If your goal was to quickly remove the copyright infringers from Napster's service, why did you submit the list of names on paper after using a computer to perform a search? A listing on computer media would save several weeks of entering names, at least, wouldn't it?
You expect the bad guys to id themselves so everyone knows where they stand? Everyone always tries to sound like they're on the side of truth and justice, so it's interesting when someone slips and blurts out a little of the reality. This story was definitely that.
Your trust in the government is quite touching, and is unfortunately shared by many that have never run afoul of one. It seems most have forgotten Hoover's FBI and the excesses of the 50's-70's rather quickly, even with reminders like Waco. (Note that the FBI also did some good things for civil rights in that time period, nothing is ever simple.)
How long has organized crime, one of the major responsibilities of the FBI, been with us now? They have reduced their power I'm sure, but it's an equlibrium at a cost, like the RICO and zero tolerance laws. If you expect them to eliminate terrorism in the US, you are expecting too much. We are talking about trading freedom for some extremely small absolute increase in safety. It's important to estimate the amounts on both sides, even if you believe in such tradeoffs.
There has been nothing to stop terrorists and criminals from using one-time pads properly for many years, yet somehow the FBI has struggled on thru techniques like infiltration. These work just as well against digital keys I would think.
The FBI isn't evil, but its part of our job as citizens to keep it's power limited, because all truth and justice loving organizations want to grow and tend to perceive the world in black and white. Trust is nice, but verification never hurts, right? When the FBI talks of expanding powers we need to let them know when the cost is too high, that's all. If the country is still worth saving, they work for us.
I wish I could provide constructive criticism for Pinkertons. I'm impressed with their willingness to talk and it would be nice to encourage them. Unfortunately this program is beyond saving.
To go beyond the reporting of illegal *behavior* is to validate the notion of thoughtcrime. You don't have to *do* anything to get attention, just be reported as having *said* something. How many of us have not wished someone ill, or fantasized physical harm when furiously angry at them? In a sane person it does not lead to action, passes with time, and helps the angry person deal with their anger. To repress this natural response is extremely dangerous, IMO.
Hopefully we can all agree that one of the very worst things about the USSR during its peak of power was that you couldn't talk to anyone -- friends, lovers, or family, without wondering whether your words would get back to the KGB, with very serious consequences. Inhibiting the expression of criticism and strange ideas does not improve a society, nor make its members more secure, or even increase its productivity. It merely helps preserve the status quo. While other nations grow and make progress.
There are basically two differences in our situation. One is that many of us think that our institutions are well-intentioned and that they won't misuse information gained by secret informants. Optimists. Information is power, and unless controlled by balancing forces power will be used, eventually. Even if you assume that institutions are now and forever will be benign in this country there is still an issue of whether we all share the same goals. For example not everyone thinks stamping out Gothic culture would be a positive, but some more conservative folks might. Who controls what is "acceptable" and what is not? And how?
The second difference is that this program is only being applied to minors. It is in fact a good exercise to think about how you would feel if this program were being used in the workplace instead of schools. Would you really want to add this kind of anonymous informing to an already furious struggle for status? Can you imagine it *not* being abused to eliminate political enemies? The kids in schools who this program is being applied to, without their consent, are the future citizens of this country. They will learn how this country works and what to expect in terms of fair treatment from their expreriences in school. I think it is even *more* important that minors realize they have rights, and responsibilities that come with those rights. If you do not interfere with other people's rights it is supposed to be ok to be different or angry in this country.
Finally this whole concept is ack-basswards. If you want a more peaceful, happier society, we should be eliminating the causes of anti-social behavior and making sure everyone feels included in that society, not designing alarms to detect the onset of violence.
I'm not sure what's fair or right here. But I think the tendency of big chains to displace mom-n-pops is definitely insidious.
When I was young, long ago, there were mom-n-pop American restaurants all over the landscape. Quality varied from very poor to very good. But the notion of American food culture was not a complete oxymoron as it is today. The symbol of our culture is indisputably MacDonalds, and that worries me.
The same tendency can be seen in all areas the huge mega-corps move into. Yes you get fast cheap and efficient service but you also get a a bland lowest common denominator product with little choice. This is especially harmful with chain bookstores where new authors and authors in less popular genre have a hard time surviving trying to sell to the chains that understandably concentrate on the money, which is in bestsellers or well known authors. Maybe most of those authors would never develop an audience but a significant portion would given exposure thru market diversity.
