This is exactly the reason I always advice students to write their thesis in Latex, rather than Microsoft Word. Latex does a better job of typesetting, and is what many people I talk to will end up having to use for journal submissions anyway, but the real kicker is that you don't want the whole thing to blow up and make your document unusable when you're almost done. I've never seen thin happen with Latex. I've seen it happen all too often with Microsoft Word.
Good luck to these unfortunate fellows in their attempts to get the document in a usable state again. I hope this also prompts a reconsideration of the technology choices. Perhaps Latex isn't the best choice for them, or perhaps it is, or perhaps Latex plus some front end will yield a good solution. Or perhaps Microsoft Word will turn out to be the best choice, after all. But there are several options to consider, and now seems a good time to start doing so.
'To date we've invested £48.4m in a combination of staff training, network upgrades, server replacements, hardware and software - and we continue to drive efficiency through innovation.'
Of course, the devil is in the details, so let's see people shoot holes in it and see if we can improve it. I'll start:
I think $100 is too low. I reckon you still get massive spamming that way. Perhaps $1000 is better. Perhaps it needs to be even more. Perhaps that should depend on the industry (oh dear, here we go introducing complexity already). Certainly it needs to be inflation-adjusted somehow.
Secondly, once you register the idea, it's public, right? How does that compare to the current system? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Thirdly, I propose a low barrier to entry process for registering claimed prior art. Once an idea has been registered, allow interested parties to file evidence that shows the idea had already been implemented elsewhere. When the time comes to review the idea for patentability, at least some claims of prior art will already be on file, expediting the process. Here, too, there needs to be a mechanism to prevent spamming - otherwise, I could cause a denial of service attack against my competitor's patent claim by swamping it with prior art claims.
``the flaw is again not with software patents per se, but with the obviousness standard used to evaluate them''
I can accept that. If the standard of obviousness is such that the bright minds in the industry can read the patent and go "Wow! Brilliant! I would never have come up with that!", then it would seem the patent system is serving its purpose of furthering innovation. On the other hand, perhaps that makes it a losing preposition to the patent holder: they paid for a patent on something that nobody else was going to come up with. On the gripping hand, lower the obviousness standard too much and you end up hurting progress by disallowing people to use methods that they invented, but someone else happens to hold a patent on.
I am not sure that the obviousness standard can be set at a level where it will be advantageous for innovators to seek patents, without causing more harm than it does good.
``At best the patent description would only cover a class of algorithms like sort algorithms in general, not something specific like a Quicksort or Bubblesort.''
Now, that's a very serious problem, because, if the patent doesn't show how to actually arrive at the solution, what use is it to the world? I thought patents were explicitly required to describe a working solution for exactly that reason. But then again, I am not actually familiar with US patent law.
It's just as insightful as the original invention.
``Where's the insightful litmus test on how to distinguish between hard work and lazy copy?''
I haven't seen any such test. That means that it cannot be ruled out that someone actually did the hard work, rather than the lazy copy. Yet it's worth nothing, because they can't use the fruit of their labor, because someone else has been granted a monopoly on it.
Arguably, doing hard work and then finding out you aren't allowed to use it could have been avoided by having read the patent beforehand. But how well does that work in practice? Do you know all patents? Will you be able to, before you have put significant effort in working out your idea, finding out with certainty whether there is or isn't a patent on what your eventual method will be? And don't forget the risk in doing your patent homework: if you are later found to infringe on one of the patents you had examined, you face higher fines than if you hadn't seen the patent.
``Not a word about all those master-apprentice trade secrets that got lost over the ages, nor about how the patent race forces you to get results now instead of sitting on your idea for 5 years.''
Fair enough, let's consider the dark sides of not having patents. Not that I am convinced that these two things are necessary consequences of not getting a patent, but I concede that getting a patent now means the invention gets documented now, and that that is a Good Thing.
On the other hand, since we are about getting the complete picture, let's also consider that patents favor large corporations, who have the resources to obtain patents and assert them, versus small fish who run a very real risk of being bankrupted by a patent suit. Also fun: bullying your competitor with patents you have, even if you aren't sure your competitor is infringing on them. Maybe they will be found to infringe. Or maybe they will throw in the towel without even fighting the legal battle. Oh, did I mention that all the patent application and litigation going about makes the industry less efficient?
``Yes, patent don't work as they should, but if you want to fix them come up with solutions to those problems rather than living in Denialand.''
I think people are working to come up with solutions. Abolishing patents is one possibility, but certainly not the only one I've seen mentioned.
I like the word "Denialand", but I think you're going a bit over the top in your post. You seem to suggest that things will go horribly, horribly wrong if we abolish patents. I am not convinced. Since the thread was about patents on algorithms, I'll stick to those. As far as I can tell, such patents have only relatively recently come to be actively asserted. If you can name many cases about patents algorithms from before the 1990s, you know more than I. But, in any case, that's only in the USA. And only in, let's say, the last two decades. Algorithms are much older than that. I would go so far as to say that most of the famous algorithms you may know from your algorithms textbook were invented long before anyone thought about software patents. And, if we see algorithms as a branch of mathematics... mathematics has existed for at least a few thousand years before patents existed, and seems to me to have been doing just fine without patents.
Conversely, what I have seen from software patents looks more like "we don't like that competitor, launch the nukes!!" than like something that actually furthers innovation. What few court cases I know of all look to me like cases where, if there is infringement at all, it seems very likely the result of independent discovery rather than willful implementation after having read the patent. Not to mention the many vague assertions that "competitor X infringes on N of our patents", without specifying any of the patents in question. That's FUD being used to harm the competition.
