Yeah this story is old but I noticed in the advanced search option (for the first time) that I can sort by date. Found out my very first (documented) usenet post was 23 Nov 1994 06:53:17 GMT to comp.lang.c++. Wow - it really doesn't seem that long ago. Of course, the S/N ratio was already pretty bad and BIX (my service provider) was a far more useful resource.
The "reality" of today is because of people who think and act as you. Before you go tossing Bush out (not a bad idea necessarily) you should have some idea of how Kerry is actually going to improve things. And don't say "it can't get worse" because it can get WAAAY worse. Votes are an affirmation of choice - not a negation (until we get the "none of the above" option). You need to be voting FOR someone. You may consider me an idealist but I'd like to see you offer a practical solution to the problem other than mine. The problem with compromisers is that they have no idea...:)
Why chose people who want no choice for you?
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I see these arguments that one should vote for Kerry or Bush otherwise their vote is wasted. If you truly believe this then you've already given up your ONLY government guaranteed right as a member of this republic.
Regardless of your opinion about the two monopoly party candidates - the fact is that if either one had their way YOU would have no choice at all. They have used their monopoly of government force and tax dollars to suppress the knowledge of the very existence of altervative parties much less their viewpoints. They pass laws giving them the right to steal your money to use to pay for their propaganda and influence the outcome of the election. They contrieve new requirements making it impossible for other parties to participate in "debates" or even get on the ballot so that those of us who want someone else can't even legally express that opinion.
So... if you propose voting for one of the major parties rather than who you'd really want then you are part of the problem. If you want to protect your influence on the election then push forward laws like instant runoff or "none of the above" voting and requirements that the winner actually get 50% + 1 votes to take office. Don't cry that people may not elect the person they'd prefer when the fact is that, as things stand now, they are guaranteed to get the person they don't want - and that person already knows it and has no reason to change his current monopolistic bahaviour.
Voting your conscience and informed opinion is the ONLY moral vote possible. In fact, even if you do prefer one of the two monopoly party candidates, I find it hard to morally justify voting for them if only because of their oppression of this most important right. The US has already lost the courts' support of the Constitution. Once enough people figure out that their votes have been stolen too then there will be no saving this country. There isn't any "free" country left to run to folks... let's try to make this one free once more.
Excellent link - thanx for that! Remarkable that several of these guys were watched by the Malaysians after our CIA asked them to yet we still let them into the country. Fingerprints is no help here but paying attention to our own security alerts would have prevented the whole thing.
My recollection (although I've heard comments to the contrary) is that some of the terrorists were on faked passports and others had expired or invalid visas (after already arriving legally). Regardless, you are correct in that fingerprinting would not likely have had any impact on their getting in at all.
We are most certainly drunks under the light pole here and at the cost of our own liberty. It disgusts me.
re: Illegal immigrants? What does that have to do with terrorism, because that's the excuse used to justify all this shit.
Uh gee - remember Sept 11th? Illegals flying into the twin towers and the Pentagon and a field in PA? Murdered thousands? Ring a bell? Definitely have a need to watch out for who is coming into the country. Unfortunately while we happily go along violating our own human rights, we don't have the will to concentrate our efforts and resources on those most likely to be terrorists.
Now, of course, fingerprinting isn't going to catch terrorists and I believe that no one should have to give up biometric info without being formally charged with a crime by a grand jury. 4th and 5th ammendments should apply to everyone on American territory.
Even if we waste every muslim terrorist on Earth, if we keep treating our Constitution this way we will have done to ourselves what the terrorists could never accomplish on their own.
The issue of false positives is one that seems to rarely be mentioned with biometric identification and this concerns me greatly as its use poliferates. I'm especially interested in finding more information about the inkless digital fingerprint scanners that many states use for issuing drivers licenses. My understanding is that no image of the fingerprint is actually stored, just a digital signature of the print making visual confirmation (when and if law enforcement agencies start using them for their obvious purposes) impossible. I understand that the FBI's own fingerprint database requires a visual confirmation as they've found a problem with false positives in their database but at least they have that data. Does anyone have any knowledge about this? Any manufacturer specs/pointers? Stories good or bad?
