No work except having helped invent it.
Companies charge royalties for patented hardware inventions all the time, but it's "cool" to bash Apple, so that's the only time people bitch.
I did, in fact, read the article. The point is that Apple is acting fully within the scope of the licenses they're using. They're participating fully in the Open Source movement. Further, the bit about apple not contributing back changes to Mach is just plain wrong; Darwin is available under the APSL. Nothing about Open Source requires you to give back your changes, but Apple is choosing to do so. They're not doing so by releasing their results under the BSD license because they don't have to. People who find this frustrating should understand that it's at the core of the difference between Open Source and Free Software.
Apple's actions are completely compatable with the "Open Source" community. If people don't like that, perhaps those people should be a part of the "Free Software" community instead.
Then so is the BSD license, which makes the non-advertising BSD license completely broken, since it doesn't accomplish the only thing it sets out to do.
Unless something's changed since I stopped paying attention, QCs are Turing-equivalent -- no more, possibly less.
I thought so too, then I saw a paper by Calude, Dinneen, and Svozil.
Using the counterfactual effect, we demonstrate that with better than 50% chance we can determine whether an arbitrary universal Turing machine will halt on an arbitrarily given program. As an application we indicate a probabilistic method for computing the busy beaver function--- a classical uncomputable function. These results suggest a possibility of going beyond the Turing barrier.
The purpose of the patent system is to grant a temporary monopoly as a reward for publicly disclosing the details of your invention to the public. Absent this system, inventors have an incentive to keep things secret so nobody else can copy their invention.
Any invention which is obvious in hindsight, if by that you mean that it is easy to look at it and figure out how it's done, doesn't hold up its end of the social contract: if you can figure it out just by examining it then there was no need for the disclosure, and hence no reason to grant a monopoly as a reward.
I keep seeing references to this or that algorithm being used to generate a one-time pad. The whole point of a one-time pad is that it's generated randomly so that it cannot be uniquely decrypted to any particuar plaintext without knowing the pad used.
What Stephenson describes is a stream cipher using the zeta function to generate the bits, and using the date as the key. It's no more a one-time pad than would be, say, RC4.
That the phrase "Separation of Church and State" doesn't appear in the text of the constitution is a red herring.
"The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural,Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible." --Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
Your claim that the founding fathers were only interested in protestantism is suspect at best in light of their public tendencies more towards deism than Christianity.
"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the
reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious I am no
Christian, except mere baptism makes me one" --Ethan Allen
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I
hope for happiness beyond this life... I believe in the equality of
man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice,
loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy... I do not believe in the creed
professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek
church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any
church I know of. My mind is my own church..." --Thomas Paine, The Age
of Reason
The goal is to encourage other inventors to improve upon the patented ideas: Basically, the PTO attempts to improve the state of the art by saying "You can't do this. Try something else."
If that's really the motivation, then the PTO should just randomly pick a given company's invention and tell them they're not allowed to use it, and they should find something else. It would be much less expensive and much less trouble then going through all this "filing" nonsense.
Do you know for a fact that alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children actually has child porn on it? The only way to know would be to download stuff to find out. If you haven't, then you're advocating banning the group without even knowing whether there's child porn or if it's one big massive flame-fest and spam-trap.
If, on the other hand, you are arguing from personal knowledge, please turn yourself in.
The server can ask for a cryptographic checksum, but that ultimately can only ever prove that you have a copy of the official binary; it can't prove that the copy that is answering the request is that same binary.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
By that logic, it should be illegal to posess images depciting rape, murder, theft, or any other crime; by obtaining them, you are soliciting the comission of a crime.
I don't know where you think you learned this, but it's wrong. The whole point of business reply mail is that you only pay when it gets USED. Otherwise they'd just buy envelopes with pre-printed stamps.
Re:No undetected eavesdropping
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
It can detect eavesdropping between Alice and her conversation partner, but it still provides no guarantee that her conversation partner is Bob; Dr. Evil can still play man-in-the-middle.
Re:'BOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT...
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
Re:does this break the theory of relativity?
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
That ratio may be different, but that ratio no longer has anything to do with the definition of pi. Curved spacetime doesn't change the fact that pi = 4*(lim(n->inf) sum(k=0..n of S(k))) where S(n) = (1+2n)^-1*(-1)^n
Re:light stopped? Or destroyed and re-emitted...
