hammer a nail through the cpu it'll kill all the vira, and it will still have more computing power left than if it was running McAfee...
Vira?! Why don't you stick with "viruses"? ("virus" is a mass-noun in Latin - means "venom" - doesn't support plural forms. Using the contorted neo-latin "vira" is pretty much like you'd use "malwares" in English - maybe not incorrect, but doesn't sounds good to me).
You forgot to add the USA to that list. And Australia is getting pretty screwed up lately with talk of great peoples firewalls etc, but they still have bbqs and Steve Irwin so I'll let them pass. Apart from that I completely agree with you.
BBQ-es still exist. Steve Irwin - mostly a living memory now - a dear one, but still only memory.
Consider this, the act of piracy decreases the value of the legitimate product by significantly lowering the price at which that product can be had
The price is exactly the one the buyers are willing to pay for it. As a pirate has no intention to buy it, the legitimate price of the product is zero.
The purpose of the above to put into evidence the artificiality of the current embodiment of the intellectual property principles - unlike a
tangible good, an IP product can be obtained (nowadays) without having the original no longer being available.
I don't deny the rights of the authors/inventors to be rewarded for their creation - I just point out that the means used in doing it (i.e. the current copyright/patent laws) are becoming more irrelevant for the original goals and more hurtful for the society as the time passes.
Sure. You'd win a legal challenge. If you spent millions litigating it first.
With a prior art in public domain, why should I litigate first? I mean: I already have a proof in the public domain that I discovered that, shouldn't be the burden of the other to demonstrate the validity of its patent in the conditions of prior art?
How can you meaningfully process the data generated by the SKA without imposing on people's downloads? How do they address this with SETI?
If TFS is too "summary" for you, TFA may sometime answer to your questions. In this case, it does:
Project participants also had a choice of how to participate in SkyNet: Either anonymously through simply having their browsers open on the SkyNet site, or through downloading a dedicated app to run in the background on their PC.
...
"The load on your computer will adjust depending on what you are doing with it. The idea is to have lots of machines each doing a little and adding up to a lot.”
Wheeler said users would also be able to set limits on the number of megabytes which travelled to and from their PCs.
SKA - The SKA will give astronomers insight into the formation and evolution of the first stars and galaxies after the Big Bang, the role of cosmic magnetism, the nature of gravity, and possibly life beyond Earth.
SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.
For the love of everything, can we stop making shitty references to Terminator in computational intelligence stories? There are actually people stupid enough to believe that shit. Also, its not funny.
Can't blame us, mate. The SKA people knew about it and still decided to chose this unfortunate name.
Better tell us when's the date the SkyNet is supposed to become self-aware.
The prior art is "already there", why should one be granted a patent for something is already public?
How about because you're a giant corporation with an army of lawyers larger than the population of a small town sitting on a large reserve of cash you want to make even larger?
What about it? I mean, what if a giant corporation start hiring an army of thugs instead of lawyers: would it make its actions (towards obtaining a patent) less ethically justified? I mean: is an social outcome justifiable by how it was obtained?
No, it doesn't. To my mind, if publicly there is a prior art, then it's not something new, thus not an something that worth protecting by a temporary monopoly.
The prior art is "already there", why should one be granted a patent for something is already public?
Supporters of the act contend that reforming the patent system will unlock innovation and produce jobs in an economy that is increasingly driven by intellectual property. Currently, there is a backlog of about 700,000 patents waiting for examination, and the next cellphone, incandescent lamp or miracle drug could be hidden in that pile, supporters said.
Looking the waste in the current smart-phone patent "compulsive wars", I think the bottleneck in invention (and job creation) is NOT in first-to-invent vs first-to-file (the current battle would have happened in both "first-to..." strategies). Look, Europe is driven by the "first-to-file" for quite a while: did this stop Apple to block Samsung tablets/phones (or whatever) in Germany?
I don't see how's this one a step forward in the "job creation" direction (not says that is not, just saying that I need some explanations. Somebody care to explain?).
