Before anyone gets all crazy here, be warned. You don't just checksum every file - you might use those checksums to find collisions, and then compare bytes to ensure the files are actually the same. There are already MD5 collision creation methods, many years old, so you should assume any checksum or hash can be manipulated and check the bytes before removing copies.
Then you don't just delete files and make links to one file. You have to let the filesystem present this single file to the operating system as multiple files.
The filesystem handles updates, so it can decide whether to unlink and effectively branch an updated file in that location. Read-only is a kludge for inadequate condition handling. You could hopefully mark files as "unbranchable" so that updates happen once and propagate everywhere, for easier patching.
And finally, keep in mind simple ideas like when you right-click in Windows Explorer, choose New, and then one of the document templates. It copies the default template from your user (or "all users") template location, creates a duplicate copy in the location you clicked, enters a new row in the filesystem named for example "New Microsoft Office Word Document.docx" and highlights the name so you can change it.
In this scenario, the de-duplication would delay making a copy until the file is opened for writing/updating/appending, and then actually gets a write/append/update. At the same time, the filesystem has the potential for a filename duplication and may temporarily re-use parts of a directory entry until the new name is chosen.
This simple process is potentially a CPU and disk IO intensive chore, as a template copy gets hashed and compared to all files on the disk just to find that it's an exact copy from its source file. The GUI knew that much, so the filesystem should be able to skip that. Then the file is intended to be updated, so the entire process was unnecessary, unless the user gets distracted and leaves the new file there, so you want it de-duped.
For performance reasons this has to be aware of the intent of the files, or else it does a whole lot of nothing.
Nope it's dishonest. The same thing applies to software and hardware patents. There's no distinction in that explanation that cannot be applied to mechanical inventions. You've made the case for voiding all patents, not just software.
A far more coherent argument would include the rapid evolution of software, with examples such as GIF. Of course GIF is a special case which allowed a better candidate, PNG, to become more common (with a side journey into IE's market dominance holding back PNG acceptance while IE's PNG support sucked). So GIF encouraged invention, the "legitimate purpose" of patents. So a good argument is difficult to make.
Very simply, math is abstract and remains free. The formula to calculate mortgage interest, or the location of a thrown object given the initial vector, gravity, atmospheric pressure (density), and external force such as wind, are not patentable. You can discover them and write papers and be influential in the field, but never patent it.
PKZIP had a patented compression method. Zlib did the same thing, just using a different method, and created compatible files. MP3 encoders bypassed Fraunhofer patents. Maybe the output wasn't byte-for-byte the same, nor the compression levels equal, but there is a serious hole in the argument for software patents when you can just do the same thing a different way and get around the patent.
The answer to Microsoft's Linux patent FUD is: Show us the patent, we'll work around it. The only place that fails is specific implementations like H.264 or FAT LFN or MPEG or SMB which are multi-platform. You can't program around a patented file format. Did you know that reverse engineering is valid for compatibility purposes? Why would that exist if not for a purpose? Then when you successfully reverse engineer something for compatibility, you can't use it because of patents. Why even have that exception if patents make it irrelevant?
That's my main argument these days - if I can break the DMCA for interoperability, I can ignore patents for the same reason.
The perfect mouse trap is invented, or the perfect lawn mower. I can choose to buy the patented solution, or go with a competitor. I buy in, paying extra for the patented hardware, and break a part. Is it allowed to fabricate my own parts to replace a broken one? Not if it violates the patent. So why can I reverse engineer for software interoperability, but I can't for hardware? Law may say one thing, here's my argument.
Hardware which is validly patentable does not have an interoperability requirement. Your saw does not have to work with other saws, so the parts may be patented. A company like Black and Decker could patent a battery which powers their tools, and they would own interoperability among products but I'm free to choose a competitor or build my own, which need no interoperability.
Software patents are increasingly used to protect a desirable object, so that content creators or consumers or both have to pay to create and/or access the content. Here's a new video codec, use it for a while while we hammer out the standards, then I pull the trigger and require payments. If you are the sole distributor of content and content will be consumed on your device (such as Pez and the Pez dispenser), patent away. But a method of packing up video to be shared with your devices, other companies, competitors and those in unrelated fields - interoperability is a requirement, and patents simply don't make sense.
I have a mathematical algorithm which uses psychoacoustic modeling to reduce the audio data which must be encoded, resulting in smaller files. Brilliant idea, which is unpatentable by itself. The algorithm is unpatentable by itself. I can develop a separate model to accomplish the same thing, better, using the exact same algorithm (with a different model underneath). Psychoacoustics happens to be a fundamental part of the universe, which should be unpatentable like (natural) DNA is, or a description of gravity.
A quote from the summary, which should appear directly above the comments in case you are not familiar with slashdot, is:
and voila, ten times as many galaxies could be seen
.
X is the previous amount, and 10x as the new amount of galaxies.
So simple math gives you X + YX = 10X X(1+Y)=10x (1+Y)=10 Y=9
So we see a 10-fold total galaxies, which is 9-fold improvement. Or to put it another way, the new 100% is 10 times the previous amount, which must have been 10%, leaving 90% more.
You're reading it as "90% of the universe found", from the headline, which is an attempt, although a poor one, at conveying the increase in observable galaxies. It is correct if you assume that we found 90% of the now-current estimate of the number of galaxies, in other words insert the word "known" in the title somewhere. Choosing not to even read the summary has left you understandably confused, and I'm glad that I was able to help. At the same time, I'm concerned that the other replies did not draw your attention to this. But I was able to post an accurate reply while maintaining an air of disdain and condescension, so that makes me feel good about myself. Thank you for affording me the opportunity, and welcome aboard.
Like hide and seek, they just had to pretend to give up the search, and the galaxies got bored and came in for some lemonade, yes?
But I'm wondering if this finding contradicts a few days ago announcement that the movement of galactic clusters is due to mass outside our universe. If our universe now has 90% more mass than it did, now maybe these flows make more sense. At least there's nothing in the article saying "The soon to be announced finding of 9 times the currently known amount of matter does not affect this report."
