...in an effort to keep the language moving,
avoid fossilization and avoid being overtaken by proprietary extensions.
Suggested new features center around the standard library and include
support for multi-threading and simple platform-independent systems
abstractions (handles, TCP/IP, memory maps etc...)"
Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if the language remained static -
then people could spend less time learning it and more time using it.
Or horrors, imagine if somebody actually suggested that was already too
much bloat in the language and we ought to work on/reducing/ the feature
set to make it easier to learn, and more portable (and probably faster.)
Just look at all the damage RISC did - it took years for
the industry to overcome the prejudice against bloated, high gate count
chips caused by low cost, ultra fast processors.
Instead of thinking about what they can add to the language, maybe they should talk about what can be removed from it.
...in an effort to keep the language moving,
avoid fossilization and avoid being overtaken by proprietary extensions.
Suggested new features center around the standard library and include
support for multi-threading and simple platform-independent systems
abstractions (handles, TCP/IP, memory maps etc...)"
Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if the language remained static -
then people could spend less time learning it and more time using it.
Or horrors, imagine if somebody actually suggested that was already too
much bloat in the language and we ought to work on/reducing/ the feature
set to make it easier to learn, and more portable (and probably faster.)
Just look at all the damage RISC did - it took years for
the industry to overcome the prejudice against bloated, high gate count
chips caused by low cost, ultra fast processors.
Instead of thinking about what they can add to the language, maybe they should talk about what can be removed from it.
Since so many people believe that clock speed==real speed why not make a processor with a divide by 2 (or more) in the clock input?
I can see it now:
Using it's patented "Divide-by-2" architecture,
AMD announced the new 2.4 Gigahertz Athalon today.
When asked for comment, an INTEL spokesman responded, "Oh, yeah? The new Pentium will use our patented divide-by-1k process, and have a clock speed of almost 1 terahertz, so there!"
Of course, there's always a danger that people might start using something like specmarks and then AMD and INTEL would have to compete with processors that have real performance.
You now have a performance by an orchestra that never actually took place. Would the audio signature be different? Would it even be a different copyright, especially if you invested alot of work fine tuning the tempi of the individual sections?
Yes, the signature would be different.
Yes, it would be a new work, and therefore a new copyright, but it that wouldn't mean it wasn't a violation of the orginal copyright as well. Anyone who wanted to make copies of the new version would need permisson from both artists.
Has anybody ever seen a bug-free piece of software of any complexity?
All production software of any complexity can be rewritten to be one line shorter.
All production software of any complexity has at least one bug.
By iterating the two statements, we reach the conclusion that all production software of any complexity can be reduced to one line of code, that has a bug in it.
There is a big difference between software patents and other patents, in particular, as defined by
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-pat ents.html
anything that is built from ideal infallible mathematical components, whose outputs are not affected by the components they feed into shouldn't be patentable. I think it's too late to fight this in the US courts, but congress can still fix it.
Yes, people who make software and business models do real work, but that doesn't mean the way that work should be encouraged is by granting it patentability.
1) if this "problem" has been around since the mid-80's why has it never been exploited?
It has been exploited. More than once.
2.) How hard can it possibly be to generate a random number, even for a simple OS installed in a router?
It's a lot harder than most people think, but not so hard that it can't be done. There are a lot of ways to screw up, and people being lazy, don't usually do the work needed to create an unguessable (secure) random number. For example, basing a number on the time doesn't work (too easy to guess), and basing it soley on the last state doesn't work (every client sees the random number) See The Yarrow paper for a description of some of the other things people have done wrong.
I don't want to think about how much every web click costs me, but I do want to encourage the sights I like, and discourage the ones I don't. I'd rather pay a a flat rate to a content conglomerate, but have them keep track of what I view, and divvy up my fee between their content providers based on my feedback. (both implicit and explicit)
"In the process of looking for a job as a Java engineer, I recently encountered a really hard-edged employee IP agreement -- one of those agreements that asks the employee to list all of their "inventions" as of the date of employment."
If your prospective employer is an asshole, there's really not much you can do except not work there, but one thing you can try is not signing it.
Surprisingly, a large number of companies never realized I didn't sign all their paper work, and hired me without comment. Businesses are often slow to react, and rarely check that you've crossed your t's and dotted your i's.
I've even been called in to sign a non-discloser
after I've been laid off. (needless to say, I didn't.)
Historically, congress hasn't been able to keep up with the pace of change. By the time congress actually does anything, the internet will be completely different. TLD may not even exist anymore (see this for one of the many proposals that would make this issue moot.) any proposal which puts one person/company/country in charge is going to be bad.
Several anecdotes aren't much better - I want to know how many
non-problems there are too. I wish data collection agencies were
required to list how many disputes there are about the data
they collect, and how many records, total, they have.
Companies would be a lot less likely to trust a report from an
agency when 10% of it's reports are disputed, and the agencies
would at least have some incentive to collect accurate information.
Just because some P.R. idiot claims their company has a patent on a gene, doesn't mean they do.
A search for the/real/ patent turned up this;
USP #5,837,461 - Detection of cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders.
So it's a method of detecting the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.
