Hell, during the 2000 election 40% of voters in Alabama voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal. In '98 38% in South Carolina voted the same. Your eldest child was 3 and your middle child was hanging around inside mom at the time.
We've made huge progress, but you should tell your kids that there are still places in this country where millions of people still think this way.
white dudes scared as hell that they might not be better than some black dude
They are not scared might not be better than some black dude, they assume that they are better than some black dude.
There are multiple aspects to racism, but one of the main ones is when some black dude is their boss or becomes president or otherwise achieves better than them, they angrily resent the "injustice" of those things that "rightfully" belong to whites - because they "know" whites are inherently better. I'd say it psychologically precludes a fear of not being better, such a thing is almost literally unthinkable.
It is an intense form of ancient tribalism, those people you define as being within your social group are presumptively good and are automatically allies to be defended, and anyone outside your defined group is to be arationally(*) hated and distrusted and battled. Anyone outside the group is implicitly inferior or even sub-human. It's a particularly virulent form of "us vs them" psychology.
(*) Hmmm... "arationally" only shows 415 hits on google, to be safe I better clarify. I mean "completely lacking in reason" as opposed to "irrational" which more means "contrary to reason".
Only 43% of whites supported for Obama.If this has been a whites-only election, McCain would now be president.
If it were a "whites-only election" it would have been an even bigger blowout in favor of the Democrats.
In 2000 there was a state ballot issue where 40 FUCKING percent voted against gay marriage.... ooops.... I mean voted against interracial marriage. And just two year 38 percent voted the save way in another state. There are still millions and millions of racists, some wildly racist and some merely "mildly" uncomfortable generically distrustful of anyone with medium or dark complexion.
People become less liberal and more conservative as they advance in years. Any theories why that might be?
It's simple. Youth are more open to progress, they have no emotional attachments to the errors and prejudices of the past. People generally become set in their ways in their old age, especially when it comes to racism and other discrimination.
This effect is particularly visible in the interracial and gay marriage issues. Both are playing out in the identical manner, except the gay marriage social shift is actually happening about twice as fast as the interracial marriage shift. In both cases it's a generational shift, the younger generation open to change, the younger generation saying that the law should not be looking at the race gender or religion of people to grant or deny civil treatment under the law. If the law does not examine the race gender or religion of marriage applicants, then the law granting civil marriage licenses has no means available to deny such civil law marriage licenses to interracial couples or to gay couples or to mixed faith couples.
In both cases it's the old conservatives that resist social and legal change, the old conservatives that want to keep the comfortable old race-based and gender-based discrimination in the law.
Public opinion on gay marriage is in exactly the same place interracial marriage was in the late 60's when the courts handed down their identical rulings "legislating from the bench" to impose interracial marriage. In both cases it is/was the younger generation overwhelmingly accepting, and in both cases it's the older generation that was and still is overwhelmingly opposed.
The biggest difference is that social views on interracial marriage shifted by about 1% per year in polling results, while on gay marriage the shift is happening at about double the rate, about 2% shift in polling results per year.
The gay marriage war is over. Most people just don't realize it yet.
The most powerful force in the universe is a generational shift. Nothing can stand against it. Sooner or later the the younger generation will win, even if it means they have to bury the older generation to do it.
Not all people fall into the trap of becoming so set in their old "traditional" ways as to conservatively-wage-war-against-change, but yeah, many people do.
I'm in my late 30's. I don't imaging the world is perfect, I don't imagine I am right and perfect about everything. I wonder what irrational or unjust "social traditions" I implicitly accept simply because I grew up with them. I wonder what social advancement the next wave of youth will notice and "liberally" embrace. And I hope/believe I will be open enough to see that truth and flexible enough to un-conservatively shed my old ideas and embrace that change. Not everyone becomes resistant to new ideas as they get older. Not everyone conservatively resists change as they age. Not everyone in the older generation fought interracial marriage, not all of the older generation is freaking out against gay marriage.
But yeah, as people age they usually become increasingly conservative in preserving social traditions, less adaptable to new ideas
But do not claim that software patents are not desirable to a lot of programmers and software companies
It is technically true that a "lot" of programmers are left handed. It is also a wildly fraudulent statement. Programmers re overwhelmingly right handed, and overwhelmingly opposed to software patents. Small and medium software companies are largely opposed. And of your megacorp list "Google, Apple, IBM, Sun, Microsoft", unless I'm mistaken at minimum one of them does not support software patents, at minimum two of have never sued to enforce such a patents, and across all 5 such patents have been a financial net negative. Just because a person or company obtains such patents does not mean that they support them being patentable. I would take a bogus patent on the number '3' if it would help protect me from some idiot troll suing me with his bogus patent on the letter 's'.
Opinion-wise it pretty well lays out with programmers and smaller businesses on one side and patent lawyers and megacorps on the other. Programmers massively object, and the EU found large negativity from small and medium companies when they investigated the issue.
Consider an alloy defined as 1 part Chromium to 2 parts Iron. I am applying the mathematical principle of a ratio in order to define a useful, physical composition of matter.
Right. Physical articles and physical processes for transforming articles to a different state or thing.