I think nerds need to be aware that there is such a thing as a service monkey. Further, once we gain this knowledge, the natural question is since you people want to search my notebook, how does this apply to my newly discovered awareness of service monkeys? Do they check for flingable poo? Do they check to see if it can urinate on command? Can they touch my monkey?
The number of duplicate posts with duplicate explanations about whether the monkey may be touched or spanked clearly suggests nerds are interested in these things. Next time don't post, and it will look like fewer people are interested. And I apologize for adding to the post count on the story, but you asked. Next time don't ask, even rhetorical questions, because someone will answer.
I think you are referring to US Patent 6300956 - Stochastic level of detail in computer animation, from 2001. So maybe Pixar has a monopoly on a specific stochastic technique, but you can always invent a better one or go around it using non-stochastic optimisation. I'll have to find it, but some time in the last week I saw an infinite zoom, infinite object demo which allowed this in real-time without using stochastic anything.
Pixar is a movie company - they don't even need optimization except on the dailies which don't have to be perfect. The final render on an animated movie doesn't have to be efficient, just good, so it doesn't even make sense why they would be pursuing this. If one idea is patented, invent around it and surpass it. GIF was patented, so PNG was born. If not for patents, we wouldn't have PNG. There's your innovation.
Unfortunately, algorithms are often dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.
You're not solving a mathematical problem with a set answer. How many algorithms do we have for calculating PI? More than I ever thought possible. It's just the simple measure and divide problem, so why is it so complicated? Because there are many solutions to the same problem. When ID Games invented the optimized inverse square root for their game engines, they let CPUs do what they could never have done without it, and gamers rejoiced. It is strongly dependent on the "first approximation" for Newton-Raphson iteration, which with a clever "first approximation" does not need iteration. There are lots of ways to optimize inverse square root in software, some better than others.
PS The companies that maintain usable, marketable products are typically the ones that take good design and merge it with existing patents, usually cross-licensed. Apple tends to try to buy little companies for their patents, but iPod is based on a patent minefield, just done better than the competition and thus more profitable. So you can in theory invest in marketable companies rather than smart ones that produce intellectual property, but either way the IP companies get paid - royalties or being purchased, it doesn't matter.
All of software comes down to an algorithm ultimately - there's one that detects which key I'm pressing and tells the BIOS a key code, and one that recognizes the key code, and translates that into ASCII or Unicode, and the FireFox window responds by adding characters to this text box, and then FireFox collects them all and sends them to Slashdot. It checks for updates at a regular interval, renders images predictably given standard input - it understands HTTP and FTP communication - it's an algorithm.
But there's a reason you can't patent algorightms, even complicated ones. But a cotton gin is patentable, even though it's basically "use an automated arm to brush seeds out of cotton." That's a boring program to write, more exciting than farmville, but revolutionary for its time. So we give a temporary monopoly, and now it's free for anyone to use. Or improve on, or invent a better one.
Because your information about cancer and insurance sounds 30 years out of date, possible responses include:
-If you get cancer you're fucked no matter what. -If you get cancer you'll just extend you painful life trying to fight the symptoms. -It doesn't matter cos cancer is nearly cured.
If right to life meant right to artificial extension of life, free doctor care would have been set up by the founding fathers. I'm not saying whether it's valid, since I elected my representatives to decide those things for me, but you're arguing that their words applied to doctoring and there's little evidence of that. Right to life certainly covers not being shot, or not being poisoned by wastewater, or lead in childrens' toys, or things like asbestos.
Being poor doesn't mean you die decades earlier, unless you're talking about a small percentage of cancers and a small percentage of the population which will gain benefit from expensive medicines and treatments. Some of the treatments are worse than just taking large amounts of over-the-counter pain relievers and waiting it out. In the most expensive (common) treatments, prognosis is usually measured in months, so left untreated you're not close to a single decade, let alone multiple.
So in short, you have a marginal point, but specious support at best.
The whole reason you file a claim is because you want them to pay, and they negotiated a lower price. It's no different from joining a members-only warehouse like Sam's Club. Set prices for most goods and large discounts on some special deal items.
It's backwards from what you say. Doctors have high list prices because insurance companies have a set price that doctors must accept by signing on to the insurance company. In order to get paid by us (since you will get pennies on the dollar from the number of people who pay your bill in full after bankruptcy or collections takes their cut), you agree to those prices. How do the prices get set? By looking at prices in an area and deciding what's reasonable. $120 for lab work including blood draw becomes $6.83, paid in full and guaranteed without having to bill the customer. If you don't have an HRA set up then the insurance company usually pays part of the cost, guaranteeing you'll see money faster than getting it out of the average patient.
If you'd prefer to think of doctors as non-colluding, they make up what the insurance company refuses to pay by having the uninsured pay more. If you like colluding doctors, they intentionally set high prices hoping to bring up the average cost of a procedure, and thus their share. The latter is what was explained to me by a member of a medical practice, but anyone can choose to disbelieve.
Basically, the insurance company will pay the gap between the $20 copay and their agreed-on fee, which might be $60, with your premiums. Once they spend what you paid, they use other peoples' premiums. Once they run out of money they increase premiums.
Laws must be clear, and apply to everyone equally. There is no way to successfully defend one's claim that they never read the patent, making enforcement based on your ideas highly subjective. This makes enforcement subject to fraud and abuse by people who read the patent but claim opposite, or reverse engineer an existing implementation and claim they never saw the existing object. Your points are good, but fall apart when dishonesty is introduced.
In addition, the situation where an idea is invented independently in the span of the lifetime of the patent is extremely rare, except for in software. Ignoring software, you have inventions which come out of nowhere and are truly novel, or you have a path of continuous research which points to a single conclusion which many people "discover" at the same time due to reading about the existing research, or seeing new products based on the patent. The natural progression of an invention gives a good case for "non-obvious" defense of a patent based on the information available to experts in the field, and it is a failure of the patent clerks, not the idea of patents, which makes this even an issue. Granting an invalid patent which is later revoked is irreparable harm, until we invent a time machine that can go back and deny or "lose" the patent application.
