Different issue. In that case, the vendor had given some guarantees of consistency of data across network nodes that the network didn't actually support. Because there were guarantees, the law went looking for horses instead of zebras, and the "horses" in this case were that only a few people had admin rights to mess with the transactions and the audit logs.
... but in reality, no human was messing with those; system bugs were dropping or duplicating data. The government should not have trusted claims of a third-party without independent auditing they controlled (and, ultimately, I think that's the takeaway that all governments should be taking from this disaster).
Not at all. If I understand correctly, the failure to synchronize was a fundamental flaw in the the networking code and had nothing to do with the payloads inside the networking code.
and it will drop the value field, throw an error, and quite possibly duplicate several type and half filled froms depending on how the error handling is done.
This article is basically admitting its cheaper to change the street names than unfux their buggy software, so something is up. what are the other options that meet that criteria?
The software glitch that was involved in 1,000 people being arrested had nothing to do with street names.
By this point, the flaws are pretty well-documented. If you find anything in the reports about handling of apostrophes, feel free to cite it.
The underlying communication protocol from node to node wasn't even SQL; it was an XML format called "Riposte." There was, perhaps, SQL involved in eventual account database updating, but issues had occurred in message transit even before that phase, and it's those issues that led to account reconciliation errors and (incorrect) charges of fraud on the part of the subpostmasters.
looks like its a bug in windows where lots of new network display devices eventually corrupts the registry, and the TV gets a new identity on a regular basis - probably to protect the users identity.
Inflation expectations are one of the key elements that determine next years inflation.
The main reason they have always "fiddled" the public inflation numbers is if they reported actual inflation people would set their expectations on that - and it would make next years inflation worse/more volatile.
insiders generally dont care about the public figures - they have their own in house statisticians to give them the real picture.
Im still very undecided on software patents and have been since they were first awarded
software patents in general are a bad idea imho, go trade secret and never let the ideas enter the public domain.
otoh
society benefits a lot from good ideas entering the public domain, and the patent system is fairly effective at stopping everyone keeping their secret sauce a secret.
Since the US has them, and this decision seems fairly clear cut (or Amazon and google would have got them thrown out as invalid already) about all I can say is congratulations to Kove.
I’d be curious to hear an anecdote about a single software patent that benefited society at large.
For example, I agree it would be very interesting and arguably valuable to have a public document describing how Amazon built S3. Unfortunately, these patents don’t describe what AWS did. They describe how some random “inventor” thought a system like that could be built (more realistically, of course, that rando likely never dreamed of any valuable application like S3).
I've yet to see a software patent which wouldn't have been reinvented by someone else looking at the same problem. The thing with software is that the cost to experiment is extremely low compared to other fields so we can, and do, "just try it".
At this point in my career for example everything I do is basically tweaking or adapting patterns I've seen in other systems to the ones I'm working on.
Cost to experiment being low doesn't make non-obvious ideas obvious. As a trained researcher with patents I'm no longer surprised by how often simple ideas have remained undiscovered for decades.
> go trade secret and never let the ideas enter the public domain.
If you rely on trade secrets, then you can't sell your software without protecting it using a dongle or whatever; your "customer" might in fact be your competitor. It's not that hard to figure out how a piece of software works, and to write your own code that works the same way.
It's not hard to figure out how some novel machine works either; but how to fabricate it is often a tougher challenge. It's easy enough to explain how a transistor works; fabricating reliable transistors at scale is another question.
Hmm. A dongle was used to protect trade-secret software in the days before software patents. Now SaaS is used instead; therefore software patents are still unnecessary?
I used to work for a firm that rented all its premises. My boss explained to me that the company's assets were its software, and nothing else. The patent portfolio is the physical manifestation of those assets - you can borrow against a patent portfolio, but not against a vault full of trade secrets.
You'd think he'd have mentioned staff; but staff can leave, and you can't secure loans and investment against employees.
