the patent description makes it sound like we're talking about a system for automatically updating any program while its running without any interruption (which would be quite a feat if accomplished, but still not worthy of a process patent because its an obvious goal).
However the operation the patent actually describes is as follows:
1) I click on an icon to launch an application, 2) a process starts that checks to see if I have the latest version of the application 2a) if I have the latest, it launches the application 2b) if I don't have the latest, it replaces my copy with the latest and the launches the application
this stuff about "transparently running" and "no need for restart" is a red herring. of course there's no need for restart, the program isn't running yet!
would you also leave your job? would you close the hospital and all the schools for a month as well? and what if, after a month, there hasn't been any earthquake? do you keep the schools & hospitals closed, would you stay away from home?
in this case, the scientist made his prediction for a specific day. According to the article the people of the town were warned, and the earthquake didn't happen.
It's pretty clear that no one owes this guy an apology (from the article)
Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after Giuliani predicted the quake was about to strike.
Yes, he predicted that a major earthquake would happen. But he didn't predict when with enough certainty or accuracy to make his prediction useful.
[Enzo Boschi, the head of Italy's National Geophysics Institute] said the real problem for Italy was a long-standing failure to take proper precautions despite a history of tragic quakes. "We have earthquakes, but then we forget and do nothing. It's not in our culture to take precautions or build in an appropriate way in areas where there could be strong earthquakes."
With the pressure off, infected machines are now able to go about their intended business
bot-net performance anxiety is a new concept to me. what you're saying sounds reasonable, but the obvious question is why wait?
there's no limitation that says that Conficker cannot be in operation while it continues to spread. It's clear that the majority of infected computers will never be cleaned (because their owners don't know/care). So why be coy?
Even if we knew what it did, it wouldn't change the fact that the oblivious people running infected machines will remain oblivious.
Ironically, the purpose of the script is to make the Kindle more useful to its users
From the relatively low cost of the device and the fact that access to Sprint's EV-DO network is free, I would assume that the kindle is a loss-leader for Amazon.
They're counting on making their money back and more selling the e-books over that network. And that only works if Kindle users get their books exclusively from Amazon. So clearly it's in their interest to limit the Kindle's capabilities in this way.
Having said that, it's not clear that the DMCA actually applies in this case. Though since the law is written so that large IP holders can bludgeon smaller entities, I'd say it seems to be working perfectly.
Quick tip, the Authors Guild is not talking about an "end-user" violation. The Authors Guild doesn't want anything from you, they just want more money from Amazon.
A valid argument against this move by the Authors Guild would be that by slimming Amazon's margins the authors are biting the hand that feeds them.
The counter argument would be to point to what happened to screen writers with the conversion from VHS residuals to DVD residuals. When DVD supplanted VHS, the writers got screwed.
New mediums (like Kindle) make artists' work MORE valuable. In which case, it's not unreasonable for them to expect to make more money.
In any case, the end user/consumer really doesn't have a stake in either position.
That's only if you take the pure AI approach. That would be sweet, but isn't really necessary.
If you have a machine voice that can mimic emotional tones (which is what Blount was worried about) then it's just a matter of adding information to the e-book encoding to cue the machine reader where to apply what tone.
Plop some underemployed english major in front of a computer and have him encode all the Context you like. Sure it's not going to beat a trained actor, but I bet it'd be a hell-of-a-lot cheaper and faster to produce.
not to get too far off topic here, but I don't think you've thought your proposal through quite enough.
I can think of 2 intractable problems with what you suggest:
1. employers will know they can abuse their employees with no consequences for at least as long as it takes to form a union. a period they can extend by using FUD to hamper unionizing efforts.
2. if and when the problem is actually recognized, how does one quickly and efficiently form an ad-hoc union consisting of thousands of members who live and work in disparate places?
healthy unions are as vital to our economy as healthy companies.
Yes, you do not understand his point. Let me help you.
His point is that Amazon.com would like to set this up as "Big Mean Author's Guild vs. Helpless Blind People". When it's really the far more neutral "The Authors Guild vs. Amazon.com".