Specifically, "non-obvious" does not mean "unique" in the context of patents. The problem being solved is allowing people to profit for a limited time by their inventions, in exchange to turning it over to the public domain so that everyone may use it. They are not stealing - they have exclusive usage for a limited time. If you couldn't get by without a cotton gin from 1793 to 1810, you have to wonder why you didn't invent it yourself, and then either continue as you are or pay the license fee. Or build one yourself and just don't tell people about it, and hope no one catches you (we call that gambling, especially due to the possibility of triple damages). Within 3 years, there were 3 improvements to the cotton gin - patentable improvements, basically refuting your point that the information is locked away. You license the original invention, add your improvement which the original inventor cannot add to his own product, and enjoy your profit. Until someone out-thinks you, and patents and improvement.
Three different people reached the same conclusions, based on entirely different perspectives and history. In your eyes this is the same invention. Summaries below, but the point is that independent invention by different people does not mean they intended to apply the invention in the same domain, nor for the same purpose. The invention of the lever, and the application of the lever to different problems, are independent discoveries, all of which were non-obvious until someone invented it. If you read enough patents, however, you'll find that the invention claimed is not always something novel - sometimes it is a novel application of a known concept or object. This is probably not a patentable idea, but it does illustrate with well-documented and uncontested detail how the idea came about for each person, and each person's intent. The patent filing would read very differently for each person, and could very well result in 3 perfectly valid patents for essentially the same underlying concept, based on its intended usage. If you don't believe me, look at the dot-com trend of (seemingly) taking every existing patent and adding "on the internet", and getting a new patent granted.
As you might read, Bohlen was curious about the physics underlying music, and the apparently arbitrary choice of musicians to limit themselves to a single tuning and scale system for all of the Western music ever invented. His thought produced an alternate
A clever tactic. Find the documents but don't read them, just search for a single word and when it's not found declare victory.
It's not like you have to wade through piles of links and judge whether the sources are biased. There's one GPL2 license, and there's one GPL3 license, and if you wanted to make sure you had the right one you could go download the source and snag the license directly.
Did you simply not understand it? Or did you read the preamble and decide you'd let someone else read it to you?
For future reference, the correct options in such a situation are: 1) Read and study the document, don't find it, assert that the statement is unsupported, and challenge the person to find evidence to support it. 2) Ask the person to support their statement because you have not taken the time to read it.
You chose option 3: Assume that since CTRL-F didn't work, the person is just making stuff up. It's right there in section 0, you only had to read 165 words. Or if you just read the preamble, These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. That should be enough to suggest that you're not going to find a ban on just reading/studying it.
National security laws exist for a reason, but they are often enforced for entirely different reasons.
Based on the description, there is absolutely nothing here that qualifies for protection. If the military made a mistake and killed innocent people, this news will come out instead. If it was intentional, the only proper course is to expose it.
The only reason "national security" would qualify as an excuse is the fear of backlash or "blowback", either from the citizens or from a foreign country, depending on who was murdered. I don't think whatever this is can top the extraordinary rendition news, or Abu Ghraib, or waterboarding, or detainee "suicides", or anything else that has come out so far. It will add a small amount of fuel to an already huge flaming hatred, at most.
If they do reveal specifics like troop movements or secret agent names, they will be attacked in any way possible, including labeling them enemy combatants and dropping a bomb on them. So I doubt they are going to that level. I don't know what documents WikiLeaks has chosen NOT to show, but the ones they have shown were necessary for the public (or parts of the public) to know and do not put national security at risk.
I see no reason to expect that they are going to announce something that will get them high on America's target list in advance of releasing it. I also see no reason for anyone to be surprised that the CIA wants to know what this is before anyone else sees it. That's their job, and unless they can infiltrate WL or hack some servers real quick like, the only way is the classical way - follow people, take pictures, and ask questions. Citizens may be held without charges for a limited time, and I don't see this being violated anywhere.
In other words, it's all going as one would expect. I want to know what it is now, where before I didn't know that I wanted to know what something was. So thanks, editor, for going through 22 hours of persecution as a publicity stunt, if it helps the cause.
I'm not reading the article, I'm not reading any of the comments and any website that implements this will go in the hosts file to my local web server (on a non-standard port) that serves up a custom "Warning, retards built this site" message in whatever format requested - html, png, gif, or anything else. My webcam is turned around backwards to point at the undecorated, antique white walls and if they can think they see a face or eyeballs in that it's not going to be moving.
It's rare that I refuse a technology outright, but my eyeballs move for a reason and you're not going to track them, even if it helps me. Call me a luddite, but no no and fuck no.
They both go around in a circle - one is horizontal and one is vertical.
Oops, I missed the word "price". Vertical should be more expensive due to the varying g-forces. Horizontal spinning does not have to counteract gravity.
AC wins. I see painters modernizing the scenes because their own standard of living improves. Especially as they moved into the Reubenesque period, where fatness was attractive because it meant you could afford food without having to work 16 hour days growing it. They would have lacked insight such as it being a Passover Sedar, and instead made it a normal meal for the time.
I assume the intent is to show that people got fatter throughout time, especially since it was published in International Journal of Obesity. But it actually demonstrates advances in agriculture and availability of food.
Compare New York University nutrition researcher Lisa R. Young:
There is scant evidence that the body mass index of people in developed societies soared into unhealthy ranges for most of the 1,000 years studied, Young said.
with Brian Wansink, director of the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab and author of "Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.":
Instead, they suggest, it's a natural consequence of "dramatic socio-historic increases in the production, availability, safety, abundance and affordability of food" over the millennium that started in the year 1000 A.D.
"The contemporary discovery of increasing food portions and availability may be little more than 1,000-year-old wine in a new bottle," the Wansinks wrote.
This is book publicity, only book publicity, and very bad book publicity at that.
BlurryEyed, meet Solfege. Solfege, may I introduce BlurryEyed. He'll shake your hand once he's had his morning dose of crack to get moving this afternoon.
232) VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH 233) VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.
That's two likely to be uninfected. And Poland, I forgot Poland.
172) POLAND 95) HOLY SEE (VATICAN CITY STATE) 42) CHAD
If there's anywhere we should guess is uninfected, it's the Vatican - amirite? And I know Chad, he says he's clean. Also, not on the country list: Sealand
The same EULA that lies to you about your other rights also forbids reverse engineering or altering of the product. Besides, the whole point here is selling something that is broken. A tangible product which does not work would be subject to return with refund, or if it were a safety issue a recall. Identity theft being a very real and serious problem, I would pester the FTC or similar authority to demand a recall due to the potential damage. Someone is storing SSN or other type of personal data in a database somewhere with known security holes that the vendor is trying to extort - that's screaming for a recall.
Everyone decompiles the app, maybe a few find the vulnerability, some percent of those people manage to fix it, a few of those fixes manage to work without introducing additional security holes, you're still left with a bunch of swiss cheese as a server. Could everyone share their binary patches? Sure, but you need a different unofficial patch depending on how many official patches have been applied, and who do you trust to release a patch without a backdoor?
The types of questions on the FCC broadband test can be answered by anyone, but questions like what speed does your ISP promise you is more difficult.
FCC: Enter your address and click on this Java thing to run a speed test to show what you're actually getting, ignoring things like competition and user choice. If the cable company is a bunch of ripe turds and everyone uses dial-up because they've quit using the cable company, the FCC will see that only dial-up is available in the area.
My problem is that cable is on the other side of the street but not this side, which is a 3 year old problem at the least. So I have to use satellite or DSL. DSL without voice is inexpensive, but it's by AT&T, and I don't want to give them money. Satellite? No thanks, I'd rather give AT&T money than use satellite. so my only choice is to give AT&T the absolute least amount I can get away with until cable gets here, $19.95 for naked DSL 768k. The FCC would see this as DSL exists, broadband is available, no issues. But it does not accurately represent the situation.
As long as I'm rambling, this situation isn't what the FCC is trying to measure - they just want to see zones where broadband is either unavailable, unused, or performing poorly. FCC states broadband is "fster than traditional dial-up" on its broadband test pages, but officially defined it as 768k - there is a significant gap between 56k and 768k. That means if I have the absolute minimum service available (conveniently 768k) and my upload/download is not 100% maxed out, my measurements will show less than 768k. Do they round up? If so, how can they tell the difference between dual ISDN-BRI (256k x 2) and 768k?
Don't misunderstand - this survey has serious problems, and will generate a lot of unusable data, but it does the job of highlighting what the FCC is ignoring. FCC could at least add a "What speed does my ISP promise?" box with speed ranges based on whether you select your connection type - but there would be enough users calling for help figuring that out it would bog down the process. So how does an agency deal with stupid users and get the most data? Simplify it to "click this and enter your address and we'll do the rest."
FCC could require an annual report outlining the plans offered and number of users in each plan from every ISP, grouped by residential/commercial usage and zip code - that would take less effort but wouldn't reflect actual speeds, where a shared 10MB cable connection gets you 1.5 MB at most. So yes, problems all around. Someone's trying.
I assume you are trying to point out that the GPL, which is held as a model of freedom, places restrictions on what can be done with the result. I also assume that this makes no sense to you, and that by pointing this out you are pointing out an apparent contradiction.
In context of this article, you are using freedom out of context, and "free works" is in context.
The people who contributed their code to Nexuiz under a Freedom license have every right to be pissed if their code is then sold off against their wishes. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure your own freedom. You release code, and people can't just do anything they want with it. It also allows the freedom of other people who want to help fix it, to submit patches back to the source.
GPL was not intended to be public domain, which is an entirely different option available to developers. I could write something and release it as public domain, but then people can say they wrote it, or patch it without telling me or sending me fixes, or add malware into it and ruin my reputation.
"Freedom" is a heavily overloaded word, and you have to be clear about the usage. You seem to be either confused, or intentionally using the word out of context. Either I hope I have un-confused you, or have called you out as a troll, whichever is more appropriate.
I've been wondering for years why disk I/O makes the machine slow down. Antivirus scans taking 5% CPU time should not reduce the response rate of the system, because disk reads should be the bottleneck, not scanning. But I always see a slowdown when that happens, disk access in general. File copying doesn't see to show as much of a problem, but it should be in theory reading and writing combined. 95% idle CPU should respond instantly, but it doesn't.
I remember watching a 233mHz box run NT 4 server, and things like zipping a file up would make the screen update so slowly you could watch each box paint. First the outline, then the fill, then any text, and on to the next box. It got better, as computers got faster and I assume MS fixed some aspects of it, but it's still there.
I wrote a VBS that uses WMI objects to lower the process priority for several things (I know, we're supposed to disable them from starting up, but I can't in this case). The biggest offenders are: wmiprvse.exe, msiexec.exe, wuauclt.exe. When they start using CPU, the interface locks. I never knew why.
Now it makes sense. Task switching shouldn't be a problem if you're not using all your memory - paging does add a delay, especially if you just have to fetch a little used resource from the far end of a file that's been dropped from memory due to least-recently-used swapping. So without paging, interrupt overhead could explain it - but only if the 'system' process ignores that in its reporting - because I wouldn't even notice if CPU usage spiked when the UI became sluggish.
Then again, shouldn't the UI have highest priority? Programs shouldn't decide what you're working on - if you click something else, it should work. If a runaway program is doing something stupid, it shouldn't take 5 minutes to bring up task manager, or process explorer - that's why I had to run my VBScript on startup in the first place.
When I can't figure out what's using the CPU because task manager won't come up because some program is using all the CPU, that's bad. But when I finally get task manager open and it shows 99% idle and I still can't select a line and "End Process" because the UI is barely responding, that's terrible. Watching task manager paint each line on a dual core 2.53 gHz notebook, with 99% idle time, is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Before anyone gets all crazy here, be warned. You don't just checksum every file - you might use those checksums to find collisions, and then compare bytes to ensure the files are actually the same. There are already MD5 collision creation methods, many years old, so you should assume any checksum or hash can be manipulated and check the bytes before removing copies.
