In other news today...
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Those parts of the world are wrong.
Better get in touch with your local representative to have your local laws changed then.
-
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Mitigated by effective mechanisms vs legal phantoms, thanks!
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
It was your hypothetical situation, so one of those. Or, I guess you said "organizations," at which point other sorts of laws could apply, if you were only trying to get information or other access to stuff you had no authorization for.
Can you provide any examples of companies who do the sort of thing you were talking about?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
It was your hypothetical situation, so one of those. Or, I guess you said "organizations," at which point other sorts of laws could apply, if you were only trying to get information or other access to stuff you had no authorization for.
Can you provide any examples of companies who do the sort of thing you were talking about?
It occurs to me - it's a nice forum you got here.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
It was your hypothetical situation, so one of those. Or, I guess you said "organizations," at which point other sorts of laws could apply, if you were only trying to get information or other access to stuff you had no authorization for.
Can you provide any examples of companies who do the sort of thing you were talking about?
It occurs to me - it's a nice forum you got here.
You must not be using an old browser.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
It was your hypothetical situation, so one of those. Or, I guess you said "organizations," at which point other sorts of laws could apply, if you were only trying to get information or other access to stuff you had no authorization for.
What hypothetical situation? We're talking about the academic researchers who factually, non-hypothetically tested Linux's approval process security and found it wanting.
What computer system did they gain unauthorized access to?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
It was your hypothetical situation, so one of those. Or, I guess you said "organizations," at which point other sorts of laws could apply, if you were only trying to get information or other access to stuff you had no authorization for.
What hypothetical situation? We're talking about the academic researchers who factually, non-hypothetically tested Linux's approval process security and found it wanting.
You said there were companies who did this sort of thing, which broadened the scope and then people were talking about that. So I'll ask again: Do you actually know of any examples of this?
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
No, not "everything." At least not according to the link you provided (and which I already quoted). They research flaws in software. And that's perfectly acceptible.
So, suppose they were testing some firewall software. No problem, so long as they've installed it on their own equipment. But if they decide to test that firewall out in the wild somewhere, now they're stepping over the line. But you've presented no evidence that they do that sort of thing.
Likewise, no one would have complained if they'd looked at the Linux kernel and reported a vulnerability.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
No, not "everything." At least not according to the link you provided (and which I already quoted). They research flaws in software. And that's perfectly acceptible.
So, suppose they were testing some firewall software. No problem, so long as they've installed it on their own equipment. But if they decide to test that firewall out in the wild somewhere, now they're stepping over the line. But you've presented no evidence that they do that sort of thing.
Likewise, no one would have complained if they'd looked at the Linux kernel and reported a vulnerability.
this has legs for years
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
No, not "everything." At least not according to the link you provided (and which I already quoted). They research flaws in software. And that's perfectly acceptible.
So, suppose they were testing some firewall software. No problem, so long as they've installed it on their own equipment. But if they decide to test that firewall out in the wild somewhere, now they're stepping over the line. But you've presented no evidence that they do that sort of thing.
Likewise, no one would have complained if they'd looked at the Linux kernel and reported a vulnerability.
this has legs for years
Although I wish they'd get a room.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
No, not "everything." At least not according to the link you provided (and which I already quoted). They research flaws in software. And that's perfectly acceptible.
So, suppose they were testing some firewall software. No problem, so long as they've installed it on their own equipment. But if they decide to test that firewall out in the wild somewhere, now they're stepping over the line. But you've presented no evidence that they do that sort of thing.
Likewise, no one would have complained if they'd looked at the Linux kernel and reported a vulnerability.
this has legs for years
Although I wish they'd get a room.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
No, not "everything." At least not according to the link you provided (and which I already quoted). They research flaws in software. And that's perfectly acceptible.
So, suppose they were testing some firewall software. No problem, so long as they've installed it on their own equipment. But if they decide to test that firewall out in the wild somewhere, now they're stepping over the line. But you've presented no evidence that they do that sort of thing.
Likewise, no one would have complained if they'd looked at the Linux kernel and reported a vulnerability.
this has legs for years
Although I wish they'd get a room.
I flagged this post and hope someone does the needful.
Guess I just waited until beer o'clock cause nothing's moving.
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
Failure right out of the gate, as expected:
After finding a number of flaws in software used by many end-users while researching other problems, such as the critical "Heartbleed" vulnerability, Google decided to form a full-time team dedicated to finding such vulnerabilities, not only in Google software but any software used by its users.
This is not pen testing a network or an organization in any significant way (pedantic dickweedery says that you could generically exploit a flaw in some software that someone was using, but that's not targeting an actual organization).
It's not "targeting" anyone; they test basically anything and everything they can think of to see if there are security holes to be found.
No, not "everything." At least not according to the link you provided (and which I already quoted). They research flaws in software. And that's perfectly acceptible.
