This is the same administration that objects to creating a.xxx top level domain. Come on, make the tld so all the porn can be put into it's own niche and filtering software will actually prevent children from viewing it. And with all porn legally required to be tucked away in the.xxx it would make it that much easier to get action when someone tries to put it in a.com. Gonzales wants porn to carry an identifying mark - well a.xxx domain would be that and would work within the existing infrastructure of the Internet.
I'd like to see it made illegal for software to resist an uninstall (e.g. reinstalling itself on the next reboot). Seriously, if you want it gone and it's your machine who the hell do they think they are to stop you?
I wish Orwell's 1984 was required to be taught and discussed to death in citizenship classes in high school. What most people don't seem to understand is that 1984 is not really about "big brother" but instead it foretells what Orwell deeply distrusted: a global information system and the abuse of it. In a way Orwell was a pessimist - he knew that no matter how well intentioned any system would be abused. UAV's are a symptom of Orwell's fears, they are just more information inputs into a global database. By themselves it's almost silly to complain about them but in aggregate with other databases the whole becomes dangerous to liberty. Everyone has broken some law somewhere and if that information is easily looked up it makes everyone susceptible to blackmail - who did you have an affair with last year? There was an old soviet joke about having laws against everything so if the KGB wanted you they would simply selectively enforce any law they wanted to against you. What citizens should demand to combat Orwell's dystopia is transparency in the process' and records of their government. Yes some things do need to be classified but they are usually the exception and not the rule. And no matter how classified everything should eventually become known.
Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight.;):)
I disagree.
If you consider the possible search space wherin each program's number is located, its almost infinity to 1 for every useful program. What the software patents are meant to protect is the effort expended in finding the program's number within so many possible ways (with practically all ways broken).
And just because a computer contains a processor that is subset of a Universal Turing Machine (e.g. can only run any computable program within finite limits (real UTM's would have an infinite tape)) doesn't mean that the collection of numbers that define a program are not an actual construct. The arrangement of numbers is physically modeled and computed using real physical logic gates and that total state is an arrangement of a machine so it is "real".
I still believe that people should give their software away so everyone else will too - it's like the prisoner's dilemma: if you both co-operate you'll both benefit. With free software what you get back is generally quite a bit more than what you put in.
2006 will be the year we finally achieve a sustained controlled fusion reaction! My 1970 copy of the new book of knowledge annual edition says it's just around the corner! Let's hope its not around the corner for another 35 years as we really do need it....
...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States --U.S. Constitution amendment XIV
The states cannot take away rights that originate from citizenship.
Now I'm about to be corrected by someone who really knows what they're talking about;)
Um, how about we keep the intelligence in humans instead? There's nothing a superintelligence can do that enough well organized humans can't. Although it would probably take longer with people, what's the hurry? Back to organization - the forest is a distict entity based on trees. You can be a human tree and let the emergent forest do its thing hopefully in a human valued way or you can delegate your decisions to a machine and risk irrelevence.
Even worse, to me it seems like he's patenting association between items of data. That data could be as simple as username:password or something like a dictionary in Python: dictionary['key']=value. And since thats prior art in languages, it only leaves performing the operation over the Internet. Which I don't think is novel enough to patent nowadays.
I think NASA should set up a funding program where they pay people some huge ratio of gold to moon rocks in weight. Then let market forces work and have private enterprise mining the moon to bring home the new gold. And once the moon becomes passe make Mars rocks the new motivator.
I know what you mean but, every human subjective feeling is quantified in a way. A measure of brain activity will if accurate enough always provide a bridge from the qualitative feeling to a readout of quantitative measure. I'm contrasting the logic of the brain with the physical mechanism. And with that said I still agree with you.
I think the difference between open and closed standards is simply the ability to easily migrate your data to a new standard with open standards. That's what Microsoft does not want.
Narf.
I think on the other hand that it serves a dual purpose: it allows large companies to step outside of the "not invented here" syndrome and really scrutinize ideas that may be suppressed in their own corporate cultures, and, for the person who has the idea the pay is acceptable - take a million dollars guaranteed without taking all the risk in actually bringing the product to market and hoping it pans out. Overall I agree that the large companies have little to lose but I don't neccessarily agree that the money offered to the developers is too little.
