Posts by John Wilson48 posts • joined Monday 30th April 2007 11:17 GMT
Erm, no, they're not. Their obliged to maximize their profits (in the US), and some use patent law (as one judge has clearly pointed out) as a negotiating element in order to do that, but they are in no way obliged by law to defend their patents. Indeed, one of the ways companies have been trying to make money recently is by deliberately failing to defend their patents until they've become industry standard, and then selectively enforcing the patent with companies they need business leverage over (again, as the last paragraph in the article highlights).
Now, in fairness it's possible you're mistaking patents for trademarks (this kind of thing happens when people use the nebulous term 'IP' outside of networking protocol discussions), where a company is obliged to defend their trademark or risk losing it. The same does not apply to patents, which can be selectively enforced, or not enforced at all, but the patent holder will continue to hold the patent.
If morality in industry stops you buying goods for your house, I suspect you have a very bare house indeed. Well, either that or you have a very full house, and a highly myopic view of industry and the morality of companies that aren't Apple.
Erm.. all your post highlights is that not only is the American penal system FUBAR, but some people are perfectly happy with this state of affairs. Not that one needs to venture far on the internet to see Americans delighting in their "PMITA" form of prison, never considering that degradation of detainees could be harmful to both the detainee and the prison system as a whole.
The fact, incidentally, that the SCOTUS has declared that one has no rights with regards to strip searches while in jail, does not imply that SCOTUS is right, and that one *should not* have such rights.
You see all these downvotes you're getting for each and every one of your posts on this subject? I'm sure you think it's because we're all "pro-Airbus" on your imaginary "pro-Airbus or pro-Boeing" false dichotomy. It's not. It really isn't.
It's because you're boring, repetitive and wrong.
That's a truly dreadful article. On the one hand it's complaining that Fly-By-Wire means the pilot can't feel when it's over-stressing the aircraft, and on the other complaining that the pilot can't over-stress the aircraft. It then gives an example of a Boeing plane being manually operated beyond it's control limits, saving the plane whilst causing damage, and then mentioning that the Airbus FBW software doesn't allow that. But the Boeing plane was under *manual* control at the time, and the Boeing software puts *exactly the same* limits on pilot input. An Airbus plane under those circumstances - under manual control - permits *exactly the same thing*. It's a nonsense example. Apples and Oranges.
I note at the bottom of that page that "William John Cox authored the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department". Clearly an expert in avionics then... </sarcasm>
Assuming the "French Airshow" crash you mention is Flight 296, that was pilot error.
I can find no reference whatsoever to an Airbus crash "in Australian Mountains"
I can find one reference to an Airbus crash in Russia, Flight 967. This was caused by pilot error, extreme stress, and an ill-trained pilot.
I can find no reference whatsoever to an Airbus crash "in China", although Flight 780 suffered a double engine failure on approach to Hong Kong
I can find two references to Airbus crashes in Nepal (Flight 331 and Flight 268). The first was caused by pilot disorientation, the second by the pilots very carefully guiding their plane in to the side of a mountain they didn't know was there.
Or, to put it another way: You're making it up.
There is such an animal as a Tanuki. And yes, they really are skinned for their fur.
Huh? Julian Assagne has done nothing particularly noteworthy, or are you under the somewhat deluded impression that people haven't been leaking sensitive material to the press for as long as there has existed sensitive material and a press? The only difference with Assange is the means which he claimed to be able to use to protect informants and the absolute assurance of anonymity he gave; means which, in the case of Manning, failed spectacularly.
Even if were the case that in respect to receiving and publishing classified documents, Assange was the open-government-exposing-secrets genius boy he likes to claim to be, this does not change the fact that he is charged with rape and sexual assault in Sweden, and it is to Sweden he must be eventually extradited to face those charges. I'd personally think a man so clean to air other people's dirty laundry would delight and welcome the opportunity to clear his name in open court. To try to pretend that, rather than this being about serious criminal charges being laid in Sweden, this is instead some US government conspiracy to extradite him to the States is nothing short of a fantasists delusion.
For the record: If the US wanted to extradite him, it is far simpler for them to do it while he is in England than it is for them to do it if he's extradited to the US.
