Right, they can't just say to their own customers, "it's ok if you keep using this", because they don't control the rest of the contributed GPLed code base. I'm not sure I fully understand the GPL terms about the status of code distributed in violation of the GPL. I guess you are still allowed to use it and modify it, but you can't distribute it.
The kicker is that since SCO does own the questionable code, they can distribute it under GPL, which is exactly what they have done, but then they must honor all the terms and they can no longer assert their IP rights for the GPLed code that they released. The argument that IBM compromised their IP without their knowledge is moot if they continued to distribute after they knew about it (which they did). Even if they had a case in the first place, which they don't, they committed a serious tactical error by not stoping their distribution of Linux immediately.
SCO's complaints aren't particularly clear about any of this, but it was my impression that they are asserting a number of IP claims involving patents, copyright and trade secrets. The main reason I focussed on the patent issue is that an enforcable patent would be the biggest problem to deal with. This is the only enforcement that could cause features to be withdrawn from Linux. Once the copyright infringement is declared specifically, it will be easy enough to write around it, much like the handful of files in the BSD ruling.
Maybe I don't understand all the legalities, but I can't see how they can get much with the trade secrets angle. As other followups to this stated, they can really only collect damages from IBM for that, and they can't put the genie back in the bottle either.
Actually, the MS example and the SCO case are almost the opposite. MS releases a non GPL product, and through an error or actions of an employee they ship some GPL stuff along. No problem, they just remove it as soon as they become aware. SCO releases a product that they well know is coverred by the GPL (at least most of the core components), and someone in their organization adds some of their IP to it, they can't claim that their organizational intent wasn't to release a GPLed product. Their claim that a third party introduced the code that wasn't intended for GPL does give them some recourse. We don't expect the SCO release team to know everything that IBM added to the kernel, but as soon as they knew or suspected, they had an obligation to inform the Linux community in a way that makes removing their code easier. If they continue to distribute Linux after being aware of the problems, they are weakening any IP claim they may later bring.
... so i am not the least bit pleased that this is happening, but if it is true, i blaim ibm, not sco....
If it is "true", then it just points again to what a muddled mess software patents are. More likely, it is just a steaming pile of FUD, and all the blame goes to SCO and their IP lawyers. The idea that they didn't or don't know exactly which modules, functions, code, etc. are infringing just shows how weak their position is. There is no evidence that they have taken any steps WRT complying with the GPL in terms of their own Linux distribution, so I doubt the courts will be very supportive of their position.
To be clear, if third parties added SCO IP to the Linux distribution, then they (SCO) have an obligation to immediately stop their own organization from distributing infringing code, as soon as they became aware of it. Obviously, they can't do this until it is discovered, but they waited until long after actually filing legal actions before doing anything to stop their own distribution. The judge and/or jury will consider this when evaluating the merrits.
Frankly, the lack of any specifics is damning. Even if they can't point to specific code, they should be able to make specific claims about unique technology that they consider to be their property. To the extent that it is patents at issue, they need to make those claims specifying the actual patents. To the extent that it is copyright, the claim is very weak because there is nothing wrong with reading code and writing a new version based on what you learned. Even if they have a claim WRT copyright, it is a comparitively small matter to fix this sort of thing once you know what pieces of code need rewriting.
You're right about the hypocracy, but both parts of the equation are a problem. Yes, it seems to be almost automatic that when the wealth of the society increases, and health care improves, etc. population growth levels off, so as the developing world actually develops, population growth isn't a problem, but then consumption is. Seems to me that the only way out is to be very smart consumers and to insist on life-cycle resource accounting to correctly allocate costs. Then economic competition can be optimizing the right things, and prices will reflect total resource costs. The challenge will be to acheive high standards of living on much lower resource cost, or the planet won't be able to handle 5-20 billion people living on it.
The most interesting part is that TCPA isn't designed for DRM, but isn't that what Palladium is based on? Of course, the DMCA makes it illegal to snoop your own machine... So it will be easy enough to break any DRM keys and encryption, but it will be against the law. Hmmm, I wonder what people will do, I'll just keep using Linux.
And yes, it will be important to use the TCPA hardware as intended to help with client security. Open/Free Source implementations of secure tools and protocols might even support profitable services based on quality reference implementations.
Having read more of what he is talking about, I suspect that this is further from reality than would justify a patent, but it is difficult to judge without a lot more detail. Not being a patent lawyer, I don't know exactly what this means myself, but logically, if you can spell out pretty much exactly how something would work, this should give you a limited amount of time to demonstrate a working device based on those principles.
