This is total B.S. by the way, I am sure there is a legal standard for plagiarism, and that would be the only way a case like this can hold up. Everyone knows there's only 11 different stories. Or is it 21... Um...
I combed this thread looking for good advice (and I found a lot of it), but I have one other bit of my own to add. When it comes to designing reusable code, the biggest mistake I have made is to try to design too much reusability in at the beginning. Over time I have found that the true test of reusable code is code that I find that I want to reuse it, not that I intend to reuse it. The distinction is one of simplicity of purpose versus over engineering. If I try to write code that will solve all today's problems, plus all those problems that I can anticipate encountering in the future, I find I am frequently wrong about what I will face in the future. Solve your problem today and if you have the same problem again in the future, you will have reusable code.
I understand that this is a balance, and that a well thought out design will take future use into account, but I, like many programmers, am a terrible psychic. The parent post seems to address the fact that many times you are best off enhancing/refactoring a library each time a new need arises rather than trying to get it all figured out in version 1.0; I just wanted to emphasize it.
This is like credit card companies selling me services to protect me from credit abuse and preserve my credit rating - shouldn't they be doing this kind of stuff anyway? If I don't pay them for 'identity theft protection' does it mean that someone can steal my credit card and they won't do anything about it? This is the way things are going... just try to get a piece of electronics replaced by a retailer if you didn't pay them their 'extended warranty' tax.
I wonder if we will see new language designs emerge due to the relative increase in the number of multi-processor/core CPUs out there. I mean something at a high level, not compiler improvements that try to overlap CPU operations from original top-down style code, but something that encourages the actual developers to use producer consumer patterns, co-routines, whatever, at their level to maximize utilization of CPU resources. We keep using the same old languages and assuming the compiler is smart enough to keep all the circuits busy. Anyone out there work on huge multi-processor systems or clusters that can free me from my ignorance?
Sorry, but it is going to take a lot more than a couple hours for any programmer to jump in and figure out the code for any non-trivial program no matter how conventionally it is coded. The statement (which I am taking too literally) is wishful thinking.
I get the point though, coding standards are critical so that people aren't confused when they look at someone else's code and it is following completely different conventions. It doesn't matter which coding standard you use as long as everyone agrees with it. Try to create consensus on the conventions and allow them to evolve. Forcing things down peoples' throats won't work.
Focus on getting peer reviews into your process as early as possible - like the same day the code is written - maybe even at the same time the code is written. If you wait too long to review code, the author gets a little attached to it and often too defensive. Constructive criticism is more easily accepted before someone has traveled a long road and doesn't want to backtrack.
Well if the patent office accepts patent applications for a couple thousand story lines after this (at $500 each), and rejects all of them because they decide that stories are art best left to the copyright laws, then they get a million $ in revenue before the gold rush dies down. Maybe they'll hire a couple more examiners as a result.
One of the concepts in the way the patent system works is that you don't need to actually produce a working form of the invention. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it seems to be at the root of the problems we are facing.
I have respect for patents that protect inventions from infringement where the individual or company seeking protection is engaged in day-to-day activities that make use of the invention in some way in their business process or by incorporation of the invention into their product. As we all know, intellectual property becomes a commodity in itself if you are not actually using a patent to protect your actual revenue generating day-to-day activities.
One way that the concept of a story line patent may very much differ from a 'classic' patent is that a patent application for a classic invention is strengthened if it incorporates or relies upon elements from an existing approved patent. I don't see how this can apply to a story line in a reasonable way. If I were to patent a story line where an MIT applicant is a walking zombie for 30 years only to wake up when his acceptance letter arrives, and then I add a new patentable plot twist (which I can't reveal because my application isn't done yet), does my patent application become stronger because it incorporates a previous patent, or does it actually get rejected because of prior art/infringement? Maybe I would have to put the zombie story line into a flashback segment so it seems like a reusable component of a larger more complex story line.
Maybe this is just a government plot to create more jobs at the USPTO for english majors instead of engineering majors? Wait a sec - maybe I can patent THAT story line.