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
After the duplication event, both versions would remember having been the original. To the "original", the "duplicate" would be the "obvious duplicate", but to the true "duplicate", the "original" would be the "obvious duplicate". This further assumes that there is any way of telling which one was the "original"; suppose the technology takes one object in location A and turns it into to objects in locations B and C. Then you no longer have spatial locality from which to infer the identity of the "original".
As far as each remembering being the original, though, that's very similar to the case in which you, today, remember being the same person you were five minutes ago. Perhaps the trouble is in inferring from what seems to be a continuous chain of memories that there actually is some sort of soul or "consciousness invariant" (thanks, Greg Egan, for the term). Maybe that's the illusion from which seeming contradictions arise.
Maybe there's only one conscious entity which "time-slices" between all the sentient beings, and while "animating" each one it has memories only of always having been only that being as long as it had been alive.
I can't imagine that being disprovable, though, so it's not of much use as an explanation, but it might be useful to start reasoning through the philosophical consequences of duplication of the sort you mentioned.
Does anyone else remember a cartoon short with a catchy toon they played on PBS a decade or so ago about a woman who meets a professor with a teleportation machine that turns out to copy you at the remote side of the link then kill the original? I'd love to see that again...
Re:does this break the theory of relativity?
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
Pi is a constant in any reference frame; mathematics doesn't care how fast you're going. A geometric circle doesn't length-contract at high velocities with respect to another observer, because it isn't a physical object. A physical object in the shape of a circle might, but that has little bearing on the definition of pi, merely on one possible method of estimating it.
The free market cannot save us from this, because it is the free market creating the copy control in the first place!
If it were a truly free market then it wouldn't be illegal to circumvent the protections, and a market would spring up rapidly for devices which didn't implement copy control procedures.
Too bad the part about the movie industry making tons of money on unprotected videotapes isn't true; you can't copy a commercial tape without some sort of macrovision-stripping filter in the middle. They're easy enough to find, of course, but you can't just hook two VCRs together and make your own copy of the movie you rented last night with any expectation of viewable quality.
Screenshots and fair use
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 1
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that publishing a screen shot of a game in the context of comparative advertising by a party other than the copyright holder was fair use. (Sony vs Bleem)
I just did a search for HR 3234 at thomas.loc.gov. It came up with a bill "To exempt certain reports from automatic elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports and Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995."
The word "speech" appeared nowhere in any of the 3 versions.
I did a search for the phrase "human speech;" it doesn't appear in any bill in the 106th Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
No work except having helped invent it. Companies charge royalties for patented hardware inventions all the time, but it's "cool" to bash Apple, so that's the only time people bitch.
I did, in fact, read the article. The point is that Apple is acting fully within the scope of the licenses they're using. They're participating fully in the Open Source movement. Further, the bit about apple not contributing back changes to Mach is just plain wrong; Darwin is available under the APSL. Nothing about Open Source requires you to give back your changes, but Apple is choosing to do so. They're not doing so by releasing their results under the BSD license because they don't have to. People who find this frustrating should understand that it's at the core of the difference between Open Source and Free Software.
Apple's actions are completely compatable with the "Open Source" community. If people don't like that, perhaps those people should be a part of the "Free Software" community instead.
Easily enough arranged. Home address, please?
Then so is the BSD license, which makes the non-advertising BSD license completely broken, since it doesn't accomplish the only thing it sets out to do.
I thought so too, then I saw a paper by Calude, Dinneen, and Svozil.
Counterfactual Effect, the Halting Problem, and the Busy Beaver Function (1999)The purpose of the patent system is to grant a temporary monopoly as a reward for publicly disclosing the details of your invention to the public. Absent this system, inventors have an incentive to keep things secret so nobody else can copy their invention.
Any invention which is obvious in hindsight, if by that you mean that it is easy to look at it and figure out how it's done, doesn't hold up its end of the social contract: if you can figure it out just by examining it then there was no need for the disclosure, and hence no reason to grant a monopoly as a reward.
I keep seeing references to this or that algorithm being used to generate a one-time pad. The whole point of a one-time pad is that it's generated randomly so that it cannot be uniquely decrypted to any particuar plaintext without knowing the pad used.
What Stephenson describes is a stream cipher using the zeta function to generate the bits, and using the date as the key. It's no more a one-time pad than would be, say, RC4.
That the phrase "Separation of Church and State" doesn't appear in the text of the constitution is a red herring.