It is easily and perhaps correctly argued that all this is the result of natural consumer choice. But it seems to me more of a deadly feedback loop where people don't miss what is no longer easily available, and even become more resistant to new and different experiences and products (called brand loyalty by some.)
I am getting more than just a little pissed off at the music racket. And it's not much better than that, I wouldn't dignify it with the term "industry."
First they make 15 billion in revenue by overcharging 3 or 4 times for a CD. But thats not good enough. They also have to screw the musicians out of royalties. You would think that would be evil enough for one institution, but no, these guys also want to enact and enforce repressive copyright law internationally, and are big forces behind UCITA and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Now on top of this they want to whine that someone *else* is stealing from their patch? Hoo boy, the higher they are the harder they fall, and the music industry is really asking for one...
Some major assumptions there. First let me disclaim that I do believe in honest hard working politicians. Can't name one offhand, but I believe they exist, they just aren't the ones chasing the media and presidency.
For most politicians though, the question isn't what makes sense, what is practical, or even what is right, it's "what will get me (re-)elected?" Freeer distribution of pornography is not an issue they would like to, or even could, take on in America. No matter how you well you wrap your opposition to censorware in the first amendment a large quantity of prigs and prudes in this country will not vote for such a politician. Ironically I think this is often because they must deny their own attraction to pornography, but that is another subject...
Then there is a small set of politicians that fully realize that a populace that thinks about issues and is well-informed is not good for their little games with pork, and their power brokering. These critters would like nothing better than a controlled media that didn't criticize the government, and a repealed 1st amendment would garner only crocodile tears, if that.
Finally, there is the constituency of our government, the mega corporations. These guys simply aren't going to care until you show them a bottom line effect. Unfortunately, what they see is that unless the smut is cleaned off the net they stand to lose billions in potential revenue from those that stay away or are kept away by restrictions on net usage. Look what happened with TV, we all have to view children's fare so that no potential product buyers will be offended. Advertising money looks to drive the net too.
Its a good fight, I believe it matters greatly. Pornography is being used as a wedge against the 1st amendment in the same way that pedophiles and terrorists are used to keep crypto restricted. But I do not see any organized body of people or interest group with the sway to win the fight. Kudos to the ACLU but they are more reviled than respected today, unfortunately. I see a *lot* of very organized opposition. Depressing. Only by educating at the grass roots is there any chance, and that's a long one.
As Malcontent said, a significant slice of marketshare is all that is necessary to get drivers. Games I can personally live without, though they're a would-be-nice.
But beyond that what I hate most about Microsoft's system is it's one-size-fits-all nature. Whether you're a professional programmer or a first-time user you get the same wizard happy interface. It's important to me that Linux remain more than just a cheaper and more reliable Windows. I want it to be remain a system that rewards learning with power. And one that does not *force* you to sacrifice performance to interface glitz, or creativity to simplicity.
It's fine with me if people want to make Linux friendly and usable, and the more folks using it the better. But mass acceptance isn't worth the cost of changing the development model or design philosophy that makes Linux worth switching to.
This is not said out of elitism, it is said in the hope that the software market will become a more healthy ecology. I'd like to see programs and systems filling niches rather than bloating up in an attempt to dominate and kill off all other products.
To be specific, if their database has 700000 entries in it, it has 700000*699999/2 pairs in it. That's 245 billion pairs. If the odds against any pair matching at random is 37 million to one, that means there are a *LOT* of matches in that database, probably about 7000 of them.
This simply seems to be a case of scaling the database without scaling the identification key --with predictable results, non-unique keys.
Anyone know how the probability of a bad match decreases with number of loci tested?
"I sincerely hope you are not referring to the US President as 'leader of the free world' "
Only with a large helping of sarcasm.:) As to it not mattering to anyone else in the world, if only that were really true. Unfortunately, we like to send bombs and armed people places our leader disagrees with politically. You do remember our helping the freely elected Chilean president commit suicide with a machine gun don't you? That was an executive action. I'd say many countries have an interest in keeping fanatics far away from the big white house, because, no matter how much it gripes the rest of the world, a great deal of power still emnates from there.
You don't seem to consider anything outside of whether a patent is valid or not within the existing system. The interesting discussion on slashdot is more to the point of whether the system itself should be changed or scrapped, not whether the actual patents are valid under it. Maybe the very fact that it requires years of technical study to understand patent law is a problem in itself?