No matter how much I *think* about "1 part Chromium to 2 parts Iron", I never *actually make any alloy*.
Similarly, if I patent the use of a differential equation to render fluids in a computer game, I'm not claiming differential equations, just their use in rendering fluids.
You are patenting the purely mathematical process of evaluating a particular chunk of math.
With sufficient effort you could in fact carry out the patented process entirely mentally and in fact produce the result. There is absolutely nothing inventive about using an ordinary old computer in the ordinary old way to evaluate any generic math steps more quickly. There is absolutely nothing inventive about using an ordinary old monitor in the ordinary old wqy to show a generic lighting of pixels for any generic numbers.
You are talking about nothing more than using a glorified calculator in the ordinary intended way, saying that you want a patent on typing in a certain series of pluses and multiplies and other steps, and having the overgrown calculator LCD lightup/dark to show those numbers in the ordinary intended way.
There is absolutely nothing novel, non-obvious, or inventive anywhere. All you you've done is pick out an interesting math euation and said that you want a patent to prohibit anyone else from doing the math in that equation.... Ohhhh... I'm sorry... you only want a patent on someone using an ordinary old computer in the normal obvious old intended purpose of more quickly carrying out any general math equations you want to solve.
The court did not state that software was not patentable, merely that algorithms alone are unpatentable, a point on which we agree. What is patentable is an application of the algorithm to a new and useful process.
No. Read the ruling. Diamond v Deihr is an anti-software-patent ruling often mistaken for a pro-software-patent ruling because of the direction of the verdict.
The court did not rule useful processes were patentable. The court said that an *industrial rubber manufacturing process* was a patentable processes. The physical transformation of a physical article to a different state or thing is statutory subject matter. The court ruled that a patentable *physical process* did not cease to be statutory subject matter simply because you happened to do some math along the way. The court explicitly warned that insignificant post solution activity (meaning *physical* activity) could not be used as magic pixie dust to turn it into a patentable invention.
Here in the US the four seasons are "Oh hell Bush is STILL president?" "Oh hell Bush is STILL president?" "Oh hell Bush is STILL president?" and "Oh my God it's almost election season!"
Quantum computers can also do a quadratic speed up on any problem that can be phrased as a search
The year 2016: The NSA builds the first fully operational quantum computer, begins searching global data intercepts 256 times faster for terrorist networks.
The year 2022: Megacorps first acquire quantum computing capabilities, Microsoft begins locating Windows bugs 16 times faster.
The year 2027: Quantum computing hits the home desktop, Dude, where's my car?
Asking someone for the answer: Easy -, boring -, requires human interaction ----. Rating -40.
Doing a discrete Fourier transform on a digital recording: Technical +, challenging +, mathematical +, cool +, involves a computer and no human interaction ++++. Rating 50.
Getting the answer from the mind of a dead body: Technical+, extremely high challenge value ++, requires Nobel Prize Winning new breakthrough in science +++, requires an actual science lab outfitted with cutting edge technology +++, insanely cool ++, requires human interaction ----. Rating 30.
I just finished reading the ruling, and I just was about to post many of the same points you just did. I completely agree with your analysis of this victory-for-confusion ruling. It's amusing to be in such complete agreement on the analysis, and be so diametrically opposed with your "I would also call into question the requirement for a physical tie-in of any kind..." followup.
The Supreme Court RULE, repeatedly stated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and repeated and reaffirmed in this ruling, is "Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines".
Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or thing is a physical transformation of a physical article.
This ruling was self contradictory when it arbitrarily cited a purely mathematical "transformation" of purely mathematical data as an example of patentable process.
Of course, I would also call into question the requirement for a physical tie-in of any kind. So long as the business method or software patent is limited to a specific, useful application (and is new, nonobvious, etc), I see no reason why we shouldn't encourage the development of such inventions.
A 100 digit number may be novel and non-obvious and useful for some specific application. I *do* see reason why we should not "encourage the development of such inventions". A number is not an invention. Math is not an invention. The Supreme Court has stated that any algorithm "is treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art" for patent purposes. Math is not a patentable "invention". An information algorithm is not a patentable "invention". All software is pure algorithm. Software is nothing but a stylized way of writing math. Any possible software is in fact a pure math function taking in one set of numbers, mathematically calculating on those numbers, and returning a set of answer numbers. Any possible software must be treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art for patent purposes, by the Supreme Court's ruling. And the Supreme Court also explicitly warned that insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process".
The transformation of information is a mathematical process. You can't patent math.
Any software can be (slowly) "run" entirely mentally. In fact is it a standard part of debugging and analysis for programmers to "run" software in their head, to follow and check exactly what it is doing by carrying it out yourself entirely mentally. It is ludicrous to suggest that some sequence of thoughts could be a patent violation. That thinking certain thoughts could be thought-crime. Absurd to suggest that mentally preforming some "information process" could be patentable. And there is absolutely nothing non-obvious about using a old ordinary computer simply to speed up that information processing. A computer was once new and patentable, but using a computer for it's obvious and intended purpose of speeding up generic non-patentable math is not patentable.
