Google argues that all the design work that people put into figuring out the best APIs for their systems cannot be protected by copyright.... I really have no clue how this became the predominant belief amongst software people.
Nope nope nope. You know.... all that design work done by AT&T engineers to come up with DTMF to allow Touch-Tone Dialing on
Telephones.... was not protected And CANNOT be protected by copyright either, Because the purpose of the tones, or otherwise known as the value of the work is Non-Expressive and Functional in nature.
AND the DTMF Touch-tone tones your Telephone emits are an API just like any software API or Network protocol API.
Imagine what would have happened if they could copyright those tones?
Ma Bell or their designated successor could be the exclusive maker of Touch-tone telephones for the next 100 Years under copyright!
Thankfully, such mechanical things as Mechanisms and Functional interfaces are particularly excluded from copyright.
Instead, the only option to protect them is a Design patent which lasts for 20 years, instead of 100+, and no more.
Yes, this is basically a matter of a Mechanism not creative expression.
I see how API methods could potentially be subject to a design patent (providing your system allows software to be patented).
Makes sense that an API could be patented as an invention, just that it should be non-copyrightable.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Patents have a more limited lifetime for a good reason..... Patents are about Functional things or Mechanism design, which an API is, not a thing whose value is creative expression.
How about you create a second dedicated e-mail account, so you give Earny the creds to a different account instead of your main one, and setup rules to auto-forward e-mails that you want earny to take a look at?
clearly the package name "java.math.*" is not necessary for expressing the idea of absolute value
TO A HUMAN
The identity of the package may very well be critical for expressing the concept of invoking the absolute value function to the computer.
The package is just part of the name, and you have to use the name; You cannot just pick a name that makes sense to a human,
because it's an API that is being invoked, then there actually is not a choice.
Thus why... the decalaration of what java.math.abs is; Is not a computer program, but gives the name of something external to be acted upon,
But the definition (or implementation) of java.math.abs, would be a program.
How about we make it law that all pedestrians must wear a ferrous breastplate and backplate.... then equip the cars with a really really powerful electromagnet
due to multiple locations (bot net example) or if they simply can't geolocate the computer they need to get into.
Should you be subject to total loss of personal privacy and having your digital life turned upside-down by the gov't due to a search warrant of your machines, just because a computer on your LAN (Possibly a visiting friend's computer) happened to be compromised and joined in a Botnet? I don't think so. These foreign judges are not part of our local representative government
They should pursue means of willing cooperation that provide limited information, but just enough information for the necessary part of their job (To attempt to find the source of the botnet).
The notion of having a capability for judges to write search warrants against people in outside jurisdictions, where the judge is not accountable to the local populous
is very dangerous and anti-democratic as well....
The supplies can be had at any welding shop for not much money.
I can see it now.... chemical companies producing nitrogen raising prices and adding restrictions against selling Nitrogen and other gaseous products for use in executions.
The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
Perhaps someone should make a program that automatically photoshops pictures of random people to remove the scarf from the image, and make it look as if they're not wearing one.
Then release the edited images as a clone feed on Instagram, so it will be impossible for the gov't to tell WHO was not wearing a scarf VS who was.
Usually camping is a bit remote, so you need your vehicle WITH you there.....
Why? Shouldn't you just be able to drop off your luggage pods after you reach your destination and not need the vehicle again until your planned departure time?
Also, the boat thing is no different, really.
I would call this an exceptional situation.... probably not exactly covered with the standard short-term "Get from place A to point B" arrangement, since you're going offroad, which is not a covered situation by the typical auto insurance plan, without declaring that the vehicle will also be used offroad.
That works until you combine multiple trips where you're picking things up in different places.
So you rent a "modular luggage pod", and that gets parked for you, instead of a vehicle, or goes through a separate network of automated cars causing your pod contents to be hauled to your chosen destination separate from you.
"Computer support" scams are so common these days. I am glad that someone is doing something about curbing them.
There was a 5-car pileup on the highway yesterday, THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE CARS and legally ban them!!!