I'm not defending those flaming the patent office with e-mail, that very well may be counterproductive. But to suggest that slashdot discussion should be quelled for lack of information on patent law is going way too far. I imagine for many, the replies to those same uniformed posts, and the links they contain, is one of their best sources of information.
Most of us in the US are not informed enough to select "leader of the free world", or our own legislating bodies either, but that's how a republic works. Perhaps we should all stay home from the polls and just let the experts run the government in general? I'm not saying that an uninformed opinion is any better than a biased opinion, more that both are valuable. The more opinions to research, think about, and choose from, the better. Sometimes, "from the mouths of babes" come great ideas, usually *because* of their lack of preconceptions, and awareness of "informed" opinion.
Well, no offense, but if the patents coming out lately are typical, you and your colleagues are doing a terrible job reforming the patent system. Maybe, like software, and news, it's time to quit relying on the professionals who mostly dance to corporate marketing jingles, and figure out what is in all our best interests instead. The answer probably won't involve giving lawyers billions of dollars a year to negotiate intellectual property lines that mega-corporations can wage destructive legal wars over.
It also sounds like you're trying to milk the system for money while talking about reforming it. Politicians do that dance a lot too. I've hardly ever seen real reform come from someone who benefitted from a system the way it is. Maybe you're a saint and can pull it off, I don't know, but in any case, good luck.
I never *ever* trust someone who tells me to please leave something to experts, especially when they are one of those experts themselves. When that is followed by "please shut up, you're interfering with the *real* work", I get **really** suspicious. This is not to say you may not be right, experts usually are after all, but you'll have to be far more convincing before I believe it on your mere say-so.
Until then, I'll continue to hold my uninformed opinion that mathematical patents suck, thanks.
The trouble with your argument is that if every desktop Linux user in the world stopped using IE completely, those hit rates wouldn't burp noticeably enough to make a difference. As long as Windows has 90%+ of the desktop share, they'll have the majority of browser hits as well.
The argument for open source should be that it works better. If it doesn't work better then public advocacy is sheer zealotry, and only zealots listen to zealotry. Outside the Microsoft Tax on new computers, I haven't purchased a product from them in years, so I personally agree with what you say to some extent. But it's a very ineffective strategy for converting the masses.
This is about freedom for me. That includes the freedom to use the most effective browser currently available, unless I *choose* to make a protest. I currently see that as being too ineffective to be worth the appreciable pain involved. I don't always. I've been boycotting proprietary compilers for years, and recently wrote an assembler for a TI chip because I wanted to be able to work under Linux, among other reasons.
I'm not at all convinced. How exactly does this interfere with their market power?
If a customer buys Office from MSB, what do you think the chances are that they will also buy Windows from MSA? Right now, exactly 100%. The converse isn't quite so certain, but nearly so.
It is only if MSB has a reason to port Office to other systems, and MSA supports third party applications with a stable and open API for Windows that competition will be encouraged. If MSA and MSB both view it as beneficial to remain interlocked, then the situation won't change much from present. Perhaps the DOJ is considering some behavioral language to prevent such collusion.
I see only mild advantages from this breakup. One, the cartel will be unstable compared to the monolith, threatening any one component financially might unlock it from the rest of MS. Second, forcing communication between the components of MS may force the API to be treated as a standard rather than a weapon against competitors. More of its details may leak or even be made open as well.
Many time it's been the case that fields of mathematics once thought "pure", i.e. with no conceivable application have turned out to be critical to new formulations of physical theory. Einstein's use of tensor calculus and the applications for symmetry groups in subatomic physics come to mind.
The question is twofold. What do you see as the most interesting fields of mathematics that are currently entering application in physics, and what directions in modern mathematics do you find most interesting in terms of possible future physical theories?
Yes, I think that would work. I can think of lots of schemes that would, but all are basically security thru obscurity. Once you know the method used to interleave the bits, it becomes easy to find them.
I guess this is an amusing (to those of us without credit cards, anyway) example of that:) Information, by its very nature, stands out from the redundant noise of the background and is hard to hide away.
It seems to me that it should be possible to interleave the bits of the keys with a large quantity of non-random data, thereby masking its high information content. The trick of course is making the algorithm for which bits are real impossible to brute force. Unlike a one-time pad at least, only the server would need to know, e-commerce customers wouldn't.