Your example does not take away from the fact that C++ is strongly typed, it only shows the warts from its C heritage which Ada, being designed from scratch as such, does not share. This is similar to the purist (bitter, nonsensical) argument that C++ isn't an OO language because it doesn't force everything to be an object like SmallTalk. The fact is that the language and compiler support and enforce both constructs quite well (as specified) but will also allow the programmer to go outside of those bounds (therefore be more productive!) at their own risk.:-) But we stray from the topic now...
First off, there is no "decompiling" going on here. That would imply that you will end up with code having a semi-resemblence to the original code - which is certainly not happening. What is going on here is simply just another compilation phase. This time, instead of an object file target compliant with the system ABI, you are getting a C/C++ file target which should theoretically be compilable into a program that will generate the same output for the same runtime input. The scope of effort and implications barely overlap as they are so vastly different.
Of course, with C++, being a strongly typed language that resolves so many things at compile time, decompilation is not possible for any non-trivial example (which all the examples in the link were- indeed they didn't use any C++ features at all). This is even ignoring the effects of compiler optimizations. The C++ language is far more expressive than the output dialects of the compiler making the whole idea of decompiling silly. C, on the other hand, is basically a platform-independent assembly language which is why the one-to-one examples of C and asm output seem to imply one can move back and forth between the two at will. Still this is a mistaken impression.
Now - is compilation from object code to (non-equivilent but functionaly similar) C code useful and interesting? Certainly. And all compiler developers and most hard core debuggers can do this pretty much at will. Its the only way to check the correctness of your compiler and its generated code and, in desperate circumstances, can give you some clue as to what an existing application for which you have no source to, is doing. This is called reverse engineering, btw, NOT decompilation. Unfortunately the material pointed to here provides absolutely no new insights and is quite rudimentary at best. Anyone intimately familiar with their compiler and environment already has more knowledge than this paper provides. Really doesn't justify a slashdot posting but I guess whomever posted it simply isn't a C/C++ developer.
Computers are deterministic systems in a non-deterministic world. This makes only simple, well-understood problems approachable by computers in a 100% reliable manner. As complexity goes up linearly, the level of effort increases exponentially. This will always be the case until something revolutionary changes. Give it another 30 years.
Long life & sabaticals
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's been years (>20) since I read the RingWorld novels so it's interesting what things stick in my head (and now I've got to go back and read them again). Many sci-fi books discuss lifespans extended by technology but either ignore or or skim past its psychological and societal impact. I found Louis Wu's habit of going on sabatical's particularly interesting and possibly appealing. When you imagine "conquering" life - having raised a family, become financially independent, enjoyed a long retirement but still not even having reached middle-age, its not hard to imagine needing something to shake you up and revive your taste for life. Of course some just go on the "wire" and eventually waste away in bliss - Wu having nearly done so himself. It's obvious that you've given the impact of serious life extension a lot of thought. Now that bio technology seems to be giving such life extension a palpable credibility - what other impacts do you anticipate when we finally reach common, healthy lifespans of two or more centuries?
uh - evidently you haven't bothered ever reading the information available at CATO because there are reports that do just what you request: interpolate claims from both sides.
It's evident that your definition of "far right" and "not credible" is simply anything that you feel you disagree with. (legalizing drugs - yeah that's a far right position indeed!)
Good investigations of issues take an epidemiological approach and anyone seriously interested in filtering out the biases and being able to view the data and how it was "massaged" would do well to check out what's there.
CATO has some of the best independent studies and reviews of all sides of the issue. Very thouroughly done and documented so you can review the data for yourself. *SPOILER* Their conclusions support gun freedom quite strongly.*/SPOILER*
Haven't seen it mentioned but - if you can find a small one - fuel cells are a reasonable option for portable power. Kinda expensive but go a long ways on not too much fuel. Of course - If you're the one who has to hump that computer and power source all by yourself than even the 20 pounds is gonna be regretted pretty soon. I think I'd go with a tiny laptop or handheld (Zaurus) and a bunch of batteries. Sounds like a great trip though! Enjoy.