Someone picked up a candy bar at the store the other day, but it had nuts in it, and they're allergic to nuts, and they died, because a "CONTAINS NUTS" warning was simply not enough, and they simply ate them anyways, THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE CANDYBARS AND BAN THEM FROM BEING SOLD OR ADVERTISED, JUST LIKE CARS AND recreational drugs.
Saving lives is much more important than saving peoples' computers.
but any and all third party tech support ads will be blocked, including, perhaps legitimate ones.
I hope they sue Microsofts' asses off for restraint of trade and tortious interference with business relationships.
I understand setting "standards" on what can be contained in an Ad, and taking measures to squelch deceptive or misleading
advertising that could be a safety issue; However, banning an entire legitimate industry from
doing business is anticompetitive, and a ridiculous abuse of their Search-Engine Duopoly status.
Commercial legal 3rd party support providers, IT contractors, managed service companies, and enterprise aftermarket support providers SHOULD be able to advertise their business, providing they are honest about their services, based in the country of the users they advertise to, are insured, and meet some basic standards.
It LOOKS LIKE Self-Dealing for Microsoft to block these, because (1) Microsoft sells support, AND
(2) Microsoft sells a competitive alternative called Office365, to running your own IT infrastructure and hiring a remote support provider or managed service provider to assist.
The city can paint a crosswalk if it wants the pedestrian ramp to not have cars parked against it.
That's silly, and shouldn't be necessary. Just because you have a ramp, doesn't necessarily mean this is where you cross: this could be an access area, for loading/unloading, and wheelchair access, for example.
Also, not all the pedestrian wheelchair ramps are on the street; these are also found in large open areas and parking lots.
Attempting to paint a crosswalk would look alien and out of place, also, it would be quite a large amount of paint which is probably more expensive than a concrete mold.
Bringing back the law would mean that undesirable pedestrian ramps need to be physically removed.
What do you mean 'undesirable'? It's a safety hazard if they leave wheelchair ramps for disabled pedestrians in place that are not intended to be used, therefore, they must remove them or else maintain them properly.
But then letting even a close friend sit on $600,000 without putting it into a shared account...also not so smart.
Correct.... one of the first things they should have done with the money is placed at least $599,000 of the $500k with an insured and bonded custodian/fiduciary.
Required an agreed upon budget understood by all members of the project before allowing moneys to be spent.
Documentation for all spending.
And signatures by multiple people authorizing any significant or non-incidental expenditure.
Also, any "wages" or personal compensation to be paid out to a member of the project Not able to be signed by that member, for the fiduciary/trustee to issue the requested cheque.
There are several ways to store excess electrical generation
How about using electrochemical cells that require Electricity, CO2, and Water as input, and yield Hydrocarbon fuels such as Oil or Gasoline as output?
Then when you require electricity later, just burn the fuel.....
Asking people to contribute back would not be greed, But (1) That's not what they are asking, And (2) I am implying an ulterior motive driven by other companies who have a reason for pursuing this which is not what it is stated.
If an antimalware vendor has not integrated their tool into VT, because their methodology doesn't lend itself to a program that "scans a specific file", then VT provides them no chance of participating.
It's not like VT offers them a chance to pay for it or make a donation, or contribute their research..... if the vendor doesn't make their tool one of the scanning engines that VT uses, then they can no longer get the data or participate.
So it's extremely disingenuous to say they are "freeloaders" or unwilling to contribute security research back, since that's not the criteria VT is requiring, appparently
why should these new companies be allowed to continue to use VirusTotal without giving back anything? The companies that do contribute have a cost associated with doing so
The problem is they mean something very specific by "Giving back"; They have to adapt their scanner, so their scanner is one of the scanners that VirusTotal checks samples against. And VirusTotal in their own words admits why this is not applicable to all scanners.....VirusTotal's antivirus engines are commandline versions, so depending on the product, they will not behave exactly the same as the desktop versions: for instance, desktop solutions may use techniques based on behavioural analysis and count with personal firewalls that may decrease entry points and mitigate propagation, etc.
The cost is negligible if their tool is scanner that analyzes a file statically, and Non-negligible for startups whose security tool is not a file-based scanner.
