Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Since you also specified "whichever is greater", that deathbed story will be copyrighted for up to 40 years. That's potentially a lot more than a tide-me-over.
I would agree with the suggestion if it was "whichever is less". Or simply "40 years". I have reservations about any combination which has a substantial chance of having a work exist and be in copyright for an entire lifetime, and "creator's life plus 10" does that if they write something early and beat the average lifespan by a little. (It's better than what we have now, where stuff written before my parents were born will not be out of copyright before I'm dead, but still...)
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Some sort of mandatory licensing system with a specified not-too-large fee like we have for music, then? That sounds tolerable; as far as I can tell it seems to work okay for the music world. (of course, whether a musician agrees with that may depend whether they are the coverer or the coveree)
hmmm. I wonder if/when CA will add an autonomous vehicle HOV-lane permit. They like to use the carpool lane as an incentive to use a vehicle with the latest "beneifical to the overall public" feature. (The current "special permission to be in the carpool lane" is electric vehicles, which does not include hybrids but does include Volt because it can do 40 miles without burning gas. Hybrids were the previous special permission group, but their timeslot expired.)
sadly true. Sadly because helping fix vulnerabilities is part of the NSA's job, and this would directly contribute to it. But they're in "best defense is a good offense" mode, so they'll sacrifice the defenses of their allies to keep from strengthening the defenses of their opponents.
He wants new features, new syntactical elements, gamechangers like generics, enums, and closures. He wants fun things to learn while sticking with the "same" language, things which will hopefully let him use even higher layers of abstraction.
Which is not in itself a bad thing. If Java doesn't add new useful features it'll get replaced by something that has them. But I'm not sure Java has a lot of room left in its complexity budget to add new stuff without becoming too confusing to stick with (assuming it hasn't already, which is debatable:) It may be best to let Java coast for a bit.
what _really_ needs to happen is someone needs to figure out how to actually get people to _understand_ "yes, this can in fact happen to you. You are not magical, you are not perfect, you are probably not even as good as you think you are, and if something does go wrong you can in fact be totally hosed."
But at that point I think we're pushing the next stage of evolution, so I don't expect it to be soon.
I would have to agree that most javadoc doesn't add anything to the source, but it does pick out the stuff I'm interested in (api) and hide the stuff I'm not (implementation). At least, when it's actually filled in with minimal descriptions (all too rare).
I was specifically thinking of the "public safety" exception to needing to read a detained suspect his Miranda rights before questioning him. Normally if a cop grabs you, throws you to the ground, and starts demanding answers, what you say can be excluded because he didn't read you your rights. But if the subject under discussion is a bomb that he thinks you planted on a car, what you say can still be used against you because public safety concerns allow him to not take the time.
Although rereading your example, it might be harder to actually skip UK government involvement due to public safety than to skip the "get a warrant" requirement to go after a safe deposit box in the US.
Is this then data which the wholly owned subsidiary would normally be required to tell MSUSA "you can't have it"? In that case I agree. If they would normally hand it over to MSUSA on request, then I see no problem with the court ordering MSUSA to make such a request.
If I understand it right, they're telling MSUSA "we want this info." MSUSA says "It's in Ireland." The court says "You can get it, therefore you have to get it and give it to us." They're still leaning on MSUSA, not MSIreland; MSUSA just has to coordinate with MSIreland to get the data. If MSUSA is unable (which really means unwilling, unless MSIreland is trying to screw MSUSA over) to get the data, then they get in trouble.
None of this (so far) seems to mean that the court can compel MSIreland _directly_ to do anything.
My point was that the obviousness of a solution depends heavily on whether the observer has seen the solution before or is making it up from scratch. It seems to me that the visible characteristic of an 'obvious' solution is that when you tell someone the problem ("this air filter costs $1000") they come up with the answer immediately, without much thought ("why not just take a box fan and stick a filter on it?"). Not knowing a problem exists does not necessarily make the solution non-obvious, just irrelevant. For example: suppose you don't know the sink is overflowing. "turn off the water flow" isn't relevant to you because there's no point, but is it any less of an obvious solution to the actual problem?
because I was unaware that the going rate for filter units in China was $1000, and therefore didn't realize that there was a problem that this was a solution for.
Linus's law works perfectly well; it simply has an implicit assumption that most people don't realize: a bug is known to exist. It was never about bugs leaping out of the woodwork at passersby, it was about bugs being unable to elude a sufficiently large number of searchers.
Because "be able to attack others" always winds up being a higher priority than "keep others from attacking us" in a dual-mission agency. It goes along with "the best defense is a good offense" and such mindsets, and it sounds cooler when you're selling your budget to the oversight committee.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you also specified "whichever is greater", that deathbed story will be copyrighted for up to 40 years. That's potentially a lot more than a tide-me-over.
I would agree with the suggestion if it was "whichever is less". Or simply "40 years". I have reservations about any combination which has a substantial chance of having a work exist and be in copyright for an entire lifetime, and "creator's life plus 10" does that if they write something early and beat the average lifespan by a little. (It's better than what we have now, where stuff written before my parents were born will not be out of copyright before I'm dead, but still...)
