×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

Mathinker Re:It's called "evergreening" (263 comments)

The new formula is introduced before the expiration of the first patent. Patients who have been "weened" over to the new formula (via, for example, artificially limiting the supply of the old formula) will be less likely to go back to the old formula when it becomes generic.

So yes, the generic manufacturers will be able to use the old formula; they just end up with a smaller market of customers for it, at least initially.

4 days ago
top

Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

Mathinker Re:Can you say... (263 comments)

> I'm sorry, that's just an insane ruling. REQUIRING a company to manufacture a specific product???

As opposed to granting them a limited monopoly? I haven't read the ruling, but I rather think that the company would have the choice to not manufacture the old version but instead have the patent revoked so competitors could manufacture it.

about a week ago
top

Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

Mathinker It's called "evergreening" (263 comments)

The practice of tweaking drugs like that is called evergreening.

(I'd only heard about that term being used for the pharmaceutical industry practice, but the linked Wikipedia article implies it is a general term for all patents.)

about a week ago
top

Kim Dotcom Faces Jail At Bail Hearing

Mathinker Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt (166 comments)

> because children in Africa are starving

Nice strawman, there.

However, reading (or willingness to actually address the point raised) fail.

Oh, and I like the use of "known criminals go free", as if it isn't actually written into the Constitution (due process) that yes, eventually (most) criminals need to be "go free" after they have served their sentences. Don't know what that logical fallacy is, though: appeal to fear? Appeal to moral panic?

about two weeks ago
top

Kim Dotcom Faces Jail At Bail Hearing

Mathinker Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt (166 comments)

> "much bigger deal" doesn't make much sense unless you are distributing limited resources

Last time I checked, all resources are limited, and growing more limited as the world population expands. If the police force is not suffering from having limited resources, it probably is a good idea to check whether it should be downsized, and the savings invested in other areas of government which are suffering from limited resources, for example, Social Security or education.

about three weeks ago
top

Creative Commons To Pass One Billion Licensed Works In 2015

Mathinker Re:Too bad so much Creative Commons is poisoned. (39 comments)

> Due Dilligence was never a part of the Creative Commons License.

Unfortunately, give how copyright works, it's impossible to do due diligence with respect to fair use, if you want to push it to the limit.

about three weeks ago
top

Fascinating Rosetta Image Captures Philae's Comet Bounce

Mathinker Re:Fucking disaster (69 comments)

> But when you're paid to represent someone else

Obviously, then, whoever hired this guy failed utterly. Just kidding. I find it much more likely that whoever hired him, didn't hire him based on the "15 minutes" of public representation he'd end up making at the end of the mission.

And therefore, whoever decided, not that long ago, that he should be the one to be a public representative, failed. It was probably some PHB who doesn't know any of the technical staff well enough to know that this guy needed to be carefully managed in this particular regard.

> and not an attention-seeking douchenozzle

Do you know him personally? Because my guess is that he's probably one of those technically adept, socially inadept people we often meet in our line of work. Especially since I saw a headline that he broke down and cried when he apologized? You'd think that "an attention-seeking douchenozzle" would have just used the apology for... more exposure. Of course, it could have been an act, I guess.

about a month ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re:Have it your way (260 comments)

> You're just really not on your A game today, are you?

Ad hominem and/or irrelevant.

> Or, perhaps, you really want to Oracle to lose, but can't think of any better reason than because "I don't like Oracle".

I actually have not stated, in this particular discussion, a preference for whether I think API's are or should be protected, nor have I stated any particular aversion to Oracle.

> I don't like Oracle either,

Oh, there you go again --- assuming things which don't follow from the previous discourse. I wonder if you'll do it again in your next reply?

> but that's a really crapy way to set national policy, policy that will affect many, many other situations.

Have to agree totally with you there.

about a month ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re:I explicitly stated otherwise TWICE (260 comments)

Yes, I saw that you stated that, which made it stick out even more when you immediately turn around and assume what you've just questioned, without qualification.

Judging by your reaction, I don't even think you did it intentionally. A pity, really. In my eyes, the language of the last paragraph would be wonderfully disingenuous, if it had been an intentional attempt to attain its actual impact.

about a month ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re:correct, sort of. Claim that it's nothing (260 comments)

> If I want my valuable property to be protected from unlawful taking,

Wow, very nice. I don't manage to identify the exact logical fallacies you've invoked. However, it is obvious that you're implicitly assuming the claim in question: whether or not an API is "property", i.e., protected by copyright. In addition, you also appear to be making the bad analogy between copyright infringement and theft (of physical property), but you manage to be a bit ambiguous about it, so that the phrasing can set off a deep emotional reaction without being absolutely incorrect.

Masterful, indeed.

about a month ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re:If IP then unaffected by 230 (260 comments)

> So if "intellectual property" is a meaningless term

The poster you're arguing with did not claim it is a "meaningless term", he claimed that (practically) no legal argument can cite "intellectual property" as being its basis, since the diverse branches of IP law are... diverse. He didn't mean "intellectual property" in the sense of that clause, just like he wouldn't preclude discussing the fact that a defendant had taken a course in "IP law" as a justification that infringement by said defendant was flagrant or intentional.

He meant that no lawyer would (or rather, should) say "we are owed money because the other party infringed on our intellectual property" without specifying exactly what specific types of IP were infringed upon and how.

about a month and a half ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re:As any developer worth their salt knows (260 comments)

> Think designing an easy to use API is trrivial? ...

Yes, good point. Designing a good API can be difficult and creative. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with whether it currently is protected by copyright (cf. creating a good recipe, or a fashion design), nor does it shed light on whether it would benefit society if were protected.

about a month and a half ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re:API was worth taking, risking (260 comments)

> So clearly the API was worth a lot to Google.