Then you don't just delete files and make links to one file. You have to let the filesystem present this single file to the operating system as multiple files.
The filesystem handles updates, so it can decide whether to unlink and effectively branch an updated file in that location. Read-only is a kludge for inadequate condition handling. You could hopefully mark files as "unbranchable" so that updates happen once and propagate everywhere, for easier patching.
And finally, keep in mind simple ideas like when you right-click in Windows Explorer, choose New, and then one of the document templates. It copies the default template from your user (or "all users") template location, creates a duplicate copy in the location you clicked, enters a new row in the filesystem named for example "New Microsoft Office Word Document.docx" and highlights the name so you can change it.
In this scenario, the de-duplication would delay making a copy until the file is opened for writing/updating/appending, and then actually gets a write/append/update. At the same time, the filesystem has the potential for a filename duplication and may temporarily re-use parts of a directory entry until the new name is chosen.
This simple process is potentially a CPU and disk IO intensive chore, as a template copy gets hashed and compared to all files on the disk just to find that it's an exact copy from its source file. The GUI knew that much, so the filesystem should be able to skip that. Then the file is intended to be updated, so the entire process was unnecessary, unless the user gets distracted and leaves the new file there, so you want it de-duped.
For performance reasons this has to be aware of the intent of the files, or else it does a whole lot of nothing.
Nope it's dishonest. The same thing applies to software and hardware patents. There's no distinction in that explanation that cannot be applied to mechanical inventions. You've made the case for voiding all patents, not just software.
A far more coherent argument would include the rapid evolution of software, with examples such as GIF. Of course GIF is a special case which allowed a better candidate, PNG, to become more common (with a side journey into IE's market dominance holding back PNG acceptance while IE's PNG support sucked). So GIF encouraged invention, the "legitimate purpose" of patents. So a good argument is difficult to make.
Very simply, math is abstract and remains free. The formula to calculate mortgage interest, or the location of a thrown object given the initial vector, gravity, atmospheric pressure (density), and external force such as wind, are not patentable. You can discover them and write papers and be influential in the field, but never patent it.
PKZIP had a patented compression method. Zlib did the same thing, just using a different method, and created compatible files. MP3 encoders bypassed Fraunhofer patents. Maybe the output wasn't byte-for-byte the same, nor the compression levels equal, but there is a serious hole in the argument for software patents when you can just do the same thing a different way and get around the patent.
The answer to Microsoft's Linux patent FUD is: Show us the patent, we'll work around it. The only place that fails is specific implementations like H.264 or FAT LFN or MPEG or SMB which are multi-platform. You can't program around a patented file format. Did you know that reverse engineering is valid for compatibility purposes? Why would that exist if not for a purpose? Then when you successfully reverse engineer something for compatibility, you can't use it because of patents. Why even have that exception if patents make it irrelevant?
That's my main argument these days - if I can break the DMCA for interoperability, I can ignore patents for the same reason.
The perfect mouse trap is invented, or the perfect lawn mower. I can choose to buy the patented solution, or go with a competitor. I buy in, paying extra for the patented hardware, and break a part. Is it allowed to fabricate my own parts to replace a broken one? Not if it violates the patent. So why can I reverse engineer for software interoperability, but I can't for hardware? Law may say one thing, here's my argument.
Hardware which is validly patentable does not have an interoperability requirement. Your saw does not have to work with other saws, so the parts may be patented. A company like Black and Decker could patent a battery which powers their tools, and they would own interoperability among products but I'm free to choose a competitor or build my own, which need no interoperability.
Software patents are increasingly used to protect a desirable object, so that content creators or consumers or both have to pay to create and/or access the content. Here's a new video codec, use it for a while while we hammer out the standards, then I pull the trigger and require payments. If you are the sole distributor of content and content will be consumed on your device (such as Pez and the Pez dispenser), patent away. But a method of packing up video to be shared with your devices, other companies, competitors and those in unrelated fields - interoperability is a requirement, and patents simply don't make sense.
I have a mathematical algorithm which uses psychoacoustic modeling to reduce the audio data which must be encoded, resulting in smaller files. Brilliant idea, which is unpatentable by itself. The algorithm is unpatentable by itself. I can develop a separate model to accomplish the same thing, better, using the exact same algorithm (with a different model underneath). Psychoacoustics happens to be a fundamental part of the universe, which should be unpatentable like (natural) DNA is, or a description of gravity.
So I u
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't being a Marine in the middle of the desert means you don't have to buy a game to shoot people. Yes?
A quote from the summary, which should appear directly above the comments in case you are not familiar with slashdot, is:
.
X is the previous amount, and 10x as the new amount of galaxies.
So simple math gives you X + YX = 10X
X(1+Y)=10x
(1+Y)=10
Y=9
So we see a 10-fold total galaxies, which is 9-fold improvement. Or to put it another way, the new 100% is 10 times the previous amount, which must have been 10%, leaving 90% more.
You're reading it as "90% of the universe found", from the headline, which is an attempt, although a poor one, at conveying the increase in observable galaxies. It is correct if you assume that we found 90% of the now-current estimate of the number of galaxies, in other words insert the word "known" in the title somewhere. Choosing not to even read the summary has left you understandably confused, and I'm glad that I was able to help. At the same time, I'm concerned that the other replies did not draw your attention to this. But I was able to post an accurate reply while maintaining an air of disdain and condescension, so that makes me feel good about myself. Thank you for affording me the opportunity, and welcome aboard.
Like hide and seek, they just had to pretend to give up the search, and the galaxies got bored and came in for some lemonade, yes?
But I'm wondering if this finding contradicts a few days ago announcement that the movement of galactic clusters is due to mass outside our universe. If our universe now has 90% more mass than it did, now maybe these flows make more sense. At least there's nothing in the article saying "The soon to be announced finding of 9 times the currently known amount of matter does not affect this report."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/
I think nerds need to be aware that there is such a thing as a service monkey. Further, once we gain this knowledge, the natural question is since you people want to search my notebook, how does this apply to my newly discovered awareness of service monkeys? Do they check for flingable poo? Do they check to see if it can urinate on command? Can they touch my monkey?
