Re: I've seen money produce some spectacular cognitive dissonance
Yup. For decades industry lobbyists have been ghostwriting reports like this National Trade Estimate.
Once, that privilege was the exclusive domain of entrenched interests such as the MPAA and RIAA, the sugar cartel, the banking industry, etc.
Now the "new economy" companies like Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have cranked up their own lobbying efforts, so now they get to write a few paragraphs of their own.
There's no particular need for the sections written by Hollywood protectionists to be consistent with the sections written by their opponents, the Internet companies.
They each pay, and they each get to play.
Given that this is how our system works, I suppose I'm happy that somebody on the other side is getting to speak up.
People who attempt to coerce others into doing things "for their own good" are presumptively not truly interested in what is good for the other person.
If they were, peaceful persuasion would be sufficient.
In the early days of the web, more than 20 years ago, I recall a self-identified "security researcher" who put up a poll about how secure people's passwords were.
Questions like:
How many characters in your password?
Does it use upper-case, lower-case, or mixed?
Any non-alphanumeric characters in it?
etc.
In other words, *exactly* the questions an attacker would ask to narrow down a password search.
While it's not too surprising that there were some idiots who provided answers, what I found (and find) surprising is that the so-called "security researcher" didn't recognize the impropriety of such questions.
Not just because some bad patents and claims were tossed out, but because this will help set precedents for the standard of "obviousness".
It's great to see an appeals court taking seriously the requirement that patents not be obvious, and starting to work up some reasonable tests for it.
"Evidence showing that this problem was recognized in the industry" is exactly what a applicant should be required to show before receiving a patent on a new idea.
Otherwise, finding an obvious method to resolve a new problem would qualify for a patent monopoly. As it has too often in the past.
On the post: FBI Won't Tell Me How Much It Paid To Break Into Syed Farook's iPhone, Saying It Might Jeopardize Its Investigation
Re: Re: Submit an appeal
The latter is what gets people fired/put in prison.
On the post: Web Sheriff Accuses Us Of Breaking Basically Every Possible Law For Pointing Out That It's Abusing DMCA Takedowns
How did that make it past the spam filter?
Just looking at the email, I don't think it would make it past most spam filters.
On the post: FBI Won't Tell Me How Much It Paid To Break Into Syed Farook's iPhone, Saying It Might Jeopardize Its Investigation
Submit an appeal
Either way, a win.
On the post: Chelsea Manning Appeals 35-Year Sentence For Leaking Files
Pardon her
Which means she's in for at least another 8 years.
Unless a miracle happens and Johnson wins. But stranger things have already happened in this year's campaign.
Johnson/Weld '16! [or Weld/Johnson, whichever.]
On the post: Brewery Changes Name For Second Time In Two Years Because Trademark
Google.
"Checking trademarks" is a waste of time.
What he needs to do (and obviously didn't think of) is to check Google, which would have told him about the similar names immediately.
On the post: Bad News: Two-Factor Authentication Pioneer YubiKey Drops Open Source PGP For Proprietary Version
Explanation is no explanation at all
If I understand correctly, the so-called reason is "on our new platform open-source isn't so useful".
Fine. But that's not a reason to drop open-source at all. That's only a reason why people shouldn't care.
Which is not the same thing.
So it sounds like they're dropping open-source for no reason that they're willing to articulate.
Which is pretty suspicious.
On the post: Sci-Hub, The Repository Of 'Infringing' Academic Papers Now Available Via Telegram
Re: Elsevier prices are crazy
How does this model make sense?
On the post: Judge Rejects Attempt To Force Lauri Love To Decrypt His Computers, Despite Never Charging Him With A Crime
Off-site backups
On the post: Minnesota's Broad Publicity Rights Law, The PRINCE Act, So Broad That It May Violate Itself
Irony - Prince loses control
Now that he's dead, this bill grants total power over his name and image to his estate, over which he has no control at all (since he's dead).
