Actually, sorry but you're wrong. Alan Turing himself described a Turing Machine as a "Logical Computing Machine" which consisted of:
an infinite memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite tape marked out into squares on each of which a symbol could be printed. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behavior of the machine. However, the tape can be moved back and forth through the machine, this being one of the elementary operations of the machine.
Now, let's look at how this works. It reads a symbol from the tape using the camera. Then it checks its internal state, and sees what it should do with that symbol (should it change the symbol, change the state, and/or how should it move). Then it does that action and moves on to the next symbol as instructed by the last "rule". Considering that the only thing that the machine keeps track of from position to position is the state, it is indeed a Turing machine. The microprocessor's job (as he states) is to act as the read/write head for the machine. Turing never described HOW the head worked, just WHAT it did. And this head performs EXACTLY what Turing described. And that's why this is a Turing machine. If you wrote a program on your computer that did this, it too would be a Turing machine. The delineation is in how it handles and stores states, not the method in which it "processes" data... And Turing's original work described a Turing machine as using a person to perform the actions (but strictly following the ruleset). So I fail to see how this could possibly NOT be a Turing machine...
I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales
Sure they do. The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new. Say they buy a $60 game. Then, in a month when they are tired of it, if they can sell it for $45, the next new game will only cost them $15. The publisher got $120 in sales, but the buyer only paid $75 (well, neglecting the time-cost of money). I'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games. They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one... Sure, there are some like me that don't sell games unless they really suck, but then again I have the money to be able to do that. If I was pushing a strict budget, you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones (and when you're talking a 5 or 10% difference between new and used, why not go new and have a better chance of resale later)...
Why are publishers being such dicks about used games?
Because they can, and because we still buy their games. It's as simple as that. If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies. But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)... Does it suck? Absolutely...
I wonder if math shouldn't be shifted rather than postponed... Why teach geometry and other "basic" math that early? Personally, I found calculus made most of mathematics far easier. Basically, what I'm saying is would it be worth it to try to teach calculus and algebra earlier, and the more formal concepts later? Sure, if you don't know that 2 * 2 = 4, how can you solve x * x = 4, but do students really need to learn anything more than basic algebra and the Cartesian coordinate system to grasp the foundations of calculus? And also what about introducing the concept of vectors earlier than college? I'm not saying to go into tensors in 5th grade, but I do think that you could introduce the calculus concepts along with y = mx + b. Sure, you don't need to make them do complex integrals and derivations at that age, but at least get the wheel turning... I don't know if it would work, but it's something I've been curious about for quite some time...
The question I have is how many of these things are down to earth inventions, and how many are just academic ideas that they just decided to patent? When I say academic idea, I mean something along the lines of "Hrm, an observer model would be good for notifying an application about a change in a sensor". Even if nobody had done it before, does that make it an invention that should be patentable? And what about the delineation between method and implementation? You can increase the power band of a car engine by using variable valve timing. Should that in and of itself be patentable? What about the specific method that uses oil under pressure to laterally move the camshaft along a threaded "valley" to alter the timing (Basically Honda's V-Tech)? One is an idea/concept, and the other is an implementation. IMHO, an idea is useless without a specific implementation, and ideas should not be patentable. The problem with this, is that most of the software patents I've seen patent the idea, not the implementation. Now sure, with software the line between idea and implementation is much finer, but that's more of an argument towards the patent-ability of software in general, not what constitutes an implementation...
Well, why ask for anything then? Why not just send a secure token to a recorded contact point (Such as an email address or a phone number or a snail mail address)? Then require that token to reset the password?
It isn't the fact that they copied the idea. It's the fact that it took so long to do so. I mean Windows has been through how many revisions since Up2Date (Yum's predecessor) and APT have been around? Since at latest 1999 (I'm sure there were earlier, but I know they existed in 99). And in that time, MS released XP, Vista and 7 (as far as desktop OS's go)...