"So this is profiling: the same as airport security guards choosing to search an Arab man rather than a white woman, or cops in Brixton searching a disproportionate number of black male teenagers – but in this case it was on the verge of costing a man his job."
The type of profiling you're describing is racial profiling and is illiberal, racist, pointless and stupid. It's the type of profiling that leads to "driving while black". It is profiling a person based upon the colour of their skin.
The profiling going on with Facebook security is not racial profiling: it's geographic profiling. It's a sensible precaution based on remarkably unusual activity on an account. Not even remotely the same thing.
"In other news the Daily Mail insisted it did not need to carry out an internal review to know that it had never run stories based on phone hacking."
Surprisingly believable statement from the Daily Mail. You don't need to hack phones to find facts, if you never bother to base your "news" on facts...
"Is the real crime the fact that the Senate, CIA and FBI sites were hacked, or the fact that the sites were hacked and the hackers told everyone that these sites, set up by highly paid professionals, have been hacked?"
The crime is someone breaking in to a computer system. I don't care whether the root password was "flibble", the crime was bypassing the security of that system. Simple as that, and there is no other reasonable way of looking at it. If you work in IT, you should surely be aware of one very simple constant law of IT: Every system is vulnerable. Every single one. And anyone with sufficient motivation, and sufficient information can break in to a system. This is hardly news. It is not a crime to have your system broken in to by criminals.
The crime is to break in to a computer system just "for lulz". The crime is to steal data off of those computer systems "for lulz" - just because you can. We used to call this "hackers" "script kiddies" and criminals. When did that change? Why now are people - who apparently work with IT systems, and are apparently aware of the inherent fragile battle between security and systems compromise now lauding these script kiddie criminals, and blaming the victim of crime?
Should Sony have stored their data more securely? Yes, they should. And yes, that will come out in the wash. But think: why are people angry that Sony stored passwords insecurely: Because all systems are vulnerable!
Doesn't mean the guy's not associated with Lulzsec, just that someone with access to the lulzsec Twitter account hasn't been arrested. And seriously, lulzsec is a criminal organisation. I'm really not going to take their Twitter feed announcements at face-value.
Going in to an unlocked building and stealing someone's property is a crime, no matter how "plainly stupid" an unlocked door is. But this is not what lulzsec are doing: they're breaking in to a house which is locked simply because lulzsec know about a flaw in the lock that the house owner does not know about.
I know enough about locks to break in to garages, and houses: that doesn't mean that I feel the need to do so.
LulzSec are criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not everything is done because it is useful. Somethings are done just because someone looked and said "I wonder...", others are done because someone was bored, some because it looked interesting.
Someone got a Linux emulator running in JavaScript. If you can't just look at that and say "wow, that's freaking COOL", and find that to be enough, you're kind of missing the point.
'worries to the contrary were "unfounded".'
This suggests an incomplete understanding of the English language. The security risk may not have been realised or exploited, but fears of a security risk were most certainly well founded.
It's even worse than that; Sony can now claim - with some legitimacy - that the hackers were not acting alone or for fun, but were conceivably part of a larger conspiracy to defraud Sony.
Anonymous should have stuck to protest signs outside Scientology; all they've done here is commit a blatant criminal act that will do nothing to help the people they're claiming to act for.
Calculus may be 300 years old, but arithmetic is much, much older. Not knowing calculus is hardly the same as "can't add up" A person who can't distinguish between arithmetic and calculus is in no position to lecture on comparisons with "can't read".
Erm "If something is seen, the picture has to be kept - otherwise they have no proof. Without proof, there can be no due course."
You mean they couldn't possibly pull a suspicious individual out of the line and call them in for 'additional screening', could they. There's no possible way for the security team to say "excuse me sir, is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just pleased to be posing naked"?
Of course they don't have to keep the image. The image isn't proof of anything. Don't be so daft.
Let me know when there's an e-ink colour e-book reader, and a slew of books that require a colour screen, then I may be interested. Until then, i can't help but think, "Why?!".