They mention techniques based on behavioral analysis, BUT some of the important tools are based almost SOLELY on behavioral analysis or techniques which cannot be incorporated into an offline scanner integration.
Yes..... Also; I do think I am going to immediately cease submitting the hundreds of undetected malware samples I get a month to VirusTotal, and look for another venue that is truly open.
It feels to me like this move is totally disingenuous on the part of VirusTotal cutting off their nose to spite their face / intended to harm players in the industry to the benefit of some companies more than others..... The motivation is obviously greed by companies losing some market share who influence VirusTotals' operation.
I would point out that VT concealing their data is detrimental to companies that consider purchasing security products; it erodes vendor trust from the market, which affects everyone, And it reduces malware detection rates for everyone, which can only hurt the public and society at large.
Those islands submerged, but the suggested causal chain regarding why or proposed reason due to CO2 emission is a real stretch, not real science, but makes a nice story or anecdote.
Sure there are a lot of web-based applications but they usually run on top of a database, middle tier components, and services that depend on the OS.
I understand that..... But the Middle Tier components run on the server, not the Desktop.
Also, there's a technology called Remote Desktop Protocol based VDI and application publishing.
These latter technologies can be used to avoid putting Windows on the desktop itself: even if the frontend is a Windows app.
Yeah, you have a supporting compatibility layer for that one app; However, the management complexity of a few App-V containers on couple
terminal servers is much lower than supporting a large number of Windows desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
Google argues that all the design work that people put into figuring out the best APIs for their systems cannot be protected by copyright. ... I really have no clue how this became the predominant belief amongst software people.
Nope nope nope. You know.... all that design work done by AT&T engineers to come up with DTMF to allow Touch-Tone Dialing on Telephones.... was not protected And CANNOT be protected by copyright either, Because the purpose of the tones, or otherwise known as the value of the work is Non-Expressive and Functional in nature.
AND the DTMF Touch-tone tones your Telephone emits are an API just like any software API or Network protocol API.
Imagine what would have happened if they could copyright those tones? Ma Bell or their designated successor could be the exclusive maker of Touch-tone telephones for the next 100 Years under copyright!
Thankfully, such mechanical things as Mechanisms and Functional interfaces are particularly excluded from copyright. Instead, the only option to protect them is a Design patent which lasts for 20 years, instead of 100+, and no more.
Yes, this is basically a matter of a Mechanism not creative expression. I see how API methods could potentially be subject to a design patent (providing your system allows software to be patented).
Makes sense that an API could be patented as an invention, just that it should be non-copyrightable.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Patents have a more limited lifetime for a good reason..... Patents are about Functional things or Mechanism design, which an API is, not a thing whose value is creative expression.
Yeah.... no.
How about you create a second dedicated e-mail account, so you give Earny the creds to a different account instead of your main one, and setup rules to auto-forward e-mails that you want earny to take a look at?
Add some gratuitously naked French chicks
I'm suddenly interested in watching it, not for the other stuff though....
clearly the package name "java.math.*" is not necessary for expressing the idea of absolute value
TO A HUMAN
The identity of the package may very well be critical for expressing the concept of invoking the absolute value function to the computer. The package is just part of the name, and you have to use the name; You cannot just pick a name that makes sense to a human, because it's an API that is being invoked, then there actually is not a choice.
Thus why... the decalaration of what java.math.abs is; Is not a computer program, but gives the name of something external to be acted upon, But the definition (or implementation) of java.math.abs, would be a program.
An Ad-hoc one, but part of language nonetheless.
The ENGLISH Language has an API too. You will find much of it documented in a dictionary.
The words are the element of the language; but an API tells you how to exchange messages between two people.
Attempting to have exclusive rights to an API is like a restaurant wanting exclusive rights to phrases such as "GET WATER", or "ONE BEER PLEASE".
So patrons will be sued if they go to a competitors' restaurant and formulate requests such as that
The code does things...... the API is just a functional (non-creative) description of the correct way to interact with the code.