At least it isn't actually patenting something that is essentially conceptual (like software and business processes). Also, there is a good chance that the patent would actually run out before profitable commercial applications develop.
What really could be alarming if much of this work pans out as he suggests, and the patent system isn't reformed first, patents will be awarded for much of the software required to make "programmable matter" work at the low level. Now that really would stiffle innovation.
I'd be the first to complain if this was essentially a software or business process patent, but I fail to see why so many at/. have something against just about any patent. If you were questioning whether the idea was innovative or not, I could see it, but he even states that the patent is provisional, which makes a lot of sense if the bulk of the invention is complete.
In many cases it is unclear whether patents are actually functioning to protect the inventor financially, but in this case, it seems to be doing exactly that here.
The invention is not in the skills needed to actually build one, but in the thinking necessary to design it. His point was that building a device based on the patent application doesn't require substantial additional invention or processes impossible with current technology and technique. Also, he stated that the application was provisional, so I don't really see anything to complain about here.
Well, he's been on the Net since before there was a net, and most news traffic moved point-to-point via UUCP links. In the old days, only some forums attracted rudeness, and NewsSPAMS were practically unheard of.
I haven't used netnews in almost ten years, but these problems were already getting bad at that time and the signal to noise ratio has certainly dropped even more. IMHO, it isn't really necessary anymore because websites are capable of taking up the slack, and with community based moderation as on/., the trolls are not nearly so annoying.
Although this has failed so far, it is not for the lack of trying. I'm extremely suspicious about the group behind this, as they are exactly the class of organization that has and will try to do this for themselves. You've got to wonder whether the laws they are promoting won't be designed to do the opposite of what they claim to be the intent.
Yes, ultimately it comes down to the users, as long as the legal landscape doesn't get adjusted to support the aims of companies wanting to create restricted media portals at the expense of the open internet. The DMCA and copyright extensions are proof that they can pretty much get any legal agenda put into law, so I wouldn't be so complacent about the possibilities.
I opened many a computer that was half full of fluffy dust. Thankfully those were Pentium 100's, so it wasn't the hot 60's or any modern chip....
That dust is probably just about as flamable as volitile liquids like paint thinner or gasoline. Hopefully, even with hotter processor, nothing reaches the flash point, and there aren't any spark sources.
Didn't it? In hindsight it looks a lot different, but I don't think there were many who could even imagine people walking on the moon, much less provide the vision that it could be done inside the decade. Just because of the conspicuous lack of political leadership since that time has not followed through on this vision doesn't mean it doesn't represent visionary leadership. This leaves aside whether the space program is the best application of the skills and resources, but you can't say the original push for this wasn't visionary and world changing.
One final point. I make a big distinction between faith and belief, which you are using somewhat interchangably. I like to quote Robert Anton Wilson from the preface from a later edition of
Cosmic Triggers
which includes a lot of very speculative and fanciful material. Lots of people asked him whether he "believes" all this stuff and his reply is "I don't *believe* in anything". I share this view, but I will also clearly state that at the point that science and logical thinking fail, there is only faith to fall back on. Beliefs are practically worthless, but you can learn a lot by asking yourself what you have faith in.
Try out the difference between "I believe in creationism" and any related statement you could make about faith. "I have faith in creationism" seem incredibly shallow and pointless, at least to me. "I have faith in God" is much more productive, and it is unlikely to invalidate anyone else's faith either.
The article doesn't really say how this part of the story came out, even in general terms. I don't think she was hoping he would go back to work and get more mathematical. It definitely begs the question.
There are many reasons it wouldn't work, at least not as described, but it also does a lot of handwaving that could be filled in differently based on more modern mathematics and science.
You also missed that the Mule is a fairly obvious analogy to Hitler, and Asimov is acknowledging that an individual can muck up the models. In truth, I suspect that abberant leaders (list left as a excercise for the reader), are typically much more predictable and potentially controllable than truly visionary leaders who can fundamentally change the scope of what is considered possible (e.g. Kennedy and the space program).
You are correct in connecting a statistical science like thermodynamics with psychohistory, but the truth is that thermo only works for systems that are near equilibrium where linear analysis still works. There are numerous hints that Asimov has some grasp of these difficulties even if he doesn't have an answer to them. The Mule being a prime example, as well as what you said about the first Foundation. He made the Mule into an aberation (a mutant) because an ordinary leader, no matter how extrordinary, would have been predictable in the extent to which he could alter the paths of large events.
In complexity theory, regularity arises from a different source, the requirements of self-organizing systems and their emergent properties.