Re:More like "Think They're Einsteins"
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The funny thing is that I hate all the code ever written by everyone on the planet. The only good code is the code I am working on right now. In fact, code from last month is complete crap. Even (especially) the stuff I wrote myself. It's funny how judgmental I become when I look at code.
For more information, refer to the "Not Invented Here" anti-pattern. I am a long-time sufferer.
There is an unfortunate problem looming in the not so distant future. Hard disk manufacturers have been representing the hard disk capacity in such a way to maximize the apparent capacity. They have been able to do this because the difference between a million bytes (10^6) and a million bytes (2^20) is less than a 5 percent error:
1,000,000 / 1,048,576 = 95.3%
We started noticing when they did it with gigabytes since a billion bytes (10^9) is somewhat more different from 2^30
1,000,000,000 / 1,073,741,824 = 93.1%
Now for a single hard disk, we are still in the 7% misrepresentation range, and people have been tolerant. Let's look at what we normally call terabytes 10^12 vs. 2^40 - we are over 9% in error.
1,000,000,000,000 / 1,099,511,627,776 = 90.9%
This problem will increase linearly with the scale of our storage systems as the powers of 2 and 10 diverge. Think about the pointy-haired boss ordering a disk solution from EMC that is in the exabyte or petabyte range and making a 14% error on a megabuck purchase.
I know this happens. I (fortunately) caught someone making this mistake on a 6 terabyte system a couple years ago where the 9% error equated to over 500 gigabytes (and that wasn't cheap back then!)
I wasn't aware that they were switching cable modems onto a different network, but it explains an experience I had a couple weeks ago.
I have been a comcast@home customer since March 98 and was issued a static IP address. They used to come to your house and install software back then and they entered the static IP right into the Windows network settings (no DHCP).
Soon after they were done, I unplugged the cable modem from my windows box, hooked it up to a linux box and began happily masqerading for almost 4 years on the same static IP address.
Well, 2 weeks ago, my network access died. I couldn't ping my cable modem at all. I broke down, plugged the cable modem back into the Windows box, and called comcast for help. They were surprised to learn that I didn't have my system configured to use DHCP and after I turned it on I realized that I had a brand new subnet and IP address. No wonder I couldn't ping the modem or see it in the arp table. I thanked them, hung up, plugged back into Linux and setup dhcpcd in case they switch me again.
I had no idea why my modem got assigned a new IP address after almost 4 years. I guess I've been moved onto a new network, huh?
The funny (scary) thing is that the minimal response over the past two months before everyone found out about this was mostly SPAM. Follow the link above, scroll down and look at the oldest archived comments. Like this one...
Shaw and Rogers already had their form letters posted, here's what Comcast had to say (if someone else hasn't posted it already...)
(Take note: Comcast made no mention about whether or not they will take any responsibility for email and webspace content!)
Dear Comcast @Home Customer,
On Friday, September 28, Excite@Home, the Internet service provider for Comcast @Home, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to allow themthe opportunity to restructure their financial situation with their creditors. As you may know, financial restructuring allows companies that have declared bankruptcy to continue to operate their business successfully.
More than five years ago, Comcast committed to the high-speed Internet business by partnering with Excite@Home, and we continue to be committed to providing high quality, reliable service. We are confident that Excite@Home, whose major shareholders include AT&T, Cox and Comcast, will maintain all e-mail and web space services for our customers.
Comcast will continue providing its customers with the best high-speed Internet service both now and in the future. We are doing everything possible to ensure that the 950,000 customers we will serve by year-end will continue to be served well while Excite@Home restructures its financial situation.
Comcast views high-speed Internet as one of the most important products in our portfolio and we remain committed to this business and to our customers. We thank you for choosing Comcast and look forward to continuing to provide you with the best high-speed Internet service available.
Sincerely,
David Juliano
Sr. Vice President & General Manager
Don't post here - send them an email instead! (Or do both!) I put in my 2 cents (since I don't know what else to do...)
There were only 7 comments archived in August and merely 9 in the month of September... until yesterday! Way to go guys! (I have to assume that Slashdotters helped pummel them with comments.)
You can see everyone's comments here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpo li cy-comment
Last time I looked there were 250+ comments! Fortunately, most of them were opposed to incorporating patented technology into W3C recommendations.