Well, yes and no. Voice still goes out over CDMA. What this means to you though, is that when voice is using CDMA, EVDO can't operate (since it uses the same radio). However, it can still use WiMAX and 802.11... So you can use voice and data at the same time, but only if you're in the range of either WiMAX or 802.11... Cool, but not groundbreaking (yet).
Inertial navigation systems use accelerometers as input to a computer for controlling its output (Navigation readings, autopilots, etc), and have been used in (civilian and military) aviation for decades. Doesn't that negate this patent as prior art? Or can you now patent the application of an idea to a market? Or am I misunderstanding how vague this patent is?
I am not interested. What's the difference between this and all the other all-in-one computers out there? The fact that the CPU is in the keyboard instead of the monitor? Who cares...?
Fair enough. I've always understood a Zero-Day attack as being one that required no action on the part of the user/administrator to perform. So a buffer overflow in Apache would be, but a virus that required you top open an email to install would not be. But I guess I have my terms mixed up. Sorry...
Well, so then use them for appropriate uses. I don't need 2TB on my laptop (I barely need 40gb). But on my home file server, I could use the spinning disks for brute capacity. So perhaps what we may start seeing is more and more computers shipped with a 20 or 40gb SSD boot disk with a 500gb or 1TB "data disk"... But to say that spinning disks will go away is kinda short sighted...
If you bought a lock and three years later someone found a way to pick it would you expect the company to give you a new lock?
No. But if I bought a lock that claimed to be secure, and a few months down the line someone figured out that you could unlock it by simply putting a paperclip in the end, I would expect them to give me a new lock. I expect a reasonable level of security, and I expect a reasonable length of support for that security. If they told me 1 month after purchase that they weren't going to fix security issues, I'd be flabbergasted. If there was a critical zero day vulnerability found, I expect it fixed yesterday (In understand that in reality it takes time, but I expect the fix in a reasonable amount of time, not years). And since it was a fundamental flaw in the original design, I either way the fix for free, or a free upgrade to software that doesn't contain the fundamental flaw. Just because they get away with it doesn't make it right...
It takes money to patch security issues and issue updates that money has to come from somewhere.
When I purchase a product, I expect that product to work. When I pay for support, I pay so that I have someone to call if something goes wrong. I don't pay support so that the company can offset its costs from the purchase price. So the money they spend on security should come from the purchase price (after all, security is a subset of development rather than a subset of support), not the service contract.
Now if could just kill software patents because they are as dumb as patenting a story, song, movie, or equation.
So then you're saying that because there's an illegal fix to get around an extortion is an excuse for the extortion itself? Or am I missing something there?
That could get VERY dangerous... Just imagine if you thought something along the lines of "I'd love to just ram it in her ass". Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone gets a prolapsed rectum...
Well, the MS case is a little bit different. Are they withholding security fixes from Vista if you don't upgrade to 7? No.
Sure, you could make the argument that it not being able to work on low memory systems as being a "bug", but what are the damages there? Maybe the retail cost of Vista? What this is about is a case where the computer was compromised form a security vulnerability that they refuse to fix unless you pay them. The damages can be very high (potentially millions of $$$). Now, I doubt anyone that has millions to lose would not get the subscription, but that's beside the point.
But this is not necessarily open source. Sure parts of it are, but they also include binary proprietary code in their distribution. So sure, you could fix the open source parts yourself, but how could you fix flaws in their proprietary code?
A contract to perform an illegal act is not a valid contract... Considering here the threat is that you can be attacked through the vulnerabilities that were provided in the original software package, I think the argument could be made that this is extortion. And if it is extortion, then they would become responsible for any damages occurring because of the extortion. So even though they disclaimed liability, they could still be held liable (If it is found to be extortion). The disclaimer of liability can been thrown out in cases of criminal negligence (If they installed a back door on your server and then exploited it, they would be liable for the damages regardless of what was in the license)... So it really doesn't matter in this particular case if you agreed to their terms or not so long as a court would agree that this is extortion...