The number of duplicate posts with duplicate explanations about whether the monkey may be touched or spanked clearly suggests nerds are interested in these things. Next time don't post, and it will look like fewer people are interested. And I apologize for adding to the post count on the story, but you asked. Next time don't ask, even rhetorical questions, because someone will answer.
I think you are referring to US Patent 6300956 - Stochastic level of detail in computer animation, from 2001. So maybe Pixar has a monopoly on a specific stochastic technique, but you can always invent a better one or go around it using non-stochastic optimisation. I'll have to find it, but some time in the last week I saw an infinite zoom, infinite object demo which allowed this in real-time without using stochastic anything.
Pixar is a movie company - they don't even need optimization except on the dailies which don't have to be perfect. The final render on an animated movie doesn't have to be efficient, just good, so it doesn't even make sense why they would be pursuing this. If one idea is patented, invent around it and surpass it. GIF was patented, so PNG was born. If not for patents, we wouldn't have PNG. There's your innovation.
Unfortunately, algorithms are often dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.
You're not solving a mathematical problem with a set answer. How many algorithms do we have for calculating PI? More than I ever thought possible. It's just the simple measure and divide problem, so why is it so complicated? Because there are many solutions to the same problem. When ID Games invented the optimized inverse square root for their game engines, they let CPUs do what they could never have done without it, and gamers rejoiced. It is strongly dependent on the "first approximation" for Newton-Raphson iteration, which with a clever "first approximation" does not need iteration. There are lots of ways to optimize inverse square root in software, some better than others.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/8/
PS The companies that maintain usable, marketable products are typically the ones that take good design and merge it with existing patents, usually cross-licensed. Apple tends to try to buy little companies for their patents, but iPod is based on a patent minefield, just done better than the competition and thus more profitable. So you can in theory invest in marketable companies rather than smart ones that produce intellectual property, but either way the IP companies get paid - royalties or being purchased, it doesn't matter.
All of software comes down to an algorithm ultimately - there's one that detects which key I'm pressing and tells the BIOS a key code, and one that recognizes the key code, and translates that into ASCII or Unicode, and the FireFox window responds by adding characters to this text box, and then FireFox collects them all and sends them to Slashdot. It checks for updates at a regular interval, renders images predictably given standard input - it understands HTTP and FTP communication - it's an algorithm.
But there's a reason you can't patent algorightms, even complicated ones. But a cotton gin is patentable, even though it's basically "use an automated arm to brush seeds out of cotton." That's a boring program to write, more exciting than farmville, but revolutionary for its time. So we give a temporary monopoly, and now it's free for anyone to use. Or improve on, or invent a better one.
Because your information about cancer and insurance sounds 30 years out of date, possible responses include:
-If you get cancer you're fucked no matter what.
-If you get cancer you'll just extend you painful life trying to fight the symptoms.
-It doesn't matter cos cancer is nearly cured.
If right to life meant right to artificial extension of life, free doctor care would have been set up by the founding fathers. I'm not saying whether it's valid, since I elected my representatives to decide those things for me, but you're arguing that their words applied to doctoring and there's little evidence of that. Right to life certainly covers not being shot, or not being poisoned by wastewater, or lead in childrens' toys, or things like asbestos.
Being poor doesn't mean you die decades earlier, unless you're talking about a small percentage of cancers and a small percentage of the population which will gain benefit from expensive medicines and treatments. Some of the treatments are worse than just taking large amounts of over-the-counter pain relievers and waiting it out. In the most expensive (common) treatments, prognosis is usually measured in months, so left untreated you're not close to a single decade, let alone multiple.
So in short, you have a marginal point, but specious support at best.
The whole reason you file a claim is because you want them to pay, and they negotiated a lower price. It's no different from joining a members-only warehouse like Sam's Club. Set prices for most goods and large discounts on some special deal items.
It's backwards from what you say. Doctors have high list prices because insurance companies have a set price that doctors must accept by signing on to the insurance company. In order to get paid by us (since you will get pennies on the dollar from the number of people who pay your bill in full after bankruptcy or collections takes their cut), you agree to those prices. How do the prices get set? By looking at prices in an area and deciding what's reasonable. $120 for lab work including blood draw becomes $6.83, paid in full and guaranteed without having to bill the customer. If you don't have an HRA set up then the insurance company usually pays part of the cost, guaranteeing you'll see money faster than getting it out of the average patient.
If you'd prefer to think of doctors as non-colluding, they make up what the insurance company refuses to pay by having the uninsured pay more. If you like colluding doctors, they intentionally set high prices hoping to bring up the average cost of a procedure, and thus their share. The latter is what was explained to me by a member of a medical practice, but anyone can choose to disbelieve.
Basically, the insurance company will pay the gap between the $20 copay and their agreed-on fee, which might be $60, with your premiums. Once they spend what you paid, they use other peoples' premiums. Once they run out of money they increase premiums.
Laws must be clear, and apply to everyone equally. There is no way to successfully defend one's claim that they never read the patent, making enforcement based on your ideas highly subjective. This makes enforcement subject to fraud and abuse by people who read the patent but claim opposite, or reverse engineer an existing implementation and claim they never saw the existing object. Your points are good, but fall apart when dishonesty is introduced.
In addition, the situation where an idea is invented independently in the span of the lifetime of the patent is extremely rare, except for in software. Ignoring software, you have inventions which come out of nowhere and are truly novel, or you have a path of continuous research which points to a single conclusion which many people "discover" at the same time due to reading about the existing research, or seeing new products based on the patent. The natural progression of an invention gives a good case for "non-obvious" defense of a patent based on the information available to experts in the field, and it is a failure of the patent clerks, not the idea of patents, which makes this even an issue. Granting an invalid patent which is later revoked is irreparable harm, until we invent a time machine that can go back and deny or "lose" the patent application.