Now, a kindle owner pays ~$10 to Amazon.com for an e-book, and some of that goes to the copyright holders (e.g. the authors). The Authors Guild's members get far more money for audio books than for e-books. And the distinction between an audio-book and an e-book is blurred by the TTS feature of the Kindle2. (Right now it sounds like a computer, but in five years, TTS may advance enough to make audio books a thing of the past.)
What's the difference to you, the Kindle owner? Probably nothing. Amazon's price-point probably wont change much either way.
What's the difference to the authors and amazon? Well if Amazon gets its way, it can make more money off of each e-book sale. If the author's get their way, they can make more money off each e-book sale.
So the question is: Which do you like more? The people that write the books or the people that sell you the books?
NBC Reporter: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?
NY Times Reporter: No, no I hadn't heard that.
You mean, NBC removed a reference to their reporter irresponsibly making a wild unsubstantiated accusation? Cue the black helicopters! It's a conspiracy!
I accept your point that Steve Jobs is not the be-all end-all of Apple. But your prescription for Apple's continued success does not jive with Apple's actual history.
Apple was once just a computer company. They sold over-priced proprietary machines with one-button mice to graphic designers. That company was pretty much moribund.
Now they sell music and phones and they do it better than anyone else in the market. They are a media darling and are rolling in cash. Jobs has received much of the credit (probably rightfully so).
The question is, without Jobs' mystical ability to divine the next big thing, will Apple be able to follow up on the iPhone (as the iPhone followed up the iPod)? Or will they stagnate by continuing to merely focus on what they've been good at in the past?
The summary is misleading in that this isn't proposed as a defense. This is an early-warning system for detecting compromised machines on a network.
This isn't going to run on every computer in the world. Think of a corporate network with thousands of machines with fairly homogeneous usage. This could alert the sysadmin to a worm infection when the number of machines is numbered in the tens.
And since all it's doing is monitoring it shouldn't present a security risk (if well designed) greater than any P2P client.
You're right. It's likely that any legislation attempting to curtail free speech on the internet would be struck down as unconstitutional. At least I hope so.
However, your frustration with Holder is misplaced.
The AG's job is not to propose legislation, nor is it his job to determine what is and is not constitutional (that's the Supreme Court's job). It is the AG's job to advise lawmakers (like the President) on how to write the legislation they wish to write in a way to avoid having it stricken down by the courts.
Now it appears that Holder, perhaps mistakenly, believed that legislation to regulate harmful speech on the internet (e.g. speech similar to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater) could be written in a way that would not violate the 1st amendment.
That does not make him a proponent of internet regulation.
OK. Granted that the word "Change" was used ambiguously, but I repeat, he was a Senator. Maybe we have different understanding of what it takes to be considered a Washington insider.
The change he talked about in his campaign was a change away from the partisan divide. A change away from cronyism and lobbyists writing legislation. A change from a culture of fear to a culture of hope.
I think his message was, "Vote for change by voting for someone that espouses policies that are different than those of the current administration."
As opposed to, "Vote for change by voting for someone who has no idea how Washington operates or what he'll do when he gets there." Which seems to be the message you heard.
I'm sorry, I don't know why this is a big deal. It's not like he said this yesterday. He said it 10 years ago in a panicked climate when a great number of tax-paying citizens were clamoring for the government to do something to keep the intarwebs from contaminating our children.
As far as I can tell, no legislation was ever introduced. Not that the AG writes legislation, which is another reason this is a non-issue.
If this makes headlines, I am sure we'll see a clarification of some kind from Holder.
But other than that, I mean is "Politician in 1999 was wrong about the internet" really a big story?
Not sure Obama ever claimed to be an outsider. He was a Senator, after all. I believe it was the lobbyists and the crony appointments of the Bush administration that he said he would avoid.
I could be wrong though.
But setting aside the rhetorical point you're trying to make, what's wrong with having smart, capable, experienced people in positions of authority?
Slashdot Mirror
this patent is total BS!
the patent description makes it sound like we're talking about a system for automatically updating any program while its running without any interruption (which would be quite a feat if accomplished, but still not worthy of a process patent because its an obvious goal).