So, suppose they were testing some firewall software. No problem, so long as they've installed it on their own equipment. But if they decide to test that firewall out in the wild somewhere, now they're stepping over the line. But you've presented no evidence that they do that sort of thing.
Likewise, no one would have complained if they'd looked at the Linux kernel and reported a vulnerability.
this has legs for years
Although I wish they'd get a room.
I flagged this post and hope someone does the needful.
Guess I just waited until beer o'clock cause nothing's moving.
As a sort of neck to any argumentative head, I have to wonder where the devil's blade is going to leave me.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The ones who get contracts from organizations to do that, you mean?
No, I don't mean. A large and important part of security research is probing organizations that aren't self-aware enough to realize they require such contracts, or that might simply not want to know that their systems are vulnerable.
That is illegal in large parts of the world.
Not surprised. There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and they tend to not like seeing their stupidity exposed.
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal, unless you pinky swear that you're just testing when we catch you.
So, how do you like your exposure?
Which computer system did these researchers gain unauthorized access to?
It was your hypothetical situation, so one of those. Or, I guess you said "organizations," at which point other sorts of laws could apply, if you were only trying to get information or other access to stuff you had no authorization for.
Can you provide any examples of companies who do the sort of thing you were talking about?
It occurs to me - it's a nice forum you got here.
Would be a shame if something happened to, say, the last two weeks of posts.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@acrow said in In other news today...:
we'd trust an electrical appliance that comes from "Japan" to not randomly burst into flames
Not so very long ago (within my lifetime — ok, a really long time ago
), that wasn't true. "Made in Japan" had the same sort of reputation that "Made in China" had maybe 30 years ago, or something like "Made in Viet Nam" or "Made in Bangladesh" might have today. It was maybe the 1970s or thereabouts when their reputation for (lack of) quality improved.
I know. Around the same time they started designing things on their own, instead of just copying foreign products. The two are linked.
Also happened in e.g. Taiwan and Russia.
"Made in China" still mostly needs a foreign brand name next to it. Someone who guarantees that QC wasn't skipped in a cost-reduction excercise.
-
@Jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@izzion said in In other news today...:
Sportsball done right:
still need to give the second baseman a stilletto to really fix baseball.
Knife or shoe?
Yes.
-
Never trust a wookie.
-
-
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
malicious reverse oracle
Isn't that just the real Oracle?
No, the real Oracle isn't usually malicious (much), unless you ask about woodchucks.
-
@HardwareGeek
select woodchuck_id, count(*) from chucked_wood group by woodchuck_id
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
malicious reverse oracle
Isn't that just the real Oracle?
No, the real Oracle isn't usually malicious (much), unless you ask about woodchucks.
Oh, did you want to know the thing about the woodchucks?
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@HardwareGeek
select woodchuck_id, count(*) from chucked_wood group by woodchuck_id
woodchuck_id count(*) ZOT ZOT + ZOT - ZOT - ZOT ZOT ZOT
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
Never trust a wookie.
Also, never trust anyone who can't remember it's spelled with two E's.
(They love their extra letters, they do. Their planet is called "Kashyyyk", with three consecutive Y's. The Hopi and the Finns look on in silent admiration.)
-
Remember how games companies would try to track down people using bots to grind their games?
Meanwhile at Sony:
Maybe we can just settle for less shitty games that aren't centered around a boring grind. Yes, I realize that this would largely put all mobile game developers and many MMOs out of business, but as they say, nothing of value was lost.
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Remember how games companies would try to track down people using bots to grind their games?
Meanwhile at Sony:It's not meanwhile. It's Sony trying to add patent litigation to their arsenal
-
@cvi A little prior-art problem with this patent. I've seen some Chinese cell-phone games already leave the grindy parts to the AI.
In these Chinese games (the names of none of which I can write on this keyboard), the player can take control at any time. And usually will take control for stuff like PvP or boss battles. But grinding can be left to the AI while you're chatting. Also, most of these are MMORPGs, so the AI makes for a smoother experience for everybody else; no avatars suddenly poppping in or out, or laggy player movement.
-
@acrow Clickers don't count as games. Streams of clicks don't count as AI. It's more like Artificial Stupidity.
-
@acrow said in In other news today...:
A little prior-art problem with this patent.
I don't know about Japanese patents, but in the US, prior art isn't necessarily a problem. There can be a lot of prior art; if you've improved it, even a little, or implemented it in a way that works around a previous patent, or anything like that, you can get a patent on your improvement or implementation (and maybe on the prior art, too, depending on how diligent or
the examiner is being).
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
There can be a lot of prior art; if you've improved it
If you've improved it, then there is no prior art on the improvement and you can patent that. Prior art means someone did the thing just like you are describing it.
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
depending on how diligent or
the examiner is being
In the US apparently always
.
