Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Profixer

Pages: [1] 2 3
LandzDown Lounge / Re: Hello again
« on: June 21, 2016, 01:02:57 PM »
Fun-fact of the day: I think that crazy psycho, actually believed I wanted to kill her. Furthermore, the day I was dismissed (read removed), I was accused of threatening colleagues and their families (huh??), of which they apparently had "documented". This was news to me and to all my colleagues who were in shock when they heard that. Luckily for her, I had already resigned 2 months previously, thus there would be no legal repercussions for her if i had chosen to sue for unlawful dismissal, and thus exposure of this so-called documentation.

LandzDown Lounge / Re: Hello again
« on: June 16, 2016, 04:37:30 PM »
Hello Steve ;) still hangin with Lavasoft?

Hehe hell no. Wouldn't mind hanging them out to dry though. (The former owners that is)

LandzDown Lounge / Hello again
« on: June 16, 2016, 01:13:30 PM »
Just thought I would say hi to all those I haven't spoken with since 2007 time. Very saddened to see how many people have passed in the last 9 years. I have missed a lot of news here. For those of you who don't remember who I am, or need your memory jogging, I am the "former Lavasoft Employee formerly known as LS_SteveJ"

Forever In Our Hearts / Re: Remembering DieHard
« on: June 16, 2016, 12:56:02 PM »
I have clearly missed a lot due to my absence from the forums. This is so sad.. so many people passed. RIP DieHard

Forever In Our Hearts / Re: CalamityJane, Gone but not forgotten
« on: June 16, 2016, 12:55:04 PM »
Didn't have any contact with Jane after I was booted out from Lavasoft, but very saddened to hear the news. Worked with her a lot back in 2006 before she started to work for LS. Very knowledgable, very professional, tireless helper. Will be missed by many


I think the interpretation of Olivers views as simply being anarchic and thieving is completely wrong, either by misreading his posts or simply misunderstanding between the posters.

Many people feel that patents help them pay the bills and put bread on the table... and I am sure this is correct... to a certain point...  but I promise you, this method of sustaining business will reach a tipping point... the point where people have got very good at litigation but forgotton how to develop. I do not know the extent of the patent warfield in the US (from an inside point-of-view), but if people really feel this way Mikey, that patents are a major reason they get paid, and something is not done about it, then within a certain amount of time, corporations will turn to their patent portfolios and say "how can we sue them?" instead of saying to their devs "how can we out-compete them?". This basically has two very very big problems... nothing is innovated, but even worse the company / company's employees do not improve their knowledge through lack of "training and diversification"... innovaters simply become another part of the assembly line, and fade into obscurity...

I remember (well I dont, I am too young), but I know from history that US used to make amazing stuff.... in the 40,50,60's...   what happened? America was was pouring out some amazing products... innovation at its best..... and the rest of the world was buy buy buying....  now you rarely hear of anything....  could this be due to the change in attitudes I have been talking about? US cars.... dont even get me started..... in the 50's, 60's WOW!! these were works of art!!... These days... it feels like Ford just slap them together with paper glue... now I am not drawing a connection directly to software patents here, or to patents in general... my point is that the "mindset" of american industry has changed from what it was 50 years ago... there is WAY too much emphasis now on cutting costs, slapping it together and getting it out there ASAP... also elimination of ANY competition...  a healthy industry is a healthy balance of competition (keeping everyone on their toes), innovation (new markets, new technologies, improvements on existing technologies) Also... I dont want to see some pro-US rant post shouted back at me about this... I am not claiming to know everything about US industry, but I am making an statement based on empirical observation... and that is that you never seem to hear about any new amazing product from the US in the european news anymore... and many of the european car "experts", and yes... I do watch alot of car programs... basically give US cars crappy reviews, and look back with affection at 50's and 60's when US cars really were cars

Anyway... I have to go to breakfast now... I am out travelling so I may not be able to response to a reply very quickly...

Yeah I saw that this morning... basically the idea is to sue an SMB (which they must win of course), to prove to all the corporates that it CAN happen... of course MS cant go around sueing everyone, and its unlikely that they would win / get much out of it in the cases where they do win...  but the fact is... it creates the FUD, and thats what they want...

Web News / Re: Online broking fraud
« on: November 22, 2006, 10:43:19 AM »
I guess the solution to the problem of the additional transactions would be that every transaction which is made, must be verified by attaching a unique code to each transaction which is generated by the hand held device and the banks servers... as each transaction is made, the unique is checked against what the bank servers know that it should be...this would however severely limit the user's ability to commit bulk transactions on one verification and could become very very annoying... but the bonus is, this is pretty much a rock solid way of stopping someone from inserting their own transactions and committing this type of fraud... the only other attack vector could be that the attacker figures out what the algorithm is or physically steals the hand held device (plus the pin code) from the person....