If your not using the image for commercial purposes, then why didn't you just set up an account, and send the photographer a message? Would almost certainly been cheaper than getting a Getty license, and you wouldn't be infringing on the photographer's copyright rights. I've got a couple of photos of athletes on Flickr who wanted to use them for their own use. They wrote to me, and I said "Sure! In fact, give me an e-mail address and I'll send you a higher resolution image. And come to think of it, I've got a couple more of you if you want them". (Naturally, with the added proviso that I still retain full copyright on my images, and I'm granting them a specific license for their own use)
The fact that you're not exploiting it for commercial purposes is utterly irrelevant: if the image is copyright, and is not specifically licensed for non-commercial uses, your use is still infringing.
(Fail because, seriously, you couldn't even be bothered to send the photographer a message, or let them know you liked their image?!)
You are either joking, or my sarcasm detector is faulty. Overlooking observed speciation, evolution within a species = variation. Variation over time + selection = speciation = the origin of species.
Simples.
(WTF, because, really, I have no idea what you're trying to say).
You'd prefer police "personal data" in the hands of the Daily Star? Yikes.
"Yeah. Socialism totally works. Lets ask the USSR how to do it"
Socialism has a meaning. Please learn it.
I hope no-one's obliged by law to carry a driving license when going to a pub for a drink or few...
Nope. Permission is never needed to take a photograph of anyone in a public space.
*However*. If you take a picture of an identifiable person as a journalist, you may have been advised to get permission if you wish to publish the story/photograph abroad.
"FAIL because thats the impact spelling mistakes have on your application for a job"
That's. Apostrophe after the 't' denoting "FAIL because that is the impact" etc.
Please fire yourself, and head to the nearest unemployment office.
"He did contact apple twice, both times the drones at the other end of the phone denied it was an apple product."
Soooo... Apple "drones" (presumably front-line support staff) were "contacted"? If you bothered to read the affidavit you would quickly understand that this is utterly irrelevant. The phone should never have been in his possession in the first place. He picked up a phone from a bar - a phone that did not belong to him, and a phone that he *knew* did not belong to him. What he *should* have done is either have left it there, or hand it in to the police. He did neither. He stole it.
Later - after stealing someone else's phone - he realises he has stolen an Apple prototype, and decided to sell stolen property to boot.
So the anti-malware companies are basically complaining that they're not allowed to sell snake-oil? There are no known viruses or worms for unlocked phones, so what exactly - at this stage - would an anti-malware product detect? I hear I can't get anti-malware software for my fridge either -maybe they should explore that market.
@Dr. Vesselin Bontchev
The Morris worm didn't crack passwords. It exploited a buffer overrun.
The issue here isn't whether or not the US has an official language, but that these police thought they could issue arbitrary tickets. How did they get away with issuing fines for non-fineable-non-offences in the first place?
Nope 2000:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/al/main03.htm
It was unenforceable as of 1967, but still there.
"As far as the iPhone is concerned itself, it's clearly a fantastic success, but the majority of people who bought it because it's cool, not because of ease-of-use"
The majority of people? That's a pretty big claim, and like the majority of such claims is most likely without any basis in fact.
"However, it's still a waste of money when compared to equivalent phones."
Can you please enlighten me, then, as to what the equivalent phone is? Here's what I want in my iPhone replacement: an iPod that synchs seamlessly with my mac. A telephone and contacts list that synchs seamlessly with my mac. A phone. A proper voicemail application. GPS. The device should be small and light, whilst having a suitably sized screen. It must offer e-mail and useable web browsing - ideally I'd like the web-browser to synch with the bookmarks on my mac.
Whilst there are phones that perform one or more of those functions, there are none - that I am aware of - that do them all and synch seamlessly with my mac. This is why I no longer use my Palm T|X: they gave up providing decent support for the mac.
Assuming this is the same Eady from the Simon Singh case, it is clear that Eady is a contemptable ass, and a menace to free speech.
(unless, of course, that's libelous, in which case he's as lovely as a puddy cat)
They have the same problem with their "Fresh water" question - How much of the Earth's water is fresh - 1-3%, 4-10%. With the answer as 3%, it's hardly surprising that less than 1% of respondents got that one right. (I thought it was around 4%)
"The Government has a duty to protect the public and firmly believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug."