First - Hire an IP lawyer (preferably an individual or very small partnership- not a large firm) to write a contract that gives them a limited license to use your source code internally and makes it clear that you hold exclusive copyright to the code. Also - you do not deliver the code until the acceptance provisions of the contract are met (which means you get paid). You can certainly allow the client to view the code during development for review but don't pre-deliver source to them. Your lawyer will recommend provisions for additional penalties for copyright violation and your ability to get an injunction that are fairly boilerplate.
Second - actually file the copyright for your source code. This gives you stronger rights to sue in case of a copyright violation.
FYI - There are no such things as civil liberties. The U.S. Constitution never mentions them. The ACLU, for example, believes in only the ones they think we should have and makes up some that could not otherwise exist. Statists like to call them that so that they can be taken away or sold - after all, they only exist through civil (government) fiat.
There are only human rights. When people tread on them they are acting less than human. They are undeniable, inalienable, and exist regardless of your race, citizenship, or religion. The U.S. Constitution is the only one that recognizes this and which does not claim to grant such rights. Alas, it's been long since abandoned and now we are reduced to discussing "civil rights".
When you lose the language, you lose the ability to defend the things it used to represent. Stop using the language of the enemy and insist that they recognize and respect your human rights and individual liberties. Live up to your personal responsibilities.
Realizing the necessity is a great first start. Building a community of users is critical. Without knowing what your product or target audience is, I'd suggest making a strong developers release available for free - you can require registration for activiation, however. Next post as many good, *useful* examples of using your product for people to download. This combined with good documentation and tech support will build a loyal customer base which is worth an enourmous amount of money to a company. Some examples of good communities I've seen are the old Team Borland (circa 1990) where both Borland employees and capable users provided online advice/assistance for their products. The TeamB volunteers received free products/support and each year were actually flown out to the developers conference for free. Another good example in the embedded field is the AVRfreaks ( http://www.avrfreaks.net ) which is a support community for the ATMel AVR embedded processors. I don't know if the site is company sponsored or not but the resources there are great and there's obviously a lot of user-community participation. People looking to decide on whether to use an AVR chip or someone elses will feel a lot more secure choosing AVR thanx to the content of this site and multiple examples of real world usage of their products here. Its a competitive advantage you won't find listed in a checkbox in a trade rag review (perhaps they should) but real-world developers appreciate this more than most things a company actually pays for (like expensive ad-slick campaigns) - it shows they can actually get things done with your product and avoids vapor-promises.
IBM's C/Set C++ compiler (becoming Visual Age C++) was one of the best C++ implementations of its time for both performance and standards compliance. Now the product's been discontinued for Windows & OS/2 but still exists for AIX & S/390. Is there any hope for Linux support for this compiler?
This is a comment about the hypocrisy of the SlashDot moderators and clear bias that they have in regard to certain "untouchable" subjects like RMS.
I find it remarkable that anyone who puts forth a rational premise then sets out to support and defend it would receive only 1s whereas any reply attacking said premise, even though its content consists of nothing more than the logical equivalent of "is not!" gets a 2!!
Now I see that there is one reply to my premise where the author, unfortunately anonymous, actually sets up his own opposing premise and then attacks my points one at a time in a rational discord gets moderated down to a ZERO!! While I couldn't disagree more with his conclusions, (s)he at least has the intellectual honesty and respect to engage in a serious discourse on the subject - only be to moderated out of existence.
Its clear that this author and myself have a fundamental difference of opinion that will not be overcome in this debate but, at least, both of us have made the intellectually honest effort to participate in a rational discussion to hopefully raise awareness of our issues and potentially change people's minds. This effort, however, is penalized on SlashDot whereas banal attacks on unpopular opinions by people who's entire SlashDot posting history consists of such attacks is moderated higher and obviously encouraged by TPTB.
I guess I haven't been paying enough attention here to notice this before but its clear to me now. I will forgo the effort of adding any thoughtful comments or ideas to the chum that has become SlashDot.