How about we make it law that all pedestrians must wear a ferrous breastplate and backplate.... then equip the cars with a really really powerful electromagnet
due to multiple locations (bot net example) or if they simply can't geolocate the computer they need to get into.
Should you be subject to total loss of personal privacy and having your digital life turned upside-down by the gov't due to a search warrant of your machines, just because a computer on your LAN (Possibly a visiting friend's computer) happened to be compromised and joined in a Botnet? I don't think so. These foreign judges are not part of our local representative government
They should pursue means of willing cooperation that provide limited information, but just enough information for the necessary part of their job (To attempt to find the source of the botnet).
The notion of having a capability for judges to write search warrants against people in outside jurisdictions, where the judge is not accountable to the local populous is very dangerous and anti-democratic as well....
The supplies can be had at any welding shop for not much money.
I can see it now.... chemical companies producing nitrogen raising prices and adding restrictions against selling Nitrogen and other gaseous products for use in executions.
I dunno.... I still listen to FM radio; in my car. It just works. I don't have to buy music, and I don't need to use internet data.
I also don't listen to music on a phone or portable music player.... who does that these days, anyways?
The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
Perhaps someone should make a program that automatically photoshops pictures of random people to remove the scarf from the image, and make it look as if they're not wearing one.
Then release the edited images as a clone feed on Instagram, so it will be impossible for the gov't to tell WHO was not wearing a scarf VS who was.
Usually camping is a bit remote, so you need your vehicle WITH you there.....
Why? Shouldn't you just be able to drop off your luggage pods after you reach your destination and not need the vehicle again until your planned departure time?
Also, the boat thing is no different, really.
I would call this an exceptional situation.... probably not exactly covered with the standard short-term "Get from place A to point B" arrangement, since you're going offroad, which is not a covered situation by the typical auto insurance plan, without declaring that the vehicle will also be used offroad.
That works until you combine multiple trips where you're picking things up in different places.
So you rent a "modular luggage pod", and that gets parked for you, instead of a vehicle, or goes through a separate network of automated cars causing your pod contents to be hauled to your chosen destination separate from you.
"Computer support" scams are so common these days. I am glad that someone is doing something about curbing them.
There was a 5-car pileup on the highway yesterday, THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE CARS and legally ban them!!!
Someone picked up a candy bar at the store the other day, but it had nuts in it, and they're allergic to nuts, and they died, because a "CONTAINS NUTS" warning was simply not enough, and they simply ate them anyways, THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE CANDYBARS AND BAN THEM FROM BEING SOLD OR ADVERTISED, JUST LIKE CARS AND recreational drugs.
Saving lives is much more important than saving peoples' computers.
but any and all third party tech support ads will be blocked, including, perhaps legitimate ones.
I hope they sue Microsofts' asses off for restraint of trade and tortious interference with business relationships.
I understand setting "standards" on what can be contained in an Ad, and taking measures to squelch deceptive or misleading advertising that could be a safety issue; However, banning an entire legitimate industry from doing business is anticompetitive, and a ridiculous abuse of their Search-Engine Duopoly status.
Commercial legal 3rd party support providers, IT contractors, managed service companies, and enterprise aftermarket support providers SHOULD be able to advertise their business, providing they are honest about their services, based in the country of the users they advertise to, are insured, and meet some basic standards.
It LOOKS LIKE Self-Dealing for Microsoft to block these, because (1) Microsoft sells support, AND (2) Microsoft sells a competitive alternative called Office365, to running your own IT infrastructure and hiring a remote support provider or managed service provider to assist.
The city can paint a crosswalk if it wants the pedestrian ramp to not have cars parked against it.
That's silly, and shouldn't be necessary. Just because you have a ramp, doesn't necessarily mean this is where you cross: this could be an access area, for loading/unloading, and wheelchair access, for example.
Also, not all the pedestrian wheelchair ramps are on the street; these are also found in large open areas and parking lots. Attempting to paint a crosswalk would look alien and out of place, also, it would be quite a large amount of paint which is probably more expensive than a concrete mold.
Bringing back the law would mean that undesirable pedestrian ramps need to be physically removed.
