If this software patent idiocy continues, it will be impossible to teach any higher mathematics at university in 200 years from now without violating someone's patents
That's 20 years. All the signs are pointing that way. I am a professional mathematician, and I've been following the developments, and it does not look good. The maths are clearly next. It only makes sense: if they can patent algorithms, then they can already patent math. As it stands, no one can patent "abstract" ideas. Watch and see them say: "Oh, we just realized, math ideas are not abstract, they are hella concrete, so we will be patenting them now". For lawyers this will be a trivial hurdle to overcome, because the only thing that can make a law a complete non-starter is the internal inconsistency. And we are virtually obligated to start patenting traditional math if we are already patenting algorithms, they are the same bloody thing.
Can anyone tell me why is this silliness even allowed to go on? Is this just the corporate interest? Is it just the corporate money that is buying these laws? I really don't get it. Patents on software that runs on generic computer hardware (a real-life TM implementation) don't make a lick of sense, no matter how you look at it, and every programmer in the world knows it. Who keeps calling for more of this shit?
While you are right about patents and copyrights, none of our grievances have any relation to the trademark law, which is used to prevent scam. Richard Stallman is right: stop using the words "intellectual property", you have no clear understanding of what they mean, because they are not intended to have a clear meaning.
Oh well this doesn't have to do with imaginary friends then. If you have an imaginary friend, you still have to have a real friendship. Your latest examples are not that, they are just instances of comprehension. And I am all for that: IMHO, it would serve us well to understand Christianity from the inside, so to speak, without actually believing in its dogma.
If you do not know that they are imaginary, then you are a loon. Because they are, in fact, imaginary
to everyone else, including the members of your own religion, who imagine them differently. Still,
this case is relatively harmless.
If you do know that they are imaginary, but still go through the motions, then you are just like
the pope and most of the clergy: you don't really believe jack shit, except that you deserve to get
your cut for telling people what you know are lies. For example, pope's complete disregard for
the New Testament ethics is plainly evidenced by his treatment of celibacy, contraceptives, priests who
molest children -- you name it. They are all case 2, and we know they are in it just for the money
and the power. What's the harm, you say?
What I cannot wrap my head around are the instances where radicals want people in other countries,
with different laws, to obey a radical Islamic law. WTF? How would they feel if the United States used violence
to make them obey laws they don't care about? Oh, nevermind...
This is right on the nose. Chrome is nowhere close to Firefox feature-wise, if you factor in the plugins.
Much has been said about separate processes and the UI lift, and I agree that at this very moment Chrome
has some some things at the state of the art, while Firefox is playing catchup. But separate processes and the
UI lift are coming, after all, they just take time to program into the platform that is Firefox.
Notice their obsession with the mobile branch, which is crucial, IMHO. Chrome is also
a sneaky turd that reports to the mothership, and that is one "feature" that I don't want my Web browser
to have, ever. Thanks, but no thanks.
Critical thinking is very important, indispensable even, but I don't think that the body of knowledge about the natural and the spiritual worlds is "flavor". It's more like the substance of science, and they should definitely continue teaching that in college. Seeing and hearing professors and peers doing science is not replaceable by reading even the best of sources, and the difference is most dramatic in natural sciences.
I find it hard to believe that removing DRM can be done by only removing code. There's gotta be some new code, most likely jumps in place of conditionals. If the story is true, Rockstar is clearly doing it just to piss off the warez scene, and yes, they are hypocrites, and idiots too, for distributing binary code from such a shady source. If they keep doing it, it is only a matter of time before the scene time-bombs them.
I am not an idealist when it comes to security, I am scared of probability rather than of possibility. I do not require certainty: like you say, it is not achievable in practice. I, however, see no reason to trust a proprietary software vendor or any of its auditors. They are all guilty until proven innocent. There is only one way to properly audit software (and here I am an idealist), and it is the same as with math: you have to let everyone to read and build the source. If I come to you and say: I've proven the twin primes conjecture, and hundred other people went through my proof and decided it was good, but no one else can see it, what do you say to me? You say: go fuck yourself. How is that different with software? People are lulled into thinking that because software seems to do, on occasion, what the docs say it should do, it must be correct and benign. The argument for that is every time an appeal to authority: it is a fallacy, it doesn't work in math, and it doesn't work in computer science. An even more retarded argument is that they won't be able to pay for development, unless the code is hidden: even if this was true (it is not), it would still prove nothing about what the software actually does.
The fallout is this: if the code is unavailable, I suspect foul play. The history fully justifies my attitude.
What are you talking about? What popular free project is in need of auditing by the end user? No one will have desire or balls to write a magnificent game like FreeCiv or Wesnoth and put a backdoor into it, because (1) it will be elementarily found and removed (2) the name of the perpetrator will be marred forever. Look at what happened to NoScript: he flies completely straight now, and he didn't even jeopardize anyone's security, just did something people didn't particularly like. Why won't you give us some actual, established examples of backdoors, rootkits, or sneaky privacy breaches introduced in the popular free software, because I can make quite a list for the proprietary side.