Actually, that brings up a point. Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever? "They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...? This isn't about feature updates (which they could justify charging for), it's about flaws in what they gave out... Now sure, you could say that the flaws were outside of their control because they came from upstream. But if that was the case, how in the world could they justify charging for those updates as not being extortion?...
Aren't only 12 of those satellites available over the US? Meaning the other 12 are situated over other parts of the world? Since you need 5 satellites to legally be able to use a GPS system in an aircraft, you'd only need to take out 8 to completely knock out US air travel. Taking out 5 or 6 would likely take out a large chunk of it. Sure, it's more than just 1, but it's still quite feasible (After all, if you can knock out one satellite, how hard is it to knock out 5?)...
Well, even just a rewrite won't be enough. They would need to re-engineer... Otherwise, it's just creating a derivative work (After all, if you have the exact same story, but with different character names, it's still plagiarism)... Either that, or use a blind coding technique (I look to see what code needs to be written based on what's there and describe the function to you. You then write your own code without ever looking at the original). But I'd venture to say the re-engineered work would be a lot easier to defend in court than one based on the blind technique... And if what's needed is large enough, it is likely cheaper to just engineer a new version from scratch than to find all the bits you don't have copyright over, and get someone to re-engineer them...
I disagree with that POV. The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders. That's the power of the Internet. The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society. When a country tries to limit or control the internet, it is either because they don't understand it, or they fear it. This is especially true in cultures of control such as China and Iran. They are afraid of the internet, because it gives people access to a truly free society. The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.
If this bill did anything for the actual health care system, I would agree. However, there is very little actual action in this bill. The vast majority of it sets up safeguards and an additional layer of bureaucratic control. Sure, it does mandate everyone to have insurance.
Right now, Insurance companies are profitable, because they play statistics. The actuarial tables tell them how much risk each person they add to the policy brings, and adjusts the rates to balance everything out. So that leaves one of three options. Either charge people based on their risk (And deny people with too much risk), charge everyone the same rate (but a higher rate than most are paying now) or not make any profit. It's really simple mathematics. If a person with my risk assessment will average $10k in medical expenses over the next 10 years, they would base my rate on that. So I'd be paying about $84 per month towards my own usage. Add on to that the administrative costs, and a slight profit margin and you'll understand why my plan costs me about $150 per month. Up until this bill, it worked pretty close to this. Everyone payed a rate that was based on their risk. However, now with this bill that can no longer function. So if someone has a very high risk, the insurance companies arms are tied as to how much to charge them. Basically, if someone cannot afford to pay the premium associated with their risk, they still must give them the policy. So the insurance companies must then "spread" the risk out among all their policy holders. However, since the bill also restricts rate hikes, insurance companies will have to take the added risk out of the only other thing they can reduce. Their profits...
IMHO if this bill was really about health care, it would not have been about insurance... There are so many other areas in the health care system that are completely broken, yet they attacked the one that was self sufficient. Everyone is quick to jump on the backs of the insurance companies (sure they do shoulder some of the blame) but they are not the biggest offenders. What about the FDA? Their testing policies are so intensive that it literally costs hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars to bring a drug to market... What about the doctors that charge patients hundreds of dollars for a literally 2 minute consult in the emergency room? What about the doctors who order dozens of tests "just in case" (I saw this happen all the time. Doctors would order a CT scan just because "there's a SLIGHT possibility it could be something else")... What about the legal system that thinks that $40 million is an acceptable "retribution" for malpractice cases? What about the legal system that thinks that a doctor who was unable to identify a cancerous tumor the size of a pin head on an xray is actually malpractice? What about the doctors who prey on elderly patients (telling them to see specialists for the sole reason of collecting on the insurance)? What about the senior citizen homes that charge through the nose for care, yet are completely incompetent and actually cause more harm than good?