The really sad part is that people think that you can write software after you "learn" a language. Some college grads come out of school having "learned" a few languages, but unless they were involved in a large scale university project, they haven't learned how to really write software since each of the programs they coded usually didn't grow beyond what could be completed in a semester or two. (Forgive me for generalizing, but this has been my experience with new-hires.)
Additionally, lots of managers where I work think that they can go buy someone some "Java training" or "PL/SQL training" or "Solaris admin training" or whatever and suddenly they will have transformed a junior support person into a senior developer, DBA or sys admin.
This is analagous to sending someone to school to learn the French language assuming that they will return with the skills required to write a novel in French. I only speak one language (English, obviously) and I am nowhere close to having developed my skills with the language to the point where I could write a novel.
I don't care what language I work in as much as I care about the archiecture of the system, the process used to design/code/test, how much peer review and interaction is involved, what scheduling methods are used, whether or not I can live with the mandated coding standard (I have curly brace issues...), whether there are enough iterations in the schedule, how much time is dedicated to refactoring, whether the scope is well defined, etc, etc, etc...
Privacy is probably the most important new (well, technology continually makes it new) social issue that we will be dealing with over the next several decades. I don't think that this result is a positive one at all! The Judicial Conference has basically had the issue temporarily deflated by a single bureaucrat (supposedly) caving at the last minute. The result is that we will not have a thorough debate and there will be no precedent set. A ground-breaking decision from the Judical Conference could have gone a long way toward influencing the Judiciary's position on other privacy issues (facial recognition, etc) in the future, but instead we see a slight blip and we are right back to the status quo.
History Lesson: Sony, a plaintiff in this suit, convinced the US government that sales of blank audio cassettes hurt the business of Sony Music. Now they get a royalty on every blank sold. Did they educate their users that copying is wrong? No, they introduced a 74 minute cassette named "CD-it"
Presuming that is true, then it becomes clear to me that the goal of this lawsuit is not focused on protecting their business from piracy, but instead trying to obtain a court ruling that positions them to benefit from piracy.
1) All protection schemes have been and always will be defeated.
2) If you distribute the details of your protection schemes to many large corporations, you have not made much of an effort to keep it a "secret" and you can be assured that it will eventually be defeated.
3) If you can convince a court that somehow someone has "hurt" your business, then you stand to profit from the court ruling. Especially if you can convince them that the entity that hurt you was a huge corporation with a fat bank account.
4) Historically, the music and movie business has not been "hurt" by the audio cassette tape, VHS, CD-ROM, DAT, etc. The business is booming bigger than ever with new ways to sell music and video.
You know, it's funny, I COULD rent every movie I watch, and copy it for my friends, but I don't. I still go to the movie theater. I COULD copy CD's from my friend instead of buying them in the store, but for some reason I still buy them in the store. It's just plain easier to drop $10-$12 bucks on a CD than to spend the time making copies. Maybe if I were a poor student I might spend the time copying - but then I probably wouldn't have made the purchase in the first place.
We should be pleased that our culture produces so many people who study a field at such depth. Obviously, the most 'productive' society would have exactly as many workers filling specific job types as required at any given time. But a rich society would be able to produce and support many members who did not have what are considered economically 'productive' occupations (in the most naive sense of the term). These would include not only researchers in the scientific fields, but artists, musicians, playwrights, etc. All these individuals can be supported through corporate R&D funds, philanthropy, even goverment grants. Your contributions may not always be directly rewarded with a fat paycheck, but your work will definitely enrich our world.
Yes, computer scientists have frequently used newspaper pages as a unit of measure to provide laymen with a tangible feel for storage capacity. Generally one newspaper page is exactly equal to the number of characters on the latest New York Times. When referring to USA Today however, the unit is specified as "deep" pages to account for the additional color bits.
For "historical reasons" the df command counts bilevel front and back pages and the resulting display can be very misleading. On my old fashioned system I need to remember to use df with the -k argument to convert to full pages (ie. front plus back). Many newer operating systems do this by default.
Slashdot Mirror
The next time someone tells me that the slippery slope is an invalid argument, I'm going to slap them.
If you follow this link, you'll notice that they are supporting bit torrent.