If you have some new non-obvious physical device you can get a patent for that object. If you some new non-obvious physical process for physically transforming a physical article to a different state or thing, then you can get a process patent on the physical act of preforming that physical transformation.
I'm a programmer. I am protected by copyright. Extending patents to cover math is entirely broken. As a programmer I neither want not need broken double-coverage.
The Supreme Court laid out the rule, process patents are for the transformation of articles. Articles are physical objects. That means physical transformation processes.
So, from both sides of the debate we agree that this ruling is a mes. It raises more questions than it answers, and where it does answer questions those answers are ambiguous and contradictory.
MTV premiered with the Buggle's Video Killed The Radio Star. The cable remote control was a big box connected to the TV by a 15 foot wire, it had one button for each channel.
So, to pose the question: Dont put your head in the sand. The predators are there. They're real. They exist. Given this, how do we protect OUR kids online ?
No, the real worry is how do you protect your kids when they are OFFLINE.
Your kids are vastly more likely to be molested by the baby sitter, the gym teacher, your priest, or your brother/brother-in-law, than by some stranger on the internet. If you want to keep your kids safe keep them ON the internet all the time, don't let them go to church, don't let them go to school, don't let them join the boyscouts/girlscouts, and most importantly never let any relatives into your home. Police figures show those are the REAL predator threats.
Be smart, keep your kids on the internet as much as possible. It's about the safest place for them short of padlocking them inside the fridge.
No. At times my post may have been..... hmmmmm what's the right word for it? Harsh? Snarky? Arrogant? Defiantly challenging you on points... whatever... it had attitude. But no, I did not complain you were not smart enough. Nothing I said was was directed to intelligence. Not explicitly, and not implicitly. I argued harshly, but I was not hurling gratuitous insults. I'll try to reply to the rest later, but I wanted to quicky-address that right away.
Oh, and I didn't understand your response on rape/incest. At least not well enough to be certain of your position and to reply. Was that supposed to mean yes, you *do* intend to imprison incest victims and imprison rape victims who abort, or no you *do not* intend to imprison them?
Making people vote based on an informed thought process--how exactly does that make Google money?
a mismanaged economy in global depression is bad for profits? bad tech policy and bad internet policy is bad for tech&internet sector profits? global hatred for America and American companies is bad for US based company profits?
Ummm.... global thermonuclear war is bad for profits?
I'd argue that Federal funding of schools (and the Federal mandates that come along with them) have diminished the standards of education in the United States
You certainly could reasonably argue that point. However it's a failed argument in any case. The issue was "So which of the emumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution give Federal Government the power to redistribute individual wealth, provide for individual education, provide for individual welfare and security?" and the reply was "Article I, section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.'". Congress has the powers enumerated by the constitution, and it is unfortunate fact that congress has the ability to wield those powers unwisely and even counter-productively. For example a hot topic around here is copyright, and most everyone around here agree that at least some changes to copyright law have been unwise or even counter productive. However that does not mean congress did not possess the Constitutional enumerated powers to pass such laws.
One can certainly argue *many* laws passed by congress are unwise or counter productive. Unfortunately congress does have the Constitutional power to pass unwise and poorly-operating law.
from the point of conception that clump of cells has a unique genetic human identity.
So does tumor. (If it didn't have some genetics unique from the parent person, it wouldn't have become a tumor.)
Not that that matters anyway, a mindless group of cells is not a person period. A "clump of cells [with] a unique genetic human identity" that was in a car wreck and is now a 30 year old decapitated body in a hospital bed being feed by a tube - that is not a person.
Mindless cells are not a person, no matter what genetics they have.
It only lacks the ability to survive apart from its mother.
If I wake up some day and find someone (an actual-PERSON-someone!) has grafted themselves onto my bloodstream... well I kinda sorta *do* have the right to to scrape them off my body. And if that adult actual-PERSON man or woman has liver failure or somesuch and "lacks the ability to survive apart from" that graft to my body, well I do have to right to my own body.
Really... which of these points do you really disagree with? Are you seriously going to argue that a mindless decapitated body is a person? That removing outside life support from that mindless decapitated body is murder? Are you seriously going to argue that if some person with liver failure has grafted themselves onto your body, that you cannot remove that graft?
Are you seriously saying that tens of millions of American women and tens of thousands of doctors should be in prison for murder?
Oh, and don't forget that in a great many states hiring someone to commit a murder is a death penalty case.
Are you seriously saying that rape victim who gets beaten and mutilated and impregnated and tortured by some sick monster, that that rape victim should be imprisoned and maybe even face the death penalty for having that monster's seed scraped out of her? Or are you one of those hypocrites who believes that abortion is murder, but who finds rape and incest to be really icky so therefor MURDERING INNOCENT WITTLE BABIES IS OK if some other person committed rape or incest? That murder is murder, except when you want to allow abortion and somehow it's magically not murder anymore?
I mean I can understand and sorta respectfuly-disagree with the idea that abortion is murder, but I absolutely have no respect for the incoherent hypocritical line that abortion-is-murder-but-we'll-allow-it-in-rape-and-incest. That one really bugs the hell out of me. If it is murder, well ok then it is murder, even in cases of rape and incest. Be honest and face up to the unpopular but intellectually honest result of criminalizing abortion for rape and incest too, and admit that yo
- Do you think the government has a real, and appropriate, interest in knowing who and what is coming in and out of the country?
