Re: In two minds...
Because as faulty as the current system is, any alternative is likely to be more faulty, making status quo the least evil option.
11100 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Because as faulty as the current system is, any alternative is likely to be more faulty, making status quo the least evil option.
Well, at least one can see the mindset. It's like I said; they didn't want inventors priced out of patents and hassled with red tape, but everything has a catch. Easier patents mean more junk patents, but OTOH tougher patent standards discourage garage inventors. You really can't have it both ways. Do you want to give garage inventors a chance ("The American Dream!") or do you want to keep frivolity out of the patent office? Pick your poison.
Well, you can't have everything. For the USPTO to work properly, they need funding, and Congress is against using the general revenues, so the only way it could work is to raise patent fees. A LOT. Which means the little guy who just wants to protect his neat invention is priced out of the market.
"If the troll gets major backing then the defendant will get that too - after all they stand a very high chance of getting their money back* after the patent is invalidated."
Not necessarily, if it becomes a case of two gorillas in the courtroom. Consider the MPEG-LA v. Google dispute over video codecs. They eventually settled the case because neither side wanted it to go nuclear (Google could lose claim to VP8 being unencumbered, MPEG-LA could lose vital patents related to MPEG-4 codecs).
This trick only works because the troll had no backing. If the troll was being backed by another major firm, then the firm may not just be out for money (could be seeking an injunction to interfere with the defendant's business) so would be willing to gamble on the courts and/or appeals process.
Not if the other end DOESN'T support SRTP (part of the problem stated in the article) and you MUST talk to that other end.
But where does the RTP go from there? It's not like RTP regularly stays on a LAN. It's normally meant to go out to the greater Internet, and that's where they can get you.
(Incoming ballistic trajectory)
They'd have a point. The attack is OUTSIDE the LAN, on the greater Internet. It's not like they're using RTP to get INTO the LAN, which is why they're against having any kind of knowable structure available, not realizing the ISP can always route past the router onto your LAN in any event, as your connection rides on theirs.
But it isn't going to help much if web facing services are the ONLY way through and major money is on the line.
Point is, who cares if you're lying. You can either tell it often enough that people believe you, or you can instill enough fear in people that they don't challenge you. Either way, whether you lie or not becomes irrelevant. Truth is relative, and in such a world, facts are fungible.
"Lying is always bad propaganda, because it deceives and misleads the people"
Only thing is, what did they say about telling a lie often enough?
Unless you can remove the battery and install an SD card, it's a non-starter. Battery is a fire risk unless you can remove it, and the SD card is necessary for low-priority media stuff I don't want to encrypt.
The catch is that hydrogen normally exists as a gas in diatomic form (H2), whereas helium is a noble gas and can exist monatomically.
Anyway, part of the delay in rolling out helium drives has been time spent developing and mass-producing a VERY gas-tight enclosure for them.
I hope you're joking.
Hard drives cannot run in vacuum because their operation relies on the Bernoulli Effect: a cushioning phenomenon that occurs with gases even at tiny gaps (like the infinitesimal gaps between hard drive platters and hard drive heads). Thing is, the Bernoulli Effect relies on there being a gas to work. Vacuum is the lack of gas, see?
The idea here is that helium, in contrast to say nitrogen, is a lot better gas to work with aerodynamically (it's not only atomic number 2, but as a noble gas, it exists atomically in contrast to nitrogen which normally exists as a gas in diatomic molecules--paired up--doubling its molecular weight). Catch is, helium is SO small you need special handling to keep it from getting away (as it's small enough to pass through gaps in otherwise-solid materials).
But OTOH if they raise prices too high, people don't buy, so the ad buyers can put pressure on the media outlet to cut rates. It's one thing to pay $3B for exclusive media rights. It's another to find ad buyers willing to pay through the nose for ads when they're under pressure to keep their own prices down.
"Why should freight be carried from New York to Chicago by railroads when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?"
The same reason nonliving cars replaced horses: the little matter called upkeep.
Because 9 times out of 10, what's the purpose of a purpose? Indeed, of ANY enterprise? To make money for the owner(s). Otherwise, why do it at all? It's simple human condition, really, and it would be hard to envision any way to change that behavior: not even using the law (since being monied, they could just decide to up and move away).
Not as difficult as you think. Most houses they just need to get to the doorstep. As for the rest, things can adapt. Blocks can perhaps have a dedicated person/robot (either way specialized for that location) to do the last bits from a common receiving area.
Who gives a damn? You get the picture anyway: 1, 2, or 3 items. It's just like how "Where you at?" has become a tagline; as you say, it's about communication, and since humans are involved, things change. For exmaple, is it "jail" or "gaol"?
Thing is, you can't discount a sudden, catastrophic breach. What then?
"Human Resources - aka cheap labor"
The US is already over-provisioned there, and the problem's only gonna get worse. The US needs fewer people, not more.
I don't think the US is treating Bitcoin as a currency per se. They just consider it a tradable good or commodity, much like a foreign currency. They know it's there, they know people sometimes handle it, but it's not the norm within the US, so at some point you have to get it back to dollars, and once that happens, it's back in their control and they can go from there.
So they're not so much legalizing it as simply lumping it together with all the other foreign currencies out there. It's not legal tender in the US (only the dollar; that's specified by law), but you can pass it around like scrip if it's your bag.
"If the mafia decide to only trade in "mafia bucks", does it make their trade exempt from tax?"
