throwawaykf

35 ms·

91.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
As far as the text of the DMCA goes, the only restrictions on sharing what you learned are if that sharing could facilitate copyright infringement rather than advance knowledge or security. I can see how that could be a bit hazy in some cas
92.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
The DMCA Anti-circumvention clause explicitly makes an exception for "security testing" and "encryption research", amongst others. Search for those terms on this page: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode&#x
93.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Well, I did use it regularly for about 3 - 4 months, and since it was a preview, I assumed it would only get better.
94.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Just my opinion based on a limited and outdated experience (see down thread comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6565296 ), but I definitely didn't feel like Metro was poking me in the eye.
95.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I wouldn't agree. I haven't tried it recently, but I tried Windows 8 in a VM on a Mac Mini when it first came out as a preview release. I found it enjoyable even with just a keyboard and mouse. I could navigate the start screen ex
96.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Applets, whenever I used them, were also much, much slower to load than Flash.
97.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Not sure what you meant, but almost all recent security holes were client-side. As far as I remember, server-side Java has been fairly robust.
98.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
If I recall correctly service packs have always been free.
99.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
A secondhand anecdote about ISRO: Was out drinking with friends a few years ago when we saw the news about (or was it Leno joking about?) the moon impact probe successfully crashing into the moon. Turns out one of my friends had done his Ba
100.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
The desktop business is not dying, it's just reaching its natural equilibrium in a world where tablets are sufficient for casual use. But no way are smartphones and tablets going to replace the machines that are used to do most of the
101.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
True, a teenager would say that, but that's because teenagers are pretty shortsighted. Just wait until they get home and have to type up a school report. A few attempts on the touchscreen and even the most headstrong teenager will be r
102.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon? That is a woefully inadequate list of competitors. Here's a slightly more (but by no means fully) complete list, including some companies that are no longer around: Oracle Salesforce Mozilla Sony Ninten
103.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Or, "Lorem Hipsum", for those into Latin puns.
104.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> They have no incentive to drop a case this far into it. If you think of their model as an exercise in gambling, they do have an incentive. Jury trials for patent cases are notoriously hard to predict, and they risked a very real, non
105.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I doubt this really say as much about the merits of Lodsys' case as the EFF proclaims. This is simply an economic decision. As I'll explain below, I think they have a relatively strong case. But going to trial is expensive for bot
106.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Apologies for late reply. Who would I be astroturfing for, exactly? a. Can you make a logical argument why data structures should not be patented, as opposed to, say, mechanical or electronic structures? Try to differentiate them using co
107.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> Who profits from software patents? Who gets held back? That is the only question that matters (beyond just "software" patents,) And there is a lot of work by a lot of people that try to answer the question. Search ssrn for
108.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I don't think that is a problem only with software patents. Even for mechanical patents, say, you could "implement" a mechanism in any of a thousand different alloys as long as they provide the appropriate physical properties
109.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Sorry, I should have said "tech media". Every "tech journalist" and their grandmother out there likes to write about patent trolls, and calling for the government to make changes. And here we have a study by a branch of
110.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
The article is one of the few that talks about the GAO report on patent litigation. You'd think it would be all over the media. Somehow it isn't. An abstract of the report from the GAO website itself, worth reading as a TL;DR: ht
111.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
What? Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly, but before Microsoft (and Compaq's IBM PC "compatibles") caused PCs to be commoditized, every computer-maker was trying to foist their own closed, proprietary walled garde
112.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Just because you didn't find explosives on them doesn't mean there are no explosives. It could also mean they set them elsewhere and are now at the airport to make a getaway, like the guy who set up that unsuccessful car bomb
113.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Completely different actions with precisely the same underlyng issue : abuse of standards essential patents. Bizarre how you do not notice this. And this is not a new issue, and not just restricted to the smartphone patent wars. The same c
114.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Well, evidently the ITC "considered" FRAND inaccurately, as their decision conflicted with both, the Obama Administration and the European Commission. (Not to mention the opinions of jurists such as Judge Posner.) You could cry
115.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Are you saying bounce back and pinch to zoom solve no practical problem? Are you absolutely sure? If so, you could: 1. Look at the Background section of the patents for a hint. Pretty much all patents have them. 2. If you don't trust
116.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Well, most large companies are probably not directly paying royalties, but instead bartering by cross-licensing their own just-as-presumptuously-valid patents :-)
117.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
As an exercise, should you get a chance, could you read claim 1 and explain how it differs from a mechanism?
118.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
In addition to your response to the deleted parent, I just wanted to clarify the procedural reasons why this rejection is temporary: Basically this rejection was a result of an "ex parte" re-examination. The catch is that not only
119.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> it's a litany of distinctions without any actual difference as far as the actual nature of the 'invention.' So then, what, in your opinion, is "the actual nature of the invention"? Could you provide some lega
120.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Apologies for the late response. I don't check regularly. 1. There is no evidence to back your thesis that "more granted patents fuels the fire of more applications". See this graph [1] of allowance rates in 2000 - 2005 (for

More ›