It is not at all uncommon for two people to get on fine, even living together, without being married, and for all hell to break loose when they get married. Sometimes it starts with the engagement.
Also, these equations will not reduce the awe and mystery of the actual reality of truely deep phenomena. It just gives us some better handles and knobs to grab hold of the small islands of stability and regularity and talk about them in ways that can lead to productive solutions. If you do fall in love and get married there is no substitute for a deep connection in getting through the rough spots, but if a little formal analysis can reduce the intensity or frequency of these it can go a long way in reducing pain and suffering for the whole family.
I suspect that Asimov would have written it differently in light of the progress in mathematical models of non-linear systems. The idea that while you might not be able to predict individual behavior, but you might predict mass behavior has its roots in linear statistical models and the averaging that is facilitated by large samples.
The truth is that non-linear systems, particularly when they involve large energy flows and/or positive feedback behave in ways that cannot be captured by statistics and averages. To some extent, Asimov's trilogy (actually originally published as a serial) hints at some of the difficulties of using then current mathematical models as the basis for psychohistory, and implies that there is something special or different about the models used, but he doesn't have any good ways to describe it, talk about it, or put it into the story. I'm quite certain he would have made the founder (Harry Seldon, right?) a big innovator and user of complexity theory, chaos theory and dynamic systems.
WRT the article, I don't think these connections have been explored thoroughly enough to get the full value implied. Perhaps this is still coming in future research and papers.
Point taken, but I do think you are splitting hairs a bit.
A good example of someone attempting to find a scientific grounding for biblical truth is Maimonides (sp?). When done well it is an attempt to find a more modern interpretation for ancient inspiration, but typically there is a lot of wasted effort to remain alligned with current orthodoxy. In the end it gets down to the correct interpretation of texts (hermeneutics), and there is a very basic split between the literalists who insist on one correct or cannonical interpretation and the rest. For me, if a text has "depth", it admits to many interpretations that may go well beyond any intention of the author. This is also why these texts remain relevant thousands of years later.
So even if all creationists are not just wrong and/or dishonest by claiming scientific basis, I find their reading of biblical sources to be limited and shallow.
No, he got it exactly right. There are a lot of people with a scientific bent who take this prohibition of super-natural explainations to be an absolute limitation on the "Truth", and I would claim they are believers in the "religion of science" as you put it. Philosophically, I would call most of them Positivists, and I think they are just as wrong and the Creationists.
Basically, the situation is that you need to know if the response will be positive before you actually ask or you are taking a big risk. Central to his policy is that he won't make a recommendation if it isn't positive, and he won't do that if he can't do it in some depth and with confidence. All very reasonable, so I can't see the basis for any complaints.
No one has suggested that he would take any action against students he does not recomend, so explain how not giving a recomendation is blacklisting. Seems to me he is helping them by telling them not to waste their time trying to get a recomendation from him on the basis of unscientific ramblings.
I'm the last person to suggest that science is the only way of knowing, but I don't see how creationism has anything to do with knowledge, except to be obstructionist. Seriously, how can anyone maintain a position of strict literal interpretation for any book, much less one as distant in time, place, culture and language as the Bible? I would be more sympathetic to idea that rejecting creationism is intolerant if the whole program didn't come across as intellectually dishonest. Even if they believe what they say, there is a basic dishonesty in even suggesting a scientific basis. The whole point of the excercise is to validate "received knowledge" as if there were any evidence that would ever to taken to falsify this theory.
The problem isn't really related to duplicating the active on-line data, but protecting your information from a number of forms of system level problems. The truth is that tape, and off-line backup technologies generally, really sucks for disaster recovery (DR), mostly because there will be a lot of manual operations and rarely tested procedures involved.
Data probably is corrupted much more frequently by mistakes and systems problems, and with the sort of live redundancy favored by DR architectures the bad data is already duplicated on any redundant system before the problem is discovered. Journalling filesystems with snapshots could be helpful here, but what if the problem is in the FS code?
The bottom line is that there is no substitute for complete data snapshots on external media, and even then you better be sure you test everything periodically for end-to-end validation of the processes and procedures as implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
The kicker is that since SCO does own the questionable code, they can distribute it under GPL, which is exactly what they have done, but then they must honor all the terms and they can no longer assert their IP rights for the GPLed code that they released. The argument that IBM compromised their IP without their knowledge is moot if they continued to distribute after they knew about it (which they did). Even if they had a case in the first place, which they don't, they committed a serious tactical error by not stoping their distribution of Linux immediately.