Bad things will happen when we abolish patents? I only see bad things happening because of patents. If I'm really in Denialand, please help me get out of here. I don't want to feel bad about patents; I want to see the light and realize that, despite their flaws, we're really better off with them.
Thank you. That was a really refreshing point of view. I had never really thought about it that way.
Frankly, I think I'm in the beech camp - I'd happily leave my luxuries behind and go live a simple life without cars, mobile telephones, and yes, even computers, and go live a simple, low-resource-usage life close to nature. Unfortunately, I think you are right: that won't solve the problem, unless I can convince or force an enormous number of people to do likewise.
So the solution is to find ways that are both acceptable to the world's population and sustainable. Indeed, I'm happy to see more and more pieces of that puzzle fall into place: fluorescent lighting, LCD screens, heat pumps, electric cars, hybrid electric cars, biofuels, and on and on. I have been looking into these and promoting those that I find promising, so I guess I'm doing my part for the oaks, too.:-)
Thank you for your interest! I'm actually working on a number of projects simultaneously, but my big project is Mana. It's also the one that is the furthest away from being ready, because I want to use my experience with the other projects to make Mana really good - or at least avoid as many painful mistakes as I can.
The idea for Mana is to take a look at the programming languages already out there (if you take a look at my (outdated) resume, you will see that I know quite a few, and I've looked at more) and combine some of the good ideas into a single language. To give some examples:
- Common Lisp offers extremely powerful abstraction mechanisms, effectively allowing you to grow the language to fit your task, until implementing your program becomes practically trivial. Garbage collection, higher-order functions, macros, and a regular syntax make this work, so Mana will have these, too.
- Haskell and OCaml allow a lot of errors in programs to be detected at compile time. This is made possible by well thought-out type systems and static type checking. Numerous Haskell programmers have had the experience that, once the program makes it through the compiler, it does what you wanted it to do. I would like Mana to also have this ability. Perhaps this can even be extended to handling of errors that can occur at run time, so that a program that makes it through the compiler is guaranteed to not crash (i.e. everything that can happen invokes a code path in the program where the program handles the situation).
Mana is not much more than a rough sketch at this point. In terms of (sub-)projects that are actually useful right now, there is the Voodoo programming language, which has a compiler, as well as a few (as yet unreleased) projects building on it: Antimony, which is basically a set of libraries and utilities to build compilers, and Diamond, which is supposed to become a Ruby-like language with a compiler that can handle enough of the language that I can compile the Voodoo compiler to native code. That's what I'm currently working on, whenever I have time and energy.
In case you would like to discuss about these projects some more, please contact me and we can continue the conversation by email.
``You realize that's effectively nothing more than a way for environmentalists to feel better about themselves, right?''
Yes. But I do like to feel better about myself.:-)
Also, some of the money that goes to carbon credits actually goes to things that I think are worth doing, such as planting trees and research into cleaner energy sources.
``Both types of reactor produce less radioactive waste then coal''
A message that is worth spreading.
At some point, perhaps we will invent a nuclear fuel cycle whose waste can be scattered over the planet without much adverse effect on the environment and public health. Like we do with fossil fuel emissions, but with less harm!
Thank you for trying to work with me here. Indeed, I have done many of the things you propose:
``You could just buy/rent a small apartment on the private market I'm sure. I don't know about countries that forbid someone moving in a small home just because he has too high an income, unless you try to apply for public/subsidised housing of course. Which someone with an above average income (as you imply to have) shouldn't qualify for in the first place.''
That's the issue here. Housing is scored based on things like size and available facilities. The score is the maximum price per month that can be charged for the housing in the public sector. Everything above a certain score is private sector, everything below that is public. My apartment is right near the cutoff point: it's private sector, but you can't get much cheaper than this without getting into the public sector.
Now, I would love to rent a public sector apartment, but that isn't necessarily possible. Depending on municipality and housing organization, it may simply not be allowed, or there may be a long waiting list, often with priority given to people who have urgent need of housing, low income, and/or have lived in the area for a long time. This is what prevents me from moving to a smaller place.
``Your car well I don't know what car you have but hybrids tend to be pretty fuel efficient. Or get a small car. Well Japanese cars in general, European cars a good second. Let's forget about American cars in that respect.''
I drive a Honda Civic hybrid. It's fairly fuel-efficient for a gasoline-powered car. I'd drive on straight vegetable oil or electricity if I could afford that, but government regulations make SVO too expensive and electric cars are expensive because of the batteries. Perhaps when my lease contract runs out, this will have improved. For now, the best I think I can do is offsetting my emissions.
``Getting your job within cycling range will be harder - that would usually mean getting the job first and then finding a home nearby).''
I've mostly done that. My apartment is the closest to work I have been able to get so far. Of course, I work on-site and the site sometimes changes. Some traveling is unavoidable in my current job. And, unfortunately, not always to or from places that are easily accessible by public transport.
``If as you mention you have to go all over the place then getting a fuel efficient car is the second best thing to do.''
Right. So that's what I've done.
Perhaps the next step is convincing people to give me donations so that I can quit my job, get a cheaper and smaller place, and work on my programming language from home.:-)
For the record, let me add that I think your parent's strong words are totally uncalled for.
As for electricity from nuclear fission being expensive, that has been my impression, as well. And that's even _without_ considering the effects of spent fuel and other waste that remains hazardous for a very long time.
Given that, I don't see any current nuclear fission technology as the solution to all our energy needs. However, calling current technology science fiction is a bit of a stretch.