We are not talking about people crossing the border. We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
- If so, why is it inappropriate to check at the borders (or at the nearest available transit points) that those crossing have their citizenship documentation or passport and visa documentation, as they are required to carry by law for all cross-border travel?
We are not talking about people crossing the border. We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
Yes, I want to live in a country where the laws are enforced.
Swell. Go move to East Germany or the Soviet Union. Ooops, I'm sorry, they are both gone. Well I'm sure you can go find yourself some other police state to go live in.
Me, I love my country and I hold dear the rights and freedoms so many have given their blood and their lives to defend. I love the Constitution an our Liberties. I want police to pursue criminals, but only within the bounds of the Constitution and with deferrence to our Rights and Liberties, presumptively innocent citizens of a free nation. Yes, sometimes the Constitution is inconvenient to catching and prosecuting criminals. Yes, sometimes our Rights and Liberties are inconvenient to catching and prosecuting criminals. Yes, police often have a difficult job to do. Oh well, it's a difficult job. I expect them to do their job as best they can within the bounds of a free society respecting broad rights and liberties. Yes, I would rather a few more criminals go un-caught than to live in a goddamn police state.
Being "randomly" stopped on the street in the middle of the day to check that I have ID papers on me? That is inappropriate.
That is exactly what we are discussing here. Ordinary innocent American being stopped on the street without any cause whatsoever, being detained, intimidated, and threatened by gun-toting gestapo coercively demanding answers to questions that they have no right to coercively demand answers to, and coercively demanding 'voluntary' consent to searches and seizures that they have no coercively preform.
Being checked for my papers when I am doing something for which papers are required, such as traveling between two countries, is not.
We are not talking about people crossing the border. We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
You are required by law in every state to carry your drivers' license, automobile registration and proof of insurance papers, if you are driving a vehicle (car, truck, minivan, etc).
True. And police officers can temporarily order a limited stop for cause, subject to a great many restrictions, and demand to see your license registration and insurance. To somewhat simplify, they then pretty much have to arrest you or let you go on your way. Immigration and customs agents do NOT get to tromp around INSIDE the country seizing and searching innocent citizens in Nazi-style 'papers please' police state arbitrary intimidation and harassment.
When such vehicles are crossing the border, the US government has a real and important interest in doublechecking that the driver is not either (a) entering or (b) leaving the country with a STOLEN vehicle.
We are not talking about people crossing the border. We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
The answer to your confusion is that they clearly intend to use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM). I'm too tired to give a full explanation, but I'll try to gloss over the critical details for this particular case.
The TPM chip has random key locked inside. You are forbidden to know your own master key locked in your own device. The chip then spies on your hardware and the boot process and all the critical software you run. In short, it takes a hash of the Open Source DRM software. It then uses its master key and the software hash to generate the DRM file keys. You don't know the master key, so you have no way to know the DRM file keys. When the approved unmodified open source software runs, the chip watches that, generates the hash, uses that to generate the file key, and hands that key to the open source software so it can read the DRM files.
Now, if you modify the open source software at all, even change a single bit, then when you run it the chip sees the different executable and generates a different hash for it. The chip tacks that new hash value and combines it with its master key. This produces a new and completely different file key. The chip hands *this* key to your software. This key is different and completely useless for reading any of the files you want to read.
The TMP completely defeats the GPL. You *have* the source code, but that code is pretty well useless. You can modify it and recompile it, but the executable no longer works. The new executable cannot read/write/modify the existing files, and a second "feature" of the chip is that it sends cryptographically secure spy reports to people over the internet - so your modified software no longer works over any net connection. The other end of the connection will get this crypto-spy-report saying that you are running the wrong software and they will drop your network connection.
It's a lot more to it than that, but that's the general concept. The system is evil as hell, and there are some possible routes to try to attack it, but in general yes, it does "work". I've read the chip's technical specification document - 332 pages - from comber to cover. It was designed exactly to be an insane DRM system able to lock your own computer and other devices against you in exactly this sort of way.
Vista was supposed to include support for this DRM-from-hell chip, but thankfully it's one of the 'features' that got cut when they finally had to push the badly delayed OS out the door.
Beware Trusted Computing, they still intend to shove it down our throats.
Slashdot Mirror
wearing ties, and taking showers on a regular basis.
Can you imagine RMS in a suit and tie? I just cannot picture that.
What, and you can picture him taking showers?
-
Hell, during the 2000 election 40% of voters in Alabama voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal. In '98 38% in South Carolina voted the same. Your eldest child was 3 and your middle child was hanging around inside mom at the time.
We've made huge progress, but you should tell your kids that there are still places in this country where millions of people still think this way.
-
white dudes scared as hell that they might not be better than some black dude
They are not scared might not be better than some black dude, they assume that they are better than some black dude.
There are multiple aspects to racism, but one of the main ones is when some black dude is their boss or becomes president or otherwise achieves better than them, they angrily resent the "injustice" of those things that "rightfully" belong to whites - because they "know" whites are inherently better. I'd say it psychologically precludes a fear of not being better, such a thing is almost literally unthinkable.
