dissassembly is not what I understood of reverse engineering. I have always thought of reverse engineering as looking at the inputs and outputs, not dissassembly... in fact, I thought dissassembly was not a legal form of reverse engineering. That expression is covered. I still think that, though now I have to admit I might be wrong.
studying the function, the interface the user becomes trained in and the results, that's legit.
I've always loved AI and have some experience in the game industry with applied AI concepts.
the "Google Sets" thing at Google labs is ripe for exploitation in AI. Train of thought is so far unautomated. We can parse language into well organized trees, we can learn "genetically", and act as expert systems. But computers don't converse well because there is no train of thought, the leap from subject to subject elludes computers, which can only do so randomly in and insane manner.
Google Sets extracts exactly this information from a few inputs, it seems to me exactly the link, the jump logic that passes for insight that I used to search for in AI solutions, (especially since the main one I attempted to tackle was robotic conversation for a massive network RPG. I think the google API and probably the amazon API are really ripe for exploitation as some very confincing AI... why? Not by simulating the mind... just by making a conduit that extracts the "Intelligence" part of AI from the web. The software, merely a catalyst between intelligent forces, will seem intelligent itself. The software will have the "internet" for a brain. By filtering, you could have it be subsets of the internet. Because of this the personality might be mediocre... limited to average brilliance. But even then, it will tell us more about ourselves than we can currently gather, for it will represent our common thinking, the thinking of society, the thinking that controls our government and other infrastructure.
If you have any ideas drop me a line, I've been thinking about this for some time now, if I come upon the right approach (something simple that might make a decent toy), I'll think I'll write something.
I generally read direct replies to my slashdot comments.
I thought the interesting part of that quote is the fact that of course people at companies will contribute to open source (as their research organizations have been doing all along)... but by virtue of that they will not be coding "serfs" because they will get standing in the community. OSS is empowering to software engineers.
as far as I can tell, such a situation gives them a choice, still, one in which they are illegally shipping software.
It's like the speeding law... you still have the "choice" of breaking it... and paying the consequence.
If they are shown to have knowingly released under the GPL, there would be no going back, no damages for those using it. But if they try a convoluted argument that it was inadvertent and unintentional, they might be able to essentially revoke that license. But I don't see how they could get any damages or licensing fees, and to the contrary would be liable themselves.
actually, it's a nuance. This case is more of an example why those nuances are important, than it is of the opposite. Usually it seems pointless, now it should seem pertinent if you are paying attention.
this whole thing should be revealing to the geeks how important terms are for the law and for laymen.
even more so, RMS has been bleating about assigning copyright to the FSF, which never seemed like a good idea to me. And xemacs forked largely over issues of carefully tracking and assigning copyright. Hmmm, looks right there to. Maybe it's time to understand this repetative attempt to educate a bunch of so called logicians.
I don't this this IP is alleged to have been in for years. I think they can get away with that defense. However, they continued to ship, and worse, they are indemnifying and supporting (and presumably collecting fees, or earning past fees) on previous sales of linux. They themselves cannot do that without linux being under the GPL, meaning their stuff is covered. However, there is still a chance they will claim their code is not GPLed, and it would then be SCO that owed punative damages... for violating copyright.
exempt income - deductions
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
The point is that the bracket is based on an adjusted number. The deduction (aka loopholes) are MONEY EXCLUDED from calculating your bracket, upon which you pay no tax. These deductions do not show up as income in tax statistics by default because they are not taxable income. But they do represent income to the individual. So what is the percentage tax paid when you average in the 0% rate on excluded income, and the lower capital gains rate, and the dividend rates (this is going to zero? did that get passed?).
clear? I want to see number that takes dividend and capital transactions into acoutn, all wealth accretion vs. tax paid.
Challenges to sentient computing include the seamless integration of wireless networks, the spread of sensors throughout products and the environment, the accurate provision of location data, and the ability of sentient systems to merge vast volumes of widely disseminated data and customize its delivery for users. Other problems researchers will have to tackle include scalability, the development of cooperative file systems, and sentient applications' ability to find screens and network devices in close proximity to users.
while what you say about Stallman is true to a large degree, I don't think you can say he's hurting the OSS "movement".
No, he might be annoying, but he looks more right than wrong about the SCO case. Take emacs vs. xemacs. Xemacs is better software. That split was all about being careful about copyright. We can't defend the GPL unless we track all the copyright owners... "you're just being paranoid, let us write code" say the engineers.
No, I think Stallman knows politics and law much better than your average Slashdotter or even than your average software engineer. He's just diligent enough to keep trying to explain it.
Of course the GNU/Linux distinction is stupid, because the FSF just need to finally release GNU! No one else can, it's their project. Other OSes with GNU tools are not GNU. Release GNU and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
absolutely!
... people would listen.
so much, so very much can hide behind a conditional, can't it!
and makes you lucky!
sore winner!
1) make door frames
2) ????
3) Profit!!!