The DRM is not even the only issue. If you run anything that is binary and closed-sourced on your GNU/Linux machine, with your user privileges, you are basically asking for a punch in the gut. Keep doing it, folks; with so many willing targets, all of us who actually give two shits about security will be that much safer.
I came to realize that I do not particularly want proprietary games to leave Windows. This way, I have my Windows machine, which is basically a dedicated game device and a public-terminal-level-security Internet appliance. With native GNU/Linux ports, I would still have to have two separate machines, and still treat one of them as a rogue, although I would be able to save a few bucks on OS.
You are right in that DNS removes a lot of friction for a multitude of other higher-level services, but I still don't see how the Internet depends on it in any way.
DNS is not an element of the Internet, it's a service that runs on top of the Internet. You can argue that it is foundational for the Web, and I will agree with you.
VOIP: the ones connected to the phone lines are not P2P.
So let's take torrents as an example. All you need is one Web site (so one IP address) that publishes tracker IPs. Then your clever torrent client can get participants' IPs from the tracker.
I am not saying that DNS is not being used: I am not stupid. My claim is that the Internet would remain a very vibrant place even if DNS crashed and burned tomorrow, after some necessary adjustments.
but the internet is a nation with its own language
Yeah, but it's not English, it's TCP/IP. And DNS is not even an integral part of the Internet, but rather a layer on top, used mostly for the WWW part. Many peer-to-peer applications would work just fine even if DNS was never created.
It's just "disused", not necessarily by a majority. I uninstalled Flash from all of my computers: I see absolutely no point, and I am not alone. For surfers like me, it is totally obsolete, and the gap is filled by downloading files and playing them in VLC.
I agree completely. Jobs' diatribe, while hypocritical, was also spot on. Flash has virtually no redeeming qualities. Using it for watching videos when every major browser can simply download video files and stream handles and "open them with", is freaking retarded. Flash was obsolete long before HTML 5 was even on a drawing board.
I see your point. My only reservation with systems like Gmail is that they are impossible to audit. How much do we know about their long term stability, security, access control, and how do we know about it? We cannot see either hardware or software, so we have to judge them solely by "Google's track record". Giving them all of your email is a faith-based decision. I will go ahead and say it is great for applications where security is not a concern. But as soon as you promise security to your customers (and, say, email is involved), you have to do it in the house.
Slashdot Mirror
If this software patent idiocy continues, it will be impossible to teach any higher mathematics at university in 200 years from now without violating someone's patents
That's 20 years. All the signs are pointing that way. I am a professional mathematician, and I've been following the developments, and it does not look good. The maths are clearly next. It only makes sense: if they can patent algorithms, then they can already patent math. As it stands, no one can patent "abstract" ideas. Watch and see them say: "Oh, we just realized, math ideas are not abstract, they are hella concrete, so we will be patenting them now". For lawyers this will be a trivial hurdle to overcome, because the only thing that can make a law a complete non-starter is the internal inconsistency. And we are virtually obligated to start patenting traditional math if we are already patenting algorithms, they are the same bloody thing.
Can anyone tell me why is this silliness even allowed to go on? Is this just the corporate interest? Is it just the corporate money that is buying these laws? I really don't get it. Patents on software that runs on generic computer hardware (a real-life TM implementation) don't make a lick of sense, no matter how you look at it, and every programmer in the world knows it. Who keeps calling for more of this shit?
While you are right about patents and copyrights, none of our grievances have any relation to the trademark law, which is used to prevent scam. Richard Stallman is right: stop using the words "intellectual property", you have no clear understanding of what they mean, because they are not intended to have a clear meaning.
I wasn't even talking about TFA, more like referring to the South Park and similar incidents.
Oh well this doesn't have to do with imaginary friends then. If you have an imaginary friend, you still have to have a real friendship. Your latest examples are not that, they are just instances of comprehension. And I am all for that: IMHO, it would serve us well to understand Christianity from the inside, so to speak, without actually believing in its dogma.
Let me break it down for you:
If you do not know that they are imaginary, then you are a loon. Because they are, in fact, imaginary to everyone else, including the members of your own religion, who imagine them differently. Still, this case is relatively harmless.
If you do know that they are imaginary, but still go through the motions, then you are just like the pope and most of the clergy: you don't really believe jack shit, except that you deserve to get your cut for telling people what you know are lies. For example, pope's complete disregard for the New Testament ethics is plainly evidenced by his treatment of celibacy, contraceptives, priests who molest children -- you name it. They are all case 2, and we know they are in it just for the money and the power. What's the harm, you say?
I couldn't figure out how to insert a space. Sure, horns. Why not? Knowing a bit about Muhammad's wife, he probably had some.
My measurement system is based on furlongs, fortnights, and frags, you insensitive clod.
What I cannot wrap my head around are the instances where radicals want people in other countries, with different laws, to obey a radical Islamic law. WTF? How would they feel if the United States used violence to make them obey laws they don't care about? Oh, nevermind...
-|-
| |
Muhammad
'O'
-|-
| |
Allah
Great, now to sit back and wait for death threats to start rolling in.
I run fennec on my phone. It supports NoScript and ABP. The hardware is almost there, and for me, personally, it was entirely worth the wait.