``Thorium, breeder reactors, cold fusion - all of these are favorite slashdot topics, but they have two invariable things in common - they've been a hot topic of popular magazines since the Manhattan project - and none of these are even conceptually on the horizon of viable energy sources.''
I don't think that's quite right.
Several breeder reactors have been built, a number of them are still in operation, and new breeders are planned to be built.
Thorium has been used in several reactors, and India actually has a nuclear program completely geared towards the thorium cycle. The CANDU family of reactors from Canada can also use thorium.
Cold fusion, now, I don't recall ever having anyone seriously advocate that on Slashdot. Had you said fusion power in general, you would have had a point; that's a topic of ongoing research and I am not aware of any (net) electricity-producing fusion plants having been built yet.
``On a serious note, I keep hearing that the next World Wars will be fought over resources. It might be hard for us to imagine this right now, since most Slashdotters get to wake up in soft beds, in airconditioned/heated rooms, take hot showers with nice smelling bath products, and drive the 1-2 miles to Starbucks to enjoy over priced coffee and free Wi-Fi.
All of our amenities, seemingly abundant and unending, provide a natural barrier to understanding just how quickly and totally society can break down when the "basics" become extremely hard to obtain.''
Paradoxically, they are exactly what will bring about that breakdown. We _could_ live at a sustainable level, if we were (collectively) willing to give up some of our luxuries.
I, for one, am willing to reduce my footprint, but I need some help. A few years ago, I was a student, lived in a small apartment with my girlfriend, and we both went everywhere on foot, by bike, or, occasionally, by public transport. We cared about energy efficiency and had far below average energy consumption. I had everything I wanted, and, according to a test I did, lived at a sustainable level.
Now, I have a full-time job, drive a car, and live alone in an apartment that is much larger than I need. I still care about energy efficiency and have below-average energy consumption, but the changes really ruin it. I invest in new technologies that aim to obviate the need for burning fossil fuels in my car, and I buy carbon offsets for my gasoline, electricity, and gas use. Still, I am required to work on site (hence the car), and my income disqualifies me from living in a smaller (cheaper) place. These inefficiencies, which are pressed on me, have lifted me from living at a sustainable level to living at an unsustainable level. If I could move back to my old place (or to something similar) and have everything I need within cycling distance, I would jump at the opportunity. The challenge is doing that and making enough money to sustain myself (at the time, I was racking up debt, which I am now paying off).
Well, cheap and/or environmentally friendly electricity makes a difference in two ways:
First of all, it will make it more attractive to switch to cars that weren't built to run on fossil fuels. As the cost (both in money over distance and in environmental damage over distance) of electric cars becomes more favorable, more people will switch.
Secondly, it is possible to produce fuel that works in gasoline, flex-fuel, and, undoubtedly, Diesel engines without using natural oil - but this isn't necessarily cost-effective or energy-effective. However, if natural oil becomes more expensive and environmentally damaging, or electricity becomes cheaper and more environmentally friendly (or any combination thereof), these options become more compelling.
For those who want the short version: the way I see it, the main advantage of the thorium cycle over the uranium cycle is that it produces MUCH less long-lived transuranics, which are the main problem for radioactive waste storage, which is the main problem with nuclear energy today.
Perhaps someone can provide some actual numbers on how long radioactive waste from the uranium cycle and from the thorium cycle will have to be securely stored. Despite having done quite a lot of reading, I haven't been able to find firm numbers, but I believe it is on the order of hundreds of years for the thorium cycle, versus thousands of years for the uranium cycle.
Then there are a few other benefits, such as thorium being more abundant than uranium and the thorium cycle being based on natural thorium where the uranium cycle is based on a less frequently occurring isotope.
That, and I think Germany is actually doing pretty well in making renewable fuel an attractive option. For example, IIRC, biodiesel is excise-exempt and available at various pumps throughout Germany. Many German cars will run on it, and more can be made to run on it by replacing a few parts.
Also, with German gasoline prices as they are, they are actually not that far away from pure electric vehicles achieving price parity with gasoline-powered vehicles. Since the extra cost of electric vehicles is in the batteries, and you need less battery capacity if you have your own generator on board, plug-in biodiesel-electric hybrids are actually a very attractive proposition in Germany. Alas, I don't think there actually are any. On the other hand, the Chevrolet Volt, BYD F6DM, and Renault Fluence Z.E. are starting to look very attractive. And, of course, Tesla's upcoming Model S. This actually goes for other European countries as well, at least The Netherlands and Denmark.
Actually, german cars (Audi) have already been investigated on sudden unintended acceleration charges in the 1980s.
Turns out it was driver error. Just as with the recent investigation of Toyota.
But you're right. There is still a chance that sudden unintended acceleration will occur because of bugs in the product. Although it probably won't. Probably.
``You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story.''
Indeed. The beauty is that you don't have to like someone to agree with them, and you don't have to agree with them for them to have a point.
It's scary that, although The Right to Read seemed like a whacky conspiracy theory when I first read it, things have rapidly changed to make it a reality since.
Stories like this are quite common with PayPal. On the other hand, the alternatives aren't necessarily much better. Bank transfers are a hassle, especially international transfers, and may be expensive, too. For small amounts of money, they are often not worth the transaction cost and the hassle. Credit card processors often charge high monthly rates, and/or allow buyers to completely bankrupt the seller by calling for a refund, which will be deducted from the seller's balance, with an added reprocessing fee that the seller gets to pay.