Specifically, "non-obvious" does not mean "unique" in the context of patents. The problem being solved is allowing people to profit for a limited time by their inventions, in exchange to turning it over to the public domain so that everyone may use it. They are not stealing - they have exclusive usage for a limited time. If you couldn't get by without a cotton gin from 1793 to 1810, you have to wonder why you didn't invent it yourself, and then either continue as you are or pay the license fee. Or build one yourself and just don't tell people about it, and hope no one catches you (we call that gambling, especially due to the possibility of triple damages). Within 3 years, there were 3 improvements to the cotton gin - patentable improvements, basically refuting your point that the information is locked away. You license the original invention, add your improvement which the original inventor cannot add to his own product, and enjoy your profit. Until someone out-thinks you, and patents and improvement.
Take the "discovery" of the Bohlen-Pierce scale (an alternate tuning independently invented by 3 different people):
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/bpsite/index.html
Three different people reached the same conclusions, based on entirely different perspectives and history. In your eyes this is the same invention. Summaries below, but the point is that independent invention by different people does not mean they intended to apply the invention in the same domain, nor for the same purpose. The invention of the lever, and the application of the lever to different problems, are independent discoveries, all of which were non-obvious until someone invented it. If you read enough patents, however, you'll find that the invention claimed is not always something novel - sometimes it is a novel application of a known concept or object. This is probably not a patentable idea, but it does illustrate with well-documented and uncontested detail how the idea came about for each person, and each person's intent. The patent filing would read very differently for each person, and could very well result in 3 perfectly valid patents for essentially the same underlying concept, based on its intended usage. If you don't believe me, look at the dot-com trend of (seemingly) taking every existing patent and adding "on the internet", and getting a new patent granted.
As you might read, Bohlen was curious about the physics underlying music, and the apparently arbitrary choice of musicians to limit themselves to a single tuning and scale system for all of the Western music ever invented. His thought produced an alternate
A clever tactic. Find the documents but don't read them, just search for a single word and when it's not found declare victory.
It's not like you have to wade through piles of links and judge whether the sources are biased. There's one GPL2 license, and there's one GPL3 license, and if you wanted to make sure you had the right one you could go download the source and snag the license directly.
Did you simply not understand it? Or did you read the preamble and decide you'd let someone else read it to you?
For future reference, the correct options in such a situation are:
1) Read and study the document, don't find it, assert that the statement is unsupported, and challenge the person to find evidence to support it.
2) Ask the person to support their statement because you have not taken the time to read it.
You chose option 3: Assume that since CTRL-F didn't work, the person is just making stuff up. It's right there in section 0, you only had to read 165 words. Or if you just read the preamble, These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. That should be enough to suggest that you're not going to find a ban on just reading/studying it.
National security laws exist for a reason, but they are often enforced for entirely different reasons.
Based on the description, there is absolutely nothing here that qualifies for protection. If the military made a mistake and killed innocent people, this news will come out instead. If it was intentional, the only proper course is to expose it.
The only reason "national security" would qualify as an excuse is the fear of backlash or "blowback", either from the citizens or from a foreign country, depending on who was murdered. I don't think whatever this is can top the extraordinary rendition news, or Abu Ghraib, or waterboarding, or detainee "suicides", or anything else that has come out so far. It will add a small amount of fuel to an already huge flaming hatred, at most.
If they do reveal specifics like troop movements or secret agent names, they will be attacked in any way possible, including labeling them enemy combatants and dropping a bomb on them. So I doubt they are going to that level. I don't know what documents WikiLeaks has chosen NOT to show, but the ones they have shown were necessary for the public (or parts of the public) to know and do not put national security at risk.
I see no reason to expect that they are going to announce something that will get them high on America's target list in advance of releasing it. I also see no reason for anyone to be surprised that the CIA wants to know what this is before anyone else sees it. That's their job, and unless they can infiltrate WL or hack some servers real quick like, the only way is the classical way - follow people, take pictures, and ask questions. Citizens may be held without charges for a limited time, and I don't see this being violated anywhere.
In other words, it's all going as one would expect. I want to know what it is now, where before I didn't know that I wanted to know what something was. So thanks, editor, for going through 22 hours of persecution as a publicity stunt, if it helps the cause.
I'm not reading the article, I'm not reading any of the comments and any website that implements this will go in the hosts file to my local web server (on a non-standard port) that serves up a custom "Warning, retards built this site" message in whatever format requested - html, png, gif, or anything else. My webcam is turned around backwards to point at the undecorated, antique white walls and if they can think they see a face or eyeballs in that it's not going to be moving.
It's rare that I refuse a technology outright, but my eyeballs move for a reason and you're not going to track them, even if it helps me. Call me a luddite, but no no and fuck no.
They both go around in a circle - one is horizontal and one is vertical.
Oops, I missed the word "price". Vertical should be more expensive due to the varying g-forces. Horizontal spinning does not have to counteract gravity.
What surprises me is that people are bothering to moderate this.
Wait, since the box is so small, am I supposed to use a haiku instead?
AC wins. I see painters modernizing the scenes because their own standard of living improves. Especially as they moved into the Reubenesque period, where fatness was attractive because it meant you could afford food without having to work 16 hour days growing it. They would have lacked insight such as it being a Passover Sedar, and instead made it a normal meal for the time.
I assume the intent is to show that people got fatter throughout time, especially since it was published in International Journal of Obesity. But it actually demonstrates advances in agriculture and availability of food.
Compare New York University nutrition researcher Lisa R. Young:
with Brian Wansink, director of the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab and author of "Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.":
This is book publicity, only book publicity, and very bad book publicity at that.
BlurryEyed, meet Solfege. Solfege, may I introduce BlurryEyed. He'll shake your hand once he's had his morning dose of crack to get moving this afternoon.
172) POLAND
95) HOLY SEE (VATICAN CITY STATE)
42) CHAD
If there's anywhere we should guess is uninfected, it's the Vatican - amirite? And I know Chad, he says he's clean. Also, not on the country list: Sealand
That's 6, 3 left to identify.
232) VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH
233) VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.
That's two likely to be uninfected. And Poland, I forgot Poland.
The same EULA that lies to you about your other rights also forbids reverse engineering or altering of the product. Besides, the whole point here is selling something that is broken. A tangible product which does not work would be subject to return with refund, or if it were a safety issue a recall. Identity theft being a very real and serious problem, I would pester the FTC or similar authority to demand a recall due to the potential damage. Someone is storing SSN or other type of personal data in a database somewhere with known security holes that the vendor is trying to extort - that's screaming for a recall.
Everyone decompiles the app, maybe a few find the vulnerability, some percent of those people manage to fix it, a few of those fixes manage to work without introducing additional security holes, you're still left with a bunch of swiss cheese as a server. Could everyone share their binary patches? Sure, but you need a different unofficial patch depending on how many official patches have been applied, and who do you trust to release a patch without a backdoor?
In short, your idea, while possible, is terrible. And yet Lunix Nutcase (1092239) still out-stupided you. http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1592372&cid=31585692
The types of questions on the FCC broadband test can be answered by anyone, but questions like what speed does your ISP promise you is more difficult.
FCC: Enter your address and click on this Java thing to run a speed test to show what you're actually getting, ignoring things like competition and user choice. If the cable company is a bunch of ripe turds and everyone uses dial-up because they've quit using the cable company, the FCC will see that only dial-up is available in the area.
My problem is that cable is on the other side of the street but not this side, which is a 3 year old problem at the least. So I have to use satellite or DSL. DSL without voice is inexpensive, but it's by AT&T, and I don't want to give them money. Satellite? No thanks, I'd rather give AT&T money than use satellite. so my only choice is to give AT&T the absolute least amount I can get away with until cable gets here, $19.95 for naked DSL 768k. The FCC would see this as DSL exists, broadband is available, no issues. But it does not accurately represent the situation.
As long as I'm rambling, this situation isn't what the FCC is trying to measure - they just want to see zones where broadband is either unavailable, unused, or performing poorly. FCC states broadband is "fster than traditional dial-up" on its broadband test pages, but officially defined it as 768k - there is a significant gap between 56k and 768k. That means if I have the absolute minimum service available (conveniently 768k) and my upload/download is not 100% maxed out, my measurements will show less than 768k. Do they round up? If so, how can they tell the difference between dual ISDN-BRI (256k x 2) and 768k?
Don't misunderstand - this survey has serious problems, and will generate a lot of unusable data, but it does the job of highlighting what the FCC is ignoring. FCC could at least add a "What speed does my ISP promise?" box with speed ranges based on whether you select your connection type - but there would be enough users calling for help figuring that out it would bog down the process. So how does an agency deal with stupid users and get the most data? Simplify it to "click this and enter your address and we'll do the rest."
FCC could require an annual report outlining the plans offered and number of users in each plan from every ISP, grouped by residential/commercial usage and zip code - that would take less effort but wouldn't reflect actual speeds, where a shared 10MB cable connection gets you 1.5 MB at most. So yes, problems all around. Someone's trying.
I searched for thorium in the comments and found only your post. So that's two people.
I assume you are trying to point out that the GPL, which is held as a model of freedom, places restrictions on what can be done with the result. I also assume that this makes no sense to you, and that by pointing this out you are pointing out an apparent contradiction.
In context of this article, you are using freedom out of context, and "free works" is in context.
The people who contributed their code to Nexuiz under a Freedom license have every right to be pissed if their code is then sold off against their wishes. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure your own freedom. You release code, and people can't just do anything they want with it. It also allows the freedom of other people who want to help fix it, to submit patches back to the source.
GPL was not intended to be public domain, which is an entirely different option available to developers. I could write something and release it as public domain, but then people can say they wrote it, or patch it without telling me or sending me fixes, or add malware into it and ruin my reputation.
"Freedom" is a heavily overloaded word, and you have to be clear about the usage. You seem to be either confused, or intentionally using the word out of context. Either I hope I have un-confused you, or have called you out as a troll, whichever is more appropriate.
GPL exists to encourage code re-use, so the obvious, and unfortunate, conclusion of this line of thought involves one cup and 2 girls.
I've been wondering for years why disk I/O makes the machine slow down. Antivirus scans taking 5% CPU time should not reduce the response rate of the system, because disk reads should be the bottleneck, not scanning. But I always see a slowdown when that happens, disk access in general. File copying doesn't see to show as much of a problem, but it should be in theory reading and writing combined. 95% idle CPU should respond instantly, but it doesn't.
I remember watching a 233mHz box run NT 4 server, and things like zipping a file up would make the screen update so slowly you could watch each box paint. First the outline, then the fill, then any text, and on to the next box. It got better, as computers got faster and I assume MS fixed some aspects of it, but it's still there.
I wrote a VBS that uses WMI objects to lower the process priority for several things (I know, we're supposed to disable them from starting up, but I can't in this case). The biggest offenders are: wmiprvse.exe, msiexec.exe, wuauclt.exe. When they start using CPU, the interface locks. I never knew why.
Now it makes sense. Task switching shouldn't be a problem if you're not using all your memory - paging does add a delay, especially if you just have to fetch a little used resource from the far end of a file that's been dropped from memory due to least-recently-used swapping. So without paging, interrupt overhead could explain it - but only if the 'system' process ignores that in its reporting - because I wouldn't even notice if CPU usage spiked when the UI became sluggish.
Then again, shouldn't the UI have highest priority? Programs shouldn't decide what you're working on - if you click something else, it should work. If a runaway program is doing something stupid, it shouldn't take 5 minutes to bring up task manager, or process explorer - that's why I had to run my VBScript on startup in the first place.
When I can't figure out what's using the CPU because task manager won't come up because some program is using all the CPU, that's bad. But when I finally get task manager open and it shows 99% idle and I still can't select a line and "End Process" because the UI is barely responding, that's terrible. Watching task manager paint each line on a dual core 2.53 gHz notebook, with 99% idle time, is unacceptable.