Seems to me the exact opposite of what Prince would have wanted.
On the post: Lawsuit: CBP Took $240,000 From Man And Refused To Respond To His Forfeiture Challenge Until It Had Already Processed It
Re: nobody can explain why this guy was driving around with a quarter of a million dollars in cash
If there is suspicion of a crime, the proper thing to do is to investigate, and pursue criminal charges if the evidence justifies that.
Not to simply steal the money and walk away.
On the post: Paper That Couldn't Be Bothered To Report On Local Police Misconduct Fires Off Editorial Insulting Writer Who Actually Did
WaPo isn't owned by Amazon
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, not Amazon.
Bezos did found and still runs Amazon, but it's not Amazon that owns the WaPo, but Bezos himself.
On the post: FBI Used FISA Warrant To Prosecute Boeing Employee For Child Porn Possession
Re: Hillary 2016
This time for sure!
On the post: Burr And Feinstein Plan One Sided Briefing For Law Enforcement To Bitch About 'Going Dark'
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know there is no god when
On the post: USTR Finally Recognizes That The Internet Matters... And That Censorship, Site Blocking & Link Taxes Are Barriers
Re: I've seen money produce some spectacular cognitive dissonance
Once, that privilege was the exclusive domain of entrenched interests such as the MPAA and RIAA, the sugar cartel, the banking industry, etc.
Now the "new economy" companies like Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have cranked up their own lobbying efforts, so now they get to write a few paragraphs of their own.
There's no particular need for the sections written by Hollywood protectionists to be consistent with the sections written by their opponents, the Internet companies.
They each pay, and they each get to play.
Given that this is how our system works, I suppose I'm happy that somebody on the other side is getting to speak up.
On the post: Burr And Feinstein Plan One Sided Briefing For Law Enforcement To Bitch About 'Going Dark'
Re: Re: You know there is no god when
If they were, peaceful persuasion would be sufficient.
On the post: Another Federal Judge Says No Expectation Of Privacy In Cell Site Location Info Because Everyone Knows Phones Generate This Data
Re: Is it possible to have a cell-phone that doesn't provide tracking data
Wrap the phone in aluminum foil.
You can leave it turned on. As long as it's wrapped in the foil it won't provide tracking data or be able to receive GPS signals.
Of course the phone isn't much use that way.
(Whooda thunk the "tinfoil hat" guys would be right about something, eh?)
On the post: CNBC Asks Readers To Submit Their Password To Check Its Strength Into Exploitable Widget
"Security researcher"
Questions like:
How many characters in your password?
Does it use upper-case, lower-case, or mixed?
Any non-alphanumeric characters in it?
etc.
In other words, *exactly* the questions an attacker would ask to narrow down a password search.
While it's not too surprising that there were some idiots who provided answers, what I found (and find) surprising is that the so-called "security researcher" didn't recognize the impropriety of such questions.
Nothing ever really changes.
On the post: Appeals Court Dumps Apple's Slide To Unlock Patent, Tosses Massive Jury Award Against Samsung In The Trash
It's obvious!
Not just because some bad patents and claims were tossed out, but because this will help set precedents for the standard of "obviousness".
It's great to see an appeals court taking seriously the requirement that patents not be obvious, and starting to work up some reasonable tests for it.
"Evidence showing that this problem was recognized in the industry" is exactly what a applicant should be required to show before receiving a patent on a new idea.
Otherwise, finding an obvious method to resolve a new problem would qualify for a patent monopoly. As it has too often in the past.
:-) :-) :-)
On the post: Our Response To Yet Another Bogus Legal Threat From Australia: Go Learn Some Law
Re: Popcorn [was Re: ]
Free publicity, article fodder, and a great example to make your point.
And virtually no possibility of losing your case.
On the post: Google Partially Caves To French Demands For More Global Censorship Of 'Forgotten' Links
Re: Re: Hey France...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero
Next >>