However the operation the patent actually describes is as follows:
1) I click on an icon to launch an application,
2) a process starts that checks to see if I have the latest version of the application
2a) if I have the latest, it launches the application
2b) if I don't have the latest, it replaces my copy with the latest and the launches the application
this stuff about "transparently running" and "no need for restart" is a red herring. of course there's no need for restart, the program isn't running yet!
it's a software patent.
start hating.
would you also leave your job? would you close the hospital and all the schools for a month as well? and what if, after a month, there hasn't been any earthquake? do you keep the schools & hospitals closed, would you stay away from home?
in this case, the scientist made his prediction for a specific day. According to the article the people of the town were warned, and the earthquake didn't happen.
He was close, kudos to him, but not close enough.
It's pretty clear that no one owes this guy an apology (from the article)
Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after Giuliani predicted the quake was about to strike.
Yes, he predicted that a major earthquake would happen. But he didn't predict when with enough certainty or accuracy to make his prediction useful.
[Enzo Boschi, the head of Italy's National Geophysics Institute] said the real problem for Italy was a long-standing failure to take proper precautions despite a history of tragic quakes. "We have earthquakes, but then we forget and do nothing. It's not in our culture to take precautions or build in an appropriate way in areas where there could be strong earthquakes."
2 x 0 = 0
With the pressure off, infected machines are now able to go about their intended business
bot-net performance anxiety is a new concept to me. what you're saying sounds reasonable, but the obvious question is why wait?
there's no limitation that says that Conficker cannot be in operation while it continues to spread. It's clear that the majority of infected computers will never be cleaned (because their owners don't know/care). So why be coy?
Even if we knew what it did, it wouldn't change the fact that the oblivious people running infected machines will remain oblivious.
K.I.S.S. is not another way of saying "I am too lazy to implement that feature."
There's a difference between implementing an OS well and cluttering it up with dohickeys and gadgets.
From the relatively low cost of the device and the fact that access to Sprint's EV-DO network is free, I would assume that the kindle is a loss-leader for Amazon.
They're counting on making their money back and more selling the e-books over that network. And that only works if Kindle users get their books exclusively from Amazon. So clearly it's in their interest to limit the Kindle's capabilities in this way.
Having said that, it's not clear that the DMCA actually applies in this case. Though since the law is written so that large IP holders can bludgeon smaller entities, I'd say it seems to be working perfectly.
it's kinda a shame you posted anonymously
Quick tip, the Authors Guild is not talking about an "end-user" violation. The Authors Guild doesn't want anything from you, they just want more money from Amazon.
A valid argument against this move by the Authors Guild would be that by slimming Amazon's margins the authors are biting the hand that feeds them.
The counter argument would be to point to what happened to screen writers with the conversion from VHS residuals to DVD residuals. When DVD supplanted VHS, the writers got screwed.
New mediums (like Kindle) make artists' work MORE valuable. In which case, it's not unreasonable for them to expect to make more money.
In any case, the end user/consumer really doesn't have a stake in either position.
That's only if you take the pure AI approach. That would be sweet, but isn't really necessary.
If you have a machine voice that can mimic emotional tones (which is what Blount was worried about) then it's just a matter of adding information to the e-book encoding to cue the machine reader where to apply what tone.
Plop some underemployed english major in front of a computer and have him encode all the Context you like. Sure it's not going to beat a trained actor, but I bet it'd be a hell-of-a-lot cheaper and faster to produce.
not to get too far off topic here, but I don't think you've thought your proposal through quite enough.
I can think of 2 intractable problems with what you suggest:
1. employers will know they can abuse their employees with no consequences for at least as long as it takes to form a union. a period they can extend by using FUD to hamper unionizing efforts.
2. if and when the problem is actually recognized, how does one quickly and efficiently form an ad-hoc union consisting of thousands of members who live and work in disparate places?
healthy unions are as vital to our economy as healthy companies.
Yes, you do not understand his point. Let me help you.
His point is that Amazon.com would like to set this up as "Big Mean Author's Guild vs. Helpless Blind People". When it's really the far more neutral "The Authors Guild vs. Amazon.com".
