The real need is to have a spatial representation for geographic region information. You are trying to translate between two specific maps: zip codes to congressional districts. Actually, 5-digit zip codes are probably not accurate enough (districts cut across zipcode zones) and then you get into the realm of geocoding which attempts to translate a real world address into latitude, longitude and accuracy.
In the proprietary realm, there are products like Mapinfo and Mapmarker for address geocoding and zoning. Oracle has a spatial option which creates object types in the database for storing arbitrary sets of points and polygons and querying based on their intersection/overlap properties.
The java plug-in is very well penetrated into people's browsers. Both python and ruby have implementations in java. This should somehow be enough to make it work.
There is (was?) a project to put java on equal footing with javascript in mozilla. I wonder what is happening with it. > Hmmm, yep it's still there as of April, anyway. It's called blackwood. I also stumbled across Luxor. These look interesting.
Thanks, Socrates, but those aren't part of the mozilla distribution, now, are they? You can write python or ruby XPCOM objects about as easily as you can use perlscript to do client side html-scripting.
The one major thing that I dislike about XUL is that it seems determined to make you program in javascript. I don't like javascript. Frankly, I think the web stinks because of the poor programming habits that javascript promotes.
Browsers already have java plug-ins, so why can't I write XUL for mozilla in an object orient fashion using java? or jython? or jruby?
Apache supports a jillion languages, why doesn't mozilla?
You can hide your head in the sand and pretend that you don't want to polarize people over this, but that will result in an "optional DRM" becoming the non-optional standard, and then in a few years DRM will become mandatory.
The critical factor is that we must have better content value than them. Disney and the "cool games" sites you refer to will be for pay, so I definitely think this is possible.
The other side has chosen the route of polarizing, not us. They will only deliver content to people who adopt a certain subserviant mentality and technology. We must make people understand that in addition to accepting shackles, they lose access to things they like.
The only route that leads to information freedom is to polarize and then extinguish the other side.
Soon you will see web pages that you cannot load without Palladium enabled.
This will happen. DRM is "optional" in that you can turn it on or not turn it on. The trick, of course, is that anyone can ask and rely on the trusted client to tell it whether it is on or off. The countermeasure that we MUST be prepared to do is this: we must configure our web pages, content, and programs to require that it be off. That is, we must force users to choose whether they want to see our stuff or DRM stuff.
I would go so far to say that we should set up IP blacklists for people who are "caught" turning DRM on. Palladium is a nasty measure -- we are going to have to fight back with equally nasty responses.
I also predict that when this is finally cracked, somebody will write a virus that cannot be deleted.
Yes, simply include the lookup table in the algorithm. O(1).
Congratulations, you've proved that all solvable problems are O(1): print "The answer is $answer". The hard part is constructing the lookup table given only the rules of the game.
Re:Important Step?
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't quite understand why a big lookup table is an important step for AI.
What AI wants is code that plays, observes the results, and converges to perfect play. One such algorithm has been produced and perfect play has been determined. Now the question is can an algorithm that converges *faster* be found. Learning speed can now be objectively measured, which opens a whole new scientific basis for studying AI.
One method: You hire an attourney, give the money to them with instructions what to do with it, how to report back to you, and instructions not to reveal your identity. If they do reveal your identity, they are violating attourney client priviledge and you can file a grievance and they will get disbarred. You can probably also sue them for malpractice and recover the original money. This only works if the activity is legal, of course.
It is true that a trademark must be defended or lost, but that does not imply there are no "snooze and lose" aspects to patents. In fact, the original poster is somewhat correct. The doctrine of laches. Patentees against whom the laches defense has been successfully invoked are barred from collecting only those damages that accrued prior to filing suit.
The defense contains two elements: 1) The patent holder delayed bringing suit and that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable; and 2) The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay.
The doctrine is supported by caselaw: A.C. Auckerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 150 U.S. 193 (1893).
This is precisely correct. Computer programs simply expressions of mathematical algorithms which means they are discovered, not "invented". Worse, the fact that source code is not disclosed means that the searches for prior art are essentially impossible. This fact has been made substantially worse because software has traditionally not be patentable, so that nobody has bothered to share novel software discoveries with the patent offices.