I think embarrasment may be one of the biggest hurdles to old code becoming open sourced in general. Unfortunately I suspect Rob is quite correct that he is likely to be flamed for the code if he doesn't clean it up first, some people would just rather tear down than help build. But the right thing to do is ignore those folks while taking the criticism and help thats offered, even though it hurts. I'm sure Linus has suffered a few embarassing patches in his time.:)
Unless Rob doesn't think open source is right for slash yet. Few would argue that architecture and major interfaces should be in place before open sourcing, though they may be incomplete or buggy. If slash.4 is a major overhaul done too quickly I can understand the reluctance to let it loose in a transitory state.
We have some supreme court freedom of speech decisions to thank Hefner for as well. To call him a liberal these days is a disservice. But he helped define old style civil-libertarian liberalism in America.
I'm sorry, you can whine all you want, but I still think UF is funny. You can't change that, it's a gut reaction, visceral, non-intellectual, not subject to reason, ok? Unfortunately for the PC folks there *isn't* a little switch you flip to make a category of humor go away.
If someone has a phobia about computers, they are by definition neurotic, and should get help or stay away from them. If someone is being abused in person or on the phone I'm all for stopping it, that's personal and uncivil. But to claim that an online comic strip is preventing new users from learning is ludicrous. Please, some statistics if you wish to pursue such ridiculous claims.
I think you haven't read much UF if you think it's some kind of vicious attack on beginning computer users. You also haven't lived much life if you think it unusual for newcomers to be hazed in any activity. Your very best defense is always to try to see the humor and laugh along. It often *is* very funny, even when you laugh at yourself.
All my life I've had to put up with "egghead" jokes and crappy stereotypes in movies that my friends were happy to bring home to me. It's ok to be the butt of a joke if you're smart, but not if you're dumb? Actually I laugh at a lot of it too -- the stuff with wit and creativity that's been told less than a thousand times anyway.
I'm getting really sick of people objecting to this or that humor because they find it offends some group of people. You don't like it, then for gnu's sake don't read it. But don't preach about it either, no one cares what you think -- trust me on this, humor is highly individual.
If we only pretend everyone is a genius then soon everyone will be -- right? If you really think that I have a nice bridge... This notion that it's unfunny to point out that people make stupid mistakes is just more of the idea that laughing at people or giving them bad grades makes them stupid or keeps them ignorant. [Note: Causality reversal warning - remove head from ass before proceeding. Failure to comply may lead to a humorless existence in a dark smelly place.]
It may not be *nice*, but *please* don't tell me it's not funny!
The crux of the issue for me is that I don't think "easily independently invented" is very measurable. A lot of best software algorithms I've seen have been smack in the forehead obvious *after* you've seen them, but in fact weren't discovered for a decade or more. To look at an algorithm and determine whether another programmer could duplicate it independently in x amount of time is worse than the halting problem.
We don't patent expressions of natural language, even when they required years of unique experience to provide a never before discovered insight with profound effects on readers. Language is copyrighted to protect the work that went into collating and presenting the information. I think the difference between natural and computer language is one of degree, especially in the realm of pseudo-agorithms expressed in a natural language, which is what is really patented. We would be better off protecting algorithmic implementations with copyright than with patents protecting algorithmic ideas.
Imagine if authors could patent the story idea of a trip to Mars. Think of all the great science fiction that wouldn't have been written in 17 years. The fact that authors copy each other's ideas with their own original twists is to the benefit of all, including the author with the original idea, whose market is expanded. I don't really think software is all that different.
I don't think the situations are directly comparable. Microsoft pays people a lot of money to make sure a lot of folks buy their software. Given that they are paying money for it, and were talked into paying money for it, there is an implication they will get value for their money --i.e. the software will behave as claimed by the sales people.
Open source is quite a bit different. Until recently there was hardly any sales or marketing and there is still very little. People who use open source usually seek it out on their own. And they do not exchange anything for it's use. They make agreements about redistribution, but not use.
It seems to me, not being a lawyer, that there is an implied contract in the Microsoft case that isn't present in the open source case, and that this lack might hinder an attempt to hold an open source project responsible for damages consequent to use.
If you feel that God's word is to be found in a book written by men rather than in the study of the miraculous universe around you, I feel sorry for you -- you're missing a lot of spiritual wonder and beauty.