You haven't been taken out back and shot at least. If you want to keep secrets don't tell them to anyone, not even your computer. And be on reasonable behaviour and it would be relatively more difficult to pull a skeleton out of the closet.
Orwell and Huxley were warning of dystopic world information systems that were centralized and one-way - information about you to them. The Internet has turned out quite a bit better than feared no doubt and to keep it that way warnings of their nature do need to be brought out and pranced about a bit at the appropriate moments. Living on your feet and doing your part to keep your government on task are the paths and costs of freedom.
Except they're working on the principle of guilt by association at least for the terrorist justifications. If you communicate with a known terrorist consciously or not it will rub off on you. That's why they're only recording times, ip's, and ports - for what they need they don't need to record the data.
Not physically of course, but instead raise your voice! The 'Net is the best damn communication medium I think anyones ever seen - use it. Seriously Slashdot may not seem like it makes a difference but collectivly the ebb and flow of conversation influences people and if what you say is coherent enough maybe many people. Logging? Doesn't matter. What would really matter is if civil conversations became prohibited because that's what it would take to stop the most amazing tool of freedom ever invented.
The API gives you access to a enterprise class web-crawler for one. And we're saying the same thing, you say content I say data and infrastructure. The content needs delivery and Google giving you access to their server farms to build your own custom logic on top of their services/information.
I think Google being nice by allowing really anyone to use their backend data and infrastructure, it seems like the modern day equivalent of the Stone Soup fable. What makes me think Google will succeed is that it's an open platform that anyone can target and being open allows participation that leads to those pesky positive-feedback economic effects whose acknowlegement was resisted even to the very recent past.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the same administration that objects to creating a .xxx top level domain. Come on, make the tld so all the porn can be put into it's own niche and filtering software will actually prevent children from viewing it. And with all porn legally required to be tucked away in the .xxx it would make it that much easier to get action when someone tries to put it in a .com. Gonzales wants porn to carry an identifying mark - well a .xxx domain would be that and would work within the existing infrastructure of the Internet.
Everyone complains that Microsoft does not release their patches fast enough or that they don't do adequate testing. They can't win either way.
I'd like to see it made illegal for software to resist an uninstall (e.g. reinstalling itself on the next reboot). Seriously, if you want it gone and it's your machine who the hell do they think they are to stop you?
I wish Orwell's 1984 was required to be taught and discussed to death in citizenship classes in high school. What most people don't seem to understand is that 1984 is not really about "big brother" but instead it foretells what Orwell deeply distrusted: a global information system and the abuse of it. In a way Orwell was a pessimist - he knew that no matter how well intentioned any system would be abused. UAV's are a symptom of Orwell's fears, they are just more information inputs into a global database. By themselves it's almost silly to complain about them but in aggregate with other databases the whole becomes dangerous to liberty. Everyone has broken some law somewhere and if that information is easily looked up it makes everyone susceptible to blackmail - who did you have an affair with last year? There was an old soviet joke about having laws against everything so if the KGB wanted you they would simply selectively enforce any law they wanted to against you. What citizens should demand to combat Orwell's dystopia is transparency in the process' and records of their government. Yes some things do need to be classified but they are usually the exception and not the rule. And no matter how classified everything should eventually become known.
;) :)
Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight.
Papers please.
(Not to be confused with the East German version)
Actually, I just wanted a semi-related post to go with my new .sig 8P
... legally ...
Yeah, but there's still no Linux support as the files are DRM'd.
I disagree.
If you consider the possible search space wherin each program's number is located, its almost infinity to 1 for every useful program. What the software patents are meant to protect is the effort expended in finding the program's number within so many possible ways (with practically all ways broken).
And just because a computer contains a processor that is subset of a Universal Turing Machine (e.g. can only run any computable program within finite limits (real UTM's would have an infinite tape)) doesn't mean that the collection of numbers that define a program are not an actual construct. The arrangement of numbers is physically modeled and computed using real physical logic gates and that total state is an arrangement of a machine so it is "real".