... it's "salmon".
news at 11.
what's the bandwidth and power supply like down there?
hmmmm, looks like random.
ehhh, smells like random...
taste like random?
yyhhh, tastes like random.
must be random
the beauty of top-down management is they don't -all- have to be insane.
dissassembly is not what I understood of reverse engineering. I have always thought of reverse engineering as looking at the inputs and outputs, not dissassembly... in fact, I thought dissassembly was not a legal form of reverse engineering. That expression is covered. I still think that, though now I have to admit I might be wrong.
studying the function, the interface the user becomes trained in and the results, that's legit.
how about that?
I've always loved AI and have some experience in the game industry with applied AI concepts.
the "Google Sets" thing at Google labs is ripe for exploitation in AI. Train of thought is so far unautomated. We can parse language into well organized trees, we can learn "genetically", and act as expert systems. But computers don't converse well because there is no train of thought, the leap from subject to subject elludes computers, which can only do so randomly in and insane manner.
Google Sets extracts exactly this information from a few inputs, it seems to me exactly the link, the jump logic that passes for insight that I used to search for in AI solutions, (especially since the main one I attempted to tackle was robotic conversation for a massive network RPG. I think the google API and probably the amazon API are really ripe for exploitation as some very confincing AI... why? Not by simulating the mind... just by making a conduit that extracts the "Intelligence" part of AI from the web. The software, merely a catalyst between intelligent forces, will seem intelligent itself. The software will have the "internet" for a brain. By filtering, you could have it be subsets of the internet. Because of this the personality might be mediocre... limited to average brilliance. But even then, it will tell us more about ourselves than we can currently gather, for it will represent our common thinking, the thinking of society, the thinking that controls our government and other infrastructure.
If you have any ideas drop me a line, I've been thinking about this for some time now, if I come upon the right approach (something simple that might make a decent toy), I'll think I'll write something.
I generally read direct replies to my slashdot comments.
cheers.
I thought the interesting part of that quote is the fact that of course people at companies will contribute to open source (as their research organizations have been doing all along)... but by virtue of that they will not be coding "serfs" because they will get standing in the community. OSS is empowering to software engineers.
.... my guess is, 1000 years! +/- 300 yrs.
yes.
as far as I can tell, such a situation gives them a choice, still, one in which they are illegally shipping software.
It's like the speeding law... you still have the "choice" of breaking it... and paying the consequence.
If they are shown to have knowingly released under the GPL, there would be no going back, no damages for those using it. But if they try a convoluted argument that it was inadvertent and unintentional, they might be able to essentially revoke that license. But I don't see how they could get any damages or licensing fees, and to the contrary would be liable themselves.
actually, it's a nuance. This case is more of an example why those nuances are important, than it is of the opposite. Usually it seems pointless, now it should seem pertinent if you are paying attention.
this whole thing should be revealing to the geeks how important terms are for the law and for laymen.
even more so, RMS has been bleating about assigning copyright to the FSF, which never seemed like a good idea to me. And xemacs forked largely over issues of carefully tracking and assigning copyright. Hmmm, looks right there to. Maybe it's time to understand this repetative attempt to educate a bunch of so called logicians.
I don't this this IP is alleged to have been in for years. I think they can get away with that defense. However, they continued to ship, and worse, they are indemnifying and supporting (and presumably collecting fees, or earning past fees) on previous sales of linux. They themselves cannot do that without linux being under the GPL, meaning their stuff is covered. However, there is still a chance they will claim their code is not GPLed, and it would then be SCO that owed punative damages... for violating copyright.
luckily we have hundreds of years to do it.
The point is that the bracket is based on an adjusted number. The deduction (aka loopholes) are MONEY EXCLUDED from calculating your bracket, upon which you pay no tax. These deductions do not show up as income in tax statistics by default because they are not taxable income. But they do represent income to the individual. So what is the percentage tax paid when you average in the 0% rate on excluded income, and the lower capital gains rate, and the dividend rates (this is going to zero? did that get passed?).
clear? I want to see number that takes dividend and capital transactions into acoutn, all wealth accretion vs. tax paid.
Challenges to sentient computing include the seamless integration of wireless networks, the spread of sensors throughout products and the environment, the accurate provision of location data, and the ability of sentient systems to merge vast volumes of widely disseminated data and customize its delivery for users. Other problems researchers will have to tackle include scalability, the development of cooperative file systems, and sentient applications' ability to find screens and network devices in close proximity to users.
best not to know! :)
while what you say about Stallman is true to a large degree, I don't think you can say he's hurting the OSS "movement".
No, he might be annoying, but he looks more right than wrong about the SCO case. Take emacs vs. xemacs. Xemacs is better software. That split was all about being careful about copyright. We can't defend the GPL unless we track all the copyright owners... "you're just being paranoid, let us write code" say the engineers.
No, I think Stallman knows politics and law much better than your average Slashdotter or even than your average software engineer. He's just diligent enough to keep trying to explain it.
Of course the GNU/Linux distinction is stupid, because the FSF just need to finally release GNU! No one else can, it's their project. Other OSes with GNU tools are not GNU. Release GNU and be done with it.
>Of course, it might be both.
yep, the whole thing is full of "synergy"