-
@Bulb said in In other news today...:
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
There can be a lot of prior art; if you've improved it
If you've improved it, then there is no prior art on the improvement and you can patent that. Prior art means someone did the thing just like you are describing it.
When you apply for a patent, the application has a section for prior art. In it, you refer to everything someone has done that's even somewhat similar.
When I applied for my patent (which was, of course, assigned to the company for which I did the work), the application was actually written by a patent attorney hired by the company, because the application (and subsequent patent) is written in a very formal, obtuse, and opaque style, and only a lawyer can write something that hard to read, but there was a lot of back and forth between me and the lawyer to explain what the invention did and make sure it was described accurately in what he wrote. This included an analysis of prior art that he found. IIRC, he found 3 prior patents. I said 2 of them weren't relevant, but the third was exactly the same thing I had made, but implemented a little differently.
This isn't the Lounge, and in order to avoid doxing myself, I'm going to be really vague. Think of a FIFO/ring buffer, with a twist needed for a particular application. The previous patent was for exactly the same application; we just implemented the twist a little differently. (In fact, the previous implementation was simpler and more elegant than mine.) And taking the claims in that patent at face value, my implementation infringed the prior patent, but most of those claims were so broad that there was no way that guy invented them, either. The prior patent had claims starting from very broad (as patents always do) down to the very specific details of the implementation; the broadest claims basically covered the whole concept of FIFOs/ring buffers, and it's obviously absurd to claim invention of those in the 1980s/90s. But my patent made basically the same claims (except the narrowest claims for the implementation of the special, domain-specific feature), and it was granted despite the obvious overlapping claims.
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
depending on how diligent or
the examiner is being
In the US apparently always
.
This.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
only a lawyer can write something that hard to read
Priests write too. And sometimes, they write canon law. Not sure if this makes them lawyers or bishops.
I don't think anything with a real referent is going to be able to get as pointless as that.
-
@HardwareGeek while being totally standard operation procedure, I'm always appalled at this whole thing being so obvious bullshit. You want to patent some minor thing (and almost always I personally feel that these things are trivial and not worth a patent, but then I don't hold any) like a small tweak in a tire profile pattern and go all the way back to claiming you invented wheels.
-
-
@loopback0 “car parking enthusiast”
-
@dkf You forgot the end of the article:
Now Gareth has conquered the Bromley superstore car park, we asked him what the next big project could be.
He said: "We've actually got a Lidl that's opened up just down the end of my road so considering that – I'm an equal opportunities car parker.
"Bromley's got some amazing car parks. The Glades is really top tier, but you're talking over 1,000 spaces there... I'll be there forever."
-
And now for something totally different:
Explore the sweetness of heavy water!
http://blog.pnas.org/2021/04/heavy-water-tastes-sweeter/
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
The prior patent had claims starting from very broad (as patents always do) down to the very specific details of the implementation; the broadest claims basically covered the whole concept of FIFOs/ring buffers, and it's obviously absurd to claim invention of those in the 1980s/90s. But my patent made basically the same claims (except the narrowest claims for the implementation of the special, domain-specific feature), and it was granted despite the obvious overlapping claims.
Yeah, that's how all patents that I've seen are written, and it's stupid. Logical, in a lawery-sense, but stupid nonetheless.
The idea is that you want to make what you claim as broad as possible, to protect you in the best possible way, but you don't want to make it too broad either, as if it's rejected you're left with nothing.
The best analogy I've found is a high-jumper in a competition, progressively raising the bar from a "safe" level so that when they fail to clear it they have a successful attempt at a height just a tiny bit below, rather than going directly for the height that would ensure them gold if they clear it, but nothing at all if they don't.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in In other news today...:
And now for something totally different:
Explore the sweetness of heavy water!
http://blog.pnas.org/2021/04/heavy-water-tastes-sweeter/Heavy water won’t work as a sweetener. Indeed, in large quantities, it’s lethal.
So is normal water.
-
@acrow said in In other news today...:
In these Chinese games (the names of none of which I can write on this keyboard), the player can take control at any time. And usually will take control for stuff like PvP or boss battles. But grinding can be left to the AI while you're chatting. Also, most of these are MMORPGs, so the AI makes for a smoother experience for everybody else; no avatars suddenly poppping in or out, or laggy player movement.
I ... don't know what to say. Good for automating the boring parts, bad for including them anyway. One more reason to give Chinese MMOs a pass (I'd already heard that they tended to be quite grindy, so wasn't really looking into them anyway).
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
Indeed, in large quantities, it’s lethal.
So is normal water.
That's why I prefer dihydrogenmonoxide.
-
-
@BernieTheBernie said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
Indeed, in large quantities, it’s lethal.
So is normal water.
That's why I prefer dihydrogenmonoxide.
That stuff's addictive. You won't see the other side of that habit.
-