Here is a clue for you - the man is a lawyer. He very definitely sees things slightly differently from you. You cannot ever expect someone, even your idol, to agree with you 100%. If you feel so sore about his opinions, why don't you email him with what you believe are cogent arguments and try to get him to see it from your point of view?
Yes. So it is not much the idea but that it was an idea that takes time and effort to demostrate that is worthwhile. These are what patents protect right?
You are arguing a strawman. In no way is anyone saying "I want that for free, I should have a right to it". If there is anyone saying that, then they are wrong, and they should learn why.
Instead, we should consider each patent on its merits,and the benefits to HUMANITY amd to the INVENTOR of making it public. Each patent, each idea should be separately considered becuase ideas have a different ranges of applicability, monetary gain, use, and worth.
In this way, I consider IP not to be a single idea, contrary to what everyone automatically assumes. IP rights are not natural rights, and they should have have any defaults.
For example - consider the idea of modern sanitation. Although that idea is now in the public domain, how should we reward that engineer (supposing he was still alive) who though up this idea, which everyone, the public is benefitting from? Certainly he should be paid. But do you think he has grounds to DENY anyone the benefits of the flushing toilet or sewage treatment?
Any kind of control you impose on this has very little to do with something else, like say, In-Vitro-Fertilization.
So back on topic. What about the Dolby AC3 patent? Consider what the world will be like without Dolby AC3. Then consider what it is worth to the public, whether this balances practice of paying Dolby for x years for use of that technology. And whatever system you put in place, please ensure that both all parties commit to the deal.
Is this so hard to understand? Or do you believe that only the inventors have the right to demand anything they want?
I am on Sklyarov's side. But I also have that little buzzer that goes off in my brain before I pretend to give legal advice about things I know nothing about.
First of all, You Are Not A Lawyer. YANAL. The DMCA is untested law. There is no way anyone can authoritatively claim that "the DMCA was broken". Now why can't the EFF claim that Sklyarov was making this "circumvention device" for "interoperability" between say, Blind screen readers and ebook readers?
Sure I agree with you that there is fair use, that it should be a consideration here. BUT THE AMOUNT OF INTELLECTUAL POSERY HERE ABOUT WHAT IS LAW AND NOT, IS DISGUSTING.
To that crack smoking moderator who thought it was insighful, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Did you take Law 101 or something?
You claim is that measure is not a good criteria of reaching "intelligence". Which measure? Of what?
For example, storage. It seems that we can build harddisks in excess of human brain capacity. But static storage is incomparable to the dynamic kind of store the brains have. So - wrong measure.
Another example: FLOPS. The human brain is a massively parallel computer, microchips are not. Now it is claimed that you can simulate a parrallel computer by a single chip one. Admittedly, the difference between possibility and practicability is huge. But if the brain is a massively parallel computer, then a sufficiently fast chip will get to the level where it has comparable compute power. Just run a brain simulation of this computer. If the brain is not, then again - wrong measure.
We can just go on, finding the right measure. I think all things considered, that mesaure will be exceeded and by that time, we will have a conscious computer.
At some level, you either have faith, or you don't.
I wish I had your penetrating insight into the law. How weak citizens are, to doubt the true words of the law as it is incribed in the DMCA. How wise our lawmakers, to draft and voted for such a pristine clear law. How righteuous our judges must be, to no further considerations upon their minds other than what clearly and rightly os is the case: DIMITRI SKLYAROV HAS VIOLATED THE DMCA, AND THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT.
(Maybe you should familarize yourself with the reverse-engineering provisions in the DMCA while you are there telling us what your judgement is.)
But seriously, don't you think there's a huge step from building an artificial neurological brain to making it actually work. We may imitate some internal processes in the neurons, but the brain has a huge and complex architecture suited for human activity and body. I believe it can be done, roughly, but if it's going to be in MY lifetime there'll have to be HUUGE advances soon.
While skepticism is a fine sentiment, I can't help notice that you are making more assumptions than Vinge is. Sure we will be able to simulate or imitate the brain roughly -- but I think it is a stretch to demand that consciousness come only from detailed imitation. It may be that roughly is enough. The brain is also a finite machine - we will soon be able to build electronics that excess the capacity.
Does the computer really care if it was spinning around in an idle loop or if it was factoring a prime?
The actual loss is probably a little more electricity that it could have been if idle. His fine and punishment is totally out of proportion to the "abuse".
Sure we have the principle -- the owner of the computer should get to decide if he wants such processes running. At the very most the employer could be fired. Jail? That's ridiculous. It's a wholly civil matter between the employer and the employee. It's not a crime.