Consider.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/02 39221&tid=155=17
http://www.plotpatents.com/
This is total B.S. by the way, I am sure there is a legal standard for plagiarism, and that would be the only way a case like this can hold up. Everyone knows there's only 11 different stories. Or is it 21... Um...
I understand that this is a balance, and that a well thought out design will take future use into account, but I, like many programmers, am a terrible psychic. The parent post seems to address the fact that many times you are best off enhancing/refactoring a library each time a new need arises rather than trying to get it all figured out in version 1.0; I just wanted to emphasize it.
This is like credit card companies selling me services to protect me from credit abuse and preserve my credit rating - shouldn't they be doing this kind of stuff anyway? If I don't pay them for 'identity theft protection' does it mean that someone can steal my credit card and they won't do anything about it? This is the way things are going... just try to get a piece of electronics replaced by a retailer if you didn't pay them their 'extended warranty' tax.
Let me ask a simple question: Why don't they encrypt this stuff?
I wonder if we will see new language designs emerge due to the relative increase in the number of multi-processor/core CPUs out there. I mean something at a high level, not compiler improvements that try to overlap CPU operations from original top-down style code, but something that encourages the actual developers to use producer consumer patterns, co-routines, whatever, at their level to maximize utilization of CPU resources. We keep using the same old languages and assuming the compiler is smart enough to keep all the circuits busy. Anyone out there work on huge multi-processor systems or clusters that can free me from my ignorance?
I get the point though, coding standards are critical so that people aren't confused when they look at someone else's code and it is following completely different conventions. It doesn't matter which coding standard you use as long as everyone agrees with it. Try to create consensus on the conventions and allow them to evolve. Forcing things down peoples' throats won't work.
Focus on getting peer reviews into your process as early as possible - like the same day the code is written - maybe even at the same time the code is written. If you wait too long to review code, the author gets a little attached to it and often too defensive. Constructive criticism is more easily accepted before someone has traveled a long road and doesn't want to backtrack.
I vow to no longer use Google anymore, now that I know they capture everything I do.
Uh... wait a minute... the internet - without Google... hmm.
Um. Forget it.
-- just trying to find the bright side
I have respect for patents that protect inventions from infringement where the individual or company seeking protection is engaged in day-to-day activities that make use of the invention in some way in their business process or by incorporation of the invention into their product. As we all know, intellectual property becomes a commodity in itself if you are not actually using a patent to protect your actual revenue generating day-to-day activities.
One way that the concept of a story line patent may very much differ from a 'classic' patent is that a patent application for a classic invention is strengthened if it incorporates or relies upon elements from an existing approved patent. I don't see how this can apply to a story line in a reasonable way. If I were to patent a story line where an MIT applicant is a walking zombie for 30 years only to wake up when his acceptance letter arrives, and then I add a new patentable plot twist (which I can't reveal because my application isn't done yet), does my patent application become stronger because it incorporates a previous patent, or does it actually get rejected because of prior art/infringement? Maybe I would have to put the zombie story line into a flashback segment so it seems like a reusable component of a larger more complex story line.
Maybe this is just a government plot to create more jobs at the USPTO for english majors instead of engineering majors? Wait a sec - maybe I can patent THAT story line.
The funny thing is that I hate all the code ever written by everyone on the planet. The only good code is the code I am working on right now. In fact, code from last month is complete crap. Even (especially) the stuff I wrote myself. It's funny how judgmental I become when I look at code.
For more information, refer to the "Not Invented Here" anti-pattern. I am a long-time sufferer.
There is an unfortunate problem looming in the not so distant future. Hard disk manufacturers have been representing the hard disk capacity in such a way to maximize the apparent capacity. They have been able to do this because the difference between a million bytes (10^6) and a million bytes (2^20) is less than a 5 percent error:
1,000,000 / 1,048,576 = 95.3%
We started noticing when they did it with gigabytes since a billion bytes (10^9) is somewhat more different from 2^30
1,000,000,000 / 1,073,741,824 = 93.1%
Now for a single hard disk, we are still in the 7% misrepresentation range, and people have been tolerant. Let's look at what we normally call terabytes 10^12 vs. 2^40 - we are over 9% in error.