So pardon me for not thinking that this bill has anything to do with health care (it's an insurance bill, nothing more, nothing less)... And pardon me for not thinking that this will have any affect on fixing the broken system...
Slashdot Mirror
The program would only ever be on the tape in the case of a Universal Turing Machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine...
Now, let's look at how this works. It reads a symbol from the tape using the camera. Then it checks its internal state, and sees what it should do with that symbol (should it change the symbol, change the state, and/or how should it move). Then it does that action and moves on to the next symbol as instructed by the last "rule". Considering that the only thing that the machine keeps track of from position to position is the state, it is indeed a Turing machine. The microprocessor's job (as he states) is to act as the read/write head for the machine. Turing never described HOW the head worked, just WHAT it did. And this head performs EXACTLY what Turing described. And that's why this is a Turing machine. If you wrote a program on your computer that did this, it too would be a Turing machine. The delineation is in how it handles and stores states, not the method in which it "processes" data... And Turing's original work described a Turing machine as using a person to perform the actions (but strictly following the ruleset). So I fail to see how this could possibly NOT be a Turing machine...
Sure they do. The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new. Say they buy a $60 game. Then, in a month when they are tired of it, if they can sell it for $45, the next new game will only cost them $15. The publisher got $120 in sales, but the buyer only paid $75 (well, neglecting the time-cost of money). I'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games. They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one... Sure, there are some like me that don't sell games unless they really suck, but then again I have the money to be able to do that. If I was pushing a strict budget, you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones (and when you're talking a 5 or 10% difference between new and used, why not go new and have a better chance of resale later)...
Because they can, and because we still buy their games. It's as simple as that. If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies. But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)... Does it suck? Absolutely...
I wonder if math shouldn't be shifted rather than postponed... Why teach geometry and other "basic" math that early? Personally, I found calculus made most of mathematics far easier. Basically, what I'm saying is would it be worth it to try to teach calculus and algebra earlier, and the more formal concepts later? Sure, if you don't know that 2 * 2 = 4, how can you solve x * x = 4, but do students really need to learn anything more than basic algebra and the Cartesian coordinate system to grasp the foundations of calculus? And also what about introducing the concept of vectors earlier than college? I'm not saying to go into tensors in 5th grade, but I do think that you could introduce the calculus concepts along with y = mx + b. Sure, you don't need to make them do complex integrals and derivations at that age, but at least get the wheel turning... I don't know if it would work, but it's something I've been curious about for quite some time...
The site's /.ed, so no they can't (At least for me, I'm getting a DB connection error). But I look forward to looking at them once it's back online...
The question I have is how many of these things are down to earth inventions, and how many are just academic ideas that they just decided to patent? When I say academic idea, I mean something along the lines of "Hrm, an observer model would be good for notifying an application about a change in a sensor". Even if nobody had done it before, does that make it an invention that should be patentable? And what about the delineation between method and implementation? You can increase the power band of a car engine by using variable valve timing. Should that in and of itself be patentable? What about the specific method that uses oil under pressure to laterally move the camshaft along a threaded "valley" to alter the timing (Basically Honda's V-Tech)? One is an idea/concept, and the other is an implementation. IMHO, an idea is useless without a specific implementation, and ideas should not be patentable. The problem with this, is that most of the software patents I've seen patent the idea, not the implementation. Now sure, with software the line between idea and implementation is much finer, but that's more of an argument towards the patent-ability of software in general, not what constitutes an implementation...
Well, why ask for anything then? Why not just send a secure token to a recorded contact point (Such as an email address or a phone number or a snail mail address)? Then require that token to reset the password?
It isn't the fact that they copied the idea. It's the fact that it took so long to do so. I mean Windows has been through how many revisions since Up2Date (Yum's predecessor) and APT have been around? Since at latest 1999 (I'm sure there were earlier, but I know they existed in 99). And in that time, MS released XP, Vista and 7 (as far as desktop OS's go)...