Slashdot Mirror
If your goal was to quickly remove the copyright infringers from Napster's service, why did you submit the list of names on paper after using a computer to perform a search? A listing on computer media would save several weeks of entering names, at least, wouldn't it?
You expect the bad guys to id themselves so everyone knows where they stand? Everyone always tries to sound like they're on the side of truth and justice, so it's interesting when someone slips and blurts out a little of the reality. This story was definitely that.
Your trust in the government is quite touching, and is unfortunately shared by many that have never run afoul of one. It seems most have forgotten Hoover's FBI and the excesses of the 50's-70's rather quickly, even with reminders like Waco. (Note that the FBI also did some good things for civil rights in that time period, nothing is ever simple.)
How long has organized crime, one of the major responsibilities of the FBI, been with us now? They have reduced their power I'm sure, but it's an equlibrium at a cost, like the RICO and zero tolerance laws. If you expect them to eliminate terrorism in the US, you are expecting too much. We are talking about trading freedom for some extremely small absolute increase in safety. It's important to estimate the amounts on both sides, even if you believe in such tradeoffs.
There has been nothing to stop terrorists and criminals from using one-time pads properly for many years, yet somehow the FBI has struggled on thru techniques like infiltration. These work just as well against digital keys I would think.
The FBI isn't evil, but its part of our job as citizens to keep it's power limited, because all truth and justice loving organizations want to grow and tend to perceive the world in black and white. Trust is nice, but verification never hurts, right? When the FBI talks of expanding powers we need to let them know when the cost is too high, that's all. If the country is still worth saving, they work for us.
I wish I could provide constructive criticism for Pinkertons. I'm impressed with their willingness to talk and it would be nice to encourage them. Unfortunately this program is beyond saving.
To go beyond the reporting of illegal *behavior* is to validate the notion of thoughtcrime. You don't have to *do* anything to get attention, just be reported as having *said* something. How many of us have not wished someone ill, or fantasized physical harm when furiously angry at them? In a sane person it does not lead to action, passes with time, and helps the angry person deal with their anger. To repress this natural response is extremely dangerous, IMO.
Hopefully we can all agree that one of the very worst things about the USSR during its peak of power was that you couldn't talk to anyone -- friends, lovers, or family, without wondering whether your words would get back to the KGB, with very serious consequences. Inhibiting the expression of criticism and strange ideas does not improve a society, nor make its members more secure, or even increase its productivity. It merely helps preserve the status quo. While other nations grow and make progress.
There are basically two differences in our situation. One is that many of us think that our institutions are well-intentioned and that they won't misuse information gained by secret informants. Optimists. Information is power, and unless controlled by balancing forces power will be used, eventually. Even if you assume that institutions are now and forever will be benign in this country there is still an issue of whether we all share the same goals. For example not everyone thinks stamping out Gothic culture would be a positive, but some more conservative folks might. Who controls what is "acceptable" and what is not? And how?
The second difference is that this program is only being applied to minors. It is in fact a good exercise to think about how you would feel if this program were being used in the workplace instead of schools. Would you really want to add this kind of anonymous informing to an already furious struggle for status? Can you imagine it *not* being abused to eliminate political enemies? The kids in schools who this program is being applied to, without their consent, are the future citizens of this country. They will learn how this country works and what to expect in terms of fair treatment from their expreriences in school. I think it is even *more* important that minors realize they have rights, and responsibilities that come with those rights. If you do not interfere with other people's rights it is supposed to be ok to be different or angry in this country.
Finally this whole concept is ack-basswards. If you want a more peaceful, happier society, we should be eliminating the causes of anti-social behavior and making sure everyone feels included in that society, not designing alarms to detect the onset of violence.
I'm not sure what's fair or right here. But I think the tendency of big chains to displace mom-n-pops is definitely insidious.
When I was young, long ago, there were mom-n-pop American restaurants all over the landscape. Quality varied from very poor to very good. But the notion of American food culture was not a complete oxymoron as it is today. The symbol of our culture is indisputably MacDonalds, and that worries me.
The same tendency can be seen in all areas the huge mega-corps move into. Yes you get fast cheap and efficient service but you also get a a bland lowest common denominator product with little choice. This is especially harmful with chain bookstores where new authors and authors in less popular genre have a hard time surviving trying to sell to the chains that understandably concentrate on the money, which is in bestsellers or well known authors. Maybe most of those authors would never develop an audience but a significant portion would given exposure thru market diversity.