I reckon that, by comparison, PayPal is relatively cheap and easy. You can mitigate the risk of them locking your account by not keeping a high balance. Also, IIRC, in the European Union, they are regulated like a bank and cannot easily pull stunts like they do in the USA.
I am sure there are better alternatives, so let's hear them! The problem is largely network effects: banks, credit cards, and PayPal work, because many people can send and receive funds through them. If we all get accounts on a better system, using that system becomes a more viable option for those wishing to exchange funds online.
``It's not unreasonable to think in the light of such statements that warnings of "dirty tricks" implies the "orchestrated by the US government" bit on the end. No, Assange didn't say it but it's fair to assume it.''
If he didn't say it, it is not dishonest for people to say he didn't say it. But you are right:
``And now he's Clintoned the whole thing so we're arguing semantics instead of paying attention to issues of substance.''
Like, forgetting about the messenger, his personality, and who is or isn't trying to damage his reputation, and focusing on the message. Does WikiLeaks or any other source have anything to say that is important, but that the powers that be have been trying to keep from us? That's what I want to know.
As an aside, there is a lesson to be learned here. None of this could have happened if it hadn't been known who was behind WikiLeaks. This is exactly why Slashdot has a "Post Anonymously" option, and why wholesale surveillance and keeping of records by ISPs and hosting providers are dangerous. Regardless of whether or not there is a smear campaign against Julian Assange and regardless of whether he is actually guilty as charged, fact is that his reputation is getting damaged, and, because he is associated with WikiLeaks, that site's reputation is suffering as a result. This is a pity, because cover-ups do happen, and WikiLeaks was just gaining traction and acceptance as a useful source of the truth about such matters. If anyone reading this is thinking about taking up the torch, remember that anonymity is important: it protects both you and your cause.
This is something I have long wondered. Why do we keep doing boycotts and trade embargoes? It seems to me that, when you restrict trade between nations, (1) people on both sides lose (less competition/choice/availability of products), (2) the powerful will still be able to do and get what they want, (3) you make people angry, (4) you make yourself a target for fingerpointing, and (5) you are going against the idea that trade promotes peace (e.g. China and the USA going to war would be an economic disaster for both, so they are unlikely to do it). Considering that embargoes are often instituted with the stated goal of getting some foreign government to play nice, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually achieved the exact opposite of their stated goal. Am I missing something?
``Our model is authoritative. [Wikipedia's] model is one an academic isn't going to be attracted to. If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and change this.''
This is why, when using Wikipedia as a source, you should link to the Wikipedia article at a certain point in time. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=383329630 is always going to refer to that specific version of the article. That way, you won't end up linking to a page that doesn't contain the text that you used in your research.
It's also why Wikipedia policy requires proper citing and disallows original research. When strictly followed, this policy ensures that everything on Wikipedia is backed up by a source somewhere else. Of course, this policy isn't always strictly followed, but, in cases where it isn't, you can always decide the Wikipedia article isn't trustworthy - the same consideration you would have to make for any other source.
I've found that Wikipedia is actually a very reliable source. This surprised me, because I never expected the "everyone can write whatever they want" model would actually produce the quality that Wikipedia has. In hindsight, I think I should have known better. After all, the entire web is built on the "everyone can write whatever they want principle", and, when you get down to it, so are books, newspapers, and pamphlets. And there sure are a lot of questionable pamphlets, newspaper articles, and books out there. Wikipedia at least has policies in place that promote quality, and technical measures that preserve history, make discussions public, and make it easy to restore previous good versions if anyone vandalizes an article.
``Copyleft *doesn't* need copyright. Copyleft uses copyright has a mechanism to ensure software freedom, but you could eliminate copyright as long as you create other mechanism for copyleft to work. For example, consumer protection laws giving them the right to access, modify and distribute the code of any application''
You are right, of course. However, I just don't see that happening. The GPL mandates that you make source code available to every party you make distribute binaries to. Do you see a law being passed that mandates source code be made available for all software that is ever distributed? Personally, I wouldn't even find that desirable. The way things currently are, the software author gets to choose under what conditions, if at all, the software can be distributed. The whole spectrum from no distribution to free distribution without any strings attached is available, including access or no access to the source code, requirement or no requirement to contribute back changes, and so on, and so forth.
I think one size does not fit all, and thus, the ability to freely set terms and conditions is a Good Thing. Copyright enables this, by providing a default case that says you are not allowed to copy, distribute, perform, etc. the work without permission from the right holder. If you were to abolish copyright, this default case would disappear, and although authors could still grant licenses, would-be licensees could just skip the license and use, modify, distribute, etc. the work anyway. I am not sure this is preferable over the current situation.
``I really wish the music industry would realize how important it is to users to have an idea what they are getting before they buy it.''
In every music store I've been to, I could listen to a CD before deciding whether or not to buy it.
Almost all music I've bought, I've bought after listening to it, and the rest because it came on the same album as music I bought after listening to it. I listen to music in many places: in pubs, at friends' places, on the radio in my car, on the Net, and in movies. Other people watch music videos on the likes of MTV.
And what about Youtube? It has music videos and advertisements much like the TV channels. The difference is that, on Youtube, the users decide what gets watched, rather than the TV station.
Many sites that sell music, including, last I checked, amazon.com, let you get 30 second samples of songs without requiring you to buy.
I think the music industry does realize how important it is to let people know what the music is before people buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the reason I always advice students to write their thesis in Latex, rather than Microsoft Word. Latex does a better job of typesetting, and is what many people I talk to will end up having to use for journal submissions anyway, but the real kicker is that you don't want the whole thing to blow up and make your document unusable when you're almost done. I've never seen thin happen with Latex. I've seen it happen all too often with Microsoft Word.