Thanx for the pointers, I'm familiar with both works. Both argue against IP because of alleged wrongs committed by people using IP. Much like blaming the gun for the murder. The "Libertarian" paper barely even tries to make a Libertarian argument, indeed, both have very statist bents. FWIW - I'm a pretty hard code Libertarian (I serve in the Party in both state and national positions) and feel pretty secure in my pro-Liberty view on IP.
My primary point, however, is that RMS isn't being honest in his tirade against patents and I think his actions speak for themselves. He's certainly anything but pro-freedom.
Well I'd say you're wrong and you also didn't bother reading my post because I clearly make the point that you don't patent ideas. The fact that some "idea" patents are slipping through doesn't eliminate the value of patents and my thoughtful answers to your question deserve a little more thoughtful consideration on your part I would think.
1. The fact that bad patents get through and have such power is what is encouraging more bad patent applications. Since, once granted a patent, one has very little potential downside for attempted extortion, the very flaws in current patent granting are making the problem worse. My proposals would greatly reduce the incentive to go through the cost/effort of specious applications. Also most applications would never make it to the peer review stage, only those not rejected by the patent office because of apparent flaws.
2. Identification of patent violations is up to the patent holder. Patents (all kinds) are violated every day. The establishment of the IP court based on loser-pays and patent protection insurance will go a LONG way to mitigating these risks. You really haven't thought this through and keep arguing based on the premise that nothing will change. Look - every one acts in their own enlightened self interest. The changes proposed for the patent system go a long way towards changing the incentives on both sides and that will radically change behaviour.
3. I never proposed patenting the idea behind a program. How did you ever get this idea?
4. Perfection/utopia is not an option so don't give me arguments that insist upon this objective. Its a matter of direction as much as destination and the implementation of IP rights need to be turned back around towards the purpose of their original intent and not that of the current abusers or opponents of IP.
Did you even read my posting? I make the point you feel necessary to repeat. However, RMS isn't interested in those details because he wants to eliminate all property rights. I believe you missed the point I'm afraid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah this story is old but I noticed in the advanced search option (for the first time) that I can sort by date. Found out my very first (documented) usenet post was 23 Nov 1994 06:53:17 GMT to comp.lang.c++. Wow - it really doesn't seem that long ago. Of course, the S/N ratio was already pretty bad and BIX (my service provider) was a far more useful resource.
Alas poor BIX... sniff
The "reality" of today is because of people who think and act as you. Before you go tossing Bush out (not a bad idea necessarily) you should have some idea of how Kerry is actually going to improve things. And don't say "it can't get worse" because it can get WAAAY worse. Votes are an affirmation of choice - not a negation (until we get the "none of the above" option). You need to be voting FOR someone. You may consider me an idealist but I'd like to see you offer a practical solution to the problem other than mine. The problem with compromisers is that they have no idea... :)
I see these arguments that one should vote for Kerry or Bush otherwise their vote is wasted. If you truly believe this then you've already given up your ONLY government guaranteed right as a member of this republic.
Regardless of your opinion about the two monopoly party candidates - the fact is that if either one had their way YOU would have no choice at all. They have used their monopoly of government force and tax dollars to suppress the knowledge of the very existence of altervative parties much less their viewpoints. They pass laws giving them the right to steal your money to use to pay for their propaganda and influence the outcome of the election. They contrieve new requirements making it impossible for other parties to participate in "debates" or even get on the ballot so that those of us who want someone else can't even legally express that opinion.
So... if you propose voting for one of the major parties rather than who you'd really want then you are part of the problem. If you want to protect your influence on the election then push forward laws like instant runoff or "none of the above" voting and requirements that the winner actually get 50% + 1 votes to take office. Don't cry that people may not elect the person they'd prefer when the fact is that, as things stand now, they are guaranteed to get the person they don't want - and that person already knows it and has no reason to change his current monopolistic bahaviour.
Voting your conscience and informed opinion is the ONLY moral vote possible. In fact, even if you do prefer one of the two monopoly party candidates, I find it hard to morally justify voting for them if only because of their oppression of this most important right. The US has already lost the courts' support of the Constitution. Once enough people figure out that their votes have been stolen too then there will be no saving this country. There isn't any "free" country left to run to folks... let's try to make this one free once more.