Note that the original article doesn't contain a patent number - usually a sign of unreliable info.
If something sounds to stupid to be true,
uh... well... ok, forget that, but hey - it doesn't hurt to at least do some basic checking.
Slashdot Mirror
...in an effort to keep the language moving, avoid fossilization and avoid being overtaken by proprietary extensions. Suggested new features center around the standard library and include support for multi-threading and simple platform-independent systems abstractions (handles, TCP/IP, memory maps etc...)" /reducing/ the feature
set to make it easier to learn, and more portable (and probably faster.)
Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if the language remained static - then people could spend less time learning it and more time using it. Or horrors, imagine if somebody actually suggested that was already too much bloat in the language and we ought to work on
Just look at all the damage RISC did - it took years for the industry to overcome the prejudice against bloated, high gate count chips caused by low cost, ultra fast processors.
Instead of thinking about what they can add to the language, maybe they should talk about what can be removed from it.
...in an effort to keep the language moving, avoid fossilization and avoid being overtaken by proprietary extensions. Suggested new features center around the standard library and include support for multi-threading and simple platform-independent systems abstractions (handles, TCP/IP, memory maps etc...)" /reducing/ the feature
set to make it easier to learn, and more portable (and probably faster.)
Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if the language remained static - then people could spend less time learning it and more time using it. Or horrors, imagine if somebody actually suggested that was already too much bloat in the language and we ought to work on
Just look at all the damage RISC did - it took years for the industry to overcome the prejudice against bloated, high gate count chips caused by low cost, ultra fast processors.
Instead of thinking about what they can add to the language, maybe they should talk about what can be removed from it.
Since so many people believe that clock speed==real speed why not make a processor with a divide by 2 (or more) in the clock input? I can see it now:
Using it's patented "Divide-by-2" architecture, AMD announced the new 2.4 Gigahertz Athalon today. When asked for comment, an INTEL spokesman responded, "Oh, yeah? The new Pentium will use our patented divide-by-1k process, and have a clock speed of almost 1 terahertz, so there!"
Of course, there's always a danger that people might start using something like specmarks and then AMD and INTEL would have to compete with processors that have real performance.
You now have a performance by an orchestra that never actually took place. Would the audio signature be different? Would it even be a different copyright, especially if you invested alot of work fine tuning the tempi of the individual sections?
Yes, the signature would be different.
Yes, it would be a new work, and therefore a new copyright, but it that wouldn't mean it wasn't a violation of the orginal copyright as well. Anyone who wanted to make copies of the new version would need permisson from both artists.
How much karma do I need to moderate the original article?
All production software of any complexity can be rewritten to be one line shorter.
All production software of any complexity has at least one bug.
By iterating the two statements, we reach the conclusion that all production software of any complexity can be reduced to one line of code, that has a bug in it.
Yes, people who make software and business models do real work, but that doesn't mean the way that work should be encouraged is by granting it patentability.
It has been exploited. More than once.
2.) How hard can it possibly be to generate a random number, even for a simple OS installed in a router?
It's a lot harder than most people think, but not so hard that it can't be done. There are a lot of ways to screw up, and people being lazy, don't usually do the work needed to create an unguessable (secure) random number. For example, basing a number on the time doesn't work (too easy to guess), and basing it soley on the last state doesn't work (every client sees the random number) See The Yarrow paper for a description of some of the other things people have done wrong.
I don't want to think about how much every web click costs me, but I do want to encourage the sights I like, and discourage the ones I don't. I'd rather pay a a flat rate to a content conglomerate, but have them keep track of what I view, and divvy up my fee between their content providers based on my feedback. (both implicit and explicit)
If your prospective employer is an asshole, there's really not much you can do except not work there, but one thing you can try is not signing it.
Surprisingly, a large number of companies never realized I didn't sign all their paper work, and hired me without comment. Businesses are often slow to react, and rarely check that you've crossed your t's and dotted your i's.
I've even been called in to sign a non-discloser after I've been laid off. (needless to say, I didn't.)
The difference between standing on the edge and falling off is a single step.
Enabling Javascript is like putting on a blindfold and running at full speed.
Historically, congress hasn't been able to keep up with the pace of change.
By the time congress actually does anything, the internet will be completely different.
TLD may not even exist anymore (see this for one of the many proposals that would make this issue moot.)
any proposal which puts one person/company/country in charge is going to be bad.
Several anecdotes aren't much better - I want to know how many non-problems there are too. I wish data collection agencies were required to list how many disputes there are about the data they collect, and how many records, total, they have. Companies would be a lot less likely to trust a report from an agency when 10% of it's reports are disputed, and the agencies would at least have some incentive to collect accurate information.
Just because some P.R. idiot claims their company has a patent on a gene, doesn't mean they do. A search for the /real/ patent turned up this;
USP #5,837,461 - Detection of cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders.
So it's a method of detecting the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.
Note that the original article doesn't contain a patent number - usually a sign of unreliable info.
If something sounds to stupid to be true,
uh... well... ok, forget that, but hey - it doesn't hurt to at least do some basic checking.
Yet another case where cryptography could have prevented a crime.