Tech guy for special events too busy with too many things things.
26 stories
·
1 follower

Servers? There are no servers here

2 Shares

Read the whole story
elwillow
1 day ago
reply
Ottawa, Ontario
Share this story
Delete

Survivorship Bias

5 Comments and 23 Shares
They say you can't argue with results, but what kind of defeatest attitude is that? If you stick with it, you can argue with ANYTHING.
Read the whole story
elwillow
6 days ago
reply
Applies to jobs search too.
Ottawa, Ontario
Share this story
Delete
4 public comments
FarrelBuch
6 days ago
reply
Survivorship bias is just the beginning. We humans love stories, particularly about just one person. Alas, only systematic review of ALL the data is the only hope of seeing effects that are not random chance and seeing how big those effects are.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
CallMeWilliam
6 days ago
reply
Applies to actively managed funds too, of course.
dukeofwulf
6 days ago
Basically just another lottery.
alt_text_bot
6 days ago
reply
They say you can't argue with results, but what kind of defeatest attitude is that? If you stick with it, you can argue with ANYTHING.
Covarr
6 days ago
reply
I'd rather see speeches about how it's okay not to be a massive success. "Statistically, kids, some of you won't ever make it significantly above the poverty line. But you'll keep going, and raise a family, and when you look back on your life in the end, you'll realize that at least you were a more likable person than Justin Bieber.
Moses Lake, WA
sfrazer
6 days ago
Such a low bar, and most of reddit will still fail to meet it.

Many Android Phones Vulnerable to Attacks Over Malicious Wi-Fi Networks

1 Comment and 2 Shares

There's a blog post from Google's Project Zero detailing an attack against Android phones over Wi-Fi. From Ars Technica:

The vulnerability resides in a widely used Wi-Fi chipset manufactured by Broadcom and used in both iOS and Android devices. Apple patched the vulnerability with Monday's release of iOS 10.3.1. "An attacker within range may be able to execute arbitrary code on the Wi-Fi chip," Apple's accompanying advisory warned. In a highly detailed blog post published Tuesday, the Google Project Zero researcher who discovered the flaw said it allowed the execution of malicious code on a fully updated 6P "by Wi-Fi proximity alone, requiring no user interaction."

Google is in the process of releasing an update in its April security bulletin. The fix is available only to a select number of device models, and even then it can take two weeks or more to be available as an over-the-air update to those who are eligible. Company representatives didn't respond to an e-mail seeking comment for this post.

The proof-of-concept exploit developed by Project Zero researcher Gal Beniamini uses Wi-Fi frames that contain irregular values. The values, in turn, cause the firmware running on Broadcom's wireless system-on-chip to overflow its stack. By using the frames to target timers responsible for carrying out regularly occurring events such as performing scans for adjacent networks, Beniamini managed to overwrite specific regions of device memory with arbitrary shellcode. Beniamini's code does nothing more than write a benign value to a specific memory address. Attackers could obviously exploit the same series of flaws to surreptitiously execute malicious code on vulnerable devices within range of a rogue access point.

Slashdot thread.

Read the whole story
elwillow
14 days ago
reply
Ottawa, Ontario
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
reconbot
19 days ago
reply
Holy crap this is bad
New York City

Access Copyright Channels Sean Spicer in Comments on Copyright Fair Dealing Ruling

1 Share

Access Copyright issued a release on a 2016 Copyright Board decision on March 31st that might have been mistaken for an April Fool’s joke had it been issued a day later. Channeling White House spokesperson Sean Spicer’s penchant for implausible spin, the copyright collective commented on the board decision involving copying in K-12 schools by arguing the decision confirmed that “fair dealing does not encompass all of the copying in education.” Leaving aside the fact that no one has said that it does (hence paid access remains by far the most important method of access), the Access Copyright decision will come as a surprise to anyone who read its response to the decision when it was first released, when it called it a “deeply problematic decision for creators and publishers.”

Access Copyright filed a judicial review of the ruling only to lose badly at the Federal Court of Appeal, which upheld virtually all of the Board’s decision (the only exception was a minor issue on coding errors in its repertoire, which is the source of the reconsideration referenced in the release). Access Copyright presumably issued the announcement on a year-old decision in response to the fact that the deadline has passed for an appeal of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. What stands – and what Access Copyright seemingly endorses with its latest spin – includes:

1.    The Board reducing its proposed tariff due to fair dealing decisions from the Supreme Court. Note that the 2012 reforms are not cited in the following from the Board:

The main reason for that decrease is the fact that as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Alberta v. Access Copyright, 2012 SCC 37, copies made for student instruction, assignments or class work, that were not included in the fair-dealing analysis in the preceding decision, were now included. This resulted in the Board’s finding that a significant proportion of copying by elementary and secondary schools was fair under the fair-dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. These copies therefore do not generate remuneration.

2.    The Board re-affirming the insubstantial copying doctrine, concluding that 1 – 2 pages from a book is insubstantial and not subject to any compensation.