Also, since Pi is a ratio that we 'choose' to express in a base10 numerical system, would the fact that the digits are random in a decimal system mean that they would be random if we expressed Pi in a hexidecimal or octal system?
How is this insightful?
Suppose there is some base b such that the digits of repeat. Then Pi * b * m = n where m and n is some integer. And so we would have Pi = n / b *m. But
m and n are integers, as is b. So you've just shown that Pi is a rational number. It is not. Hence, no such base exists.
To all the folks whining about hypocrisy of the slashdot folk, I must say that you have all lost your nuts.
First of all, not everyone on Slasdot is a hypocrite.
Second of all, are you going to take these people word for granted that the people using Napster or Bearshare or whatever is actually a violator? What if the song "shared" is only similarly titled to some other RIAA song? You trust Random "Boba Fett" Bounty Hunter now huh?
You can't even begin to list the various transgressions being done by the RIAA. Creating a whole inductry of bounty hunters - is that endorsed by right thinking Americans now? Using the threat of legal action against ISP when they have no case.
If you want to complain about the hypocrisy of the slashdot crowd, then I should like to complain that "two wrongs don't make a right".;
If he was charging money, he was demostrating that he is running a legitimate business sanctioned by the laws in Russia, that you should be able to break the encryption of the works you bought.
The people who wish to use and own a copy of his converter had to cough up money for the functionality. Just like the people who wished to do wordprovcessing had to cough up money for MS Word.
If I distribnuted the program for free, then his motivations need to be examined. What does this guy gain by breaking Adobe's encryption?
Sorry, but I was not clear. You see, it is obvious to you that the DMCA is a bad law. But from RIAA's perspective, it is the law. In other words, the obviousness of the "goodness" of a law is in doubt.
In other words, both of you have not give reasons why it is a bad law. Without so, you've merely expressed a faith in the judges.
I have no problems with having faith in the courts. We need to keep this from being a shouting match between the techies, who shout "bad law" and the RIAA and gang, who shout "good law". For this, we need REASONS, not contentions, not moral one-upmanship, or legal maneuvring. Because you are presenting this case before the courts, and we do believe these are reasonable judges, right?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but please tell that to Sklyarov.
FBI agents handcuffed and arrested him, under the DMCA, as it was claimed. I don't think the RIAA, MPAA, or Adobe is joking. At all.
I agree with you, but I want to point out the advantage of putting these functions into a separate DLL. This means that someone can replace them if you want to. For example, the html renderer could be replaced with Mozilla's gecko. You would do this, if the user somehow preferred the the way Gecko renderred things, or if it fixes bugs that were in the MS IE renderer.
If MS wanted to give users the choice, this would be exactly what they should have done.
Sorry, but by obscure and hard to use, I mean by Joe User's standards.
I understand that there was and has been many people (myself included) who are well acquainted with FTP. The lack of Napster is not going to stop these bunch.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a clue for you - the man is a lawyer. He very definitely sees things slightly differently from you. You cannot ever expect someone, even your idol, to agree with you 100%. If you feel so sore about his opinions, why don't you email him with what you believe are cogent arguments and try to get him to see it from your point of view?
I don't agree that most people require 6 CDROM packs to keep their installations up to date.
But let's pretend this is so. Make some comparative facts to commercial osftware offerrings. Sounds more reasonable now, Mr Coward?
Agreed! And I would add - WELL DOCUMENTED SOURCE CODE IN A READABLE LANGUAGE. Pseudocode should qualify.
Yes. So it is not much the idea but that it was an idea that takes time and effort to demostrate that is worthwhile. These are what patents protect right?
Sorry, but I would like to as insightful as you are. How is this a cool idea?
Instead, we should consider each patent on its merits,and the benefits to HUMANITY amd to the INVENTOR of making it public. Each patent, each idea should be separately considered becuase ideas have a different ranges of applicability, monetary gain, use, and worth.
In this way, I consider IP not to be a single idea, contrary to what everyone automatically assumes. IP rights are not natural rights, and they should have have any defaults.
For example - consider the idea of modern sanitation. Although that idea is now in the public domain, how should we reward that engineer (supposing he was still alive) who though up this idea, which everyone, the public is benefitting from? Certainly he should be paid. But do you think he has grounds to DENY anyone the benefits of the flushing toilet or sewage treatment?
Any kind of control you impose on this has very little to do with something else, like say, In-Vitro-Fertilization.
So back on topic. What about the Dolby AC3 patent? Consider what the world will be like without Dolby AC3. Then consider what it is worth to the public, whether this balances practice of paying Dolby for x years for use of that technology. And whatever system you put in place, please ensure that both all parties commit to the deal.
Is this so hard to understand? Or do you believe that only the inventors have the right to demand anything they want?
