdat (Score 2) 355

by anwaya (#39085437) Attached to: FOIA Request Shows Which Printer Companies Cooperated With US Government
One of the things a fully developed police state needs to be able to do is control the flow of all information. You need a mechanism that can be used to identify who has been producing physical copies of banned works - say, a play by Vaclav Havel, or a copy of The Master and Margarita - so that you can lock them up.

What these printer companies have done, by collaborating with the US in this way, is to make it easier for police states to monitor and control the physical flow of information.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 5, Informative) 857

by anwaya (#38915041) Attached to: How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA
Oh, please. How desperate.

Obamacare - Government run health care because the Government knows better than you or your Doctor.

This is not true. The Affordable Healthcare Act did not produce "Government run health care". It mandates that everyone must have health insurance, without expanding any of the state-run programs at all. This means the private insuance companies which lobbied for it make more money. No hospitals, other than those already run by the VA, have or will be taken over.

Bailouts of GM. et al, i.e. government ownership.

This is not socialist. Socialist would be full-on nationalization, like British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, British Coal, and British Rail prior to their privatization. There are no government-appointed board members on any corporate board that took bailout money.

Support of Unions over the best interests of the country - Specifically SEIU.

What on earth are you talking about? First, what support of Unions, "specifically SEIU", that favors any union over the best interests of the country, and whose view of best interests?

Second, do you have a problem with Unions - associations of people, of citizens, of wealth producers, organizing to protect their interests? Do you really think it's wrong for people to unite to protect their common interests? Do you have a problem with "We the people, in order to create a more perfect Union..."? In fact, to quote Lynne Cheney, why do you hate America? ;)

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...