What do those numbers look like if you first subtract out the money paid by residents of those two regions to the federal government in the form of income tax? In other words, what's the *net* per-capita expenditure per region?
Huh what? A hostage-holding nut engages in a "stand-off" with law enforcement, and you label that as torture by the government in the form of forced standing for long periods of time?
Hey, you forgot to mention the case of extraordinary rendition in which Elian Gonzales was sent to Cuba to be interrogated by his father.
he probably checked the driving distance and his car's MPG, and bought exactly the amount used on the trip.
Why? In case somebody happened to look at his fuel gauge right before his trip and immediately after, so that they wouldn't suspect he had gone anywhere, despite the odometer change?
You're missing the point. How many patents are there out there for a new lever design? Zero. The innovation of producing a system that does something useful usually comes from combining basic machine elements (levers, screws (which are a form of lever), gears, etc) in new ways to achieve some result. In other words, the innovation and usefulness comes from *using* these basic components in new ways.
It's the same with software. The innovation comes from combining basic machine elements (instructions) in new and innovative ways to achieve some result. Embedding new sequences of instructions in a machine makes a new machine, in precisely the same way that attaching a bunch of screws, gears, blades levers, etc together in different ways can make a refrigerator, or an automobile, or a vacuum cleaner. Each of these devices is an invention, despite the fact that they all merely *use* the same basic machine elements.
Then no electronic device should be patentable. They all use basic electronic components (e.g. resistor, capacitor, transistor, inductor) in precisely the way they were designed to be used.
I can probably make a similar argument about mechanical devices that rely on levers, gears, screws, etc.
Serfdom (and the outright slavery) disappeared, not because of laws or regulations, but because it was inefficient.
Absolutely. When The South voluntarily abolished slavery to reap the efficiency rewards of paid-labor, they hired all the Black former-slaves by offering competitive salaries and benefits. When the North tried to recruit them with better perks, the South refused to waive their non-compete agreements, forcing the Northern aggressors to invade.
IANAL, but it seems to me that the terms "independent" and "subsidiary" are mutually exclusive. If there is a common parent company, the parent company is doing business in the US via the subsidiary in the US. So you just order the parent company to produce the logs. And if they have to demand it from the other subsidiary in another country, that's an "implementation detail" that is of no concern to us.
No. Theories are not promoted to laws. Laws are nothing more than general statements of observations that are generally considered to be true. Snell's law, Ohm's law, the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, were not promoted from the status of "mere" theories. Actually, that's a bit of an over-statement. Not all "laws" are universally true. Ohm's Law, for example, just describes a relationship between voltage and current for devices that, well..., for devices that obey it. A resistor obeys Ohm's Law, but a diode does not. Nevertheless, a "law" merely expresses a particular observed phenomena.
Conversely, a theory, in the scientific context, is more appropriately considered an explanation for some observed phenomena, by means of a model of reality from which the observed phenomena can be logically deduced and predicted. Its strength lies in its ability to predict other not-as-yet observed phenomena, which, when finally observed, is said to confirm (not prove) the theory. The more experimental confirmation a theory receives, the stronger it is. But a theory is never proven, since a single contradictory experiment can disprove or falsify a theory. In fact, falsifiability is regarded as something that makes a claim scientific in the first place, and therefore is largely considered a pre-requisite for something to be a "theory".
My allegedly false statement was not false. It's not illegal for people other than the patent holder to implement patented algorithms if said people license the algorithm from the patent holder, which happens all the time.
Certainly, there are likely to be fewer implementations of an algorithm if an algorithm is patented. You said there was only one. Furthermore, your "thesis" is a non sequitur as well. Increasing the number of implementations of a given algorithm doesn't mean the subsequent implementations are higher quality than the first. Knock-offs in other areas are often lower quality than the original.
As for what's relevant, the relative difficulty of algorithm design versus implementation is precisly what we're talking about, and it's what you commented on.
I agree with you that writing software is not a matter of translating pseudocode, but implementing an algorithm basically is. I also agree with you about how much of a typical software system is comprised of complex algorithms. And I agree with you that the complex algorithms aren't what determines its *quality*, but they may very well be the entire purpose of the program.
I won't presume to know what your background is, but I believe your self-assessment of your background is somewhat incongruous with silly blanket statements like "there's nothing hard about algorithms" and blatently false statements about the legality of plural implementations of a patented algorithm.