Now, a kindle owner pays ~$10 to Amazon.com for an e-book, and some of that goes to the copyright holders (e.g. the authors). The Authors Guild's members get far more money for audio books than for e-books. And the distinction between an audio-book and an e-book is blurred by the TTS feature of the Kindle2. (Right now it sounds like a computer, but in five years, TTS may advance enough to make audio books a thing of the past.)
What's the difference to you, the Kindle owner?
Probably nothing. Amazon's price-point probably wont change much either way.
What's the difference to the authors and amazon?
Well if Amazon gets its way, it can make more money off of each e-book sale. If the author's get their way, they can make more money off each e-book sale.
So the question is: Which do you like more? The people that write the books or the people that sell you the books?
if only i had mod points
This would be the quote they excised:
You mean, NBC removed a reference to their reporter irresponsibly making a wild unsubstantiated accusation? Cue the black helicopters! It's a conspiracy!
I love that this got modded Interesting.
I accept your point that Steve Jobs is not the be-all end-all of Apple. But your prescription for Apple's continued success does not jive with Apple's actual history.
Apple was once just a computer company. They sold over-priced proprietary machines with one-button mice to graphic designers. That company was pretty much moribund.
Now they sell music and phones and they do it better than anyone else in the market. They are a media darling and are rolling in cash. Jobs has received much of the credit (probably rightfully so).
The question is, without Jobs' mystical ability to divine the next big thing, will Apple be able to follow up on the iPhone (as the iPhone followed up the iPod)? Or will they stagnate by continuing to merely focus on what they've been good at in the past?
The summary is misleading in that this isn't proposed as a defense. This is an early-warning system for detecting compromised machines on a network.
This isn't going to run on every computer in the world. Think of a corporate network with thousands of machines with fairly homogeneous usage. This could alert the sysadmin to a worm infection when the number of machines is numbered in the tens.
And since all it's doing is monitoring it shouldn't present a security risk (if well designed) greater than any P2P client.
too many... metaphors... can't... breath...
nice link... that should be in the summary
You're right. It's likely that any legislation attempting to curtail free speech on the internet would be struck down as unconstitutional. At least I hope so.
However, your frustration with Holder is misplaced.
The AG's job is not to propose legislation, nor is it his job to determine what is and is not constitutional (that's the Supreme Court's job). It is the AG's job to advise lawmakers (like the President) on how to write the legislation they wish to write in a way to avoid having it stricken down by the courts.
Now it appears that Holder, perhaps mistakenly, believed that legislation to regulate harmful speech on the internet (e.g. speech similar to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater) could be written in a way that would not violate the 1st amendment.
That does not make him a proponent of internet regulation.
OK. Granted that the word "Change" was used ambiguously, but I repeat, he was a Senator. Maybe we have different understanding of what it takes to be considered a Washington insider.
The change he talked about in his campaign was a change away from the partisan divide. A change away from cronyism and lobbyists writing legislation. A change from a culture of fear to a culture of hope.
I think his message was, "Vote for change by voting for someone that espouses policies that are different than those of the current administration."
As opposed to, "Vote for change by voting for someone who has no idea how Washington operates or what he'll do when he gets there." Which seems to be the message you heard.
I'm sorry, I don't know why this is a big deal. It's not like he said this yesterday. He said it 10 years ago in a panicked climate when a great number of tax-paying citizens were clamoring for the government to do something to keep the intarwebs from contaminating our children.
As far as I can tell, no legislation was ever introduced. Not that the AG writes legislation, which is another reason this is a non-issue.
If this makes headlines, I am sure we'll see a clarification of some kind from Holder.
But other than that, I mean is "Politician in 1999 was wrong about the internet" really a big story?
Not sure Obama ever claimed to be an outsider. He was a Senator, after all. I believe it was the lobbyists and the crony appointments of the Bush administration that he said he would avoid.
I could be wrong though.
But setting aside the rhetorical point you're trying to make, what's wrong with having smart, capable, experienced people in positions of authority?
please contact me at your earliest convenience so I can give you the address to which you can send me that $3 you're not using.