Well, yes and no. Voice still goes out over CDMA. What this means to you though, is that when voice is using CDMA, EVDO can't operate (since it uses the same radio). However, it can still use WiMAX and 802.11... So you can use voice and data at the same time, but only if you're in the range of either WiMAX or 802.11... Cool, but not groundbreaking (yet).
Inertial navigation systems use accelerometers as input to a computer for controlling its output (Navigation readings, autopilots, etc), and have been used in (civilian and military) aviation for decades. Doesn't that negate this patent as prior art? Or can you now patent the application of an idea to a market? Or am I misunderstanding how vague this patent is?
True, but at that point, why not just get a netbook, and be able to use it without an external monitor if you so choose?
No BASIC? It's not a Commodore 64 then...
I am not interested. What's the difference between this and all the other all-in-one computers out there? The fact that the CPU is in the keyboard instead of the monitor? Who cares...?
Fair enough. I've always understood a Zero-Day attack as being one that required no action on the part of the user/administrator to perform. So a buffer overflow in Apache would be, but a virus that required you top open an email to install would not be. But I guess I have my terms mixed up. Sorry...
Well, so then use them for appropriate uses. I don't need 2TB on my laptop (I barely need 40gb). But on my home file server, I could use the spinning disks for brute capacity. So perhaps what we may start seeing is more and more computers shipped with a 20 or 40gb SSD boot disk with a 500gb or 1TB "data disk"... But to say that spinning disks will go away is kinda short sighted...
No. But if I bought a lock that claimed to be secure, and a few months down the line someone figured out that you could unlock it by simply putting a paperclip in the end, I would expect them to give me a new lock. I expect a reasonable level of security, and I expect a reasonable length of support for that security. If they told me 1 month after purchase that they weren't going to fix security issues, I'd be flabbergasted. If there was a critical zero day vulnerability found, I expect it fixed yesterday (In understand that in reality it takes time, but I expect the fix in a reasonable amount of time, not years). And since it was a fundamental flaw in the original design, I either way the fix for free, or a free upgrade to software that doesn't contain the fundamental flaw. Just because they get away with it doesn't make it right...
When I purchase a product, I expect that product to work. When I pay for support, I pay so that I have someone to call if something goes wrong. I don't pay support so that the company can offset its costs from the purchase price. So the money they spend on security should come from the purchase price (after all, security is a subset of development rather than a subset of support), not the service contract.
I agree 110%...
So then you're saying that because there's an illegal fix to get around an extortion is an excuse for the extortion itself? Or am I missing something there?
That could get VERY dangerous... Just imagine if you thought something along the lines of "I'd love to just ram it in her ass". Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone gets a prolapsed rectum...
Well, the MS case is a little bit different. Are they withholding security fixes from Vista if you don't upgrade to 7? No.
Sure, you could make the argument that it not being able to work on low memory systems as being a "bug", but what are the damages there? Maybe the retail cost of Vista? What this is about is a case where the computer was compromised form a security vulnerability that they refuse to fix unless you pay them. The damages can be very high (potentially millions of $$$). Now, I doubt anyone that has millions to lose would not get the subscription, but that's beside the point.
But this is not necessarily open source. Sure parts of it are, but they also include binary proprietary code in their distribution. So sure, you could fix the open source parts yourself, but how could you fix flaws in their proprietary code?
A contract to perform an illegal act is not a valid contract... Considering here the threat is that you can be attacked through the vulnerabilities that were provided in the original software package, I think the argument could be made that this is extortion. And if it is extortion, then they would become responsible for any damages occurring because of the extortion. So even though they disclaimed liability, they could still be held liable (If it is found to be extortion). The disclaimer of liability can been thrown out in cases of criminal negligence (If they installed a back door on your server and then exploited it, they would be liable for the damages regardless of what was in the license)... So it really doesn't matter in this particular case if you agreed to their terms or not so long as a court would agree that this is extortion...