It is easily and perhaps correctly argued that all this is the result of natural consumer choice. But it seems to me more of a deadly feedback loop where people don't miss what is no longer easily available, and even become more resistant to new and different experiences and products (called brand loyalty by some.)
I am getting more than just a little pissed off at the music racket. And it's not much better than that, I wouldn't dignify it with the term "industry."
First they make 15 billion in revenue by overcharging 3 or 4 times for a CD. But thats not good enough. They also have to screw the musicians out of royalties. You would think that would be evil enough for one institution, but no, these guys also want to enact and enforce repressive copyright law internationally, and are big forces behind UCITA and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Now on top of this they want to whine that someone *else* is stealing from their patch? Hoo boy, the higher they are the harder they fall, and the music industry is really asking for one...
Here's a link to a story on the Aureate mess a friend sent me.
Some major assumptions there. First let me disclaim that I do believe in honest hard working politicians. Can't name one offhand, but I believe they exist, they just aren't the ones chasing the media and presidency.
For most politicians though, the question isn't what makes sense, what is practical, or even what is right, it's "what will get me (re-)elected?" Freeer distribution of pornography is not an issue they would like to, or even could, take on in America. No matter how you well you wrap your opposition to censorware in the first amendment a large quantity of prigs and prudes in this country will not vote for such a politician. Ironically I think this is often because they must deny their own attraction to pornography, but that is another subject...
Then there is a small set of politicians that fully realize that a populace that thinks about issues and is well-informed is not good for their little games with pork, and their power brokering. These critters would like nothing better than a controlled media that didn't criticize the government, and a repealed 1st amendment would garner only crocodile tears, if that.
Finally, there is the constituency of our government, the mega corporations. These guys simply aren't going to care until you show them a bottom line effect. Unfortunately, what they see is that unless the smut is cleaned off the net they stand to lose billions in potential revenue from those that stay away or are kept away by restrictions on net usage. Look what happened with TV, we all have to view children's fare so that no potential product buyers will be offended. Advertising money looks to drive the net too.
Its a good fight, I believe it matters greatly. Pornography is being used as a wedge against the 1st amendment in the same way that pedophiles and terrorists are used to keep crypto restricted. But I do not see any organized body of people or interest group with the sway to win the fight. Kudos to the ACLU but they are more reviled than respected today, unfortunately. I see a *lot* of very organized opposition. Depressing. Only by educating at the grass roots is there any chance, and that's a long one.
As Malcontent said, a significant slice of marketshare is all that is necessary to get drivers. Games I can personally live without, though they're a would-be-nice.
But beyond that what I hate most about Microsoft's system is it's one-size-fits-all nature. Whether you're a professional programmer or a first-time user you get the same wizard happy interface. It's important to me that Linux remain more than just a cheaper and more reliable Windows. I want it to be remain a system that rewards learning with power. And one that does not *force* you to sacrifice performance to interface glitz, or creativity to simplicity.
It's fine with me if people want to make Linux friendly and usable, and the more folks using it the better. But mass acceptance isn't worth the cost of changing the development model or design philosophy that makes Linux worth switching to.
This is not said out of elitism, it is said in the hope that the software market will become a more healthy ecology. I'd like to see programs and systems filling niches rather than bloating up in an attempt to dominate and kill off all other products.
Truly.
To be specific, if their database has 700000 entries in it, it has 700000*699999/2 pairs in it. That's 245 billion pairs. If the odds against any pair matching at random is 37 million to one, that means there are a *LOT* of matches in that database, probably about 7000 of them.
This simply seems to be a case of scaling the database without scaling the identification key --with predictable results, non-unique keys.
Anyone know how the probability of a bad match decreases with number of loci tested?
"I sincerely hope you are not referring to the US President as 'leader of the free world' "
:) As to it not mattering to anyone else in the world, if only that were really true. Unfortunately, we like to send bombs and armed people places our leader disagrees with politically. You do remember our helping the freely elected Chilean president commit suicide with a machine gun don't you? That was an executive action. I'd say many countries have an interest in keeping fanatics far away from the big white house, because, no matter how much it gripes the rest of the world, a great deal of power still emnates from there.
Only with a large helping of sarcasm.
You don't seem to consider anything outside of whether a patent is valid or not within the existing system. The interesting discussion on slashdot is more to the point of whether the system itself should be changed or scrapped, not whether the actual patents are valid under it. Maybe the very fact that it requires years of technical study to understand patent law is a problem in itself?
