You can't own *ideas*, you can't treat *ideas* as IP, you can't copyright *ideas*, you can't patent *ideas*.
You can do the first two in your list, but not the last two. You can do those first two things via trade secret. Note that for the second thing, I am using the general concept of IP rather than any legal definition of it. More specifically, it is like: "I know something that you don't, na na!:P". Aside: Note that, the concept of trade secret, irks open-source proponents to no end.
The copy of copyright and patent supporters is to prevent systems like the internet from being founded. This is a great example: were the important protocols and general structure patented, what you know of as the internet would not have been delayed or more expensive, it would have never existed. It is quite obvious that the greater good is of no concern to IP supporters, only their own profits.
Yet these people are still given free rein of our legal system and allowed by the weak minded to claim that copyright and patent infringement is "theft," while the real theft is that of the copyright and patent holders from society as a whole. It's time that stop, before the next big innovation is prevented. End these archaic systems this decade, support the abolition of imaginary property.
The web is indeed probably the best example of a miracle of the commons, where everyone using non-rivalrous goods builds a larger, greater ecosystem that would otherwise be possible.
A.K.A., A tremendously inefficient use of resources. (It was and is otherwise possible, by the way).
Stallman wrote: "Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died."
Stallman wouldn't know freedom if someone gave him a buckshot of it in the ass. He belongs soliciting on Craigslist where trying to get something for nothing is the M.O. "Entitled" twit.
What about the inventor with few resources or only his own efforts to bring an invention to light, who has spent his whole life developing the invention and now could have his whole life's worth of effort wiped out by one stupid little piece of paper and the associated politics? It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to suggest that this was the M.O. from the get go, and that that M.O is a common one.
Does this make it even more lucrative to take or start a company to/in some other country? Which country is best to invent in now? Especially, which country is best to have a software company in?
"America Invents". It's called "sloganeering" and W. Edwards Deming warned against doing such for the potential consequences. The following site uses the term a lot and may give some quick insight to "sloganeering" (but probably better to read one or more of Deming's books): http://www.newfoundations.com/Slogans.html.
The problem with that may be in the definition of "published". If someone posts in a USENET newsgroup about a great piece of software that they invented, is that considered "published" and therefore enought to prevent someone else from patenting it?
... was available other than in Japan. I think there is an importer of 12X media now though. Though DVD-RAM can't be used in regulated environments that specify true WORM media, for other (small, SOHO) data backup chores, it would be the thing to have (with 12X media). NewEgg has 12X DVD-RAM drives for under $40. Personally, I think they are purposely keeping DVD-RAM media away so as not to suppress Blu Ray adoption. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on DVD-RAM. The history of optical media for computer data storage is indeed a fiasco. A severe lack of leadership by the industry IMO.
Try this: backup your data to an external hard drive. Then, shake it violently over your head a few times or drop it to the floor from 4 feet. Then try and read your data from the drive. I don't trust mechanical magnetic drives for backup as far as I can throw them!
Those who are streaming large volumes of data should be bandwidth limited in order to keep real time responsiveness snappy for the majority of users doing stuff like checking email, surfing the web etc. QoS is a site-specific technology right? If so, there should be some similar thing that regualates the whole internet. Something that throttles the "unimportant" streams when the internet is becoming saturated. Akin to the government closing off the on/off ramps to the interstate in time of national emergency. If requests for data could be categorized somehow, then maybe some kind of "express lane" prioritization could be had. Surely some mechanisms are already there but they are just not yet evolved, yes?
The C++ revision committee is dominated by people who want to do l33t things with templates, things nobody will ever do in production code but, they think, are really cool. There's a whole "generic programming" cult of abusing the template mechanism to do computation at compile time.
I agree whole heartedly. The C++ generics paradigm gets way too much verbage and I can't help but think that those on that bandwagon are just purposely trying to sell complexity (or just techies who like to tinker with technology for technology sake and don't have a clue about anything "big picture" or "outside of the box"). I'd rather have C++ devoid of special template machinery and in its place have a better preprocessor. If it takes more than the automation of simple text replacement like a preprocessor macro would do, I would (and do) opt out of such monstrosity. Project managers get your projects back on track and improve quality: restrict developers from doing "stupid template tricks".
The second thing about C++ paradigm extremists/purists have a ball ranting about is type safety. I'm convinced that a well placed void* ptr and a little casting is better than the extreme practice/view. Used with care, source code can be more readable and maintainable and all that bulldozer-grade template machinery becomes unnecessary. C and C++ are "close to the hardware" afterall and exposed pointers are what that means. It's probably true that if you can't write a memory management library, than C++ is too advanced of a tool for you as hardly any library tries to abstract one away from that _power_/_feature_ (Java is perhaps at that higher level of abstraction).