Actually, that brings up a point. Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever? "They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...? This isn't about feature updates (which they could justify charging for), it's about flaws in what they gave out... Now sure, you could say that the flaws were outside of their control because they came from upstream. But if that was the case, how in the world could they justify charging for those updates as not being extortion?...
Aren't only 12 of those satellites available over the US? Meaning the other 12 are situated over other parts of the world? Since you need 5 satellites to legally be able to use a GPS system in an aircraft, you'd only need to take out 8 to completely knock out US air travel. Taking out 5 or 6 would likely take out a large chunk of it. Sure, it's more than just 1, but it's still quite feasible (After all, if you can knock out one satellite, how hard is it to knock out 5?)...
Well, even just a rewrite won't be enough. They would need to re-engineer... Otherwise, it's just creating a derivative work (After all, if you have the exact same story, but with different character names, it's still plagiarism)... Either that, or use a blind coding technique (I look to see what code needs to be written based on what's there and describe the function to you. You then write your own code without ever looking at the original). But I'd venture to say the re-engineered work would be a lot easier to defend in court than one based on the blind technique... And if what's needed is large enough, it is likely cheaper to just engineer a new version from scratch than to find all the bits you don't have copyright over, and get someone to re-engineer them...
I disagree with that POV. The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders. That's the power of the Internet. The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society. When a country tries to limit or control the internet, it is either because they don't understand it, or they fear it. This is especially true in cultures of control such as China and Iran. They are afraid of the internet, because it gives people access to a truly free society. The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.
If this bill did anything for the actual health care system, I would agree. However, there is very little actual action in this bill. The vast majority of it sets up safeguards and an additional layer of bureaucratic control. Sure, it does mandate everyone to have insurance.
Right now, Insurance companies are profitable, because they play statistics. The actuarial tables tell them how much risk each person they add to the policy brings, and adjusts the rates to balance everything out. So that leaves one of three options. Either charge people based on their risk (And deny people with too much risk), charge everyone the same rate (but a higher rate than most are paying now) or not make any profit. It's really simple mathematics. If a person with my risk assessment will average $10k in medical expenses over the next 10 years, they would base my rate on that. So I'd be paying about $84 per month towards my own usage. Add on to that the administrative costs, and a slight profit margin and you'll understand why my plan costs me about $150 per month. Up until this bill, it worked pretty close to this. Everyone payed a rate that was based on their risk. However, now with this bill that can no longer function. So if someone has a very high risk, the insurance companies arms are tied as to how much to charge them. Basically, if someone cannot afford to pay the premium associated with their risk, they still must give them the policy. So the insurance companies must then "spread" the risk out among all their policy holders. However, since the bill also restricts rate hikes, insurance companies will have to take the added risk out of the only other thing they can reduce. Their profits...
IMHO if this bill was really about health care, it would not have been about insurance... There are so many other areas in the health care system that are completely broken, yet they attacked the one that was self sufficient. Everyone is quick to jump on the backs of the insurance companies (sure they do shoulder some of the blame) but they are not the biggest offenders. What about the FDA? Their testing policies are so intensive that it literally costs hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars to bring a drug to market... What about the doctors that charge patients hundreds of dollars for a literally 2 minute consult in the emergency room? What about the doctors who order dozens of tests "just in case" (I saw this happen all the time. Doctors would order a CT scan just because "there's a SLIGHT possibility it could be something else")... What about the legal system that thinks that $40 million is an acceptable "retribution" for malpractice cases? What about the legal system that thinks that a doctor who was unable to identify a cancerous tumor the size of a pin head on an xray is actually malpractice? What about the doctors who prey on elderly patients (telling them to see specialists for the sole reason of collecting on the insurance)? What about the senior citizen homes that charge through the nose for care, yet are completely incompetent and actually cause more harm than good?
So pardon me for not thinking that this bill has anything to do with health care (it's an insurance bill, nothing more, nothing less)... And pardon me for not thinking that this will have any affect on fixing the broken system...