This is right on the nose. Chrome is nowhere close to Firefox feature-wise, if you factor in the plugins. Much has been said about separate processes and the UI lift, and I agree that at this very moment Chrome has some some things at the state of the art, while Firefox is playing catchup. But separate processes and the UI lift are coming, after all, they just take time to program into the platform that is Firefox. Notice their obsession with the mobile branch, which is crucial, IMHO. Chrome is also a sneaky turd that reports to the mothership, and that is one "feature" that I don't want my Web browser to have, ever. Thanks, but no thanks.
Critical thinking is very important, indispensable even, but I don't think that the body of knowledge about the natural and the spiritual worlds is "flavor". It's more like the substance of science, and they should definitely continue teaching that in college. Seeing and hearing professors and peers doing science is not replaceable by reading even the best of sources, and the difference is most dramatic in natural sciences.
I find it hard to believe that removing DRM can be done by only removing code. There's gotta be some new code, most likely jumps in place of conditionals. If the story is true, Rockstar is clearly doing it just to piss off the warez scene, and yes, they are hypocrites, and idiots too, for distributing binary code from such a shady source. If they keep doing it, it is only a matter of time before the scene time-bombs them.
I am not an idealist when it comes to security, I am scared of probability rather than of possibility. I do not require certainty: like you say, it is not achievable in practice. I, however, see no reason to trust a proprietary software vendor or any of its auditors. They are all guilty until proven innocent. There is only one way to properly audit software (and here I am an idealist), and it is the same as with math: you have to let everyone to read and build the source. If I come to you and say: I've proven the twin primes conjecture, and hundred other people went through my proof and decided it was good, but no one else can see it, what do you say to me? You say: go fuck yourself. How is that different with software? People are lulled into thinking that because software seems to do, on occasion, what the docs say it should do, it must be correct and benign. The argument for that is every time an appeal to authority: it is a fallacy, it doesn't work in math, and it doesn't work in computer science. An even more retarded argument is that they won't be able to pay for development, unless the code is hidden: even if this was true (it is not), it would still prove nothing about what the software actually does.
The fallout is this: if the code is unavailable, I suspect foul play. The history fully justifies my attitude.
You know, this will probably work, as long as GNU/Linux is resilient enough against elevation via a local exploit.
What are you talking about? What popular free project is in need of auditing by the end user? No one will have desire or balls to write a magnificent game like FreeCiv or Wesnoth and put a backdoor into it, because (1) it will be elementarily found and removed (2) the name of the perpetrator will be marred forever. Look at what happened to NoScript: he flies completely straight now, and he didn't even jeopardize anyone's security, just did something people didn't particularly like. Why won't you give us some actual, established examples of backdoors, rootkits, or sneaky privacy breaches introduced in the popular free software, because I can make quite a list for the proprietary side.
The DRM is not even the only issue. If you run anything that is binary and closed-sourced on your GNU/Linux machine, with your user privileges, you are basically asking for a punch in the gut. Keep doing it, folks; with so many willing targets, all of us who actually give two shits about security will be that much safer.
I came to realize that I do not particularly want proprietary games to leave Windows. This way, I have my Windows machine, which is basically a dedicated game device and a public-terminal-level-security Internet appliance. With native GNU/Linux ports, I would still have to have two separate machines, and still treat one of them as a rogue, although I would be able to save a few bucks on OS.
You are right in that DNS removes a lot of friction for a multitude of other higher-level services, but I still don't see how the Internet depends on it in any way.
DNS is not an element of the Internet, it's a service that runs on top of the Internet. You can argue that it is foundational for the Web, and I will agree with you.
Email, Web, NNTP: not P2P.
VOIP: the ones connected to the phone lines are not P2P.
So let's take torrents as an example. All you need is one Web site (so one IP address) that publishes tracker IPs. Then your clever torrent client can get participants' IPs from the tracker.
I am not saying that DNS is not being used: I am not stupid. My claim is that the Internet would remain a very vibrant place even if DNS crashed and burned tomorrow, after some necessary adjustments.
but the internet is a nation with its own language
Yeah, but it's not English, it's TCP/IP. And DNS is not even an integral part of the Internet, but rather a layer on top, used mostly for the WWW part. Many peer-to-peer applications would work just fine even if DNS was never created.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/streaming.html
It's just "disused", not necessarily by a majority. I uninstalled Flash from all of my computers: I see absolutely no point, and I am not alone. For surfers like me, it is totally obsolete, and the gap is filled by downloading files and playing them in VLC.
I agree completely. Jobs' diatribe, while hypocritical, was also spot on. Flash has virtually no redeeming qualities. Using it for watching videos when every major browser can simply download video files and stream handles and "open them with", is freaking retarded. Flash was obsolete long before HTML 5 was even on a drawing board.
I see your point. My only reservation with systems like Gmail is that they are impossible to audit. How much do we know about their long term stability, security, access control, and how do we know about it? We cannot see either hardware or software, so we have to judge them solely by "Google's track record". Giving them all of your email is a faith-based decision. I will go ahead and say it is great for applications where security is not a concern. But as soon as you promise security to your customers (and, say, email is involved), you have to do it in the house.