Good luck to these unfortunate fellows in their attempts to get the document in a usable state again. I hope this also prompts a reconsideration of the technology choices. Perhaps Latex isn't the best choice for them, or perhaps it is, or perhaps Latex plus some front end will yield a good solution. Or perhaps Microsoft Word will turn out to be the best choice, after all. But there are several options to consider, and now seems a good time to start doing so.
'To date we've invested £48.4m in a combination of staff training, network upgrades, server replacements, hardware and software - and we continue to drive efficiency through innovation.'
You fail it.
I'm sorry.
There is just no excuse, no making this better.
Try again next life.
I think your idea is worth rather more than $.02.
Of course, the devil is in the details, so let's see people shoot holes in it and see if we can improve it. I'll start:
I think $100 is too low. I reckon you still get massive spamming that way. Perhaps $1000 is better. Perhaps it needs to be even more. Perhaps that should depend on the industry (oh dear, here we go introducing complexity already). Certainly it needs to be inflation-adjusted somehow.
Secondly, once you register the idea, it's public, right? How does that compare to the current system? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Thirdly, I propose a low barrier to entry process for registering claimed prior art. Once an idea has been registered, allow interested parties to file evidence that shows the idea had already been implemented elsewhere. When the time comes to review the idea for patentability, at least some claims of prior art will already be on file, expediting the process. Here, too, there needs to be a mechanism to prevent spamming - otherwise, I could cause a denial of service attack against my competitor's patent claim by swamping it with prior art claims.
There, my EUR 0.02.
``the flaw is again not with software patents per se, but with the obviousness standard used to evaluate them''
I can accept that. If the standard of obviousness is such that the bright minds in the industry can read the patent and go "Wow! Brilliant! I would never have come up with that!", then it would seem the patent system is serving its purpose of furthering innovation. On the other hand, perhaps that makes it a losing preposition to the patent holder: they paid for a patent on something that nobody else was going to come up with. On the gripping hand, lower the obviousness standard too much and you end up hurting progress by disallowing people to use methods that they invented, but someone else happens to hold a patent on.
I am not sure that the obviousness standard can be set at a level where it will be advantageous for innovators to seek patents, without causing more harm than it does good.
``At best the patent description would only cover a class of algorithms like sort algorithms in general, not something specific like a Quicksort or Bubblesort.''
Now, that's a very serious problem, because, if the patent doesn't show how to actually arrive at the solution, what use is it to the world? I thought patents were explicitly required to describe a working solution for exactly that reason. But then again, I am not actually familiar with US patent law.
``How is it insightful to re-invent the wheel?''
It's just as insightful as the original invention.
``Where's the insightful litmus test on how to distinguish between hard work and lazy copy?''
I haven't seen any such test. That means that it cannot be ruled out that someone actually did the hard work, rather than the lazy copy. Yet it's worth nothing, because they can't use the fruit of their labor, because someone else has been granted a monopoly on it.
Arguably, doing hard work and then finding out you aren't allowed to use it could have been avoided by having read the patent beforehand. But how well does that work in practice? Do you know all patents? Will you be able to, before you have put significant effort in working out your idea, finding out with certainty whether there is or isn't a patent on what your eventual method will be? And don't forget the risk in doing your patent homework: if you are later found to infringe on one of the patents you had examined, you face higher fines than if you hadn't seen the patent.
``Not a word about all those master-apprentice trade secrets that got lost over the ages, nor about how the patent race forces you to get results now instead of sitting on your idea for 5 years.''
Fair enough, let's consider the dark sides of not having patents. Not that I am convinced that these two things are necessary consequences of not getting a patent, but I concede that getting a patent now means the invention gets documented now, and that that is a Good Thing.
On the other hand, since we are about getting the complete picture, let's also consider that patents favor large corporations, who have the resources to obtain patents and assert them, versus small fish who run a very real risk of being bankrupted by a patent suit. Also fun: bullying your competitor with patents you have, even if you aren't sure your competitor is infringing on them. Maybe they will be found to infringe. Or maybe they will throw in the towel without even fighting the legal battle. Oh, did I mention that all the patent application and litigation going about makes the industry less efficient?
``Yes, patent don't work as they should, but if you want to fix them come up with solutions to those problems rather than living in Denialand.''
I think people are working to come up with solutions. Abolishing patents is one possibility, but certainly not the only one I've seen mentioned.
I like the word "Denialand", but I think you're going a bit over the top in your post. You seem to suggest that things will go horribly, horribly wrong if we abolish patents. I am not convinced. Since the thread was about patents on algorithms, I'll stick to those. As far as I can tell, such patents have only relatively recently come to be actively asserted. If you can name many cases about patents algorithms from before the 1990s, you know more than I. But, in any case, that's only in the USA. And only in, let's say, the last two decades. Algorithms are much older than that. I would go so far as to say that most of the famous algorithms you may know from your algorithms textbook were invented long before anyone thought about software patents. And, if we see algorithms as a branch of mathematics ... mathematics has existed for at least a few thousand years before patents existed, and seems to me to have been doing just fine without patents.
Conversely, what I have seen from software patents looks more like "we don't like that competitor, launch the nukes!!" than like something that actually furthers innovation. What few court cases I know of all look to me like cases where, if there is infringement at all, it seems very likely the result of independent discovery rather than willful implementation after having read the patent. Not to mention the many vague assertions that "competitor X infringes on N of our patents", without specifying any of the patents in question. That's FUD being used to harm the competition.