1,000,000,000,000 / 1,099,511,627,776 = 90.9%
This problem will increase linearly with the scale of our storage systems as the powers of 2 and 10 diverge. Think about the pointy-haired boss ordering a disk solution from EMC that is in the exabyte or petabyte range and making a 14% error on a megabuck purchase.
I know this happens. I (fortunately) caught someone making this mistake on a 6 terabyte system a couple years ago where the 9% error equated to over 500 gigabytes (and that wasn't cheap back then!)
I wasn't aware that they were switching cable modems onto a different network, but it explains an experience I had a couple weeks ago.
I have been a comcast@home customer since March 98 and was issued a static IP address. They used to come to your house and install software back then and they entered the static IP right into the Windows network settings (no DHCP).
Soon after they were done, I unplugged the cable modem from my windows box, hooked it up to a linux box and began happily masqerading for almost 4 years on the same static IP address.
Well, 2 weeks ago, my network access died. I couldn't ping my cable modem at all. I broke down, plugged the cable modem back into the Windows box, and called comcast for help. They were surprised to learn that I didn't have my system configured to use DHCP and after I turned it on I realized that I had a brand new subnet and IP address. No wonder I couldn't ping the modem or see it in the arp table. I thanked them, hung up, plugged back into Linux and setup dhcpcd in case they switch me again.
I had no idea why my modem got assigned a new IP address after almost 4 years. I guess I've been moved onto a new network, huh?
The number of comments is now over 650! It might be the last minute, but I think W3C will perk up and listen.
i cy-comment/2001Sep instead.
Forgive me, I left a space in the URL in the parent message...
Try this link http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpol
It should work.
The funny (scary) thing is that the minimal response over the past two months before everyone found out about this was mostly SPAM. Follow the link above, scroll down and look at the oldest archived comments. Like this one...
Shaw and Rogers already had their form letters posted, here's what Comcast had to say (if someone else hasn't posted it already...)
(Take note: Comcast made no mention about whether or not they will take any responsibility for email and webspace content!)
Dear Comcast @Home Customer,
On Friday, September 28, Excite@Home, the Internet service provider for Comcast @Home, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to allow themthe opportunity to restructure their financial situation with their creditors. As you may know, financial restructuring allows companies that have declared bankruptcy to continue to operate their business successfully.
More than five years ago, Comcast committed to the high-speed Internet business by partnering with Excite@Home, and we continue to be committed to providing high quality, reliable service. We are confident that Excite@Home, whose major shareholders include AT&T, Cox and Comcast, will maintain all e-mail and web space services for our customers.
Comcast will continue providing its customers with the best high-speed Internet service both now and in the future. We are doing everything possible to ensure that the 950,000 customers we will serve by year-end will continue to be served well while Excite@Home restructures its financial situation.
Comcast views high-speed Internet as one of the most important products in our portfolio and we remain committed to this business and to our customers. We thank you for choosing Comcast and look forward to continuing to provide you with the best high-speed Internet service available.
Sincerely,
David Juliano
Sr. Vice President & General Manager
Let's try to imagine the point of view of the W3C corporate members:
<W3C LOGIC>
Individual developers and researchers don't create technology, only large companies with fat R&D budgets can do that.
If something is in a W3C standard, then it must have been created by a company with a fat R&D budget.
All W3C standards were GIVEN to the public by benevolent cooperative corporations who just want everything to work together seamlessly.
Where the hell do slashdotters get off complaining about the consortium members trying to protect the technology that they invested so much $ in?
Slashdotters are a bunch of freeloaders who don't want to pay for anything, ever.
Al Gore invented the Internet.
</W3C LOGIC>
Don't post here - send them an email instead! (Or do both!) I put in my 2 cents (since I don't know what else to do...)
o li cy-comment
There were only 7 comments archived in August and merely 9 in the month of September... until yesterday! Way to go guys! (I have to assume that Slashdotters helped pummel them with comments.)
You can see everyone's comments here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentp
Last time I looked there were 250+ comments! Fortunately, most of them were opposed to incorporating patented technology into W3C recommendations.
Okay, maybe this is off-topic... you decide:
The really sad part is that people think that you can write software after you "learn" a language. Some college grads come out of school having "learned" a few languages, but unless they were involved in a large scale university project, they haven't learned how to really write software since each of the programs they coded usually didn't grow beyond what could be completed in a semester or two. (Forgive me for generalizing, but this has been my experience with new-hires.)
Additionally, lots of managers where I work think that they can go buy someone some "Java training" or "PL/SQL training" or "Solaris admin training" or whatever and suddenly they will have transformed a junior support person into a senior developer, DBA or sys admin.
This is analagous to sending someone to school to learn the French language assuming that they will return with the skills required to write a novel in French. I only speak one language (English, obviously) and I am nowhere close to having developed my skills with the language to the point where I could write a novel.
I don't care what language I work in as much as I care about the archiecture of the system, the process used to design/code/test, how much peer review and interaction is involved, what scheduling methods are used, whether or not I can live with the mandated coding standard (I have curly brace issues...), whether there are enough iterations in the schedule, how much time is dedicated to refactoring, whether the scope is well defined, etc, etc, etc...
Privacy is probably the most important new (well, technology continually makes it new) social issue that we will be dealing with over the next several decades. I don't think that this result is a positive one at all! The Judicial Conference has basically had the issue temporarily deflated by a single bureaucrat (supposedly) caving at the last minute. The result is that we will not have a thorough debate and there will be no precedent set. A ground-breaking decision from the Judical Conference could have gone a long way toward influencing the Judiciary's position on other privacy issues (facial recognition, etc) in the future, but instead we see a slight blip and we are right back to the status quo.
History Lesson: Sony, a plaintiff in this suit, convinced the US government that sales of blank audio cassettes hurt the business of Sony Music. Now they get a royalty on every blank sold. Did they educate their users that copying is wrong? No, they introduced a 74 minute cassette named "CD-it"
Presuming that is true, then it becomes clear to me that the goal of this lawsuit is not focused on protecting their business from piracy, but instead trying to obtain a court ruling that positions them to benefit from piracy.
1) All protection schemes have been and always will be defeated.
2) If you distribute the details of your protection schemes to many large corporations, you have not made much of an effort to keep it a "secret" and you can be assured that it will eventually be defeated.
3) If you can convince a court that somehow someone has "hurt" your business, then you stand to profit from the court ruling. Especially if you can convince them that the entity that hurt you was a huge corporation with a fat bank account.
4) Historically, the music and movie business has not been "hurt" by the audio cassette tape, VHS, CD-ROM, DAT, etc. The business is booming bigger than ever with new ways to sell music and video.
You know, it's funny, I COULD rent every movie I watch, and copy it for my friends, but I don't. I still go to the movie theater. I COULD copy CD's from my friend instead of buying them in the store, but for some reason I still buy them in the store. It's just plain easier to drop $10-$12 bucks on a CD than to spend the time making copies. Maybe if I were a poor student I might spend the time copying - but then I probably wouldn't have made the purchase in the first place.
You know, these guys are not dumb.
We should be pleased that our culture produces so many people who study a field at such depth. Obviously, the most 'productive' society would have exactly as many workers filling specific job types as required at any given time. But a rich society would be able to produce and support many members who did not have what are considered economically 'productive' occupations (in the most naive sense of the term). These would include not only researchers in the scientific fields, but artists, musicians, playwrights, etc. All these individuals can be supported through corporate R&D funds, philanthropy, even goverment grants. Your contributions may not always be directly rewarded with a fat paycheck, but your work will definitely enrich our world.
Yes, computer scientists have frequently used newspaper pages as a unit of measure to provide laymen with a tangible feel for storage capacity. Generally one newspaper page is exactly equal to the number of characters on the latest New York Times. When referring to USA Today however, the unit is specified as "deep" pages to account for the additional color bits.
For "historical reasons" the df command counts bilevel front and back pages and the resulting display can be very misleading. On my old fashioned system I need to remember to use df with the -k argument to convert to full pages (ie. front plus back). Many newer operating systems do this by default.
# df -k
total newspaper pages: 362790
newspaper pages used: 7944
newspaper pages free: 354856