I tip my hat to you sir. :D
Excellent link - thanx for that! Remarkable that several of these guys were watched by the Malaysians after our CIA asked them to yet we still let them into the country. Fingerprints is no help here but paying attention to our own security alerts would have prevented the whole thing.
My recollection (although I've heard comments to the contrary) is that some of the terrorists were on faked passports and others had expired or invalid visas (after already arriving legally). Regardless, you are correct in that fingerprinting would not likely have had any impact on their getting in at all.
We are most certainly drunks under the light pole here and at the cost of our own liberty. It disgusts me.
re: Illegal immigrants? What does that have to do with terrorism, because that's the excuse used to justify all this shit.
Uh gee - remember Sept 11th? Illegals flying into the twin towers and the Pentagon and a field in PA? Murdered thousands? Ring a bell? Definitely have a need to watch out for who is coming into the country. Unfortunately while we happily go along violating our own human rights, we don't have the will to concentrate our efforts and resources on those most likely to be terrorists.
Now, of course, fingerprinting isn't going to catch terrorists and I believe that no one should have to give up biometric info without being formally charged with a crime by a grand jury. 4th and 5th ammendments should apply to everyone on American territory.
Even if we waste every muslim terrorist on Earth, if we keep treating our Constitution this way we will have done to ourselves what the terrorists could never accomplish on their own.
The issue of false positives is one that seems to rarely be mentioned with biometric identification and this concerns me greatly as its use poliferates. I'm especially interested in finding more information about the inkless digital fingerprint scanners that many states use for issuing drivers licenses. My understanding is that no image of the fingerprint is actually stored, just a digital signature of the print making visual confirmation (when and if law enforcement agencies start using them for their obvious purposes) impossible. I understand that the FBI's own fingerprint database requires a visual confirmation as they've found a problem with false positives in their database but at least they have that data. Does anyone have any knowledge about this? Any manufacturer specs/pointers? Stories good or bad?
"Q: You moved from Finland. How do you like living in Silicon Valley.
A: Some parts I love. I have a convertible. I will never ever move to a place where I can't drive a convertible."
Amen brother...
Your example does not take away from the fact that C++ is strongly typed, it only shows the warts from its C heritage which Ada, being designed from scratch as such, does not share. This is similar to the purist (bitter, nonsensical) argument that C++ isn't an OO language because it doesn't force everything to be an object like SmallTalk. The fact is that the language and compiler support and enforce both constructs quite well (as specified) but will also allow the programmer to go outside of those bounds (therefore be more productive!) at their own risk. :-) But we stray from the topic now...
First off, there is no "decompiling" going on here. That would imply that you will end up with code having a semi-resemblence to the original code - which is certainly not happening. What is going on here is simply just another compilation phase. This time, instead of an object file target compliant with the system ABI, you are getting a C/C++ file target which should theoretically be compilable into a program that will generate the same output for the same runtime input. The scope of effort and implications barely overlap as they are so vastly different.
Of course, with C++, being a strongly typed language that resolves so many things at compile time, decompilation is not possible for any non-trivial example (which all the examples in the link were- indeed they didn't use any C++ features at all). This is even ignoring the effects of compiler optimizations. The C++ language is far more expressive than the output dialects of the compiler making the whole idea of decompiling silly. C, on the other hand, is basically a platform-independent assembly language which is why the one-to-one examples of C and asm output seem to imply one can move back and forth between the two at will. Still this is a mistaken impression.
Now - is compilation from object code to (non-equivilent but functionaly similar) C code useful and interesting? Certainly. And all compiler developers and most hard core debuggers can do this pretty much at will. Its the only way to check the correctness of your compiler and its generated code and, in desperate circumstances, can give you some clue as to what an existing application for which you have no source to, is doing. This is called reverse engineering, btw, NOT decompilation. Unfortunately the material pointed to here provides absolutely no new insights and is quite rudimentary at best. Anyone intimately familiar with their compiler and environment already has more knowledge than this paper provides. Really doesn't justify a slashdot posting but I guess whomever posted it simply isn't a C/C++ developer.