Maybe I don't understand all the legalities, but I can't see how they can get much with the trade secrets angle. As other followups to this stated, they can really only collect damages from IBM for that, and they can't put the genie back in the bottle either.
Actually, the MS example and the SCO case are almost the opposite. MS releases a non GPL product, and through an error or actions of an employee they ship some GPL stuff along. No problem, they just remove it as soon as they become aware. SCO releases a product that they well know is coverred by the GPL (at least most of the core components), and someone in their organization adds some of their IP to it, they can't claim that their organizational intent wasn't to release a GPLed product. Their claim that a third party introduced the code that wasn't intended for GPL does give them some recourse. We don't expect the SCO release team to know everything that IBM added to the kernel, but as soon as they knew or suspected, they had an obligation to inform the Linux community in a way that makes removing their code easier. If they continue to distribute Linux after being aware of the problems, they are weakening any IP claim they may later bring.
If it is "true", then it just points again to what a muddled mess software patents are. More likely, it is just a steaming pile of FUD, and all the blame goes to SCO and their IP lawyers. The idea that they didn't or don't know exactly which modules, functions, code, etc. are infringing just shows how weak their position is. There is no evidence that they have taken any steps WRT complying with the GPL in terms of their own Linux distribution, so I doubt the courts will be very supportive of their position.
To be clear, if third parties added SCO IP to the Linux distribution, then they (SCO) have an obligation to immediately stop their own organization from distributing infringing code, as soon as they became aware of it. Obviously, they can't do this until it is discovered, but they waited until long after actually filing legal actions before doing anything to stop their own distribution. The judge and/or jury will consider this when evaluating the merrits.
Frankly, the lack of any specifics is damning. Even if they can't point to specific code, they should be able to make specific claims about unique technology that they consider to be their property. To the extent that it is patents at issue, they need to make those claims specifying the actual patents. To the extent that it is copyright, the claim is very weak because there is nothing wrong with reading code and writing a new version based on what you learned. Even if they have a claim WRT copyright, it is a comparitively small matter to fix this sort of thing once you know what pieces of code need rewriting.
You're right about the hypocracy, but both parts of the equation are a problem. Yes, it seems to be almost automatic that when the wealth of the society increases, and health care improves, etc. population growth levels off, so as the developing world actually develops, population growth isn't a problem, but then consumption is. Seems to me that the only way out is to be very smart consumers and to insist on life-cycle resource accounting to correctly allocate costs. Then economic competition can be optimizing the right things, and prices will reflect total resource costs. The challenge will be to acheive high standards of living on much lower resource cost, or the planet won't be able to handle 5-20 billion people living on it.
And yes, it will be important to use the TCPA hardware as intended to help with client security. Open/Free Source implementations of secure tools and protocols might even support profitable services based on quality reference implementations.
At least it isn't actually patenting something that is essentially conceptual (like software and business processes). Also, there is a good chance that the patent would actually run out before profitable commercial applications develop.
What really could be alarming if much of this work pans out as he suggests, and the patent system isn't reformed first, patents will be awarded for much of the software required to make "programmable matter" work at the low level. Now that really would stiffle innovation.
In many cases it is unclear whether patents are actually functioning to protect the inventor financially, but in this case, it seems to be doing exactly that here.
The invention is not in the skills needed to actually build one, but in the thinking necessary to design it. His point was that building a device based on the patent application doesn't require substantial additional invention or processes impossible with current technology and technique. Also, he stated that the application was provisional, so I don't really see anything to complain about here.
I haven't used netnews in almost ten years, but these problems were already getting bad at that time and the signal to noise ratio has certainly dropped even more. IMHO, it isn't really necessary anymore because websites are capable of taking up the slack, and with community based moderation as on /., the trolls are not nearly so annoying.
Yes, ultimately it comes down to the users, as long as the legal landscape doesn't get adjusted to support the aims of companies wanting to create restricted media portals at the expense of the open internet. The DMCA and copyright extensions are proof that they can pretty much get any legal agenda put into law, so I wouldn't be so complacent about the possibilities.
That dust is probably just about as flamable as volitile liquids like paint thinner or gasoline. Hopefully, even with hotter processor, nothing reaches the flash point, and there aren't any spark sources.
Didn't it? In hindsight it looks a lot different, but I don't think there were many who could even imagine people walking on the moon, much less provide the vision that it could be done inside the decade. Just because of the conspicuous lack of political leadership since that time has not followed through on this vision doesn't mean it doesn't represent visionary leadership. This leaves aside whether the space program is the best application of the skills and resources, but you can't say the original push for this wasn't visionary and world changing.