Personally, I think the compiler vendors like that it requires man years of effort to comply with the unnecessarily complex C++ standard, as it locks out a number of potential competitors, and the do-it-yourselfer is probably the competitor they are most afraid of. Is the complexity of C++ by design? Who's on that committee anyway? Compiler vendors and "language lawyers" mostly I'll bet.
The moment you have 2 people doing C++ on 1 project, at least 1 person will be faced with code written using features they just don't understand. C++ has features to spare.
That's not a language problem. It's a problem of software development project management. You're supposed to have things like a coding standard (ever heard of that?) and able architects/designers. Anyone who accepts any and all C++ mechanisms in a project is asking for trouble. Anyone who runs a project like that is inexperienced and unqualified.
(Just think of all the "stupid template tricks" that are possible with C++ and you'll soon realize that you can't give that much space for developers to create in. You have to define some boundaries such as, "Template use will be restricted to using only the STL containers/iterators/algorithms in the simplest of ways. Stupid template tricks will not be tolerated".)
What is stopping a proliferation of home users running their own servers? 3 things: NAT, poor security, and asymmetric connections with poor upload rates.
I've been running my own email server (Mercury) and web server (IIS) on WinXP Pro over a DSL connection with a dynamic IP behind a NAT router for years. I don't have any need or desire to put a fileserver out on the web where a lot of bandwidth would be required.
If you felt like it, you could pay extra to build a motherboard etc that supports suspend for desktops, but it takes a lot of effort to get the software right, so its primarily done for laptops. It'd be a nice comprimise between booting/hibernating and "instant on" that you want.
Are you kidding? Suspend-to-RAM has been available on motherboards for eons. My Intel-motherboard-based-system resumes from sleep (S3 state) fast enough to answer my phone using FaxTalk software. Any motherboard not supporting STR by now is surely an ultra-cheapo. And the only "effort" required to activate STR is making sure the bios sleep mode setting is correct and then using Windows power managment settings (though manually putting a PC in sleep mode is available from the logoff prompt once sleep settings are set).
Slashdot Mirror
You can't own *ideas*, you can't treat *ideas* as IP, you can't copyright *ideas*, you can't patent *ideas*.
You can do the first two in your list, but not the last two. You can do those first two things via trade secret. Note that for the second thing, I am using the general concept of IP rather than any legal definition of it. More specifically, it is like: "I know something that you don't, na na! :P". Aside: Note that, the concept of trade secret, irks open-source proponents to no end.
The goal of copyright and patent supporters is to prevent systems like the internet from being founded.
What an assinine thing to say. Where do all these "entitled" twits wanting to get something for nothing come from?
The copy of copyright and patent supporters is to prevent systems like the internet from being founded. This is a great example: were the important protocols and general structure patented, what you know of as the internet would not have been delayed or more expensive, it would have never existed. It is quite obvious that the greater good is of no concern to IP supporters, only their own profits. Yet these people are still given free rein of our legal system and allowed by the weak minded to claim that copyright and patent infringement is "theft," while the real theft is that of the copyright and patent holders from society as a whole. It's time that stop, before the next big innovation is prevented. End these archaic systems this decade, support the abolition of imaginary property.
Just say no to mind rape.
The web is indeed probably the best example of a miracle of the commons, where everyone using non-rivalrous goods builds a larger, greater ecosystem that would otherwise be possible.
A.K.A., A tremendously inefficient use of resources. (It was and is otherwise possible, by the way).
Stallman wrote: "Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died."
Stallman wouldn't know freedom if someone gave him a buckshot of it in the ass. He belongs soliciting on Craigslist where trying to get something for nothing is the M.O. "Entitled" twit.
You never know the full effect of legislation until it hits the courts.
"God save us all" if we have to rely on "the courts" for guidance. Been there, done that, wouldn't trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em.
What about the inventor with few resources or only his own efforts to bring an invention to light, who has spent his whole life developing the invention and now could have his whole life's worth of effort wiped out by one stupid little piece of paper and the associated politics? It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to suggest that this was the M.O. from the get go, and that that M.O is a common one.
Does this make it even more lucrative to take or start a company to/in some other country? Which country is best to invent in now? Especially, which country is best to have a software company in?
"Patent Imposition Act" (aka, "Pain In the Ass". "Bend over and spread 'em. NOW!")
"America Invents". It's called "sloganeering" and W. Edwards Deming warned against doing such for the potential consequences. The following site uses the term a lot and may give some quick insight to "sloganeering" (but probably better to read one or more of Deming's books): http://www.newfoundations.com/Slogans.html.