Utter nonsense (and my bubble is intact, thank you very much). First, the statement that "there's nothing hard about algorithms", is inane merely by virtue of making such a generalization about all algorithms, as if all problems are equally hard to solve. Second, some algorithms are not at all obvious. Open a book sometime and look up the algorithms for certain concurrency primitives, or complicated data structures like red-black trees. Third, while coding up large and complicated systems is certainly labor-intensive, it's not innovative. Fourth, the fact that you don't care how cool an algorithm is shows that you've never had to solve a problem that someone else didn't already solve, because taking someone else's algorithm and translating it from pseudo-code to your favorite programming language is usually a fairly mechanical process. Thus, you haven't developed an appreciation for the problem-solving process. Fifth, the number of implementations that exist, or may exist, for a given algorithm, is not at all dictated by whether or not the algorithm is patented. Nor is the quality of the implementation(s). That's just a complete non-sequitur.
The appropriate way to protect software is through copyright, not patent. This is only true if you honestly believe that the true ingenuity lies not in coming up with a novel algorithm for solving some sophisticated problem, but in performing the undergrad-level task of implementing said algorithm in code.
What constitutes evidence here? If a whole boatload of children go from being normal to starting to show symptoms right after getting shots, how long can you continue to yell "correlation != causation" with a straight face?
No,I think you misunderstand the notion of Fair Use being a defense, not a right. You made an analogy comparing Fair Use with the First Ammendment, and showed how the First Ammendment is similar in that you only invoke it when accused of breaking the law, but that's where the similarity ends. The difference between the notion of a "right" and a "defense", as I understand it (obDisclaimer: IANAL), is that rights can be violated if you are prevented from exercising them. DRM on a copyrighted work doesn't "violate your rights" precisely because Fair Use is a defense, not a right.
Is the problem just CFLs? Or does the same issue apply to all the long fluorescent tubes that have been around for decades?
OT: Sorry for replying to this message rather than the story, but Slashdot's "reply to story" button seems to have vanished from me, though it could just be that I haven't finished my coffee yet.
Slashdot Mirror
What do those numbers look like if you first subtract out the money paid by residents of those two regions to the federal government in the form of income tax? In other words, what's the *net* per-capita expenditure per region?
Then why do they do the test even on the 1%?
Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.
You think Microsoft would drop a feature due to security concerns?
Huh what? A hostage-holding nut engages in a "stand-off" with law enforcement, and you label that as torture by the government in the form of forced standing for long periods of time?
Hey, you forgot to mention the case of extraordinary rendition in which Elian Gonzales was sent to Cuba to be interrogated by his father.
suggests the actions of a loan deranged scientist [...]
Sometimes makes me think we should've never borrowed that guy in the first place.
he probably checked the driving distance and his car's MPG, and bought exactly the amount used on the trip.
Why? In case somebody happened to look at his fuel gauge right before his trip and immediately after, so that they wouldn't suspect he had gone anywhere, despite the odometer change?
But you can't justify it "morally" that you play god and decide who may live and who will die should it really happen.
We can't? Don't we already have underground bunkers for such people in the event of a nuclear attack?
You're missing the point. How many patents are there out there for a new lever design? Zero. The innovation of producing a system that does something useful usually comes from combining basic machine elements (levers, screws (which are a form of lever), gears, etc) in new ways to achieve some result. In other words, the innovation and usefulness comes from *using* these basic components in new ways.
It's the same with software. The innovation comes from combining basic machine elements (instructions) in new and innovative ways to achieve some result. Embedding new sequences of instructions in a machine makes a new machine, in precisely the same way that attaching a bunch of screws, gears, blades levers, etc together in different ways can make a refrigerator, or an automobile, or a vacuum cleaner. Each of these devices is an invention, despite the fact that they all merely *use* the same basic machine elements.
Then no electronic device should be patentable. They all use basic electronic components (e.g. resistor, capacitor, transistor, inductor) in precisely the way they were designed to be used.
I can probably make a similar argument about mechanical devices that rely on levers, gears, screws, etc.
Absolutely. When The South voluntarily abolished slavery to reap the efficiency rewards of paid-labor, they hired all the Black former-slaves by offering competitive salaries and benefits. When the North tried to recruit them with better perks, the South refused to waive their non-compete agreements, forcing the Northern aggressors to invade.
... applications absolutely, positively, will not, under any circumstances, steal the keyboard focus.
IANAL, but it seems to me that the terms "independent" and "subsidiary" are mutually exclusive. If there is a common parent company, the parent company is doing business in the US via the subsidiary in the US. So you just order the parent company to produce the logs. And if they have to demand it from the other subsidiary in another country, that's an "implementation detail" that is of no concern to us.