Computers are deterministic systems in a non-deterministic world. This makes only simple, well-understood problems approachable by computers in a 100% reliable manner. As complexity goes up linearly, the level of effort increases exponentially. This will always be the case until something revolutionary changes. Give it another 30 years.
It's been years (>20) since I read the RingWorld novels so it's interesting what things stick in my head (and now I've got to go back and read them again). Many sci-fi books discuss lifespans extended by technology but either ignore or or skim past its psychological and societal impact. I found Louis Wu's habit of going on sabatical's particularly interesting and possibly appealing. When you imagine "conquering" life - having raised a family, become financially independent, enjoyed a long retirement but still not even having reached middle-age, its not hard to imagine needing something to shake you up and revive your taste for life. Of course some just go on the "wire" and eventually waste away in bliss - Wu having nearly done so himself. It's obvious that you've given the impact of serious life extension a lot of thought. Now that bio technology seems to be giving such life extension a palpable credibility - what other impacts do you anticipate when we finally reach common, healthy lifespans of two or more centuries?
uh - evidently you haven't bothered ever reading the information available at CATO because there are reports that do just what you request: interpolate claims from both sides.
It's evident that your definition of "far right" and "not credible" is simply anything that you feel you disagree with. (legalizing drugs - yeah that's a far right position indeed!)
Good investigations of issues take an epidemiological approach and anyone seriously interested in filtering out the biases and being able to view the data and how it was "massaged" would do well to check out what's there.
CATO has some of the best independent studies and reviews of all sides of the issue. Very thouroughly done and documented so you can review the data for yourself. *SPOILER* Their conclusions support gun freedom quite strongly.*/SPOILER*
Haven't seen it mentioned but - if you can find a small one - fuel cells are a reasonable option for portable power. Kinda expensive but go a long ways on not too much fuel. Of course - If you're the one who has to hump that computer and power source all by yourself than even the 20 pounds is gonna be regretted pretty soon. I think I'd go with a tiny laptop or handheld (Zaurus) and a bunch of batteries. Sounds like a great trip though! Enjoy.
First - Hire an IP lawyer (preferably an individual or very small partnership- not a large firm) to write a contract that gives them a limited license to use your source code internally and makes it clear that you hold exclusive copyright to the code. Also - you do not deliver the code until the acceptance provisions of the contract are met (which means you get paid). You can certainly allow the client to view the code during development for review but don't pre-deliver source to them. Your lawyer will recommend provisions for additional penalties for copyright violation and your ability to get an injunction that are fairly boilerplate.
Second - actually file the copyright for your source code. This gives you stronger rights to sue in case of a copyright violation.
Good luck -
Ben Scherrey
Can someone post a BRIEF summary of what the lawsuit was about? I can't tell from the annoucement what the issues were that were resolved.
FYI - There are no such things as civil liberties. The U.S. Constitution never mentions them. The ACLU, for example, believes in only the ones they think we should have and makes up some that could not otherwise exist. Statists like to call them that so that they can be taken away or sold - after all, they only exist through civil (government) fiat.
There are only human rights. When people tread on them they are acting less than human. They are undeniable, inalienable, and exist regardless of your race, citizenship, or religion. The U.S. Constitution is the only one that recognizes this and which does not claim to grant such rights. Alas, it's been long since abandoned and now we are reduced to discussing "civil rights".
When you lose the language, you lose the ability to defend the things it used to represent. Stop using the language of the enemy and insist that they recognize and respect your human rights and individual liberties. Live up to your personal responsibilities.
Realizing the necessity is a great first start. Building a community of users is critical. Without knowing what your product or target audience is, I'd suggest making a strong developers release available for free - you can require registration for activiation, however. Next post as many good, *useful* examples of using your product for people to download. This combined with good documentation and tech support will build a loyal customer base which is worth an enourmous amount of money to a company. Some examples of good communities I've seen are the old Team Borland (circa 1990) where both Borland employees and capable users provided online advice/assistance for their products. The TeamB volunteers received free products/support and each year were actually flown out to the developers conference for free. Another good example in the embedded field is the AVRfreaks ( http://www.avrfreaks.net ) which is a support community for the ATMel AVR embedded processors. I don't know if the site is company sponsored or not but the resources there are great and there's obviously a lot of user-community participation. People looking to decide on whether to use an AVR chip or someone elses will feel a lot more secure choosing AVR thanx to the content of this site and multiple examples of real world usage of their products here. Its a competitive advantage you won't find listed in a checkbox in a trade rag review (perhaps they should) but real-world developers appreciate this more than most things a company actually pays for (like expensive ad-slick campaigns) - it shows they can actually get things done with your product and avoids vapor-promises.