Bad things will happen when we abolish patents? I only see bad things happening because of patents. If I'm really in Denialand, please help me get out of here. I don't want to feel bad about patents; I want to see the light and realize that, despite their flaws, we're really better off with them.
Thank you. That was a really refreshing point of view. I had never really thought about it that way.
Frankly, I think I'm in the beech camp - I'd happily leave my luxuries behind and go live a simple life without cars, mobile telephones, and yes, even computers, and go live a simple, low-resource-usage life close to nature. Unfortunately, I think you are right: that won't solve the problem, unless I can convince or force an enormous number of people to do likewise.
So the solution is to find ways that are both acceptable to the world's population and sustainable. Indeed, I'm happy to see more and more pieces of that puzzle fall into place: fluorescent lighting, LCD screens, heat pumps, electric cars, hybrid electric cars, biofuels, and on and on. I have been looking into these and promoting those that I find promising, so I guess I'm doing my part for the oaks, too. :-)
Thank you for your interest! I'm actually working on a number of projects simultaneously, but my big project is Mana. It's also the one that is the furthest away from being ready, because I want to use my experience with the other projects to make Mana really good - or at least avoid as many painful mistakes as I can.
The idea for Mana is to take a look at the programming languages already out there (if you take a look at my (outdated) resume, you will see that I know quite a few, and I've looked at more) and combine some of the good ideas into a single language. To give some examples:
- Common Lisp offers extremely powerful abstraction mechanisms, effectively allowing you to grow the language to fit your task, until implementing your program becomes practically trivial. Garbage collection, higher-order functions, macros, and a regular syntax make this work, so Mana will have these, too.
- Haskell and OCaml allow a lot of errors in programs to be detected at compile time. This is made possible by well thought-out type systems and static type checking. Numerous Haskell programmers have had the experience that, once the program makes it through the compiler, it does what you wanted it to do. I would like Mana to also have this ability. Perhaps this can even be extended to handling of errors that can occur at run time, so that a program that makes it through the compiler is guaranteed to not crash (i.e. everything that can happen invokes a code path in the program where the program handles the situation).
Mana is not much more than a rough sketch at this point. In terms of (sub-)projects that are actually useful right now, there is the Voodoo programming language, which has a compiler, as well as a few (as yet unreleased) projects building on it: Antimony, which is basically a set of libraries and utilities to build compilers, and Diamond, which is supposed to become a Ruby-like language with a compiler that can handle enough of the language that I can compile the Voodoo compiler to native code. That's what I'm currently working on, whenever I have time and energy.
In case you would like to discuss about these projects some more, please contact me and we can continue the conversation by email.
``You realize that's effectively nothing more than a way for environmentalists to feel better about themselves, right?''
Yes. But I do like to feel better about myself. :-)
Also, some of the money that goes to carbon credits actually goes to things that I think are worth doing, such as planting trees and research into cleaner energy sources.
``Both types of reactor produce less radioactive waste then coal''
A message that is worth spreading.
At some point, perhaps we will invent a nuclear fuel cycle whose waste can be scattered over the planet without much adverse effect on the environment and public health. Like we do with fossil fuel emissions, but with less harm!
Thank you for trying to work with me here. Indeed, I have done many of the things you propose:
``You could just buy/rent a small apartment on the private market I'm sure. I don't know about countries that forbid someone moving in a small home just because he has too high an income, unless you try to apply for public/subsidised housing of course. Which someone with an above average income (as you imply to have) shouldn't qualify for in the first place.''
That's the issue here. Housing is scored based on things like size and available facilities. The score is the maximum price per month that can be charged for the housing in the public sector. Everything above a certain score is private sector, everything below that is public. My apartment is right near the cutoff point: it's private sector, but you can't get much cheaper than this without getting into the public sector.
Now, I would love to rent a public sector apartment, but that isn't necessarily possible. Depending on municipality and housing organization, it may simply not be allowed, or there may be a long waiting list, often with priority given to people who have urgent need of housing, low income, and/or have lived in the area for a long time. This is what prevents me from moving to a smaller place.
``Your car well I don't know what car you have but hybrids tend to be pretty fuel efficient. Or get a small car. Well Japanese cars in general, European cars a good second. Let's forget about American cars in that respect.''
I drive a Honda Civic hybrid. It's fairly fuel-efficient for a gasoline-powered car. I'd drive on straight vegetable oil or electricity if I could afford that, but government regulations make SVO too expensive and electric cars are expensive because of the batteries. Perhaps when my lease contract runs out, this will have improved. For now, the best I think I can do is offsetting my emissions.
``Getting your job within cycling range will be harder - that would usually mean getting the job first and then finding a home nearby).''
I've mostly done that. My apartment is the closest to work I have been able to get so far. Of course, I work on-site and the site sometimes changes. Some traveling is unavoidable in my current job. And, unfortunately, not always to or from places that are easily accessible by public transport.
``If as you mention you have to go all over the place then getting a fuel efficient car is the second best thing to do.''
Right. So that's what I've done.
Perhaps the next step is convincing people to give me donations so that I can quit my job, get a cheaper and smaller place, and work on my programming language from home. :-)
For the record, let me add that I think your parent's strong words are totally uncalled for.
As for electricity from nuclear fission being expensive, that has been my impression, as well. And that's even _without_ considering the effects of spent fuel and other waste that remains hazardous for a very long time.
Given that, I don't see any current nuclear fission technology as the solution to all our energy needs. However, calling current technology science fiction is a bit of a stretch.