3.    The Board largely upholding the framework of education fair dealing guidelines:

For longer works, such as books, guided by the Supreme Court’s decisions in CCH, Alberta, and Bell, we use the following approximation: where the amount of a work copied was less than or equal to 5 per cent of the work, we conclude that the amount copied tends to make the dealing fair; where the amount copied was more than 5 per cent but no more than 10 per cent of the work, we conclude that the amount copied did not affect the fairness of the dealing; where the amount copied was greater than 10 per cent of the work, we conclude that the amount copied tends to make the dealing unfair.

4.    The Board rejecting virtually all of Access Copyright’s fair dealing arguments:

    •    Access Copyright argued that since copies replace the purchase of works being copied, they are unfair. The Board rejected the argument.
    •    Access Copyright argued that a fair dealing analysis should consider “a just reward” for creators as part of the analysis. The Board rejected the argument.
    •    Access Copyright argued that the Board should consider whether the copying is transformative with the view that non-transformative copying tends to unfairness.  The Board rejected the argument.
    •    Access Copyright argued that the aggregate volume of copying – said to be 300 million pages – should be factored into the analysis. The Board rejected the argument, noting that what matters is a specific copying transaction, not the aggregate amount of copying.
    •    Access Copyright argued that distribution of multiple copies of works that are not destroyed tend to unfairness. The Board rejected the argument.
    •    Access Copyright argued that there were reasonable alternatives available. The Board rejected the argument, concluding that alternatives for “non-consumables” tended toward fairness.
    •    Access Copyright argued that the copying had a negative effect on the market and for the creation of future works. The Board found that there could be some effect on the market, but concluded that the effect on future works was small.

The Federal Court of Appeal hinted that it would have gone even further than Board as part of its review. For example, on the fair dealing guidelines it stated:

Although both parties were clearly disappointed by the fact that the Board did not offer any detailed comments on their evidence relating to those Guidelines, Access did not challenge this finding, which was based on its assessment of the weight of the evidence. This was a wise decision, for indeed, the Board’s conclusion was clearly open to it on the evidentiary record.

Similarly on the Board’s fair dealing analysis, the court stated:

It may well be that the Board’s methodology is not perfect, but again, given the particular circumstances of this case, I have not been persuaded that its overall determination that a large portion of the exposures were fair (again this was much less than the numbers proposed by the Consortium using a similar statistical approach) was unreasonable because of the method it chose to weigh the evidence in forming its overall impression of the fair dealing factors.

The near-total loss helps explain why Access Copyright had chosen not to appeal to the Supreme Court, relying instead on spin that requires readers to ignore its own prior reaction to the decision and the words of the Copyright Board and Federal Court of Appeal.

The post Access Copyright Channels Sean Spicer in Comments on Copyright Fair Dealing Ruling appeared first on Michael Geist.

Read the whole story
elwillow
23 days ago
reply
Ottawa, Ontario
Share this story
Delete

The 265 Members of Congress Who Sold You Out to ISPs, and How Much It Cost to Buy Them

1 Share

T.C. Sottek, reporting for The Verge:

Republicans in Congress just voted to reverse a landmark FCC privacy rule that opens the door for ISPs to sell customer data. Lawmakers provided no credible reason for this being in the interest of Americans, except for vague platitudes about “consumer choice” and “free markets,” as if consumers at the mercy of their local internet monopoly are craving to have their web history quietly sold to marketers and any other third party willing to pay.

The only people who seem to want this are the people who are going to make lots of money from it. (Hint: they work for companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.) Incidentally, these people and their companies routinely give lots of money to members of Congress.

So here is a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you, and how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle.

Completely and utterly along party lines. Not one Democrat voted for this. “Congress” didn’t do this. Republicans in Congress did this.

There’s no argument that can be made in defense of this bill other than that the Republican party believes that increasing the profits of telecom companies is more important than protecting the privacy of people.

Read the whole story
elwillow
29 days ago
reply
Ottawa, Ontario
Share this story
Delete

Panel Rejects Eli Lilly Claim Over Canadian Patent Law, Orders Company to Pay Millions in Costs

1 Share

In the early 1990s, Eli Lilly applied for patent protection in Canada for two chemical compounds, olanzapine and atomoxetine. The company had already obtained patents over the compounds, but asserted that it had evidence to support new uses for the compounds that merited further protection. The Canadian patent office granted the patents based on the content in the applications, but they remained subject to challenge.

Both patents ultimately were challenged on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence at the time of the applications to support the company’s claims. The Federal Court of Canada agreed, invalidating both patents. Eli Lilly proceeded to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal and later to the Supreme Court of Canada. The company lost the appeals, as the courts upheld the decision to invalidate the patents.

Under most circumstances, that would conclude the legal story as several Canadian courts reviewed Eli Lilly’s patent applications and ruled that they failed to meet the standards for patentability. Yet in June 2013, the company served notice that it planned to use the ISDS provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement to claim that in light of the decisions, Canada was not compliant with its patent law obligations under the treaty. As compensation, Eli Lilly sought at least $500 million in damages.