Which has nothing to do if it should be eligible for protection by copyright.

about a month and a half ago
top

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Mathinker Re: As any developer worth their salt knows (260 comments)

> It's simple to make an API. It's actually rather difficult to make a good one.

A good point, but totally off-topic with respect to whether it deserves protection under copyright. Lots of things which are difficult and creative are not protected, and there is no good evidence that protecting them would benefit society.

about a month and a half ago
top

Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?

Mathinker Re:Misleading summary (219 comments)

> In a shocking turn of events, this has led to a collapse in the public's level of informedness

No, I rather think you're blaming only one side of a two-sided coin. The American public, themselves, fail totally at critical thinking, a skill which would enable them to piece together quite a bit more "informedness" from all of the diverse and biased information sources they currently have.

The fact that they were "OK" when the digested results of critical thinking was spoon-fed to them doesn't absolve them from sharing responsibility. Even the fact that the education system, as it is currently designed, discourages critical thinking, is not an excuse.

about a month and a half ago
top

Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?

Mathinker Re:Misleading summary (219 comments)

I just said that most of the problems the American people have with American democracy are the fault of the American people.

Yes.

We don't agree on jack-squat.

No. That's not the problem of the American people which is reflected in our government.

because otherwise one of them would be admitting defeat.

Ah, this is the problem... the American people, as a whole, just aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to understand that compromise isn't defeat. I'd guess that about 0% of them know what a "false dichotomy" is. Well maybe a bit more, but very little, compared with the number who "know" that the stuff they see on television is scary, or know all the gory details about the Kardashians (or other celebs). A previous poster said it before me:

Until the voter develops the strength to resist the propaganda

I think what he meant was critical thinking skills. Funny how those skills aren't a required part of the curriculum in schools, or even for that matter, at the undergraduate level in most universities.

about a month and a half ago
top

Jedi-ism Becomes a Serious Religion

Mathinker Re:Spiritual Needs (268 comments)

I believe that you think narcc's post is stupid.

Actually, I get the strong impression that you yourself believed that narcc actually meant what he posted. (I don't believe, though, that either of these are examples of something believed "in the face of evidence to the contrary". That kind of belief is more displayed by, for example, battered partners and their ilk, and is rarer. One could make a case that since our beliefs shape the way our mind builds our reality from our sensory input, it's probably quite common that "evidence to the contrary" just gets rejected by the individual until it reaches some kind of critical threshold, whereas others seeing the same evidence see it as "evidence to the contrary" long before.)

Most, if not all, reasoning we make about others' "state of mind" is mere belief. (Maybe in the far future we'll be able to MRI the brains of the people we interact with, in real time --- flash of memory of L. Frank Baum(?) story which included a similar plot device...)

about 2 months ago
top

Jedi-ism Becomes a Serious Religion

Mathinker Re:Spiritual Needs (268 comments)

I believe what you just posted. Enjoy!

about 2 months ago
top

Chemists Grow Soil Fungus On Cheerios, Discover New Antifungal Compounds

Mathinker Depends (77 comments)

> it just makes things that are not water soluble, soluble in the water-soap solution

Like... cell membranes? Lots of surfactants have antiseptic properties: for example, cocamidopropyl betaine. In fact, I'd guess that most surfactants are at least mild antiseptics.

about 2 months ago

Submissions

top

Intrusion at Fedora infrastructure, no damage done

Mathinker Mathinker writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Mathinker (909784) writes "From www.h-online.com :

The Fedora Project has confirmed that there was an intrusion into its infrastructure on the 22nd, but investigations have shown "no impact on product integrity".

The mailing list announcement (Coral Cache URL) makes one think it wasn't a very professional job, the first action which was taken by the intruder set off an email notification."
Link to Original Source

Journals

top

I am NOT anonymous

Mathinker Mathinker writes  |  more than 3 years ago

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2319574&cid=36745572

% echo -n "I am Mathinker, my salt is UAeqTvlu" | md5sum
efb98ed34ba58ecd29b07b1909d21da3 -

top

No, I'm not mathinker@twitter, either

Mathinker Mathinker writes  |  more than 5 years ago

I actually use the moniker "mathinker" in very few places.

top

2008: Linux privilege escalation bugs

Mathinker Mathinker writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Just want to store this research somewhere where I can link to it easily. (Original post).

If one analyzes the 10 Linux privilege escalation bugs reported for 2008 at Secunia one finds:

Of those, 5 were in proprietary software packages for Linux: Acrobat Reader, MaxDB, Avaya, SSH Tectia Client, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Not interesting for ordinary desktop users.

Of the other 5, 1 was in KDE, so that wouldn't affect 100% of Linux users, let's be generous (the most popular free distros use Gnome) and say that's 50% of users.

Of the other 4, 1 seems to work on general Linux systems (sys_remap_file_pages() bug).

Of the other 3, 1 requires the USBLCD driver to be used or only gives group privilege escalation, 1 requires Intel G33 series or newer chipset, and 1 requires that the kernel is running as VMI guest on a x86 system. How many boxes does that cover? Not many, except perhaps for the Intel chipsets --- let's say another 50% (because I have no idea what market share Intel has).

So that's something like 2, maybe 2.5 bugs in all of 2008. Is that "many"? Matter of opinion.

So, in summary, between 10% and 25% of the reported bugs were really mainstream.

top

Mathinker Mathinker writes  |  more than 9 years ago

Just in case you wondered.

I'm not studying to be a CFA either... nor am I mathinker@rareaviation.com

In fact, if a "mathinker" is trying to sell or buy from you, it's not me...

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?