To remove the Google-bias slant you added, it's more like:
Google is an organization of anti-gun activists who profess their opposition to fighting, yet they arm people to fight for them because, hey, if they don't defend themselves, they go down.
Hmmm... you mean like the US'es (or any other country) Department of Defense?
Why do Slashdotters only think patent laws are absurd when they're filed against their heroes such as Google? Isn't that a bit fanatical? If Apple didn't have a case, it would have been thrown out.
What makes you think that/.-er only think of the patent laws when lawsuits are filled against (whatever heroes)?
A part of me is hoping that this is a massive corporate conspiracy to drive the absurdity of current patent/IP law to the point where it becomes patently obvious to everyone that the system is fucking broken.
Conspiracy or not... I do hope that the things go so out of hand and drive the brouhaha into a such a lock-down that the absurdity of current patent/IP laws becomes obvious for the Joe Sixpack ("sorry, dude, can't sell you any smart-phone... none of the brands are allowed for sale because of the patent suits... try again next century, the courts are busy 'til then").
Some group needs to map out all of the patents related to wireless communications. Then we'll have a timeline of the changes. I'd even throw them some money.
It would be nice to see who made real innovations (revolutionary), who made improvements (evolutionary) and who filed (junk) patents with a flavor of "now on a cellphone!" or "over wireless!"
I'd throw so money myself in such a timeline, except... why should one include the real innovations solely from patents? What... non-patented innovations are imaginary?
Obama doesn't apply the same standard to the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
Also, from TFS:
"Secret Service investigations have shown that complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are rarely perpetrated by a lone individual,"
Now, the common point of the two above is: how do you (Joe Citizen) know? "Secret Service investigations" doesn't sound too reassuring.
Allow it to happen and I bet the next thing will be: "Sentencing for associating in secret have failed to keep pace with the severity of the threats" (with the next steps "Sentencing for associations not formally approved by the Secret Services..." and/or "Sentencing for associating under other form than a for-profit corporation..."???)
M point is that while they cite "allow a doubling of network traffic", the reality is even better than that. Full duplex gets you more than double throughput, as well as improved jitter/latency since you no longer have to randomly re-transmit frames (or randomly wait to transmit, as with WiFi collision avoidance).
Mmmm... yes and no. Wired full-duplex is still easier - it's still point-to-point. When switching to wireless and have more than two transmission nodes, one still need to establish a medium access control. See here some proposals (I know, I know - came as a surprise to me as well to see MS is involved in some actual scientific research and not only in taking 5 years+ to release a crappy OS, "getting the facts" or writing Halloween memos).
So:
1. Rice University had (and has) WARP - a sophisticated research platform of software controlled radios, build from the ground up using open source software
2. Stanford has the idea of using self-interference and demoes single-channel full-duplex wireless in 2010 at mobicon
3. Microsoft Research UK had some other ideas (May 2011) on self-interference and meshing for medium access control (check the citations: Stanford is mentioned)
4. Rice University takes a step further and establishes a math model and (this is the actual novelty) a way of doing it using an unexpensive setup.
Can't stop but wonder: in all the above there's no patent? Is it the promotion of "the progress of science and useful arts" possible outside "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right"? And this is not communism?
Slashdot Mirror
hammer a nail through the cpu it'll kill all the vira, and it will still have more computing power left than if it was running McAfee ...
Vira?! Why don't you stick with "viruses"? ("virus" is a mass-noun in Latin - means "venom" - doesn't support plural forms. Using the contorted neo-latin "vira" is pretty much like you'd use "malwares" in English - maybe not incorrect, but doesn't sounds good to me).
"On that note, McAfee demonstrated the workings of it's new invention - the non-dumb user."
Psh... I've had one of those for years now.
Keep it safe, preferable in a cryogenic enclosure. The species is going extinct, we'll need the DNA for cloning in the near future.
You forgot to add the USA to that list. And Australia is getting pretty screwed up lately with talk of great peoples firewalls etc, but they still have bbqs and Steve Irwin so I'll let them pass. Apart from that I completely agree with you.
BBQ-es still exist. Steve Irwin - mostly a living memory now - a dear one, but still only memory.
Consider this, the act of piracy decreases the value of the legitimate product by significantly lowering the price at which that product can be had
The price is exactly the one the buyers are willing to pay for it. As a pirate has no intention to buy it, the legitimate price of the product is zero.
The purpose of the above to put into evidence the artificiality of the current embodiment of the intellectual property principles - unlike a tangible good, an IP product can be obtained (nowadays) without having the original no longer being available.
I don't deny the rights of the authors/inventors to be rewarded for their creation - I just point out that the means used in doing it (i.e. the current copyright/patent laws) are becoming more irrelevant for the original goals and more hurtful for the society as the time passes.
Sure. You'd win a legal challenge. If you spent millions litigating it first.
With a prior art in public domain, why should I litigate first? I mean: I already have a proof in the public domain that I discovered that, shouldn't be the burden of the other to demonstrate the validity of its patent in the conditions of prior art?
Yes, but how is it different LATELY?
SETI is already running for some time. SKA is still the "under construction" stage.
Is this enough for a specific difference?
How can you meaningfully process the data generated by the SKA without imposing on people's downloads? How do they address this with SETI?
If TFS is too "summary" for you, TFA may sometime answer to your questions. In this case, it does:
Project participants also had a choice of how to participate in SkyNet: Either anonymously through simply having their browsers open on the SkyNet site, or through downloading a dedicated app to run in the background on their PC.
...
"The load on your computer will adjust depending on what you are doing with it. The idea is to have lots of machines each doing a little and adding up to a lot.”
Wheeler said users would also be able to set limits on the number of megabytes which travelled to and from their PCs.
Better tell us when's the date the SkyNet is supposed to become self-aware.
August 29, 1997 July 25, 2003 July 25, 2004 sometime in 2005 April 21, 2011
Fear not, judgment day is like the rapture. It is always more profitable to rescheduled it the next year.
(See? See? Given the circumstances, wasn't it a non-trivial question?)
On a more serious line, I looked for when the SKA will become operational. It seems this is not too frequently asked one.
SKA - The SKA will give astronomers insight into the formation and evolution of the first stars and galaxies after the Big Bang, the role of cosmic magnetism, the nature of gravity, and possibly life beyond Earth.
SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.
For the love of everything, can we stop making shitty references to Terminator in computational intelligence stories? There are actually people stupid enough to believe that shit. Also, its not funny.
Can't blame us, mate. The SKA people knew about it and still decided to chose this unfortunate name.
Better tell us when's the date the SkyNet is supposed to become self-aware.
Why remember that X is caused by Y when you can just input Y into a computer and it gives X?
I'm afraid cancer may be caused by many things... in there turn, these many things may or may not always result in cancer.
White noise. :-)
:) I don't see the correlation... and this every time I'm trying to pinpoint it :)
Welcome to America.
Thanks but no thanks, I pretty much love where I'm living now.
The prior art is "already there", why should one be granted a patent for something is already public?
How about because you're a giant corporation with an army of lawyers larger than the population of a small town sitting on a large reserve of cash you want to make even larger?
What about it?
I mean, what if a giant corporation start hiring an army of thugs instead of lawyers: would it make its actions (towards obtaining a patent) less ethically justified?
I mean: is an social outcome justifiable by how it was obtained?
So this means the concept of prior art is moot?
No, it doesn't. To my mind, if publicly there is a prior art, then it's not something new, thus not an something that worth protecting by a temporary monopoly.
The prior art is "already there", why should one be granted a patent for something is already public?
Supporters of the act contend that reforming the patent system will unlock innovation and produce jobs in an economy that is increasingly driven by intellectual property. Currently, there is a backlog of about 700,000 patents waiting for examination, and the next cellphone, incandescent lamp or miracle drug could be hidden in that pile, supporters said.
Looking the waste in the current smart-phone patent "compulsive wars", I think the bottleneck in invention (and job creation) is NOT in first-to-invent vs first-to-file (the current battle would have happened in both "first-to..." strategies). Look, Europe is driven by the "first-to-file" for quite a while: did this stop Apple to block Samsung tablets/phones (or whatever) in Germany?
I don't see how's this one a step forward in the "job creation" direction (not says that is not, just saying that I need some explanations. Somebody care to explain?).
when I start reading 1970s porn?
"I'll I need is love"?
I wonder however what the background music will be for some books of the same era, like "The art of computer programming" or "Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics"
Most of the users would not understand the signal / noise graph and data anyway ;
After all, it should just work, ain't it? (except when you keep your Mac in your hand the wrong way).
<duck>
To remove the Google-bias slant you added, it's more like:
Google is an organization of anti-gun activists who profess their opposition to fighting, yet they arm people to fight for them because, hey, if they don't defend themselves, they go down.
Hmmm... you mean like the US'es (or any other country) Department of Defense?
Why do Slashdotters only think patent laws are absurd when they're filed against their heroes such as Google? Isn't that a bit fanatical? If Apple didn't have a case, it would have been thrown out.
What makes you think that /.-er only think of the patent laws when lawsuits are filled against (whatever heroes)?
A part of me is hoping that this is a massive corporate conspiracy to drive the absurdity of current patent/IP law to the point where it becomes patently obvious to everyone that the system is fucking broken.
Conspiracy or not... I do hope that the things go so out of hand and drive the brouhaha into a such a lock-down that the absurdity of current patent/IP laws becomes obvious for the Joe Sixpack ("sorry, dude, can't sell you any smart-phone... none of the brands are allowed for sale because of the patent suits... try again next century, the courts are busy 'til then").
Some group needs to map out all of the patents related to wireless communications. Then we'll have a timeline of the changes. I'd even throw them some money.
It would be nice to see who made real innovations (revolutionary), who made improvements (evolutionary) and who filed (junk) patents with a flavor of "now on a cellphone!" or "over wireless!"
I'd throw so money myself in such a timeline, except... why should one include the real innovations solely from patents? What... non-patented innovations are imaginary?
Obama doesn't apply the same standard to the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
Also, from TFS:
"Secret Service investigations have shown that complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are rarely perpetrated by a lone individual,"
Now, the common point of the two above is: how do you (Joe Citizen) know? "Secret Service investigations" doesn't sound too reassuring.
Allow it to happen and I bet the next thing will be: "Sentencing for associating in secret have failed to keep pace with the severity of the threats" (with the next steps "Sentencing for associations not formally approved by the Secret Services..." and/or "Sentencing for associating under other form than a for-profit corporation..."???)
In wired Ethernet topologies, ...
M point is that while they cite "allow a doubling of network traffic", the reality is even better than that. Full duplex gets you more than double throughput, as well as improved jitter/latency since you no longer have to randomly re-transmit frames (or randomly wait to transmit, as with WiFi collision avoidance).
Mmmm... yes and no. Wired full-duplex is still easier - it's still point-to-point. When switching to wireless and have more than two transmission nodes, one still need to establish a medium access control. See here some proposals (I know, I know - came as a surprise to me as well to see MS is involved in some actual scientific research and not only in taking 5 years+ to release a crappy OS, "getting the facts" or writing Halloween memos).
and thus, the circle is complete...
So:
1. Rice University had (and has) WARP - a sophisticated research platform of software controlled radios, build from the ground up using open source software
2. Stanford has the idea of using self-interference and demoes single-channel full-duplex wireless in 2010 at mobicon
3. Microsoft Research UK had some other ideas (May 2011) on self-interference and meshing for medium access control (check the citations: Stanford is mentioned)
4. Rice University takes a step further and establishes a math model and (this is the actual novelty) a way of doing it using an unexpensive setup.
Can't stop but wonder: in all the above there's no patent? Is it the promotion of "the progress of science and useful arts" possible outside "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right"? And this is not communism?