- Cosmic Triggers
which includes a lot of very speculative and fanciful material. Lots of people asked him whether he "believes" all this stuff and his reply is "I don't *believe* in anything". I share this view, but I will also clearly state that at the point that science and logical thinking fail, there is only faith to fall back on. Beliefs are practically worthless, but you can learn a lot by asking yourself what you have faith in.Try out the difference between "I believe in creationism" and any related statement you could make about faith. "I have faith in creationism" seem incredibly shallow and pointless, at least to me. "I have faith in God" is much more productive, and it is unlikely to invalidate anyone else's faith either.
The article doesn't really say how this part of the story came out, even in general terms. I don't think she was hoping he would go back to work and get more mathematical. It definitely begs the question.
You also missed that the Mule is a fairly obvious analogy to Hitler, and Asimov is acknowledging that an individual can muck up the models. In truth, I suspect that abberant leaders (list left as a excercise for the reader), are typically much more predictable and potentially controllable than truly visionary leaders who can fundamentally change the scope of what is considered possible (e.g. Kennedy and the space program).
In complexity theory, regularity arises from a different source, the requirements of self-organizing systems and their emergent properties.
Also, these equations will not reduce the awe and mystery of the actual reality of truely deep phenomena. It just gives us some better handles and knobs to grab hold of the small islands of stability and regularity and talk about them in ways that can lead to productive solutions. If you do fall in love and get married there is no substitute for a deep connection in getting through the rough spots, but if a little formal analysis can reduce the intensity or frequency of these it can go a long way in reducing pain and suffering for the whole family.
The truth is that non-linear systems, particularly when they involve large energy flows and/or positive feedback behave in ways that cannot be captured by statistics and averages. To some extent, Asimov's trilogy (actually originally published as a serial) hints at some of the difficulties of using then current mathematical models as the basis for psychohistory, and implies that there is something special or different about the models used, but he doesn't have any good ways to describe it, talk about it, or put it into the story. I'm quite certain he would have made the founder (Harry Seldon, right?) a big innovator and user of complexity theory, chaos theory and dynamic systems.
WRT the article, I don't think these connections have been explored thoroughly enough to get the full value implied. Perhaps this is still coming in future research and papers.
A good example of someone attempting to find a scientific grounding for biblical truth is Maimonides (sp?). When done well it is an attempt to find a more modern interpretation for ancient inspiration, but typically there is a lot of wasted effort to remain alligned with current orthodoxy. In the end it gets down to the correct interpretation of texts (hermeneutics), and there is a very basic split between the literalists who insist on one correct or cannonical interpretation and the rest. For me, if a text has "depth", it admits to many interpretations that may go well beyond any intention of the author. This is also why these texts remain relevant thousands of years later.
So even if all creationists are not just wrong and/or dishonest by claiming scientific basis, I find their reading of biblical sources to be limited and shallow.
No, he got it exactly right. There are a lot of people with a scientific bent who take this prohibition of super-natural explainations to be an absolute limitation on the "Truth", and I would claim they are believers in the "religion of science" as you put it. Philosophically, I would call most of them Positivists, and I think they are just as wrong and the Creationists.
Basically, the situation is that you need to know if the response will be positive before you actually ask or you are taking a big risk. Central to his policy is that he won't make a recommendation if it isn't positive, and he won't do that if he can't do it in some depth and with confidence. All very reasonable, so I can't see the basis for any complaints.
Modern inquisition? Give me a break.
I'm the last person to suggest that science is the only way of knowing, but I don't see how creationism has anything to do with knowledge, except to be obstructionist. Seriously, how can anyone maintain a position of strict literal interpretation for any book, much less one as distant in time, place, culture and language as the Bible? I would be more sympathetic to idea that rejecting creationism is intolerant if the whole program didn't come across as intellectually dishonest. Even if they believe what they say, there is a basic dishonesty in even suggesting a scientific basis. The whole point of the excercise is to validate "received knowledge" as if there were any evidence that would ever to taken to falsify this theory.
Data probably is corrupted much more frequently by mistakes and systems problems, and with the sort of live redundancy favored by DR architectures the bad data is already duplicated on any redundant system before the problem is discovered. Journalling filesystems with snapshots could be helpful here, but what if the problem is in the FS code?
The bottom line is that there is no substitute for complete data snapshots on external media, and even then you better be sure you test everything periodically for end-to-end validation of the processes and procedures as implemented.