It is an intense form of ancient tribalism, those people you define as being within your social group are presumptively good and are automatically allies to be defended, and anyone outside your defined group is to be arationally(*) hated and distrusted and battled. Anyone outside the group is implicitly inferior or even sub-human. It's a particularly virulent form of "us vs them" psychology.
(*) Hmmm... "arationally" only shows 415 hits on google, to be safe I better clarify. I mean "completely lacking in reason" as opposed to "irrational" which more means "contrary to reason".
-
Only 43% of whites supported for Obama.If this has been a whites-only election, McCain would now be president.
If it were a "whites-only election" it would have been an even bigger blowout in favor of the Democrats.
In 2000 there was a state ballot issue where 40 FUCKING percent voted against gay marriage.... ooops.... I mean voted against interracial marriage. And just two year 38 percent voted the save way in another state. There are still millions and millions of racists, some wildly racist and some merely "mildly" uncomfortable generically distrustful of anyone with medium or dark complexion.
People become less liberal and more conservative as they advance in years.
Any theories why that might be?
It's simple. Youth are more open to progress, they have no emotional attachments to the errors and prejudices of the past. People generally become set in their ways in their old age, especially when it comes to racism and other discrimination.
This effect is particularly visible in the interracial and gay marriage issues. Both are playing out in the identical manner, except the gay marriage social shift is actually happening about twice as fast as the interracial marriage shift. In both cases it's a generational shift, the younger generation open to change, the younger generation saying that the law should not be looking at the race gender or religion of people to grant or deny civil treatment under the law. If the law does not examine the race gender or religion of marriage applicants, then the law granting civil marriage licenses has no means available to deny such civil law marriage licenses to interracial couples or to gay couples or to mixed faith couples.
In both cases it's the old conservatives that resist social and legal change, the old conservatives that want to keep the comfortable old race-based and gender-based discrimination in the law.
Public opinion on gay marriage is in exactly the same place interracial marriage was in the late 60's when the courts handed down their identical rulings "legislating from the bench" to impose interracial marriage. In both cases it is/was the younger generation overwhelmingly accepting, and in both cases it's the older generation that was and still is overwhelmingly opposed.
The biggest difference is that social views on interracial marriage shifted by about 1% per year in polling results, while on gay marriage the shift is happening at about double the rate, about 2% shift in polling results per year.
The gay marriage war is over.
Most people just don't realize it yet.
The most powerful force in the universe is a generational shift. Nothing can stand against it. Sooner or later the the younger generation will win, even if it means they have to bury the older generation to do it.
Not all people fall into the trap of becoming so set in their old "traditional" ways as to conservatively-wage-war-against-change, but yeah, many people do.
I'm in my late 30's. I don't imaging the world is perfect, I don't imagine I am right and perfect about everything. I wonder what irrational or unjust "social traditions" I implicitly accept simply because I grew up with them. I wonder what social advancement the next wave of youth will notice and "liberally" embrace. And I hope/believe I will be open enough to see that truth and flexible enough to un-conservatively shed my old ideas and embrace that change. Not everyone becomes resistant to new ideas as they get older. Not everyone conservatively resists change as they age. Not everyone in the older generation fought interracial marriage, not all of the older generation is freaking out against gay marriage.
But yeah, as people age they usually become increasingly conservative in preserving social traditions, less adaptable to new ideas
The movie was better in the original Klingon:
jIH ghaj ghajta' 'oH tlhej bIHnuch yIHmey'vam Daq bIHnuch Duj'vam!
(I've had it with these coward tribbles on this coward ship!)
-
Then, in the fourth volume, Lee reveals that the mysterious aliens whose starship humans had boarded were, in fact, angels serving the Christian God.
Holy chit.
By some quirk of fate I stopped at the third book, Thank-Xenu!
-
And of course the talking snake is farther back than the cavemen :)
-
McCain it, it's that one.
-
But do not claim that software patents are not desirable to a lot of programmers and software companies
It is technically true that a "lot" of programmers are left handed. It is also a wildly fraudulent statement. Programmers re overwhelmingly right handed, and overwhelmingly opposed to software patents. Small and medium software companies are largely opposed. And of your megacorp list "Google, Apple, IBM, Sun, Microsoft", unless I'm mistaken at minimum one of them does not support software patents, at minimum two of have never sued to enforce such a patents, and across all 5 such patents have been a financial net negative. Just because a person or company obtains such patents does not mean that they support them being patentable. I would take a bogus patent on the number '3' if it would help protect me from some idiot troll suing me with his bogus patent on the letter 's'.
Opinion-wise it pretty well lays out with programmers and smaller businesses on one side and patent lawyers and megacorps on the other. Programmers massively object, and the EU found large negativity from small and medium companies when they investigated the issue.
Consider an alloy defined as 1 part Chromium to 2 parts Iron. I am applying the mathematical principle of a ratio in order to define a useful, physical composition of matter.
Right. Physical articles and physical processes for transforming articles to a different state or thing.