``Thorium, breeder reactors, cold fusion - all of these are favorite slashdot topics, but they have two invariable things in common - they've been a hot topic of popular magazines since the Manhattan project - and none of these are even conceptually on the horizon of viable energy sources.''
I don't think that's quite right.
Several breeder reactors have been built, a number of them are still in operation, and new breeders are planned to be built.
Thorium has been used in several reactors, and India actually has a nuclear program completely geared towards the thorium cycle. The CANDU family of reactors from Canada can also use thorium.
Cold fusion, now, I don't recall ever having anyone seriously advocate that on Slashdot. Had you said fusion power in general, you would have had a point; that's a topic of ongoing research and I am not aware of any (net) electricity-producing fusion plants having been built yet.
``On a serious note, I keep hearing that the next World Wars will be fought over resources. It might be hard for us to imagine this right now, since most Slashdotters get to wake up in soft beds, in airconditioned/heated rooms, take hot showers with nice smelling bath products, and drive the 1-2 miles to Starbucks to enjoy over priced coffee and free Wi-Fi.
All of our amenities, seemingly abundant and unending, provide a natural barrier to understanding just how quickly and totally society can break down when the "basics" become extremely hard to obtain.''
Paradoxically, they are exactly what will bring about that breakdown. We _could_ live at a sustainable level, if we were (collectively) willing to give up some of our luxuries.
I, for one, am willing to reduce my footprint, but I need some help. A few years ago, I was a student, lived in a small apartment with my girlfriend, and we both went everywhere on foot, by bike, or, occasionally, by public transport. We cared about energy efficiency and had far below average energy consumption. I had everything I wanted, and, according to a test I did, lived at a sustainable level.
Now, I have a full-time job, drive a car, and live alone in an apartment that is much larger than I need. I still care about energy efficiency and have below-average energy consumption, but the changes really ruin it. I invest in new technologies that aim to obviate the need for burning fossil fuels in my car, and I buy carbon offsets for my gasoline, electricity, and gas use. Still, I am required to work on site (hence the car), and my income disqualifies me from living in a smaller (cheaper) place. These inefficiencies, which are pressed on me, have lifted me from living at a sustainable level to living at an unsustainable level. If I could move back to my old place (or to something similar) and have everything I need within cycling distance, I would jump at the opportunity. The challenge is doing that and making enough money to sustain myself (at the time, I was racking up debt, which I am now paying off).
Well, cheap and/or environmentally friendly electricity makes a difference in two ways:
First of all, it will make it more attractive to switch to cars that weren't built to run on fossil fuels. As the cost (both in money over distance and in environmental damage over distance) of electric cars becomes more favorable, more people will switch.
Secondly, it is possible to produce fuel that works in gasoline, flex-fuel, and, undoubtedly, Diesel engines without using natural oil - but this isn't necessarily cost-effective or energy-effective. However, if natural oil becomes more expensive and environmentally damaging, or electricity becomes cheaper and more environmentally friendly (or any combination thereof), these options become more compelling.
For those who want the short version: the way I see it, the main advantage of the thorium cycle over the uranium cycle is that it produces MUCH less long-lived transuranics, which are the main problem for radioactive waste storage, which is the main problem with nuclear energy today.
Perhaps someone can provide some actual numbers on how long radioactive waste from the uranium cycle and from the thorium cycle will have to be securely stored. Despite having done quite a lot of reading, I haven't been able to find firm numbers, but I believe it is on the order of hundreds of years for the thorium cycle, versus thousands of years for the uranium cycle.
Then there are a few other benefits, such as thorium being more abundant than uranium and the thorium cycle being based on natural thorium where the uranium cycle is based on a less frequently occurring isotope.
Several existing reactors (particularly pressurized heavy water reactors like the CANDU family and Indian reactors) have been shown to work with thorium, and reactors like the molten salt reactor and India's advanced heavy water reactor are being specifically designed to use thorium.
That, and I think Germany is actually doing pretty well in making renewable fuel an attractive option. For example, IIRC, biodiesel is excise-exempt and available at various pumps throughout Germany. Many German cars will run on it, and more can be made to run on it by replacing a few parts.
Also, with German gasoline prices as they are, they are actually not that far away from pure electric vehicles achieving price parity with gasoline-powered vehicles. Since the extra cost of electric vehicles is in the batteries, and you need less battery capacity if you have your own generator on board, plug-in biodiesel-electric hybrids are actually a very attractive proposition in Germany. Alas, I don't think there actually are any. On the other hand, the Chevrolet Volt, BYD F6DM, and Renault Fluence Z.E. are starting to look very attractive. And, of course, Tesla's upcoming Model S. This actually goes for other European countries as well, at least The Netherlands and Denmark.
Actually, german cars (Audi) have already been investigated on sudden unintended acceleration charges in the 1980s.
Turns out it was driver error. Just as with the recent investigation of Toyota.
But you're right. There is still a chance that sudden unintended acceleration will occur because of bugs in the product. Although it probably won't. Probably.
``You know, as much as I hate to agree with FLOSSies on...well pretty much anything, I have to say RMS is looking spot on with his right to read story.''
Indeed. The beauty is that you don't have to like someone to agree with them, and you don't have to agree with them for them to have a point.
It's scary that, although The Right to Read seemed like a whacky conspiracy theory when I first read it, things have rapidly changed to make it a reality since.
Stories like this are quite common with PayPal. On the other hand, the alternatives aren't necessarily much better. Bank transfers are a hassle, especially international transfers, and may be expensive, too. For small amounts of money, they are often not worth the transaction cost and the hassle. Credit card processors often charge high monthly rates, and/or allow buyers to completely bankrupt the seller by calling for a refund, which will be deducted from the seller's balance, with an added reprocessing fee that the seller gets to pay.