The problem with that may be in the definition of "published". If someone posts in a USENET newsgroup about a great piece of software that they invented, is that considered "published" and therefore enought to prevent someone else from patenting it?
... was available other than in Japan. I think there is an importer of 12X media now though. Though DVD-RAM can't be used in regulated environments that specify true WORM media, for other (small, SOHO) data backup chores, it would be the thing to have (with 12X media). NewEgg has 12X DVD-RAM drives for under $40. Personally, I think they are purposely keeping DVD-RAM media away so as not to suppress Blu Ray adoption. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on DVD-RAM. The history of optical media for computer data storage is indeed a fiasco. A severe lack of leadership by the industry IMO.
Try this: backup your data to an external hard drive. Then, shake it violently over your head a few times or drop it to the floor from 4 feet. Then try and read your data from the drive. I don't trust mechanical magnetic drives for backup as far as I can throw them!
Those who are streaming large volumes of data should be bandwidth limited in order to keep real time responsiveness snappy for the majority of users doing stuff like checking email, surfing the web etc. QoS is a site-specific technology right? If so, there should be some similar thing that regualates the whole internet. Something that throttles the "unimportant" streams when the internet is becoming saturated. Akin to the government closing off the on/off ramps to the interstate in time of national emergency. If requests for data could be categorized somehow, then maybe some kind of "express lane" prioritization could be had. Surely some mechanisms are already there but they are just not yet evolved, yes?
The C++ revision committee is dominated by people who want to do l33t things with templates, things nobody will ever do in production code but, they think, are really cool. There's a whole "generic programming" cult of abusing the template mechanism to do computation at compile time.
I agree whole heartedly. The C++ generics paradigm gets way too much verbage and I can't help but think that those on that bandwagon are just purposely trying to sell complexity (or just techies who like to tinker with technology for technology sake and don't have a clue about anything "big picture" or "outside of the box"). I'd rather have C++ devoid of special template machinery and in its place have a better preprocessor. If it takes more than the automation of simple text replacement like a preprocessor macro would do, I would (and do) opt out of such monstrosity. Project managers get your projects back on track and improve quality: restrict developers from doing "stupid template tricks".
The second thing about C++ paradigm extremists/purists have a ball ranting about is type safety. I'm convinced that a well placed void* ptr and a little casting is better than the extreme practice/view. Used with care, source code can be more readable and maintainable and all that bulldozer-grade template machinery becomes unnecessary. C and C++ are "close to the hardware" afterall and exposed pointers are what that means. It's probably true that if you can't write a memory management library, than C++ is too advanced of a tool for you as hardly any library tries to abstract one away from that _power_/_feature_ (Java is perhaps at that higher level of abstraction).
Personally, I think the compiler vendors like that it requires man years of effort to comply with the unnecessarily complex C++ standard, as it locks out a number of potential competitors, and the do-it-yourselfer is probably the competitor they are most afraid of. Is the complexity of C++ by design? Who's on that committee anyway? Compiler vendors and "language lawyers" mostly I'll bet.
The moment you have 2 people doing C++ on 1 project, at least 1 person will be faced with code written using features they just don't understand. C++ has features to spare.
That's not a language problem. It's a problem of software development project management. You're supposed to have things like a coding standard (ever heard of that?) and able architects/designers. Anyone who accepts any and all C++ mechanisms in a project is asking for trouble. Anyone who runs a project like that is inexperienced and unqualified. (Just think of all the "stupid template tricks" that are possible with C++ and you'll soon realize that you can't give that much space for developers to create in. You have to define some boundaries such as, "Template use will be restricted to using only the STL containers/iterators/algorithms in the simplest of ways. Stupid template tricks will not be tolerated".)
What is stopping a proliferation of home users running their own servers? 3 things: NAT, poor security, and asymmetric connections with poor upload rates.
I've been running my own email server (Mercury) and web server (IIS) on WinXP Pro over a DSL connection with a dynamic IP behind a NAT router for years. I don't have any need or desire to put a fileserver out on the web where a lot of bandwidth would be required.
If you felt like it, you could pay extra to build a motherboard etc that supports suspend for desktops, but it takes a lot of effort to get the software right, so its primarily done for laptops. It'd be a nice comprimise between booting/hibernating and "instant on" that you want.
Are you kidding? Suspend-to-RAM has been available on motherboards for eons. My Intel-motherboard-based-system resumes from sleep (S3 state) fast enough to answer my phone using FaxTalk software. Any motherboard not supporting STR by now is surely an ultra-cheapo. And the only "effort" required to activate STR is making sure the bios sleep mode setting is correct and then using Windows power managment settings (though manually putting a PC in sleep mode is available from the logoff prompt once sleep settings are set).