I still believe that people should give their software away so everyone else will too - it's like the prisoner's dilemma: if you both co-operate you'll both benefit. With free software what you get back is generally quite a bit more than what you put in.
2006 will be the year we finally achieve a sustained controlled fusion reaction! My 1970 copy of the new book of knowledge annual edition says it's just around the corner! Let's hope its not around the corner for another 35 years as we really do need it....
...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States --U.S. Constitution amendment XIV
;)
The states cannot take away rights that originate from citizenship.
Now I'm about to be corrected by someone who really knows what they're talking about
It's not broken, just in a transition between adapted states. 8P ;)
Nature is really tough and will survive if even you and I don't. Merry Christmas!!!
Um, how about we keep the intelligence in humans instead? There's nothing a superintelligence can do that enough well organized humans can't. Although it would probably take longer with people, what's the hurry? Back to organization - the forest is a distict entity based on trees. You can be a human tree and let the emergent forest do its thing hopefully in a human valued way or you can delegate your decisions to a machine and risk irrelevence.
Even worse, to me it seems like he's patenting association between items of data. That data could be as simple as username:password or something like a dictionary in Python: dictionary['key']=value. And since thats prior art in languages, it only leaves performing the operation over the Internet. Which I don't think is novel enough to patent nowadays.
*shrug* Probably, there was that TNG episode with Scotty where he was marooned in a transporter buffer on a Dyson Sphere...
I think NASA should set up a funding program where they pay people some huge ratio of gold to moon rocks in weight. Then let market forces work and have private enterprise mining the moon to bring home the new gold. And once the moon becomes passe make Mars rocks the new motivator.
I know what you mean but, every human subjective feeling is quantified in a way. A measure of brain activity will if accurate enough always provide a bridge from the qualitative feeling to a readout of quantitative measure. I'm contrasting the logic of the brain with the physical mechanism. And with that said I still agree with you.
I think she's proven as a decision maker and project manager although.
I think the difference between open and closed standards is simply the ability to easily migrate your data to a new standard with open standards. That's what Microsoft does not want.
Narf.
I think on the other hand that it serves a dual purpose: it allows large companies to step outside of the "not invented here" syndrome and really scrutinize ideas that may be suppressed in their own corporate cultures, and, for the person who has the idea the pay is acceptable - take a million dollars guaranteed without taking all the risk in actually bringing the product to market and hoping it pans out. Overall I agree that the large companies have little to lose but I don't neccessarily agree that the money offered to the developers is too little.
You haven't been taken out back and shot at least. If you want to keep secrets don't tell them to anyone, not even your computer. And be on reasonable behaviour and it would be relatively more difficult to pull a skeleton out of the closet.
Orwell and Huxley were warning of dystopic world information systems that were centralized and one-way - information about you to them. The Internet has turned out quite a bit better than feared no doubt and to keep it that way warnings of their nature do need to be brought out and pranced about a bit at the appropriate moments. Living on your feet and doing your part to keep your government on task are the paths and costs of freedom.
Except they're working on the principle of guilt by association at least for the terrorist justifications. If you communicate with a known terrorist consciously or not it will rub off on you. That's why they're only recording times, ip's, and ports - for what they need they don't need to record the data.
Not physically of course, but instead raise your voice! The 'Net is the best damn communication medium I think anyones ever seen - use it. Seriously Slashdot may not seem like it makes a difference but collectivly the ebb and flow of conversation influences people and if what you say is coherent enough maybe many people. Logging? Doesn't matter. What would really matter is if civil conversations became prohibited because that's what it would take to stop the most amazing tool of freedom ever invented.
The API gives you access to a enterprise class web-crawler for one. And we're saying the same thing, you say content I say data and infrastructure. The content needs delivery and Google giving you access to their server farms to build your own custom logic on top of their services/information.
I think Google being nice by allowing really anyone to use their backend data and infrastructure, it seems like the modern day equivalent of the Stone Soup fable. What makes me think Google will succeed is that it's an open platform that anyone can target and being open allows participation that leads to those pesky positive-feedback economic effects whose acknowlegement was resisted even to the very recent past.
We're speaking English.