No matter how much I *think* about "1 part Chromium to 2 parts Iron", I never *actually make any alloy*.
Similarly, if I patent the use of a differential equation to render fluids in a computer game, I'm not claiming differential equations, just their use in rendering fluids.
You are patenting the purely mathematical process of evaluating a particular chunk of math.
With sufficient effort you could in fact carry out the patented process entirely mentally and in fact produce the result. There is absolutely nothing inventive about using an ordinary old computer in the ordinary old way to evaluate any generic math steps more quickly. There is absolutely nothing inventive about using an ordinary old monitor in the ordinary old wqy to show a generic lighting of pixels for any generic numbers.
You are talking about nothing more than using a glorified calculator in the ordinary intended way, saying that you want a patent on typing in a certain series of pluses and multiplies and other steps, and having the overgrown calculator LCD lightup/dark to show those numbers in the ordinary intended way.
There is absolutely nothing novel, non-obvious, or inventive anywhere. All you you've done is pick out an interesting math euation and said that you want a patent to prohibit anyone else from doing the math in that equation.... Ohhhh... I'm sorry... you only want a patent on someone using an ordinary old computer in the normal obvious old intended purpose of more quickly carrying out any general math equations you want to solve.
The court did not state that software was not patentable, merely that algorithms alone are unpatentable, a point on which we agree. What is patentable is an application of the algorithm to a new and useful process.
No. Read the ruling. Diamond v Deihr is an anti-software-patent ruling often mistaken for a pro-software-patent ruling because of the direction of the verdict.
The court did not rule useful processes were patentable. The court said that an *industrial rubber manufacturing process* was a patentable processes. The physical transformation of a physical article to a different state or thing is statutory subject matter. The court ruled that a patentable *physical process* did not cease to be statutory subject matter simply because you happened to do some math along the way. The court explicitly warned that insignificant post solution activity (meaning *physical* activity) could not be used as magic pixie dust to turn it into a patentable invention.
The claimed invention made
Here in the US the four seasons are
"Oh hell Bush is STILL president?"
"Oh hell Bush is STILL president?"
"Oh hell Bush is STILL president?"
and
"Oh my God it's almost election season!"
-
Quantum computers can also do a quadratic speed up on any problem that can be phrased as a search
The year 2016:
The NSA builds the first fully operational quantum computer,
begins searching global data intercepts 256 times faster for terrorist networks.
The year 2022:
Megacorps first acquire quantum computing capabilities,
Microsoft begins locating Windows bugs 16 times faster.
The year 2027:
Quantum computing hits the home desktop,
Dude, where's my car?
-
In Quantum Mechanics you can be completely certain half the time.
The only problem is that you never know which half.
-
Ranking the options on the geek scale:
Asking someone for the answer: Easy -, boring -, requires human interaction ----. Rating -40.
Doing a discrete Fourier transform on a digital recording: Technical +, challenging +, mathematical +, cool +, involves a computer and no human interaction ++++. Rating 50.
Getting the answer from the mind of a dead body: Technical+, extremely high challenge value ++, requires Nobel Prize Winning new breakthrough in science +++, requires an actual science lab outfitted with cutting edge technology +++, insanely cool ++, requires human interaction ----. Rating 30.
-
I just finished reading the ruling, and I just was about to post many of the same points you just did. I completely agree with your analysis of this victory-for-confusion ruling. It's amusing to be in such complete agreement on the analysis, and be so diametrically opposed with your "I would also call into question the requirement for a physical tie-in of any kind..." followup.
The Supreme Court RULE, repeatedly stated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and repeated and reaffirmed in this ruling, is "Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines".
Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or thing is a physical transformation of a physical article.
This ruling was self contradictory when it arbitrarily cited a purely mathematical "transformation" of purely mathematical data as an example of patentable process.
Of course, I would also call into question the requirement for a physical tie-in of any kind. So long as the business method or software patent is limited to a specific, useful application (and is new, nonobvious, etc), I see no reason why we shouldn't encourage the development of such inventions.
A 100 digit number may be novel and non-obvious and useful for some specific application. I *do* see reason why we should not "encourage the development of such inventions". A number is not an invention. Math is not an invention. The Supreme Court has stated that any algorithm "is treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art" for patent purposes. Math is not a patentable "invention". An information algorithm is not a patentable "invention". All software is pure algorithm. Software is nothing but a stylized way of writing math. Any possible software is in fact a pure math function taking in one set of numbers, mathematically calculating on those numbers, and returning a set of answer numbers. Any possible software must be treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art for patent purposes, by the Supreme Court's ruling. And the Supreme Court also explicitly warned that insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process".
The transformation of information is a mathematical process. You can't patent math.
Any software can be (slowly) "run" entirely mentally. In fact is it a standard part of debugging and analysis for programmers to "run" software in their head, to follow and check exactly what it is doing by carrying it out yourself entirely mentally. It is ludicrous to suggest that some sequence of thoughts could be a patent violation. That thinking certain thoughts could be thought-crime. Absurd to suggest that mentally preforming some "information process" could be patentable. And there is absolutely nothing non-obvious about using a old ordinary computer simply to speed up that information processing. A computer was once new and patentable, but using a computer for it's obvious and intended purpose of speeding up generic non-patentable math is not patentable.
