And how, exactly, is this different than somebody using copy and paste? For ass's sake, people if you share something with someone you cannot prevent them from resharing it. Ever. This is true even offline- "Don't tell anyone I told you, but I heard from Billy who heard from Sarah that Jake is cheating on Candy with a…

I just saw John Williams conducting on Friday, so I'm getting a kick out of this thread.

Nobody did that. That only happened in the minds of PC Mag writers and the Gizmodo writer that cribbed off of their "research".

No, they didn't. They spelled it out quite specifically in the 21 claims that describe the patent.

Slightly?

This.

They weren't granted a patent on touchscreens of any variety. The article is so far from the truth that it qualifies as "Not even wrong." The PC Mag article (also wrong) has a link to the actual patent, which is pretty tepid and a perfectly reasonable patent application for specific navigation functions.

Actually, it is quite specifically a patent for a design. A design comprising of a series of claims, each of those claims addressing some function of navigation related to multi-finger translations on the screen itself.

It's good then that no patent was awarded for something so generic.

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing the same crap again and again. "OMG! This company patented AIR! WHAT THE HECK!?" Reading (patent documents) is fundamental.

I'll grant that patents aren't designed to be fun to read. But every patent consists of a series of claims and it is those claims that determine what the patent covers. The claims will likely be very specific and written in a difficult to parse format, but they are there.

While the USPTO has a bad habit of granting overly broad patents, it's worth pointing out that your understanding of what this granted patent implies is inaccurate. You can't just grab an entry from the abstract and claim that the patent invalidates a bunch of other technology.

Really, with all the embarrassing things the knobhead blurted out in that post, you're focusing on the plethora of "fucks"? Fuckin' a, his word choice was probably the least offensive element of his post.

I've been thinking to myself that this latest installment of Duke Nukem isn't a tribute or a successor to the original. The original was immature and debauched, especially for its era. But at the same time, it had (and has) a camp charm and can easily be viewed through the lens of the era. In the 90s, that's what…

They don't need your phone. They need to be able to get the code from the text. That's a different problem entirely. SMS is not a terribly secure system. PKI is significantly more robust.

I think decades of spy movies have warped people's idea of what biometric authentication is really like.

Biometric authentication is, however, a really really bad approach. All you're doing is moving the point of attack, and once your biometric signature is stolen- what do you do? You can't revoke your fingerprints, nor can you easily change them.

Obviously, their designs were a little too accurate, and the Doctor appropriated it to jaunt off and battle Cybermen. When he realizes the error, I'm absolutely certain that he'll be back to take on this young lady to be his companion. And I'm sure she'll be old enough by then that the previous sentence won't be…

Let me summarize:

Would you like him to repeat the question?