Some sort of mandatory licensing system with a specified not-too-large fee like we have for music, then? That sounds tolerable; as far as I can tell it seems to work okay for the music world. (of course, whether a musician agrees with that may depend whether they are the coverer or the coveree)
see, that's why using biometrics for passwords is stupid. Sure it's personal, and probably unique, but it's not really secret.
Of course, there is a piece of the login process that has these attributes as well. It's the username.
We should use biometrics as a fast way to pick a user, and then require proof that the person knows the appropriate secret.
hmmm. I wonder if/when CA will add an autonomous vehicle HOV-lane permit. They like to use the carpool lane as an incentive to use a vehicle with the latest "beneifical to the overall public" feature. (The current "special permission to be in the carpool lane" is electric vehicles, which does not include hybrids but does include Volt because it can do 40 miles without burning gas. Hybrids were the previous special permission group, but their timeslot expired.)
sadly true. Sadly because helping fix vulnerabilities is part of the NSA's job, and this would directly contribute to it. But they're in "best defense is a good offense" mode, so they'll sacrifice the defenses of their allies to keep from strengthening the defenses of their opponents.
He wants new features, new syntactical elements, gamechangers like generics, enums, and closures. He wants fun things to learn while sticking with the "same" language, things which will hopefully let him use even higher layers of abstraction.
Which is not in itself a bad thing. If Java doesn't add new useful features it'll get replaced by something that has them. But I'm not sure Java has a lot of room left in its complexity budget to add new stuff without becoming too confusing to stick with (assuming it hasn't already, which is debatable :) It may be best to let Java coast for a bit.
what _really_ needs to happen is someone needs to figure out how to actually get people to _understand_ "yes, this can in fact happen to you. You are not magical, you are not perfect, you are probably not even as good as you think you are, and if something does go wrong you can in fact be totally hosed."
But at that point I think we're pushing the next stage of evolution, so I don't expect it to be soon.
I would have to agree that most javadoc doesn't add anything to the source, but it does pick out the stuff I'm interested in (api) and hide the stuff I'm not (implementation). At least, when it's actually filled in with minimal descriptions (all too rare).
I was specifically thinking of the "public safety" exception to needing to read a detained suspect his Miranda rights before questioning him. Normally if a cop grabs you, throws you to the ground, and starts demanding answers, what you say can be excluded because he didn't read you your rights. But if the subject under discussion is a bomb that he thinks you planted on a car, what you say can still be used against you because public safety concerns allow him to not take the time.
Although rereading your example, it might be harder to actually skip UK government involvement due to public safety than to skip the "get a warrant" requirement to go after a safe deposit box in the US.
as soon as you say bomb, you hit "public safety" exceptions to a lot of stuff, which means your analogy is less parallel than you may think.
Is this then data which the wholly owned subsidiary would normally be required to tell MSUSA "you can't have it"? In that case I agree. If they would normally hand it over to MSUSA on request, then I see no problem with the court ordering MSUSA to make such a request.
If I understand it right, they're telling MSUSA "we want this info." MSUSA says "It's in Ireland." The court says "You can get it, therefore you have to get it and give it to us." They're still leaning on MSUSA, not MSIreland; MSUSA just has to coordinate with MSIreland to get the data. If MSUSA is unable (which really means unwilling, unless MSIreland is trying to screw MSUSA over) to get the data, then they get in trouble.
None of this (so far) seems to mean that the court can compel MSIreland _directly_ to do anything.
It's a noun adjunct.
My point was that the obviousness of a solution depends heavily on whether the observer has seen the solution before or is making it up from scratch. It seems to me that the visible characteristic of an 'obvious' solution is that when you tell someone the problem ("this air filter costs $1000") they come up with the answer immediately, without much thought ("why not just take a box fan and stick a filter on it?"). Not knowing a problem exists does not necessarily make the solution non-obvious, just irrelevant. For example: suppose you don't know the sink is overflowing. "turn off the water flow" isn't relevant to you because there's no point, but is it any less of an obvious solution to the actual problem?
because I was unaware that the going rate for filter units in China was $1000, and therefore didn't realize that there was a problem that this was a solution for.
If he's never seen one before, it's ingenious. I've seen one (years ago) so it seems obvious to me. *shrug*
Sealand!
I wouldn't say "the assumption is infeasible" makes it invalid, merely impractical. But I agree with everything else.
oh, it would work. It may not be feasible, but it would work.
true, but it still has weight, and if Ford/GM lose, they can afford to appeal it all the way to the SC.
Linus's law works perfectly well; it simply has an implicit assumption that most people don't realize: a bug is known to exist. It was never about bugs leaping out of the woodwork at passersby, it was about bugs being unable to elude a sufficiently large number of searchers.
true, but given an infinite improbability drive, one in a trillion chances will pop up nine times out of ten
Hmmm. Maybe. What does that zed stand for?
Because "be able to attack others" always winds up being a higher priority than "keep others from attacking us" in a dual-mission agency. It goes along with "the best defense is a good offense" and such mindsets, and it sounds cooler when you're selling your budget to the oversight committee.
I hope you have good teeth, because if you have to get a root canal without painkillers you are not going to be a happy person.