Anyone who thinks that the Patent system is good for protecting people who have put down alot of work, need only read the story about Håkan Lans, the swede whom invented the colour monitor and satnav display system...  which was basically stolen from him by americn industry in a typical sneaky legal way resulting in him getting practically nothing, and having to pay all the legal costs 2 million US dollars for a case which he lost where he was clearly the patent holder... Håkan is now basically ruined... he has never received true recognition... and I doubt many people have ever even heard of his name... his latest appeal was granted, but judged before there was even a hearing... which sounds like some worried industries (especially the defence industry), are putting pressure on the US courts that they dont wanna pay up for licenses of this patent...  it seems that US patents are the only ones that are allowed to be applied... European, and other patents are simply stolen by large US corportations, ignored and end up in court for 20 years until the patent holder has no money left....

Cool system....

Web News / Re: Online broking fraud
« on: November 22, 2006, 09:20:12 AM »
Actually Corrine...the cool thing about my bank is that any transaction you make, has to be accompanied by entering of new codes.... so disconnection or session piggybacking would not work, cos he still needs by keypad to generate the random numbers... and also he is unlikely to get his own transactions authorized, cos I would have all these strange transactions in my transaction queue... granted... someone who has ALOT of transactions might not notice a few extra ones... and that is where the problem could lie.....

Basically, my advice to ANYONE using Online banking is to keep a PC in the house somewhere that runs Linux... do not take the chance with Windows... its not worth the chance that you are infected...

This aint a problem for me, because I run Linux exclusively... Windows only runs in VM for me...

//Pro scientia et humanitate

Web News / Re: Online broking fraud
« on: November 21, 2006, 09:04:40 PM »
Basically, this is yet another example of the appauling level of security thinking by banks, when it comes to authentication... the very thought that an ID and Password was all that was needed to gain access to these accounts is just scary, and sadly, very very common...

"And we're working with software vendors to develop new techniques for preventing this from even happening at their keyboard level."

how far behind are they?

when I log into my internet bank, I have a little keycode device seperate from the computer that contains an algorithm also stored on the banks servers. The bank sends two numbers to me on the login page, and I type those two into my device, which generates another number ( a number which if intercepted by spyware or wireless sniffing would mean nothing to anyone )... when I send these two numbers (plus my generated number), back to the bank, the bank performs the same calculation on their server as my keypad did... then compares the numbers to see if they match... and these types of devices have been around for over 5 years in swedish banks... I am shocked that they say they are looking into "new ways"... they shouldnt be letting users enter usable data with their keyboards at ALL....

The question was never anything to do with whether or not someone gets their salary because of patents in place. The question is to do with the ethics of patenting knowledge... and software is an expression of knowledge...  what I and Assarbad have been discussing is the fact that knowledge is free, and no-one has the right to say... "you may not express that knowledge because I have already done it"... thats just wrong in my opinion..

anyway, its quite apparent that this subject is quite touchy for all, so I suggest we lock this thread and move on.. otherwise we are gonna end up in too many socio-economical-philosphical arguments..

What would happen to me if I should post an opposing comment here? Is this thread just a joke?...or what?

Mikey... you may only reply here if you are of the opinion that software patents are bbbbbaaaaddddddddddd

for anyone that is interested, the patent application description of "Click to preview" is as follows

"Disclosed is a method of implementing a preview window in an object oriented programming system that includes an application having at least a first panel and a second panel that are selectively displayable on a display screen. The second planel displays underlying information and the first panel displays an abbreviated representation of the underlying information. In the present invention, the user can temporarily display a preview window that contains underlying information while viewing the first panel"

Well darn... if that doesnt just sound like "zooming" but with pretty words put around it... this is one of the basic problems with patents... dressing the applications in such language gives the patent applicant the chance to patent something which is essentially quite an abstract concept.... and what is terribly annoying is, despite all this precision legal jargon, you could re-invent this ivention using a "NON object oriented programming system" which technically should NOT infringe upon the patent... but do you think thats what litigators come after you for? NO... they come after you for the abstract concept.... something which was never expressed in the original patent application (because it wouldnt have, and shouldnt have been granted in that case)....

I just made a webshop.... it took me quite a while... a couple of years to get all the bugs ironed out.... I think I have had some great ideas... and used all the standard stuff like pay with credit card and a shopping cart etc... all pretty standard things in a shop.... but ****!! I just found this?!??!?!? and I have wasted loads of money in coding time now... what do I do??

Humm quite interesting scenario...(fictional of course) and also interesting is the hilarity of the patented webshop... I wasnt aware that concepts such as shopping cart and preview were such original inventions with no prior art available? just because they are electronic implementations of something which is pretty much a generally free concept... A shopping cart... lets see... a method of carrying objects around a shop which you then take to the checkout?... hummm the electronic implementation does not in anyway change this basic concept, and it certainly doesnt appear to add anything to it either....  previewing a larger version of a smaller image while still be able to see the other image?... hummm do I infringe on this patent by taking my magnifying glass to the screen and enlarging the image for one of my eyes while still seing the smaller version with the other?... patents like this are nonsense, and should never have been issued....

Pages: [1] 2 3