These are two unrelated statements. The Government has a duty to protect the public from outside threat, and from harm from other people. It does not have a duty to protect a person from themselves, and tacitly admits this when it allows smoking and drinking.
It could be argued that a responsible government should make accurate information about drugs available (something that it currently, and most emphatically, does not do), but it is not the case that the government has any duty to protect people from themselves, or to lock people up because they ingested a chemical the government disaproves of.
Paris. Just because.
There's a reason she's using those three examples (she could also have added "get a job"): the Labour government have been requiring you to present identification to prove you have a right to reside and work in the UK for a while now. So she can now simply say, "Oh look, this ID card solves the problem of all the other identification you would otherwise have to supply". it's not a long step from there to requiring you - under law - to present your ID card to the bank/landlord/employer before you can open an account, rent a flat or work. Of course, given Labour's definition of "voluntary", it'll still be a voluntary card - you just won't be able to function in society without it. "Voluntary Entitlement Card" anyone?
Not everyone holds the American idea that something is a religion just because it likes American tax benefits. The German goverment is actively seeking to ban Scientology for the simple reason that it is a money-making-scam-cult. That German organisations should actively ban their staff from being associated with a potentially illegal organisation should come as a suprise to no-one.
And let's be quite clear here: Scientology is not a religion; it is a scam.
If a spokesperson for the IWF has suggested that an offence has been comitted under the UK Children's Act, and another points the reader in the direction of the Sentencing Guidelines, may I suggest they bother to read them themselves?
The UK Children's Act deals with the welfare of a child - it does not deal with child pr0n. The sentencing guidelines pointed to by the IWF make mention of the Protection of Children Act 1978, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Furthermore, sentincing guidelines are precisely that: guidelines for sentencing someone who has actually been found guilty of an offense. They explain what a person is sentenced to for the various levels of offences covered. What it does not do is determine what contitutes an "Image depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", only what sentence is attached for someone committed of possessing such an image.
So IWF: Get your act together, and stop bullshitting.
I'm with you there, but for one thing: Christmas is, in fact, smack bang in the middle of the winter solstice.
How come there are people on there who cancelled their membership because they emigrated? I thought the BNP was anti-imigration? Did these people not realise that if you emigrate to another country you become an imigrant?
"Surely there are better causes to spend your money on than one which is using your money to tell people that something *doesn't* exist."
Well, given how much of our tax money is spent on promoting something that doesn't exist, I think donating a few quid to remind people that this thing does not - in fact - exist is not a bad idea.
"that working with vulnerable children is another kind of highly sensitive position, and the privilege "
Stop right there. Privilege? To work with hyped up kids for next to no money is now a sacred privilege is it? What a load of rubbish. Kids need teachers to teach them their arse from their elbow: it's the *kids* that are the ones who should feel privileged that anyone would want to try to help them have a better life, not the other way round.
And, for that matter, since when was working with children a more "priveleged" position than being a parent or other close family relation to a child. 'Cause guess which group is responsible for most child abuse, and guess which group doesn't (yet) require vetting.
If Farnborough was the first appearance of the F22 in the UK, then how did I manage to snap about 30 shots of it doing a practice performance over Fairford on Friday?
If you have a method with pages of code, with nested if's else's and case's, you have bigger problems to worry about than whether or not there's a single exit point.
The simple fact is, if you are programming in C++, or any modern programming language, the chances are that your method does not necessarily have a single exit point. What, for example is the standard behaivour of "new" if there's no more heap available.
And as for "More nuianced", that is an excellent description of how not to deal with exception. Exceptions are supposed to "percolate up". You deal with the exceptions you are able to properly deal with at the time, not every last one that can occur. Exceptions have been around for a very long time now, but I am constantly stunned how many people still don't understand their use!
Does make me wonder how on earth a muslim is supposed to observe these practices on the North or South pole. Not eating while the sun is up in the summer would be a bit awkward.
Jazz's figure of 5 billion appears to have come from Sky, with an appalling write-up of the planet's discovery:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1262484,00.html?f=rss
By my calculations, that would mean that our fastest rockets can only plod along at a measly 23,513 miles per year. Or about 2 miles per hour.