Where would their mafia bucks come from, then? And how do they turn around and use it to acquire real-world goods? At SOME point, you're going to have to go back to government-backed currency to interact with the real world, and THAT'S when they get you.
That's why countries like the US aren't all that concerned about Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin is not the official US currency, at some point if you want to do things like shop at Walmart (which can ONLY really work with dollars), you're going to have to convert back to dollars, which under US laws is a taxable event.
As legal tender, no, only the Dollar and Cent, especially when it comes to debts (which is the main reason for the Legal Tender Act--to ensure a means of settling debts). Now, if a private enterprise wishes to accept other forms of currency as part of its business (say a currency exchange), then that's up to it, though there may be international agreements in place concerning how they go about their business. And since they're still handling dollars, the US government's going to want to check them out now and then as well.
"Well, in the US I can tell you that it *isn't* the government."
Then what's the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, then? Chopped liver?
"By that logic all people have to do is convert from USD to GBP first before converting to Bitcoins"
That STILL involves a currency exchange involving Dollars. Only now the British government can get involved, too (because you're now using Pounds Sterling, too).
"Um, aren't they actually only backed by the private central bank that issued them?"
Um, and under whose authorities do these central banks operate?
"Because the law doesn't yet recognise it as a legal form of tender?"
Does the US have to recognize the UK Pound to be able to trade with it? Not really. That's usually up to the banks and currency exchanges, who make the necessary arrangements. The government gets involved when its own currency gets handles, and that's usually sufficient, given transacting in the home country usually requires home currency.
Similarly, the US government takes the stance that as long as US dollars are used to exchange for Bitcoin, it has a say in the matter. That's why places like Coinbase register with the government to maintain legitimacy. Whether you consider Bitcoin as a currency, a commodity, or something else, as long as US dollars are involved, the US government, by default, is involved.
It also neglects to note that most currency as we know it is virtual anyway. First, they're fiat currencies, backed only by government word. Second, most transactions are electronic in narure, not requiring the physical transfer of bills/notes or coinage.
So, apart from a lack of sovereign backing, how is an e-currency any different?
The problem isn't starting from scratch, as there are relatively simple ways to do it and ensure you get a result.
The NP-complete problem is to start with a partial board and determine whether or not it's possible to complete that board. It's the existing pieces that complicate the matter since now you have the possibility of no solution and the problem specifically asks yes/no to that. This makes it impossible to use a programmatic approach since the initial layout is random. This puts it in the realm of Traveling Salesman in that the only solution is brute force, which reaches infeasible levels quickly due to its factorial complexity.
IOW, it can't be solved deterministically, which is one way to class an NP problem (NP stands for Nondeterministic Polynomial).
I've also heard that any NP-complete problem can be refactored to represent any OTHER NP-complete problem (like, say, Traveling Salesman), which is one reason why you only need to solve ONE to solve ALL.
Oh, what's to stop someone else stealing your identity after you die? Remember ghost votes?
Cables are MADE to fail. They're designed to fail first to save the more expensive stuff. Sounds to me like exactly what we need here. Not complicated lock-in cables but dead simple sacrificial lambs.
Just require that all chargers contain an easily-accessible-and-changeable fuse. They do that with Christmas light sets.
A USB cable is more than a charging cable as well. In fact, it's a data cable FIRST, a charging cable SECOND. And it doesn't need sophisticated stuff in the cable to do its thing. In fact, its philosophy has been that the complicated bits should be at the socket ends; make the cable simple and easy to replace and let the ends do the hard work (that's one reason the latches in the Micro USB spec are on the cable where they were in the socket in Mini USB--lot easier to switch out a cable than to reinstall a socket). In response to your overcharging issue, the sockets in the devices should carry the ability to sense out-of-bound electricals and shut the socket off as needed to protect itself. Is it really that hard to do that without resorting to the complexity of a chip in the cable?
If that were true, the cables would only be a bit more than Micro USB cables, not several TIMES more at the least.
Once upon a time, only a Motorola-certified USB charger would be allowed to charge the MOTO RAZR V7. Other cables, the phone would stop charging after a few seconds. Made it tough when you bought it secondhand and it didn't come with the original charger.
But the Chinese can undercut practically everyone. And cheap sells. And the Chinese know it.
Do you say the same thing about third-party printer supplies?
Nearly 400 million people and a lot of money. Not even China ignores them.
Sure you can. Just require the use of it if you want lucrative government (some run in the BEEELIONS) contracts, many of which can be make-or-break-ers for companies. Think about it. ALL states set their alcohol minimum ages to 21 (IN SPITE of the age being determined by the states in the years following the 21st Amendment) because setting any lower means no federal highway funds for you (BY LAW). Same tactic.
And if they STILL go along with it? Some can be gluttons for punishment, for example.
Don't you mean more than ZERO people?
Don't be so sure. The SCOTUS waxes conservative now.
Sure. Ever heard of cliff diving? BASE jumping?
I'm still waiting for the story of someone buying fake stuff from someone's trunk only to learn the buyer had paid with counterfeit money.
"Well, I agree, totally open hardware well performing graphics is a problem ... yet, without graphics, how do you use a browser ? I know, lynx, curl ... tedious ... that was part of my point ... we need totally open graphics, hence my call ... we can do it!"
As one commenter noted, no we can't. It's been tried already. People just aren't that interested in security when it interferes with productivity. Why do you think "hoop jumping" has such a negative connotivity? Get in the way of people's jobs and people will find a way around you. It's practically part of the human condition.
And what's the assurance THEY'LL still be around in a decade or two? Sites come and go, after all.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017