The fear for many was that if the pharmaceutical giant succeeded, it would have effectively found a mechanism to override the Supreme Court of Canada and hold Canadian taxpayers liable for hundreds of millions in damages in the process. Last week, however, the Tribunal hearing the case rendered its verdict, rejecting Eli Lilly’s claims and ordering it to pay millions of dollars to compensate the Canadian government for its costs.

There are several key takeaways from the decision. First, the Tribunal emphasized that overruling national courts should only occur in exceptional circumstances. The potential for any such cases will still be a cause for concern, but the standard it set is quite high:

the Tribunal emphasizes that a NAFTA Chapter Eleven tribunal is not an appellate tier in respect of the decisions of the national judiciary. It is not the task of a NAFTA Chapter Eleven tribunal to review the findings of national courts and considerable deference is to be accorded to the conduct and decisions of such courts. It will accordingly only be in very exceptional circumstances, in which there is clear evidence of egregious and shocking conduct, that it will be appropriate for a NAFTA Chapter Eleven tribunal to assess such conduct against the obligations of the respondent State under NAFTA Article 1105(1).

On the substance of the case, the Tribunal found that Eli Lilly did not demonstrate a fundamental change to Canadian patent law that might trigger a NAFTA claim:

For all of the reasons in subsections (1) to (5) above, the Tribunal finds that, on the record in this arbitration, Claimant has not demonstrated a fundamental or dramatic change in Canadian patent law. For the interrelated reasons in subsection (6) above, the Tribunal finds that Claimant has not demonstrated, as a factual matter, that its legitimate expectations were violated by the application of Canadian patent law to the Zyprexa and Strattera Patents.

The reasons behind the conclusion include a finding that Canadian patent law did not change dramatically as the courts addressed questions of patent utility:

the Tribunal recognizes that the outcome in AZT was unexpected for some practitioners and even judges who had understood the language of the Court of Appeal in Ciba-Geigy to mean that utility could be demonstrated through post-filing evidence (most notably commercial success). Still, having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal cannot conclude that the Supreme Court effected a dramatic change from previously well established law when it clarified this rule in AZT.

Further, the statistical data raised by Eli Lilly on invalidating patents was not persuasive (indeed, the Tribunal was troubled by what appeared to be cherry-picking of dates to try to make their case):

Without having been presented with any strong indication toward a single factor, the Tribunal considers it most likely that a combination of developments, including those in patent litigation procedures, the application of substantive patent law, and the pharmaceutical sector, has led to a rise in challenges directed at pharmaceutical patents and more invalidations.

Interestingly, the Special 301 process, which I wrote about earlier this month, made it into the decision as Eli Lilly used it to argue that Canada was out-of-step with international IP standards. The Canadian government response will be familiar:

Respondent challenges the reliability of the 2014 and 2015 editions of the USTR Special 301 Report cited by Claimant, in which the United States expresses “serious concerns” over Canada’s utility requirement. 403 According to Respondent, “the Special 301 Report is based not on empirical evidence and analysis, but on industry allegations made to USTR, including representations made by the Claimant and its industry associations”. In addition, these reports were not issued contemporaneously with the changes in the law that Claimant alleges, but rather at the time of the commencement of this arbitration. Thus, Respondent supposes that the reports were the result of Claimant’s own lobbying efforts to bolster its claims in this arbitration.

The Tribunal was not completely dismissive of the Special 301 Report, but instead concluded that it was an outlier given that there was no other evidence of complaints from other countries:

The Tribunal has paid particular attention to the 2014 and 2015 editions of the Special 301 Report of the USTR. In these documents, USTR notes that the United States “has serious concerns about the lack of clarity and the impact of the heightened utility requirements for patents that Canadian courts have applied recently”. This comment cannot be dismissed outright as a lobbying effort by Claimant, as suggested by Respondent. However, the Special 301 Report stands alone in the record as a complaint regarding Canada’s utility doctrine from any other State, including Mexico, in the decade since the promise utility doctrine was allegedly adopted. For the Tribunal, that silence speaks louder than the single, brief criticism contained in the USTR’s Special 301 Report.

The Tribunal decision represents an enormous win for the Canadian government and for the supremacy of Canadian law and the judicial system more broadly. The real fears that dispute settlement could be used to override Supreme Court of Canada decisions lies at the heart of concern with ISDS provisions that have found their way into trade agreements such as CETA and the TPP.

While Eli Lilly failed in its efforts to use the dispute settlement system to extract hundreds of millions from Canadian taxpayers, the dangers of the system remain a reality. The Canadian government tried to address some of the concerns with the reworked provisions in CETA (rules that are not mirrored in TPP), but as new trade deals are negotiated or renegotiated, should rethink the need for investor-state dispute settlement provisions in agreements with countries with respected court systems that offer investors sufficient protections and reliable legal recourse.

The post Panel Rejects Eli Lilly Claim Over Canadian Patent Law, Orders Company to Pay Millions in Costs appeared first on Michael Geist.

Read the whole story
elwillow
37 days ago
reply
Ottawa, Ontario
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories