But that only matters if programmers do add their own checks. Evidently in reality most do not.
And therefore the idea that the problem is some programmers not the language, the craftsman not the tool.
If a tool doesn't fit my hand, it's a bad tool. If a tool doesn't fit human intuition and tendencies, it's a bad tool. Tools are here to assist humans, not the other way around, and have no inherent value of their own, just their utility, thus any mismatch between a tool and a user is a problem with the tool, especially when "user" is actually "most users".
However in this case we have a tool that has proven itself over decades of use by knowledgable and skilled craftsman. A tool that can do any sort of memory checking the craftsman wishes it to, any sort of checking the "training wheels" languages do.
As someone who spent a lot of time writing assembly language back in the day I understand the "we only use C here" mentality. Its only one small step from assembly language, which is what C was intended to be. I still have an urge to go to the bare metal (assembly), but its just not worth the time anymore.
I also understand caution with C++. Its features can be overused to the point of gross inefficiency and/or a lack of clarity in the code. However with highly curated source code like the Linux kernel that seems to be a red herring. Submissions with improper use of C++ could easily be rejected, as is done with other coding standard violations.
This meme, that certain languages are memory unsafe, is BS. The programmer is free to add all the memory checking that a so-called memory safe language automatically inserts. However the programmer using the "unsafe" language is free to use knowledge unavailable to the compiler to decide when and when not to perform such checks.
Furthermore the suggestion that memory-safe languages are faster is bogus. You don't get faster by automatically generating more code.
These memory-safe languages are only more of a necessity for apps written by amateurs. Less of a necessity, and more a convenience, for system software and more important apps written by the knowledgable and experienced.
Since patents are rewarded regardless of the R&D cost, even if the cost is zero, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that patents are needed to cover R&D cost.
No, as the preceding two posts demonstrate recouping R&D is not the sole motivation for patents. The fact remains that some innovation requires a substantial investment in R&D, and without an ability to recoup that R&D the innovation will likely remain unexplored. Recouping R&D is essential to supporting some innovations, patents help make this possible, therefore patents support innovation.
That said, yes there is abuse in the patent system, the awarding of unworthy patents. However such abuse does not change the fact that patents provide an important tool that supports innovation.
That said, no, open source hardware projects have no obligation to support anybody, let alone clone makers, but it's not open source if the source isn't open. Meaning they shouldn't actively block clone makers.
The software side of the project may be open source. The drivers, system software, etc. That would make it fair to describe a project as open source.
Also to expand on what you said, open source does *not* mean making your source code or hardware design universally available. You are only obligated to provide it to your customers, albeit with no restrictions on redistribution. Therefore it would be entirely consistent with open source to verify someone is a customer before providing any support. Furthermore it is also entirely consistent with open source to charge for any technical assistance beyond providing the source code or hardware design.
FWIW, the company could charge for technical support of non-cusomters and refer these paying non-customers to their hardware supplier if the hardware is in question. We sort of did that at a company I did technical support for long ago when I was starting out. Not many non-customer paid for support but very few were angry since they understood they had not purchased anything from us. It probably helped that these were more technical folks and not the public at large.
Except in this case it is not open source because the source isn't open. Just because you call yourself "open source" doesn't make it so. You have to actually open the source, and they haven't.
Its possible for the software to be open source but not the hardware. For example the drivers for a device may be open source, the system software for an appliance, etc.
And this is why we have patents. To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
That's one reason. Another reason is so the innovators can recoup the investment they made for their innovation, the R&D. A cloner only has to pay for the marginal cost of production, not the original R&D expenses. Without the ability to recoup R&D expenses it would be nearly impossible to find investors will to fund an endeavor.
No, it's not for gaming (duh) but for 99% of what most people do this would probably work beautifully. Browsing, email, youtube, cranking out a letter....this is all they'd need.
A chromebox with Linux installed would satisfy such a user for less than $200. I'm not slamming this device, its a cool project. Just pointing out the obvious.
A chromebox is under $200. You will need to install Linux yourself. A friend and I have done so for some Linux boxes in quasi-industrial setting, we just needed a box to monitor other equipment. For the brief period we used it as a "desktop" it seemed very capable and was a nice surprise.
They probably have a breading program, might be worth risking death for...
Yes. Being able to make large quantities of nutritious, flavorful bread is essential to Mars colonization.
Joking aside, the Navy found that good food was very important for the morale of submarine crews. Cramped, crowded, surrounded by a very hostile environment, isolated for months at a time, very technical jobs needing to be performed, etc; submarine and space travel seem to have many similarities. Perhaps the need for good bread is one of those.
Of course, its just that being involved in colonization makes it significantly more likely to be in one's near future.
Colonization is dangerous, a large percentage of colonists die. Consider US history, Roanoke, Jamestown, Massachusetts Bay. And that was in an environment where it was relatively easy to live off the land. Technology can help in that you can bring such an "environment" with you but it will never be safe for that first group because like the aforementioned, we will likely have to learn the hard way what scientific, engineering and practical things had been overlooked despite our best efforts. This will be true for a private venture or a large scale government endeavor.
Many deaths among early explorers and colonists is not a new concept. That has and will always be something volunteers need to be OK with.
The multiplayer battle.net experience for Diablo was incredible, better than single player, when you somehow knew the other players in the game. Nearly every time real world and online friends met up in the game someone would comment on how this was so much better than playing with randoms.
FWIW WoW did a better job of making play with randoms fun but still with all friends in your group it was an incredible experience.
I am not claiming any compelling uses, merely useful ones. I am however arguing that compelling cases are likely to come out of areas where the watch has sensors a phone does not (heart rate), or when a phone is not immediately accessible (remote control of phone, various sporting activities, etc).
Today the only reason I feel justified in owning a smartwatch is that I am a developer.
Smartwatches also have heart rate sensors. So that is probably the first area to explore where they go beyond a smartphone. The second area may be when you are separated from your phone.
Haptic feedback is another partial differentiator, it can tap you on the wrist to get your attention. Partial because a vibrating phone in your pocket is also haptic. But if the phone is say mounted on the dash for turn-by-turn directions then that watch haptic feedback is nice, you don't have to turn down the stereo to avoid missing a voice alert.
Another place where I found a smartwatch useful is as a controller for smartphone based presentations. I can plug the smartphone into the multimedia system at the podium and be free to walk around a little and control things from the watch.
Smartwatches are mostly useful for looking at notifications and deciding whether I need to act upon that information or if I can just make a mental note and swipe right. It saves me time picking up and/or unlocking my phone to see a notification. There's not really any compelling smartwatch apps that wouldn't be more useful as a fullscreen smartphone app.
The watch can control a presentation being played from your smartphone. This allows you to travel real light.
The tap on the wrist during turn-by-turn directions is nice. You don't have to turn down the stereo for fear of not hearing a reminder on the phone.
When thinking about what could be compelling I'd start with what is unique for the watch. The first thing that comes to mind is that the watch has a heart rate sensor, so something utilizing that would go beyond "I don't have to reach for the phone". Secondarily when might a person have the watch but not the phone.
According to new data from ComScore, more than half of all time Americans spend online is spent in apps -- up from around 41% two years ago. It's a stat that will be discomfiting to advocates of the open web, as well as companies whose core business is built around it -- notably Google.
This is why Google offers Android free to hardware manufacturers. Does Google benefit from this trend? They are no longer competing on an open playing field, they now provide the playing field. Their core business of targeted advertising would seem to benefit.
So this means Mike McAfee can be sued over McAfee plumbing services ? That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks only apply in the same sphere of trade - and where using a similar name could cause confusion for consumers.
Yeah, I know, I used McAfee Pharmaceuticals to make that point in various posts in this thread.:-)
I suspect he has good odds in this case - very few judges (and all but the most pliant of juries) would accept the idea that this company is in the same sphere of trade as antivirus software.
Sorry, the categories for trademarks are not that narrow. Anything related to computer security is probably off limits, utility software for detecting hardware and software problems, etc; there are various live trademarks in these area. Probably even utility software in general, from a 1992 trademark renewed in 2014: "computer programs; namely, utility programs and anti-virus programs" under the category "Computer and Software Products and Electrical and Scientific Products".
That's the thing about trademarks, they only cover the exact thing where it would be confusing, they don't cover all words that have any overlap.
You have been severely misinformed. A subset, something partial, something similar... all would be subject to trademark violations. **If** the new company is conducting any activity in the same categories that the old trademark was filed under.
McAfee Associates doesn't exist!
The McAfee trademark is **currently** being used by Intel for various Intel Security products.
And the bare word "McAfee" does not prevent people named McAfee from using their name.
One a trademark has been issued there absolutely is. The only thing special about a name is that it is hard to trademark, **until** the name becomes closely associated with a product, service, company, etc. People named McDonald can't use their name for a restaurant, people named Disney can't use their name for an entertainment company, etc.
When the owners of that trademark bought the mark, they surely knew that there still existed a guy a named John McAfee, who sometimes does things to make money.
The buyers knew what I explained above. McAfee is not restrained from creating a new business, he just can't use his name on a new company, service, product etc in certain activities because **he** trademarked it and then **he** sold that trademark to someone else.
Well, yes, and if he tries to brand the products themselves with some derivation of McAfee you would have a solid point. However currently all he's doing is naming the company John McAfee Global Technologies Inc which may be perfectly legal since Intel voluntarily dropped the usage of the company name.
No, that is not how trademarks work. If the new company does work in a category covered by the old trademarks Intel bought then there is a conflict. Trademarks apply to any use, features, products, company names, etc... there is no distinction between them.
Actually, he may have a case. Intel did rename MacAffee Security to Intel Security.
Intel still uses the McAfee brand, mcafee.com describes the Intel Security offerings. The Intel Security webpages include McAfee logs and the text "McAfee" in the description of various technologies, ex "McAfee Enterprise Security Manager".
. He received large sums of money so others could exclusively use that name/brand.
And that Name/Brand is McAfee Antivirus, not John McAfee, and definitely not "John McAfee Global Technologies".
Trademark conflicts are not precise (sub)string matches. Trademarks apply to specific categories of business activities. But if the later intends to be involved in software and computer security then it would seem a clear violation. Even software utilities for computers would be a likely violation. If its a pharmaceuticals company he should be OK.
In fact.... I know another person named McAfee, who has a son named John,...
And obviously someone who did not trademark "McAfee" if the field computer utilities and security, unlike the other McAfee.
And it's a common custom / tradition to name projects or small businesses / ventures after yourself.
When there is no trademark conflict. There is no "right" to use your name for a product or business.
Only issue would be if the new company were going to be a security software maker and sell a security product with a confusingly-similar name on the product or point of retail.
"Confusing" in trademark terms would be anything that remotely looks like or sounds like "McAfee".
Slashdot Mirror
If a tool doesn't fit my hand, it's a bad tool. If a tool doesn't fit human intuition and tendencies, it's a bad tool. Tools are here to assist humans, not the other way around, and have no inherent value of their own, just their utility, thus any mismatch between a tool and a user is a problem with the tool, especially when "user" is actually "most users".
However in this case we have a tool that has proven itself over decades of use by knowledgable and skilled craftsman. A tool that can do any sort of memory checking the craftsman wishes it to, any sort of checking the "training wheels" languages do.
As someone who spent a lot of time writing assembly language back in the day I understand the "we only use C here" mentality. Its only one small step from assembly language, which is what C was intended to be. I still have an urge to go to the bare metal (assembly), but its just not worth the time anymore.
I also understand caution with C++. Its features can be overused to the point of gross inefficiency and/or a lack of clarity in the code. However with highly curated source code like the Linux kernel that seems to be a red herring. Submissions with improper use of C++ could easily be rejected, as is done with other coding standard violations.
But that only matters if programmers do add their own checks. Evidently in reality most do not.
And therefore the idea that the problem is some programmers not the language, the craftsman not the tool.
This meme, that certain languages are memory unsafe, is BS. The programmer is free to add all the memory checking that a so-called memory safe language automatically inserts. However the programmer using the "unsafe" language is free to use knowledge unavailable to the compiler to decide when and when not to perform such checks.
Furthermore the suggestion that memory-safe languages are faster is bogus. You don't get faster by automatically generating more code.
These memory-safe languages are only more of a necessity for apps written by amateurs. Less of a necessity, and more a convenience, for system software and more important apps written by the knowledgable and experienced.
Let's move towards writing system code in better languages, first of all -- this should improve security and speed.
There ain't no such thing as free memory checking. It takes extra code and therefore takes extra time.
Plus the memory-unsafe premise is BS. There is nothing preventing a programmer from adding their own memory checking in such languages.
not the original R&D expenses.
Since patents are rewarded regardless of the R&D cost, even if the cost is zero, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that patents are needed to cover R&D cost.
No, as the preceding two posts demonstrate recouping R&D is not the sole motivation for patents. The fact remains that some innovation requires a substantial investment in R&D, and without an ability to recoup that R&D the innovation will likely remain unexplored. Recouping R&D is essential to supporting some innovations, patents help make this possible, therefore patents support innovation.
That said, yes there is abuse in the patent system, the awarding of unworthy patents. However such abuse does not change the fact that patents provide an important tool that supports innovation.
That said, no, open source hardware projects have no obligation to support anybody, let alone clone makers, but it's not open source if the source isn't open. Meaning they shouldn't actively block clone makers.
The software side of the project may be open source. The drivers, system software, etc. That would make it fair to describe a project as open source.
Also to expand on what you said, open source does *not* mean making your source code or hardware design universally available. You are only obligated to provide it to your customers, albeit with no restrictions on redistribution. Therefore it would be entirely consistent with open source to verify someone is a customer before providing any support. Furthermore it is also entirely consistent with open source to charge for any technical assistance beyond providing the source code or hardware design.
FWIW, the company could charge for technical support of non-cusomters and refer these paying non-customers to their hardware supplier if the hardware is in question. We sort of did that at a company I did technical support for long ago when I was starting out. Not many non-customer paid for support but very few were angry since they understood they had not purchased anything from us. It probably helped that these were more technical folks and not the public at large.
Surely if it's Open Source ...
Except in this case it is not open source because the source isn't open. Just because you call yourself "open source" doesn't make it so. You have to actually open the source, and they haven't.
Its possible for the software to be open source but not the hardware. For example the drivers for a device may be open source, the system software for an appliance, etc.
And this is why we have patents. To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
That's one reason. Another reason is so the innovators can recoup the investment they made for their innovation, the R&D. A cloner only has to pay for the marginal cost of production, not the original R&D expenses. Without the ability to recoup R&D expenses it would be nearly impossible to find investors will to fund an endeavor.
No, it's not for gaming (duh) but for 99% of what most people do this would probably work beautifully. Browsing, email, youtube, cranking out a letter....this is all they'd need.
A chromebox with Linux installed would satisfy such a user for less than $200. I'm not slamming this device, its a cool project. Just pointing out the obvious.
A chromebox is under $200. You will need to install Linux yourself. A friend and I have done so for some Linux boxes in quasi-industrial setting, we just needed a box to monitor other equipment. For the brief period we used it as a "desktop" it seemed very capable and was a nice surprise.
Yes. Being able to make large quantities of nutritious, flavorful bread is essential to Mars colonization.
Joking aside, the Navy found that good food was very important for the morale of submarine crews. Cramped, crowded, surrounded by a very hostile environment, isolated for months at a time, very technical jobs needing to be performed, etc; submarine and space travel seem to have many similarities. Perhaps the need for good bread is one of those.
We're all going to die.
Of course, its just that being involved in colonization makes it significantly more likely to be in one's near future.
Colonization is dangerous, a large percentage of colonists die. Consider US history, Roanoke, Jamestown, Massachusetts Bay. And that was in an environment where it was relatively easy to live off the land. Technology can help in that you can bring such an "environment" with you but it will never be safe for that first group because like the aforementioned, we will likely have to learn the hard way what scientific, engineering and practical things had been overlooked despite our best efforts. This will be true for a private venture or a large scale government endeavor.
Many deaths among early explorers and colonists is not a new concept. That has and will always be something volunteers need to be OK with.
People may also want to check the place with more reviews. Its part of researching the product to decide if one even wants to buy.
The multiplayer battle.net experience for Diablo was incredible, better than single player, when you somehow knew the other players in the game. Nearly every time real world and online friends met up in the game someone would comment on how this was so much better than playing with randoms.
FWIW WoW did a better job of making play with randoms fun but still with all friends in your group it was an incredible experience.
Which is why guilds are so popular.
I am not claiming any compelling uses, merely useful ones. I am however arguing that compelling cases are likely to come out of areas where the watch has sensors a phone does not (heart rate), or when a phone is not immediately accessible (remote control of phone, various sporting activities, etc).
Today the only reason I feel justified in owning a smartwatch is that I am a developer.
Smartwatches also have heart rate sensors. So that is probably the first area to explore where they go beyond a smartphone. The second area may be when you are separated from your phone.
Haptic feedback is another partial differentiator, it can tap you on the wrist to get your attention. Partial because a vibrating phone in your pocket is also haptic. But if the phone is say mounted on the dash for turn-by-turn directions then that watch haptic feedback is nice, you don't have to turn down the stereo to avoid missing a voice alert.
Another place where I found a smartwatch useful is as a controller for smartphone based presentations. I can plug the smartphone into the multimedia system at the podium and be free to walk around a little and control things from the watch.
Watches are about style, not function
As a scuba diver and a private pilot I disagree. :-)
Smartwatches are mostly useful for looking at notifications and deciding whether I need to act upon that information or if I can just make a mental note and swipe right. It saves me time picking up and/or unlocking my phone to see a notification. There's not really any compelling smartwatch apps that wouldn't be more useful as a fullscreen smartphone app.
The watch can control a presentation being played from your smartphone. This allows you to travel real light.
The tap on the wrist during turn-by-turn directions is nice. You don't have to turn down the stereo for fear of not hearing a reminder on the phone.
When thinking about what could be compelling I'd start with what is unique for the watch. The first thing that comes to mind is that the watch has a heart rate sensor, so something utilizing that would go beyond "I don't have to reach for the phone". Secondarily when might a person have the watch but not the phone.
According to new data from ComScore, more than half of all time Americans spend online is spent in apps -- up from around 41% two years ago. It's a stat that will be discomfiting to advocates of the open web, as well as companies whose core business is built around it -- notably Google.
This is why Google offers Android free to hardware manufacturers. Does Google benefit from this trend? They are no longer competing on an open playing field, they now provide the playing field. Their core business of targeted advertising would seem to benefit.
So this means Mike McAfee can be sued over McAfee plumbing services ? That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks only apply in the same sphere of trade - and where using a similar name could cause confusion for consumers.
Yeah, I know, I used McAfee Pharmaceuticals to make that point in various posts in this thread. :-)
I suspect he has good odds in this case - very few judges (and all but the most pliant of juries) would accept the idea that this company is in the same sphere of trade as antivirus software.
Sorry, the categories for trademarks are not that narrow. Anything related to computer security is probably off limits, utility software for detecting hardware and software problems, etc; there are various live trademarks in these area. Probably even utility software in general, from a 1992 trademark renewed in 2014: "computer programs; namely, utility programs and anti-virus programs" under the category "Computer and Software Products and Electrical and Scientific Products".
That's the thing about trademarks, they only cover the exact thing where it would be confusing, they don't cover all words that have any overlap.
You have been severely misinformed. A subset, something partial, something similar ... all would be subject to trademark violations. **If** the new company is conducting any activity in the same categories that the old trademark was filed under.
McAfee Associates doesn't exist!
The McAfee trademark is **currently** being used by Intel for various Intel Security products.
And the bare word "McAfee" does not prevent people named McAfee from using their name.
One a trademark has been issued there absolutely is. The only thing special about a name is that it is hard to trademark, **until** the name becomes closely associated with a product, service, company, etc. People named McDonald can't use their name for a restaurant, people named Disney can't use their name for an entertainment company, etc.
When the owners of that trademark bought the mark, they surely knew that there still existed a guy a named John McAfee, who sometimes does things to make money.
The buyers knew what I explained above. McAfee is not restrained from creating a new business, he just can't use his name on a new company, service, product etc in certain activities because **he** trademarked it and then **he** sold that trademark to someone else.
Well, yes, and if he tries to brand the products themselves with some derivation of McAfee you would have a solid point. However currently all he's doing is naming the company John McAfee Global Technologies Inc which may be perfectly legal since Intel voluntarily dropped the usage of the company name.
No, that is not how trademarks work. If the new company does work in a category covered by the old trademarks Intel bought then there is a conflict. Trademarks apply to any use, features, products, company names, etc ... there is no distinction between them.
Actually, he may have a case. Intel did rename MacAffee Security to Intel Security.
Intel still uses the McAfee brand, mcafee.com describes the Intel Security offerings. The Intel Security webpages include McAfee logs and the text "McAfee" in the description of various technologies, ex "McAfee Enterprise Security Manager".
. He received large sums of money so others could exclusively use that name/brand.
And that Name/Brand is McAfee Antivirus, not John McAfee, and definitely not "John McAfee Global Technologies" .
Trademark conflicts are not precise (sub)string matches. Trademarks apply to specific categories of business activities. But if the later intends to be involved in software and computer security then it would seem a clear violation. Even software utilities for computers would be a likely violation. If its a pharmaceuticals company he should be OK.
In fact.... I know another person named McAfee, who has a son named John, ...
And obviously someone who did not trademark "McAfee" if the field computer utilities and security, unlike the other McAfee.
And it's a common custom / tradition to name projects or small businesses / ventures after yourself.
When there is no trademark conflict. There is no "right" to use your name for a product or business.
Only issue would be if the new company were going to be a security software maker and sell a security product with a confusingly-similar name on the product or point of retail.
"Confusing" in trademark terms would be anything that remotely looks like or sounds like "McAfee".