If you die from doing that, then why aren't you dead already, wanker? You do it all the time -- at least that's what your mom said to me last night!
You forgot to say, "..., Trebek!"
You might change your tune if your name were Mr. Ferrari and you made your money by designing, building, and selling those cars.
No. Theories are not promoted to laws. Laws are nothing more than general statements of observations that are generally considered to be true. Snell's law, Ohm's law, the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, were not promoted from the status of "mere" theories. Actually, that's a bit of an over-statement. Not all "laws" are universally true. Ohm's Law, for example, just describes a relationship between voltage and current for devices that, well..., for devices that obey it. A resistor obeys Ohm's Law, but a diode does not. Nevertheless, a "law" merely expresses a particular observed phenomena.
Conversely, a theory, in the scientific context, is more appropriately considered an explanation for some observed phenomena, by means of a model of reality from which the observed phenomena can be logically deduced and predicted. Its strength lies in its ability to predict other not-as-yet observed phenomena, which, when finally observed, is said to confirm (not prove) the theory. The more experimental confirmation a theory receives, the stronger it is. But a theory is never proven, since a single contradictory experiment can disprove or falsify a theory. In fact, falsifiability is regarded as something that makes a claim scientific in the first place, and therefore is largely considered a pre-requisite for something to be a "theory".
There was no ad hominem in my reply.
My allegedly false statement was not false. It's not illegal for people other than the patent holder to implement patented algorithms if said people license the algorithm from the patent holder, which happens all the time.
Certainly, there are likely to be fewer implementations of an algorithm if an algorithm is patented. You said there was only one. Furthermore, your "thesis" is a non sequitur as well. Increasing the number of implementations of a given algorithm doesn't mean the subsequent implementations are higher quality than the first. Knock-offs in other areas are often lower quality than the original.
As for what's relevant, the relative difficulty of algorithm design versus implementation is precisly what we're talking about, and it's what you commented on.
I agree with you that writing software is not a matter of translating pseudocode, but implementing an algorithm basically is. I also agree with you about how much of a typical software system is comprised of complex algorithms. And I agree with you that the complex algorithms aren't what determines its *quality*, but they may very well be the entire purpose of the program.
I won't presume to know what your background is, but I believe your self-assessment of your background is somewhat incongruous with silly blanket statements like "there's nothing hard about algorithms" and blatently false statements about the legality of plural implementations of a patented algorithm.
Utter nonsense (and my bubble is intact, thank you very much). First, the statement that "there's nothing hard about algorithms", is inane merely by virtue of making such a generalization about all algorithms, as if all problems are equally hard to solve. Second, some algorithms are not at all obvious. Open a book sometime and look up the algorithms for certain concurrency primitives, or complicated data structures like red-black trees. Third, while coding up large and complicated systems is certainly labor-intensive, it's not innovative. Fourth, the fact that you don't care how cool an algorithm is shows that you've never had to solve a problem that someone else didn't already solve, because taking someone else's algorithm and translating it from pseudo-code to your favorite programming language is usually a fairly mechanical process. Thus, you haven't developed an appreciation for the problem-solving process. Fifth, the number of implementations that exist, or may exist, for a given algorithm, is not at all dictated by whether or not the algorithm is patented. Nor is the quality of the implementation(s). That's just a complete non-sequitur.
Nice troll, though. Well done.
Well, I, for one, certainly didn't know that. I used to think that multi-threading could be done on a single core!!
And someone else is getting chewed-out for leaving the door open.
What constitutes evidence here? If a whole boatload of children go from being normal to starting to show symptoms right after getting shots, how long can you continue to yell "correlation != causation" with a straight face?
It's a good thing the lameness filter doesn't cap the line length standard deviation.
No,I think you misunderstand the notion of Fair Use being a defense, not a right. You made an analogy comparing Fair Use with the First Ammendment, and showed how the First Ammendment is similar in that you only invoke it when accused of breaking the law, but that's where the similarity ends. The difference between the notion of a "right" and a "defense", as I understand it (obDisclaimer: IANAL), is that rights can be violated if you are prevented from exercising them. DRM on a copyrighted work doesn't "violate your rights" precisely because Fair Use is a defense, not a right.
Is the problem just CFLs? Or does the same issue apply to all the long fluorescent tubes that have been around for decades?
OT: Sorry for replying to this message rather than the story, but Slashdot's "reply to story" button seems to have vanished from me, though it could just be that I haven't finished my coffee yet.