Good luck!
IBM's C/Set C++ compiler (becoming Visual Age C++) was one of the best C++ implementations of its time for both performance and standards compliance. Now the product's been discontinued for Windows & OS/2 but still exists for AIX & S/390. Is there any hope for Linux support for this compiler?
This is a comment about the hypocrisy of the SlashDot moderators and clear bias that they have in regard to certain "untouchable" subjects like RMS.
I find it remarkable that anyone who puts forth a rational premise then sets out to support and defend it would receive only 1s whereas any reply attacking said premise, even though its content consists of nothing more than the logical equivalent of "is not!" gets a 2!!
Now I see that there is one reply to my premise where the author, unfortunately anonymous, actually sets up his own opposing premise and then attacks my points one at a time in a rational discord gets moderated down to a ZERO!! While I couldn't disagree more with his conclusions, (s)he at least has the intellectual honesty and respect to engage in a serious discourse on the subject - only be to moderated out of existence.
Its clear that this author and myself have a fundamental difference of opinion that will not be overcome in this debate but, at least, both of us have made the intellectually honest effort to participate in a rational discussion to hopefully raise awareness of our issues and potentially change people's minds. This effort, however, is penalized on SlashDot whereas banal attacks on unpopular opinions by people who's entire SlashDot posting history consists of such attacks is moderated higher and obviously encouraged by TPTB.
I guess I haven't been paying enough attention here to notice this before but its clear to me now. I will forgo the effort of adding any thoughtful comments or ideas to the chum that has become SlashDot.
Thanx for the pointers, I'm familiar with both works. Both argue against IP because of alleged wrongs committed by people using IP. Much like blaming the gun for the murder. The "Libertarian" paper barely even tries to make a Libertarian argument, indeed, both have very statist bents. FWIW - I'm a pretty hard code Libertarian (I serve in the Party in both state and national positions) and feel pretty secure in my pro-Liberty view on IP.
My primary point, however, is that RMS isn't being honest in his tirade against patents and I think his actions speak for themselves. He's certainly anything but pro-freedom.
Well I'd say you're wrong and you also didn't bother reading my post because I clearly make the point that you don't patent ideas. The fact that some "idea" patents are slipping through doesn't eliminate the value of patents and my thoughtful answers to your question deserve a little more thoughtful consideration on your part I would think.
1. The fact that bad patents get through and have such power is what is encouraging more bad patent applications. Since, once granted a patent, one has very little potential downside for attempted extortion, the very flaws in current patent granting are making the problem worse. My proposals would greatly reduce the incentive to go through the cost/effort of specious applications. Also most applications would never make it to the peer review stage, only those not rejected by the patent office because of apparent flaws.
2. Identification of patent violations is up to the patent holder. Patents (all kinds) are violated every day. The establishment of the IP court based on loser-pays and patent protection insurance will go a LONG way to mitigating these risks. You really haven't thought this through and keep arguing based on the premise that nothing will change. Look - every one acts in their own enlightened self interest. The changes proposed for the patent system go a long way towards changing the incentives on both sides and that will radically change behaviour.
3. I never proposed patenting the idea behind a program. How did you ever get this idea?
4. Perfection/utopia is not an option so don't give me arguments that insist upon this objective. Its a matter of direction as much as destination and the implementation of IP rights need to be turned back around towards the purpose of their original intent and not that of the current abusers or opponents of IP.
Did you even read my posting? I make the point you feel necessary to repeat. However, RMS isn't interested in those details because he wants to eliminate all property rights. I believe you missed the point I'm afraid.