I'm not defending those flaming the patent office with e-mail, that very well may be counterproductive. But to suggest that slashdot discussion should be quelled for lack of information on patent law is going way too far. I imagine for many, the replies to those same uniformed posts, and the links they contain, is one of their best sources of information.
Most of us in the US are not informed enough to select "leader of the free world", or our own legislating bodies either, but that's how a republic works. Perhaps we should all stay home from the polls and just let the experts run the government in general? I'm not saying that an uninformed opinion is any better than a biased opinion, more that both are valuable. The more opinions to research, think about, and choose from, the better. Sometimes, "from the mouths of babes" come great ideas, usually *because* of their lack of preconceptions, and awareness of "informed" opinion.
Well, no offense, but if the patents coming out lately are typical, you and your colleagues are doing a terrible job reforming the patent system. Maybe, like software, and news, it's time to quit relying on the professionals who mostly dance to corporate marketing jingles, and figure out what is in all our best interests instead. The answer probably won't involve giving lawyers billions of dollars a year to negotiate intellectual property lines that mega-corporations can wage destructive legal wars over.
It also sounds like you're trying to milk the system for money while talking about reforming it. Politicians do that dance a lot too. I've hardly ever seen real reform come from someone who benefitted from a system the way it is. Maybe you're a saint and can pull it off, I don't know, but in any case, good luck.
I never *ever* trust someone who tells me to please leave something to experts, especially when they are one of those experts themselves. When that is followed by "please shut up, you're interfering with the *real* work", I get **really** suspicious. This is not to say you may not be right, experts usually are after all, but you'll have to be far more convincing before I believe it on your mere say-so.
Until then, I'll continue to hold my uninformed opinion that mathematical patents suck, thanks.
The trouble with your argument is that if every desktop Linux user in the world stopped using IE completely, those hit rates wouldn't burp noticeably enough to make a difference. As long as Windows has 90%+ of the desktop share, they'll have the majority of browser hits as well.
The argument for open source should be that it works better. If it doesn't work better then public advocacy is sheer zealotry, and only zealots listen to zealotry. Outside the Microsoft Tax on new computers, I haven't purchased a product from them in years, so I personally agree with what you say to some extent. But it's a very ineffective strategy for converting the masses.
This is about freedom for me. That includes the freedom to use the most effective browser currently available, unless I *choose* to make a protest. I currently see that as being too ineffective to be worth the appreciable pain involved. I don't always. I've been boycotting proprietary compilers for years, and recently wrote an assembler for a TI chip because I wanted to be able to work under Linux, among other reasons.
I'm not at all convinced. How exactly does this interfere with their market power?
If a customer buys Office from MSB, what do you think the chances are that they will also buy Windows from MSA? Right now, exactly 100%. The converse isn't quite so certain, but nearly so.
It is only if MSB has a reason to port Office to other systems, and MSA supports third party applications with a stable and open API for Windows that competition will be encouraged. If MSA and MSB both view it as beneficial to remain interlocked, then the situation won't change much from present. Perhaps the DOJ is considering some behavioral language to prevent such collusion.
I see only mild advantages from this breakup. One, the cartel will be unstable compared to the monolith, threatening any one component financially might unlock it from the rest of MS. Second, forcing communication between the components of MS may force the API to be treated as a standard rather than a weapon against competitors. More of its details may leak or even be made open as well.
Many time it's been the case that fields of mathematics once thought "pure", i.e. with no conceivable application have turned out to be critical to new formulations of physical theory. Einstein's use of tensor calculus and the applications for symmetry groups in subatomic physics come to mind.
The question is twofold. What do you see as the most interesting fields of mathematics that are currently entering application in physics, and what directions in modern mathematics do you find most interesting in terms of possible future physical theories?
Yes, I think that would work. I can think of lots of schemes that would, but all are basically security thru obscurity. Once you know the method used to interleave the bits, it becomes easy to find them.
I guess this is an amusing (to those of us without credit cards, anyway) example of that :) Information, by its very nature, stands out from the redundant noise of the background and is hard to hide away.
It seems to me that it should be possible to interleave the bits of the keys with a large quantity of non-random data, thereby masking its high information content. The trick of course is making the algorithm for which bits are real impossible to brute force. Unlike a one-time pad at least, only the server would need to know, e-commerce customers wouldn't.