I reckon that, by comparison, PayPal is relatively cheap and easy. You can mitigate the risk of them locking your account by not keeping a high balance. Also, IIRC, in the European Union, they are regulated like a bank and cannot easily pull stunts like they do in the USA.
I am sure there are better alternatives, so let's hear them! The problem is largely network effects: banks, credit cards, and PayPal work, because many people can send and receive funds through them. If we all get accounts on a better system, using that system becomes a more viable option for those wishing to exchange funds online.
``It's not unreasonable to think in the light of such statements that warnings of "dirty tricks" implies the "orchestrated by the US government" bit on the end. No, Assange didn't say it but it's fair to assume it.''
If he didn't say it, it is not dishonest for people to say he didn't say it. But you are right:
``And now he's Clintoned the whole thing so we're arguing semantics instead of paying attention to issues of substance.''
Like, forgetting about the messenger, his personality, and who is or isn't trying to damage his reputation, and focusing on the message. Does WikiLeaks or any other source have anything to say that is important, but that the powers that be have been trying to keep from us? That's what I want to know.
As an aside, there is a lesson to be learned here. None of this could have happened if it hadn't been known who was behind WikiLeaks. This is exactly why Slashdot has a "Post Anonymously" option, and why wholesale surveillance and keeping of records by ISPs and hosting providers are dangerous. Regardless of whether or not there is a smear campaign against Julian Assange and regardless of whether he is actually guilty as charged, fact is that his reputation is getting damaged, and, because he is associated with WikiLeaks, that site's reputation is suffering as a result. This is a pity, because cover-ups do happen, and WikiLeaks was just gaining traction and acceptance as a useful source of the truth about such matters. If anyone reading this is thinking about taking up the torch, remember that anonymity is important: it protects both you and your cause.
This is something I have long wondered. Why do we keep doing boycotts and trade embargoes? It seems to me that, when you restrict trade between nations, (1) people on both sides lose (less competition/choice/availability of products), (2) the powerful will still be able to do and get what they want, (3) you make people angry, (4) you make yourself a target for fingerpointing, and (5) you are going against the idea that trade promotes peace (e.g. China and the USA going to war would be an economic disaster for both, so they are unlikely to do it). Considering that embargoes are often instituted with the stated goal of getting some foreign government to play nice, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually achieved the exact opposite of their stated goal. Am I missing something?
``Our model is authoritative. [Wikipedia's] model is one an academic isn't going to be attracted to. If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and change this.''
This is why, when using Wikipedia as a source, you should link to the Wikipedia article at a certain point in time. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=383329630 is always going to refer to that specific version of the article. That way, you won't end up linking to a page that doesn't contain the text that you used in your research.
It's also why Wikipedia policy requires proper citing and disallows original research. When strictly followed, this policy ensures that everything on Wikipedia is backed up by a source somewhere else. Of course, this policy isn't always strictly followed, but, in cases where it isn't, you can always decide the Wikipedia article isn't trustworthy - the same consideration you would have to make for any other source.
I've found that Wikipedia is actually a very reliable source. This surprised me, because I never expected the "everyone can write whatever they want" model would actually produce the quality that Wikipedia has. In hindsight, I think I should have known better. After all, the entire web is built on the "everyone can write whatever they want principle", and, when you get down to it, so are books, newspapers, and pamphlets. And there sure are a lot of questionable pamphlets, newspaper articles, and books out there. Wikipedia at least has policies in place that promote quality, and technical measures that preserve history, make discussions public, and make it easy to restore previous good versions if anyone vandalizes an article.
``Copyleft *doesn't* need copyright. Copyleft uses copyright has a mechanism to ensure software freedom, but you could eliminate copyright as long as you create other mechanism for copyleft to work. For example, consumer protection laws giving them the right to access, modify and distribute the code of any application''
You are right, of course. However, I just don't see that happening. The GPL mandates that you make source code available to every party you make distribute binaries to. Do you see a law being passed that mandates source code be made available for all software that is ever distributed? Personally, I wouldn't even find that desirable. The way things currently are, the software author gets to choose under what conditions, if at all, the software can be distributed. The whole spectrum from no distribution to free distribution without any strings attached is available, including access or no access to the source code, requirement or no requirement to contribute back changes, and so on, and so forth.
I think one size does not fit all, and thus, the ability to freely set terms and conditions is a Good Thing. Copyright enables this, by providing a default case that says you are not allowed to copy, distribute, perform, etc. the work without permission from the right holder. If you were to abolish copyright, this default case would disappear, and although authors could still grant licenses, would-be licensees could just skip the license and use, modify, distribute, etc. the work anyway. I am not sure this is preferable over the current situation.
``I really wish the music industry would realize how important it is to users to have an idea what they are getting before they buy it.''
In every music store I've been to, I could listen to a CD before deciding whether or not to buy it.
Almost all music I've bought, I've bought after listening to it, and the rest because it came on the same album as music I bought after listening to it. I listen to music in many places: in pubs, at friends' places, on the radio in my car, on the Net, and in movies. Other people watch music videos on the likes of MTV.
And what about Youtube? It has music videos and advertisements much like the TV channels. The difference is that, on Youtube, the users decide what gets watched, rather than the TV station.
Many sites that sell music, including, last I checked, amazon.com, let you get 30 second samples of songs without requiring you to buy.
I think the music industry does realize how important it is to let people know what the music is before people buy it.