Please. Patents have nothing to do with copyright. YANAL.
First of all, You Are Not A Lawyer. YANAL. The DMCA is untested law. There is no way anyone can authoritatively claim that "the DMCA was broken". Now why can't the EFF claim that Sklyarov was making this "circumvention device" for "interoperability" between say, Blind screen readers and ebook readers?
Sure I agree with you that there is fair use, that it should be a consideration here. BUT THE AMOUNT OF INTELLECTUAL POSERY HERE ABOUT WHAT IS LAW AND NOT, IS DISGUSTING.
To that crack smoking moderator who thought it was insighful, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Did you take Law 101 or something?
How is he involved in the trafficking? If anything, it is his company that should be arrested.
For example, storage. It seems that we can build harddisks in excess of human brain capacity. But static storage is incomparable to the dynamic kind of store the brains have. So - wrong measure.
Another example: FLOPS. The human brain is a massively parallel computer, microchips are not. Now it is claimed that you can simulate a parrallel computer by a single chip one. Admittedly, the difference between possibility and practicability is huge. But if the brain is a massively parallel computer, then a sufficiently fast chip will get to the level where it has comparable compute power. Just run a brain simulation of this computer. If the brain is not, then again - wrong measure.
We can just go on, finding the right measure. I think all things considered, that mesaure will be exceeded and by that time, we will have a conscious computer.
At some level, you either have faith, or you don't.
I wish I had your penetrating insight into the law. How weak citizens are, to doubt the true words of the law as it is incribed in the DMCA. How wise our lawmakers, to draft and voted for such a pristine clear law. How righteuous our judges must be, to no further considerations upon their minds other than what clearly and rightly os is the case: DIMITRI SKLYAROV HAS VIOLATED THE DMCA, AND THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT.
(Maybe you should familarize yourself with the reverse-engineering provisions in the DMCA while you are there telling us what your judgement is.)
While skepticism is a fine sentiment, I can't help notice that you are making more assumptions than Vinge is. Sure we will be able to simulate or imitate the brain roughly -- but I think it is a stretch to demand that consciousness come only from detailed imitation. It may be that roughly is enough. The brain is also a finite machine - we will soon be able to build electronics that excess the capacity.
The actual loss is probably a little more electricity that it could have been if idle. His fine and punishment is totally out of proportion to the "abuse".
Sure we have the principle -- the owner of the computer should get to decide if he wants such processes running. At the very most the employer could be fired. Jail? That's ridiculous. It's a wholly civil matter between the employer and the employee. It's not a crime.
Suppose there is some base b such that the digits of repeat. Then Pi * b * m = n where m and n is some integer. And so we would have Pi = n / b *m. But m and n are integers, as is b. So you've just shown that Pi is a rational number. It is not. Hence, no such base exists.
First of all, not everyone on Slasdot is a hypocrite.
Second of all, are you going to take these people word for granted that the people using Napster or Bearshare or whatever is actually a violator? What if the song "shared" is only similarly titled to some other RIAA song? You trust Random "Boba Fett" Bounty Hunter now huh?
You can't even begin to list the various transgressions being done by the RIAA. Creating a whole inductry of bounty hunters - is that endorsed by right thinking Americans now? Using the threat of legal action against ISP when they have no case.
If you want to complain about the hypocrisy of the slashdot crowd, then I should like to complain that "two wrongs don't make a right".;
Caveman 2: Oww! It's me, you fool! It's me!
Ouch!!!
Well, you could test this by dropping it from a tall height, ensuring that you have enough cushioning at the bottom to catch it without breaking.
The people who wish to use and own a copy of his converter had to cough up money for the functionality. Just like the people who wished to do wordprovcessing had to cough up money for MS Word.
If I distribnuted the program for free, then his motivations need to be examined. What does this guy gain by breaking Adobe's encryption?
I am sure all non-USians are excited about them having to water US's tree of libertiy.
I have no problems with having faith in the courts. We need to keep this from being a shouting match between the techies, who shout "bad law" and the RIAA and gang, who shout "good law". For this, we need REASONS, not contentions, not moral one-upmanship, or legal maneuvring. Because you are presenting this case before the courts, and we do believe these are reasonable judges, right?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but please tell that to Sklyarov. FBI agents handcuffed and arrested him, under the DMCA, as it was claimed. I don't think the RIAA, MPAA, or Adobe is joking. At all.
If MS wanted to give users the choice, this would be exactly what they should have done.
I understand that there was and has been many people (myself included) who are well acquainted with FTP. The lack of Napster is not going to stop these bunch.
How do you know this was not added to the Bible? How do you know Revelations is not part of the Bible?