I think embarrasment may be one of the biggest hurdles to old code becoming open sourced in general. Unfortunately I suspect Rob is quite correct that he is likely to be flamed for the code if he doesn't clean it up first, some people would just rather tear down than help build. But the right thing to do is ignore those folks while taking the criticism and help thats offered, even though it hurts. I'm sure Linus has suffered a few embarassing patches in his time. :)
.4 is a major overhaul done too quickly I can understand the reluctance to let it loose in a transitory state.
Unless Rob doesn't think open source is right for slash yet. Few would argue that architecture and major interfaces should be in place before open sourcing, though they may be incomplete or buggy. If slash
We have some supreme court freedom of speech decisions to thank Hefner for as well. To call him a liberal these days is a disservice. But he helped define old style civil-libertarian liberalism in America.
I'm sorry, you can whine all you want, but I still think UF is funny. You can't change that, it's a gut reaction, visceral, non-intellectual, not subject to reason, ok? Unfortunately for the PC folks there *isn't* a little switch you flip to make a category of humor go away.
If someone has a phobia about computers, they are by definition neurotic, and should get help or stay away from them. If someone is being abused in person or on the phone I'm all for stopping it, that's personal and uncivil. But to claim that an online comic strip is preventing new users from learning is ludicrous. Please, some statistics if you wish to pursue such ridiculous claims.
I think you haven't read much UF if you think it's some kind of vicious attack on beginning computer users. You also haven't lived much life if you think it unusual for newcomers to be hazed in any activity. Your very best defense is always to try to see the humor and laugh along. It often *is* very funny, even when you laugh at yourself.
All my life I've had to put up with "egghead" jokes and crappy stereotypes in movies that my friends were happy to bring home to me. It's ok to be the butt of a joke if you're smart, but not if you're dumb? Actually I laugh at a lot of it too -- the stuff with wit and creativity that's been told less than a thousand times anyway.
I'm getting really sick of people objecting to this or that humor because they find it offends some group of people. You don't like it, then for gnu's sake don't read it. But don't preach about it either, no one cares what you think -- trust me on this, humor is highly individual.
If we only pretend everyone is a genius then soon everyone will be -- right? If you really think that I have a nice bridge... This notion that it's unfunny to point out that people make stupid mistakes is just more of the idea that laughing at people or giving them bad grades makes them stupid or keeps them ignorant. [Note: Causality reversal warning - remove head from ass before proceeding. Failure to comply may lead to a humorless existence in a dark smelly place.]
It may not be *nice*, but *please* don't tell me it's not funny!
Do you miss Digital Equipment Corporation? And how do you think DEC would be reacting to Linux and open source, were they still around?
The crux of the issue for me is that I don't think "easily independently invented" is very measurable. A lot of best software algorithms I've seen have been smack in the forehead obvious *after* you've seen them, but in fact weren't discovered for a decade or more. To look at an algorithm and determine whether another programmer could duplicate it independently in x amount of time is worse than the halting problem.
We don't patent expressions of natural language, even when they required years of unique experience to provide a never before discovered insight with profound effects on readers. Language is copyrighted to protect the work that went into collating and presenting the information. I think the difference between natural and computer language is one of degree, especially in the realm of pseudo-agorithms expressed in a natural language, which is what is really patented. We would be better off protecting algorithmic implementations with copyright than with patents protecting algorithmic ideas.
Imagine if authors could patent the story idea of a trip to Mars. Think of all the great science fiction that wouldn't have been written in 17 years. The fact that authors copy each other's ideas with their own original twists is to the benefit of all, including the author with the original idea, whose market is expanded. I don't really think software is all that different.
I don't think the situations are directly comparable. Microsoft pays people a lot of money to make sure a lot of folks buy their software. Given that they are paying money for it, and were talked into paying money for it, there is an implication they will get value for their money --i.e. the software will behave as claimed by the sales people.
Open source is quite a bit different. Until recently there was hardly any sales or marketing and there is still very little. People who use open source usually seek it out on their own. And they do not exchange anything for it's use. They make agreements about redistribution, but not use.
It seems to me, not being a lawyer, that there is an implied contract in the Microsoft case that isn't present in the open source case, and that this lack might hinder an attempt to hold an open source project responsible for damages consequent to use.
If you feel that God's word is to be found in a book written by men rather than in the study of the miraculous universe around you, I feel sorry for you -- you're missing a lot of spiritual wonder and beauty.