If you have some new non-obvious physical device you can get a patent for that object. If you some new non-obvious physical process for physically transforming a physical article to a different state or thing, then you can get a process patent on the physical act of preforming that physical transformation.
I'm a programmer. I am protected by copyright. Extending patents to cover math is entirely broken. As a programmer I neither want not need broken double-coverage.
The Supreme Court laid out the rule, process patents are for the transformation of articles. Articles are physical objects. That means physical transformation processes.
So, from both sides of the debate we agree that this ruling is a mes. It raises more questions than it answers, and where it does answer questions those answers are ambiguous and contradictory.
-
I want my P2P!
-
MTV plays music videos?
Yes, I've seen MTV play music videos.
MTV premiered with the Buggle's Video Killed The Radio Star. The cable remote control was a big box connected to the TV by a 15 foot wire, it had one button for each channel.
NOW GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!
-
So, to pose the question: Dont put your head in the sand. The predators are there.
They're real. They exist. Given this, how do we protect OUR kids online ?
No, the real worry is how do you protect your kids when they are OFFLINE.
Your kids are vastly more likely to be molested by the baby sitter, the gym teacher, your priest, or your brother/brother-in-law, than by some stranger on the internet. If you want to keep your kids safe keep them ON the internet all the time, don't let them go to church, don't let them go to school, don't let them join the boyscouts/girlscouts, and most importantly never let any relatives into your home. Police figures show those are the REAL predator threats.
Be smart, keep your kids on the internet as much as possible. It's about the safest place for them short of padlocking them inside the fridge.
-
complaining that I'm not smart enough
No. At times my post may have been..... hmmmmm what's the right word for it? Harsh? Snarky? Arrogant? Defiantly challenging you on points... whatever... it had attitude. But no, I did not complain you were not smart enough. Nothing I said was was directed to intelligence. Not explicitly, and not implicitly. I argued harshly, but I was not hurling gratuitous insults. I'll try to reply to the rest later, but I wanted to quicky-address that right away.
Oh, and I didn't understand your response on rape/incest. At least not well enough to be certain of your position and to reply. Was that supposed to mean yes, you *do* intend to imprison incest victims and imprison rape victims who abort, or no you *do not* intend to imprison them?
-
Making people vote based on an informed thought process--how exactly does that make Google money?
a mismanaged economy in global depression is bad for profits?
bad tech policy and bad internet policy is bad for tech&internet sector profits?
global hatred for America and American companies is bad for US based company profits?
Ummm....
global thermonuclear war is bad for profits?
-
Just stopping BUSSES???
Please mod parent down.
Youtube has just a few videos that show otherwise.
I got bored of making all these links.
-
I'd argue that Federal funding of schools (and the Federal mandates that come along with them) have diminished the standards of education in the United States
You certainly could reasonably argue that point. However it's a failed argument in any case. The issue was "So which of the emumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution give Federal Government the power to redistribute individual wealth, provide for individual education, provide for individual welfare and security?" and the reply was "Article I, section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.'". Congress has the powers enumerated by the constitution, and it is unfortunate fact that congress has the ability to wield those powers unwisely and even counter-productively. For example a hot topic around here is copyright, and most everyone around here agree that at least some changes to copyright law have been unwise or even counter productive. However that does not mean congress did not possess the Constitutional enumerated powers to pass such laws.
One can certainly argue *many* laws passed by congress are unwise or counter productive. Unfortunately congress does have the Constitutional power to pass unwise and poorly-operating law.
from the point of conception that clump of cells has a unique genetic human identity.
So does tumor. (If it didn't have some genetics unique from the parent person, it wouldn't have become a tumor.)
Not that that matters anyway, a mindless group of cells is not a person period.
A "clump of cells [with] a unique genetic human identity" that was in a car wreck and is now a 30 year old decapitated body in a hospital bed being feed by a tube - that is not a person.
Mindless cells are not a person, no matter what genetics they have.
It only lacks the ability to survive apart from its mother.
If I wake up some day and find someone (an actual-PERSON-someone!) has grafted themselves onto my bloodstream... well I kinda sorta *do* have the right to to scrape them off my body. And if that adult actual-PERSON man or woman has liver failure or somesuch and "lacks the ability to survive apart from" that graft to my body, well I do have to right to my own body.
Really... which of these points do you really disagree with? Are you seriously going to argue that a mindless decapitated body is a person? That removing outside life support from that mindless decapitated body is murder? Are you seriously going to argue that if some person with liver failure has grafted themselves onto your body, that you cannot remove that graft?
Are you seriously saying that tens of millions of American women and tens of thousands of doctors should be in prison for murder?
Oh, and don't forget that in a great many states hiring someone to commit a murder is a death penalty case.
Are you seriously saying that rape victim who gets beaten and mutilated and impregnated and tortured by some sick monster, that that rape victim should be imprisoned and maybe even face the death penalty for having that monster's seed scraped out of her? Or are you one of those hypocrites who believes that abortion is murder, but who finds rape and incest to be really icky so therefor MURDERING INNOCENT WITTLE BABIES IS OK if some other person committed rape or incest? That murder is murder, except when you want to allow abortion and somehow it's magically not murder anymore?