Your claim that the founding fathers were only interested in protestantism is suspect at best in light of their public tendencies more towards deism than Christianity.
He means he has no one opinion on intellectual property rights in general because it is such a broad term. He goes on to say as much.
The goal is to encourage other inventors to improve upon the patented ideas: Basically, the PTO attempts to improve the state of the art by saying "You can't do this. Try something else."
If that's really the motivation, then the PTO should just randomly pick a given company's invention and tell them they're not allowed to use it, and they should find something else. It would be much less expensive and much less trouble then going through all this "filing" nonsense.
Do you know for a fact that alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children actually has child porn on it? The only way to know would be to download stuff to find out. If you haven't, then you're advocating banning the group without even knowing whether there's child porn or if it's one big massive flame-fest and spam-trap.
If, on the other hand, you are arguing from personal knowledge, please turn yourself in.
The server can ask for a cryptographic checksum, but that ultimately can only ever prove that you have a copy of the official binary; it can't prove that the copy that is answering the request is that same binary.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
By that logic, it should be illegal to posess images depciting rape, murder, theft, or any other crime; by obtaining them, you are soliciting the comission of a crime.
I don't know where you think you learned this, but it's wrong. The whole point of business reply mail is that you only pay when it gets USED. Otherwise they'd just buy envelopes with pre-printed stamps.
The USPS' site is useless, but here's one site which explains.
It can detect eavesdropping between Alice and her conversation partner, but it still provides no guarantee that her conversation partner is Bob; Dr. Evil can still play man-in-the-middle.
He may have been referring to something like this page's discussion of anisotropy in EM interactions which doesn't have to do with different velocities of light but might have been misremembered as such.
That ratio may be different, but that ratio no longer has anything to do with the definition of pi. Curved spacetime doesn't change the fact that pi = 4*(lim(n->inf) sum(k=0..n of S(k))) where S(n) = (1+2n)^-1*(-1)^n
After the duplication event, both versions would remember having been the original. To the "original", the "duplicate" would be the "obvious duplicate", but to the true "duplicate", the "original" would be the "obvious duplicate". This further assumes that there is any way of telling which one was the "original"; suppose the technology takes one object in location A and turns it into to objects in locations B and C. Then you no longer have spatial locality from which to infer the identity of the "original".
As far as each remembering being the original, though, that's very similar to the case in which you, today, remember being the same person you were five minutes ago. Perhaps the trouble is in inferring from what seems to be a continuous chain of memories that there actually is some sort of soul or "consciousness invariant" (thanks, Greg Egan, for the term). Maybe that's the illusion from which seeming contradictions arise.
Maybe there's only one conscious entity which "time-slices" between all the sentient beings, and while "animating" each one it has memories only of always having been only that being as long as it had been alive.
I can't imagine that being disprovable, though, so it's not of much use as an explanation, but it might be useful to start reasoning through the philosophical consequences of duplication of the sort you mentioned.
Does anyone else remember a cartoon short with a catchy toon they played on PBS a decade or so ago about a woman who meets a professor with a teleportation machine that turns out to copy you at the remote side of the link then kill the original? I'd love to see that again...
Pi is a constant in any reference frame; mathematics doesn't care how fast you're going. A geometric circle doesn't length-contract at high velocities with respect to another observer, because it isn't a physical object. A physical object in the shape of a circle might, but that has little bearing on the definition of pi, merely on one possible method of estimating it.
The free market cannot save us from this, because it is the free market creating the copy control in the first place!
If it were a truly free market then it wouldn't be illegal to circumvent the protections, and a market would spring up rapidly for devices which didn't implement copy control procedures.
Too bad the part about the movie industry making tons of money on unprotected videotapes isn't true; you can't copy a commercial tape without some sort of macrovision-stripping filter in the middle. They're easy enough to find, of course, but you can't just hook two VCRs together and make your own copy of the movie you rented last night with any expectation of viewable quality.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that publishing a screen shot of a game in the context of comparative advertising by a party other than the copyright holder was fair use. (Sony vs Bleem)
I just did a search for HR 3234 at thomas.loc.gov. It came up with a bill "To exempt certain reports from automatic elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports and Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995."
The word "speech" appeared nowhere in any of the 3 versions.
I did a search for the phrase "human speech;" it doesn't appear in any bill in the 106th Congress.
Do you have a reference?