This application is titled “Quick filename lookup using name hash”.  Based on the title, it sounded like they are doing what TRS-DOS 2.0 did back in 1978, which is putting on the disk a hash table of filenames which then refer to directory entries.  TRS-DOS did that so that it usually only needed to read two sectors to look up a file, the HIT (Hash Index Table) sector, and the actual directory sector containing the file’s directory entry.  Otherwise they might have had to read multiple directory sectors to find the file if it existed, and all of the directory sectors if it did not.

The claims of the patent are a little difficult to interpret.  They refer to “a first one or more computer readable storage media having computer executable instructions…”.  This is basically referring to the disk/flash/etc. the operating system is booted from.  They refer to “a second one or more…” which is the disk/flash/etc. which holds the file system in question.

Here’s are two of the independent claims:

1. A first one or more computer readable storage media having computer executable instructions that, when executed on at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform a method of detecting if a target file name exists on a second one or more computer readable storage media, the method comprising:

(A) determining a name hash from the target name;
(B) determining if the name hash corresponds to a directory entry set name hash value, the directory entry set name hash value corresponding to one of a plurality of directory entry sets, each of the plurality of directory entry sets stored on the second one or more computer readable storage media;
(C) determining if the target name matches a directory entry set name corresponding to the one of the plurality of directory entry sets after step (B) determines the name hash corresponds to the directory entry set name hash value; and
(D) indicating that the target name exists after step (C) determines the target name matches the directory entry set name.

19. A method of detecting if a target file name exists, the method executing on one or more processors, the method comprising:

(A) determining a file name hash from the target file name;
(B) determining if the file name hash corresponds to a directory entry hash value, the directory entry hash value corresponding to one of a plurality of directory entries;
(C) determining if the target file name matches a file name, the file name corresponding to the one of the plurality of directory entries after step (B) determines the file name hash corresponds to the directory entry hash value; and
(D) indicating that the target file name exists after step (C) determines the target file name matches the file name corresponding to the one of the plurality of directory entries.

These seem to be to be to be *exactly* what TRS-DOS 2.0 did as early as 1978, so it seems possible that TRS-DOS could be used as prior art to invalidate at least these independent claims, and quite possibly some of the dependent claims as well.

So my question is, are there any published works documenting the TRS-DOS file system on-disk format, especially the use of the HIT table, other than “TRS-80 Disk and Other Mysteries” by H. C. Pennington?

Computer and networking technology has allowed private data to be stored in databases to make it readily accessible to those who have a legitimate reason to access it, but in the process have made it entirely too susceptible to unauthorized access.  It is easy to blame this on programmers for writing shoddy software, and there certainly is some truth to that, but no matter how good the software is, there will still be problems with the people authorized to use the databases making mistakes such as using weak passwords.

Even if it’s a losing battle, we should fight tooth-and-nail to try to hold onto privacy.  As Dylan Thomas wrote, “Do not go gentle into that good night.  [...] Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

That being the case, presumably they wouldn’t have any problem with citizens surreptitiously planting GPS tracking devices onto police cars.  WIth suitable distribution of the tracking information via the internet to mobile devices (e.g., smart phones), that could be quite useful for people that want to avoid speed traps, etc.

The appeals court did write that “We are also concerned about the private use of GPS surveillance devices. [...] Consequently, we urge the legislature to explore imposing limitations on the use of GPS and similar devices by both government and private actors.“  I think the outcome of that is predicable.  The legislature will impose substantial limitations on the use of GPS trackers by private actors, and minimal or no limitations on their use by the government.

A New York appeals court just reached the opposite decision (PDF), that the police should not plant GPS tracking devices without a warrant, citing Supreme Court Justice Brandeis’ dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States:

“The protection guaranteed by the Amendments [the Fourth and Fifth] is much broader in scope [than the protection of property]. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.”

Google stores only the most recent automatic update or location selection you manually entered on our servers.

does NOT say, to wit, whether the data might be stored on servers other than “our servers”.

If DHS wants to track your location via your cell phone, they don’t really need Google’s help doing that. On the other hand, if a private company is already collecting data on people’s movements, that must look like a mighty tempting target…

Bush has not earned our respect, but rather our derision.

Muntazer al-Zaidi may be charged with attempted murder of a foreign president, and could face fifteen years in prison.  While it is reasonable to charge a person who throws shoes at another with some minor crime (e.g., misdemeanor assault or the equivalent), surely no one in their right mind would claim that it is attempted murder.  Mr. Zaidi was hospitalized after having been struck in the head with the butt of a rifle and having his arm broken, which surely is a more than sufficient penalty.

Portions of the software in question are licensed under the Free Software Foundation General Public License version 2.  Pursuant to section 4 of that license, the parties in violation of the license have had their rights to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute those portions of the software terminated.

Only after I got home did I discover that Apple overcharged me $16.50. The receipt shows the price of the phone as $299.00 and the sales tax rate as 8.25%, but the amount of sales tax charged was actually $41.17, for a total charge to my credit card of $340.17. The correct amount of sales tax at 8.25% is obviously $24.67, and should have resulted in a total charge of $323.67.

In the store, I didn’t really see what they were charging me. They had me sign for the credit card transaction using a stylus on a handheld point-of-sale terminal, and it might have shown the amount on the LCD, but it was very hard to read, so I (foolishly) assumed that they were competent and honest.

I wonder how many people have fallen victim to this without noticing. Are they actually remitting the full amount of tax they’ve charged to the state of California, or are they pocketing the difference?

Update: As Dan pointed out in a comment, this actually is legal in California.  If a cell phone is sold at a discount, it has to be taxed at full price: State Board of Equalization Publication 120. I think Apple should have indicated on the receipt that the tax was based on a phone price of $499.

Do you need anything from me?

I replied:

World peace, or failing that, maybe some whirled peas?

And his response was:

I do not currently have the resources necessary to overthrow the current US government and re-instate the Constitution, which would contribute to a more stable world order, so I will procure some whirled peas for you.

Personally, I’m in favor of women’s suffrage.