What do you mean 'undesirable'? It's a safety hazard if they leave wheelchair ramps for disabled pedestrians in place that are not intended to be used, therefore, they must remove them or else maintain them properly.
They need to fix the law back, so they can be ticketed appropriately.....
It was kind of stupid gov't in action enacting laws that allow vehicles to interfere with pedestrian access.
But then letting even a close friend sit on $600,000 without putting it into a shared account...also not so smart.
Correct.... one of the first things they should have done with the money is placed at least $599,000 of the $500k with an insured and bonded custodian/fiduciary. Required an agreed upon budget understood by all members of the project before allowing moneys to be spent.
Documentation for all spending.
And signatures by multiple people authorizing any significant or non-incidental expenditure.
Also, any "wages" or personal compensation to be paid out to a member of the project Not able to be signed by that member, for the fiduciary/trustee to issue the requested cheque.
There are several ways to store excess electrical generation
How about using electrochemical cells that require Electricity, CO2, and Water as input, and yield Hydrocarbon fuels such as Oil or Gasoline as output?
Then when you require electricity later, just burn the fuel.....
Asking people to contribute back would not be greed, But (1) That's not what they are asking, And (2) I am implying an ulterior motive driven by other companies who have a reason for pursuing this which is not what it is stated.
If an antimalware vendor has not integrated their tool into VT, because their methodology doesn't lend itself to a program that "scans a specific file", then VT provides them no chance of participating.
It's not like VT offers them a chance to pay for it or make a donation, or contribute their research..... if the vendor doesn't make their tool one of the scanning engines that VT uses, then they can no longer get the data or participate.
So it's extremely disingenuous to say they are "freeloaders" or unwilling to contribute security research back, since that's not the criteria VT is requiring, appparently
why should these new companies be allowed to continue to use VirusTotal without giving back anything? The companies that do contribute have a cost associated with doing so
The problem is they mean something very specific by "Giving back"; They have to adapt their scanner, so their scanner is one of the scanners that VirusTotal checks samples against. And VirusTotal in their own words admits why this is not applicable to all scanners..... VirusTotal's antivirus engines are commandline versions, so depending on the product, they will not behave exactly the same as the desktop versions: for instance, desktop solutions may use techniques based on behavioural analysis and count with personal firewalls that may decrease entry points and mitigate propagation, etc.
The cost is negligible if their tool is scanner that analyzes a file statically, and Non-negligible for startups whose security tool is not a file-based scanner.
They mention techniques based on behavioral analysis, BUT some of the important tools are based almost SOLELY on behavioral analysis or techniques which cannot be incorporated into an offline scanner integration.
So VT's requirement may be unreasonable.
Yes..... Also; I do think I am going to immediately cease submitting the hundreds of undetected malware samples I get a month to VirusTotal, and look for another venue that is truly open.
It feels to me like this move is totally disingenuous on the part of VirusTotal cutting off their nose to spite their face / intended to harm players in the industry to the benefit of some companies more than others..... The motivation is obviously greed by companies losing some market share who influence VirusTotals' operation.
I would point out that VT concealing their data is detrimental to companies that consider purchasing security products; it erodes vendor trust from the market, which affects everyone, And it reduces malware detection rates for everyone, which can only hurt the public and society at large.
Those islands submerged, but the suggested causal chain regarding why or proposed reason due to CO2 emission is a real stretch, not real science, but makes a nice story or anecdote.
Sure there are a lot of web-based applications but they usually run on top of a database, middle tier components, and services that depend on the OS.
I understand that..... But the Middle Tier components run on the server, not the Desktop.
Also, there's a technology called Remote Desktop Protocol based VDI and application publishing.
These latter technologies can be used to avoid putting Windows on the desktop itself: even if the frontend is a Windows app.
Yeah, you have a supporting compatibility layer for that one app; However, the management complexity of a few App-V containers on couple terminal servers is much lower than supporting a large number of Windows desktops.
Businesses usually have a lot of time and money tied up in their custom internal applications developed in-house.
Which are almost always web-based applications.