I actually agree that that copyright should end within lifetime of the author, however, there is a good argument otherwise. At bottom copyright puts a value on original work so that people are encouraged to do it. How much "value" should be given is the question that determines how long copyright should last. If you make it real long then the author can sell his copyright for more money - even if he or she doesn't live to see its expiration.
Now whether copyrights should be allowed to be sold in the first place is another story. "Corporate" as opposed to personal ownership of copyrights is to me one of the reasons we are in this current mess now.
I've got a 15K with >500 GB of memory running a 1TB database in our datacenter - It is pretty much maxed out in memory - so they can have more than 300GB.
Just a note...
Looking at this I don't see anything revolutionary in what is proposed, just something hard to do. Of course we work hard at signal processing, pattern recognition and clustering algorithms. They are used for everything from Medical Imaging, Radar, Oil Exploration to trying to automatically call balls and strikes. What I see being proposed here would be to look at interfaces between hmm... modules for lack of a better term in a similar way. If you want it is a far out extension of the idea of Object Request Brokers.
For example, a very large system would have a goal seeking component creating a plan, it would inquire as to what modules are available, look at the interfaces around and classify them (here is where the clustering and pattern recognition might help) and then choose ones which fit its plan. It would then check results to see if this worked closely enough to move it along its plan.
This implies a database of types of modules and effects, a lower level standard protocal for inquiring and responding, and another means of checking results and recognizing similarity to a wanted state - a second place where the recognition and clustering algorithms would be useful. This is obviously not easy to do...
The novel "Night Sky Mine" by Melissa Scott comes to mind as an example of this taken way out. There is an ecology of programs that is viewed by "programmers" through a tool that re-inforces the metaphor of programs being living organisms "trained" or used by the programmers to get what they want. I cannot see this being generically useful - many times we really do want a "brittle" system. It is certainly a way to get to very complex systems for simulation or study or games!
I find this study pretty misleading, and based on a "broadcast" model of the online media. This is equating the "internet" with broadcasting. Would anyone say - 60% of people turn to the telephone for health information?
Online services are not like TV where there is (even with cable) a very limited number of choices for a topic. It would be interesting to see where people actually go for information - I suspect in the US that it is a very limited number of places for the vast majority of info. This isn't bad on its face, probably inevitable, but inquiry into exactly where people go and who controls those places should really be an ongoing study more interesting than this one.
Just a note: If you can prove that " If two chess players play perfectly, then the game will always result in a tie" you are way beyond current computational or mathematical power. We don't know the full playbook of chess. It might not be that perfect players result in a tie. It could be that white always wins - or black - which would be very interesting because it would be counter-intuitive.
I would reinforce this comment - the claims in the original submission are invalid on the face of it in the real world. There is no plaintext attack on a real 'otp' with enough randomness in the key since the key is used only once.
To all of the people with new cryptosystems - with all due respect - we now have really good, well understood cyphering methods up to a level where the failure in security won't be from the method of encryption. Key exchange could be improved, but actual symmetric cypher methods aren't going to revolutionize things anymore. We can always use better, and people will continue to look for flaws (as in Rijndael) but none of this is big time.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually agree that that copyright should end within lifetime of the author, however, there is a good argument otherwise. At bottom copyright puts a value on original work so that people are encouraged to do it. How much "value" should be given is the question that determines how long copyright should last. If you make it real long then the author can sell his copyright for more money - even if he or she doesn't live to see its expiration.
Now whether copyrights should be allowed to be sold in the first place is another story. "Corporate" as opposed to personal ownership of copyrights is to me one of the reasons we are in this current mess now.
I've got a 15K with >500 GB of memory running a 1TB database in our datacenter - It is pretty much maxed out in memory - so they can have more than 300GB.
Just a note...
Looking at this I don't see anything revolutionary in what is proposed, just something hard to do. Of course we work hard at signal processing, pattern recognition and clustering algorithms. They are used for everything from Medical Imaging, Radar, Oil Exploration to trying to automatically call balls and strikes. What I see being proposed here would be to look at interfaces between hmm... modules for lack of a better term in a similar way. If you want it is a far out extension of the idea of Object Request Brokers.
For example, a very large system would have a goal seeking component creating a plan, it would inquire as to what modules are available, look at the interfaces around and classify them (here is where the clustering and pattern recognition might help) and then choose ones which fit its plan. It would then check results to see if this worked closely enough to move it along its plan.
This implies a database of types of modules and effects, a lower level standard protocal for inquiring and responding, and another means of checking results and recognizing similarity to a wanted state - a second place where the recognition and clustering algorithms would be useful. This is obviously not easy to do...
The novel "Night Sky Mine" by Melissa Scott comes to mind as an example of this taken way out. There is an ecology of programs that is viewed by "programmers" through a tool that re-inforces the metaphor of programs being living organisms "trained" or used by the programmers to get what they want. I cannot see this being generically useful - many times we really do want a "brittle" system. It is certainly a way to get to very complex systems for simulation or study or games!
I find this study pretty misleading, and based on a "broadcast" model of the online media. This is equating the "internet" with broadcasting. Would anyone say - 60% of people turn to the telephone for health information?
Online services are not like TV where there is (even with cable) a very limited number of choices for a topic. It would be interesting to see where people actually go for information - I suspect in the US that it is a very limited number of places for the vast majority of info. This isn't bad on its face, probably inevitable, but inquiry into exactly where people go and who controls those places should really be an ongoing study more interesting than this one.
Just a note: If you can prove that " If two chess players play perfectly, then the game will always result in a tie" you are way beyond current computational or mathematical power. We don't know the full playbook of chess. It might not be that perfect players result in a tie. It could be that white always wins - or black - which would be very interesting because it would be counter-intuitive.
I would reinforce this comment - the claims in the original submission are invalid on the face of it in the real world. There is no plaintext attack on a real 'otp' with enough randomness in the key since the key is used only once.
To all of the people with new cryptosystems - with all due respect - we now have really good, well understood cyphering methods up to a level where the failure in security won't be from the method of encryption. Key exchange could be improved, but actual symmetric cypher methods aren't going to revolutionize things anymore. We can always use better, and people will continue to look for flaws (as in Rijndael) but none of this is big time.