I mean I can understand and sorta respectfuly-disagree with the idea that abortion is murder, but I absolutely have no respect for the incoherent hypocritical line that abortion-is-murder-but-we'll-allow-it-in-rape-and-incest. That one really bugs the hell out of me. If it is murder, well ok then it is murder, even in cases of rape and incest. Be honest and face up to the unpopular but intellectually honest result of criminalizing abortion for rape and incest too, and admit that yo
"A person's a person, no matter how small." -Horton
Right.
A person is a person, no matter how small.
Not-a-person is not-a-person, no matter how small.
A fertilized egg or a mindless clump of cells is not a person.
-
- Do you think the government has a real, and appropriate, interest in knowing who and what is coming in and out of the country?
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
- If so, why is it inappropriate to check at the borders (or at the nearest available transit points) that those crossing have their citizenship documentation or passport and visa documentation, as they are required to carry by law for all cross-border travel?
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
Yes, I want to live in a country where the laws are enforced.
Swell. Go move to East Germany or the Soviet Union.
Ooops, I'm sorry, they are both gone. Well I'm sure you can go find yourself some other police state to go live in.
Me, I love my country and I hold dear the rights and freedoms so many have given their blood and their lives to defend. I love the Constitution an our Liberties. I want police to pursue criminals, but only within the bounds of the Constitution and with deferrence to our Rights and Liberties, presumptively innocent citizens of a free nation. Yes, sometimes the Constitution is inconvenient to catching and prosecuting criminals. Yes, sometimes our Rights and Liberties are inconvenient to catching and prosecuting criminals. Yes, police often have a difficult job to do. Oh well, it's a difficult job. I expect them to do their job as best they can within the bounds of a free society respecting broad rights and liberties. Yes, I would rather a few more criminals go un-caught than to live in a goddamn police state.
Being "randomly" stopped on the street in the middle of the day to check that I have ID papers on me? That is inappropriate.
That is exactly what we are discussing here. Ordinary innocent American being stopped on the street without any cause whatsoever, being detained, intimidated, and threatened by gun-toting gestapo coercively demanding answers to questions that they have no right to coercively demand answers to, and coercively demanding 'voluntary' consent to searches and seizures that they have no coercively preform.
Being checked for my papers when I am doing something for which papers are required, such as traveling between two countries, is not.
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
You are required by law in every state to carry your drivers' license, automobile registration and proof of insurance papers, if you are driving a vehicle (car, truck, minivan, etc).
True. And police officers can temporarily order a limited stop for cause, subject to a great many restrictions, and demand to see your license registration and insurance. To somewhat simplify, they then pretty much have to arrest you or let you go on your way. Immigration and customs agents do NOT get to tromp around INSIDE the country seizing and searching innocent citizens in Nazi-style 'papers please' police state arbitrary intimidation and harassment.
When such vehicles are crossing the border, the US government has a real and important interest in doublechecking that the driver is not either (a) entering or (b) leaving the country with a STOLEN vehicle.
We are not talking about people crossing the border.
We are talking about ordinary innocent US citizens being detained and harassed within our country.
-
Vista is a far more secure piece of software than XP was.
You must be thinking of Windows Mojave.
-
The answer to your confusion is that they clearly intend to use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM). I'm too tired to give a full explanation, but I'll try to gloss over the critical details for this particular case.
The TPM chip has random key locked inside. You are forbidden to know your own master key locked in your own device. The chip then spies on your hardware and the boot process and all the critical software you run. In short, it takes a hash of the Open Source DRM software. It then uses its master key and the software hash to generate the DRM file keys. You don't know the master key, so you have no way to know the DRM file keys. When the approved unmodified open source software runs, the chip watches that, generates the hash, uses that to generate the file key, and hands that key to the open source software so it can read the DRM files.
Now, if you modify the open source software at all, even change a single bit, then when you run it the chip sees the different executable and generates a different hash for it. The chip tacks that new hash value and combines it with its master key. This produces a new and completely different file key. The chip hands *this* key to your software. This key is different and completely useless for reading any of the files you want to read.
The TMP completely defeats the GPL. You *have* the source code, but that code is pretty well useless. You can modify it and recompile it, but the executable no longer works. The new executable cannot read/write/modify the existing files, and a second "feature" of the chip is that it sends cryptographically secure spy reports to people over the internet - so your modified software no longer works over any net connection. The other end of the connection will get this crypto-spy-report saying that you are running the wrong software and they will drop your network connection.
It's a lot more to it than that, but that's the general concept. The system is evil as hell, and there are some possible routes to try to attack it, but in general yes, it does "work". I've read the chip's technical specification document - 332 pages - from comber to cover. It was designed exactly to be an insane DRM system able to lock your own computer and other devices against you in exactly this sort of way.
Vista was supposed to include support for this DRM-from-hell chip, but thankfully it's one of the 'features' that got cut when they finally had to push the badly delayed OS out the door.
Beware Trusted Computing, they still intend to shove it down our throats.
-