Anyway, it looks as if that firm at least was using patents not as a way of preventing unfair competition and the stealing of inventions, but as a financial instrument. That's not what they're supposed to be for. And the fact they are used that way makes it horribly difficult to reform the patent system; if patents are like (e.g.) bonds, then reforming the patent system carries the risk of crashing the financial system.
Software patents include a detailed explanation of the way the technology works, in return for telling society how the technology works (so anyone can use it at the expiry of the patent) the government grants exclusive use of the technology - patents are a trade.
If an inventor keeps (can keep) their technology secret, it is better for them to not patent it - and they can keep exclusive use of it as long as they can keep it secret.
Trade secrets laws are far more brutal than patents iirc.
This is why I am undecided, there are no easy answers.
but then there would be no incentive to publish the internal workings of the innovation, and you are back to trade secrets. 20/25 years is already fairly short tbh.
"There are currently about 1,000 cases of people who suffer from hereditary degeneration of the retina, and 10 to 20 new cases are expected to be added each year."
so it would be better for orzempic to cost $850,000 and limit its indication to people with MODY?
How is that realistic?
TBH I have way less a problem with pharma industry being allowed to make profits than health insurance companies. In fact the US is about the only country in the world that allows profits from health insurance.
I don't see health insurance making profit being unreasonable. That is key reason why anyone would run an insurance scheme. Now the USA model is entirely wrong. But fundamentally, to offer insurance you must get something out of it.
every other country only allows them to exist as not-for-profits.
whereas expensive medicines just make health insurance less profitable.
This is the basic principle behind why the US spends the most in the world on healthcare to achieve among the worst outcomes (e.g. same life expectancy as most undeveloped 3rd world countries)
I wasn't familiar with what that acronym meant in the context of X-Plane but it seems to be "Computer Based Training", and after watching one of them I'm thankful for the 2x playback rate on youtube because whew
Airlines call them CBT as well, although it's really "iPad based training" at most airlines.
For flight sim hobby you can definitely watch CBT at 2x speed and just grasp a high level view on what buttons to press. But for real world flying you need the level of detail you see in CBT.
For example you really want to know what happens when you loose specific hydraulics systems and how things like accumulators can affect that. Because it could be that you only have the brakes work for a few applications (using accumulator pressure). Definitely not a good idea to taxi after landing like that.
CBTs are/should be the starting point to play with any of the "big planes" (anything that needs an ATPL licence to fly), because the systems are pretty complex and unique to the aircraft, they aren't like cars that when you've driven one you can drive them all (licences are actually specific to aircraft designs, known as type ratings)
The almost canonical way of performing all-optical switching and logic is to use semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOA) and exploit their cross-gain modulation (XGM) or cross-phase modulation (XPM) capabilities[21]. With very reliable devices having been shown over the past 20 years[22], SOAs have proven useful for various types of all-optical operation, including decoder logic[23, 24] and signal regeneration[25, 26, 27]. The recovery time of the SOA limits its performance, but it has been shown that more than 320 Gbit/s[28]all-optical switching is possible, with some implementations enabling even the Tbit/s domain[29].
Normally I would agree.
But there are also very heavy regulations around selling telecoms devices with hard requirements for things like interacting with emergency services, regs that do not apply to general electronics.
Similar also applies to medical devices.
Its the product in its entirety that gets certified as suitable for sale and warrentied against, for example, repeatedly dialing 911 in a fault condition and getting you shot by a swot team.
Thanks. reading the rest of the document I think I see what the point is here.
This basically adds an extra layer of legal protection for motorola against people unlocking the bootloader, installing bad things on it, then selling it on.
The whole t&cs are basically "use this software and it will be considered legally as intentionally breaking the device".
It doesnt stop anyone selling the device - but it does shift any warranty or damage claims directly onto whoever broke it.
selling a "broken" mobile as working has wider implications because of the SOS call laws.
reply