In particular, our analysis of the model leads to four potential strategies, which can be used in conjunction:
1. Randomly selecting and litigating against users engaging in piracy
2. Creating fake users that carry (incorrectly named or damaged files)
3. Broadcasting fake queries in order to degrade network performance
4. Selectively targeting litigation against the small percentage of users that carry the majority of the files
This mostly summarizes the war on drugs and the government's strategy against alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. Neither worked and the countermeasures are simple and straight forward.
A "directed" web of trust, objective quality measurement, and knowledge compartimentalization defeat the above strategy. The countermeasure of creating large numbers of mutally trusting attackers doesn't work when trust "flow" is taken into account. The keys to such a system are: 1) trust is assymetric 2) nodes define and change who they trust based on their own assessments 3) Nodes protect their knowledge of the web of trust
To see how this works, consider the cops and the drug dealers. The fact that the cops all trust each other does not result in the drug dealers trusting them. When a dealer is compromised, no matter how high up the chain it goes, trust shifts to rivals. Even when a kingpin falls, lines of trust will still exist that aren't compromised.
Drug dealing is not as popular as file sharing, is substantially more damaging to peoples lives and society, and has motivated levels of funding that are not matchable by publicly traded firms (who must demonstrate at least mid-range ROI). Despite all of these advantages, the war on drugs has been a dismal failure. The bottom line is that the internet makes distribution of content a commidity, where it was formerly a task of enormous complexity and value add. Economics will determine the rest, unless the US adopts and maintains a totalitarian government.
I have heard that they filmed all three at the same time. I don't know for sure that it's true, but it is certainly plausible. What are you basing your statement on?
The situation with Mozillas Relicensing is complicated.
They will eventaully have an MPL/NPL/GPL triple licence. All new checkins must conform to this. Unfortunately a lot of their code was submitted by non-Netscape employees before they announced their GPL plans, which means they have to track down everybody and get explicit permission or rewrite that piece of the code.
The standard Mozilla installer clickwrap says the code you are installing is licenced under the MPL only.
The title is misleading. Venezuela is going GPL, not open source. There are presumably a lot of open source apps that cannot be used in Venezuela because they are licenced under terms that are not GPL compatible. I'm assuming that GPL compatible is good enough (I hope).
I usually think in terms of "open source" meaning OSI approved licence. I wonder what the "gaps" are in terms of types of apps that aren't really ready using GPL only. Some of the things that come to mind are: enterprise grade RDBMS, java swing libraries, RDBMS report writer. For that matter, is Apache's licence GPL compatible !? If not, what will they use? Is there an AutoCAD solution? Is there a geocoding solution? What other GPL gaps are out there?
Re:Americans throw away freedom for capitalism
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Amen.
I call what we have now "corporatism". Capitalism is about competition, a system in which yesterdays success guarantees nothing. The US, because of the corruption of our political process, has adopted a view that governments should regulate for the benefit of those who were previously successful.
Many posters have tried to divert attention from this by blaming capitalism. The US has adopted a political/economic paradigm that is fundamentally at odds with capitalism. It is NOT a matter of us being less than a "pure" capatilist society -- we are not capitalist AT ALL -- we are something different.
Sooner or later you have to decide whether you support competition or corporation. Capitalism always chooses the former, the fools in Washington always choose the later. WE ARE NOT CAPITALIST.
If I had one of these things, I'd certainly be willing to open it up to anybody around, EXCEPT I wouldn't necessarily let my firewall pass traffic from the wireless network to the internet unless it was from my machine.
So I'm thinking of end users getting these things and cooperating with each other.
Pretty soon people will be able to set up a CityNet: imagine everybody gathering together on a common IP subnet just like your home LAN except that it's multiple people who show up anonymously by simply setting their IP to within a particular submask.
This has got to be the RIAA absolute worst nightmare. With the Internet if you set up a service that an anonymous person can find and download files from, then so can they and they send you a C&D letter. With multi-user anonymous LANs, not only would they have to have a presense in each city, but even if they do, once they know that IP 198.168.31.331 is trading the whole Metallica collection, they have no way to track you down.
Medium range wireless offers an opportunity to remove, at least locally, the last barrier to a truly free internet : corporate/government regulation of the backbone.
When will Mozilla feature speedier web browsing, and better integration with best-of-breed Microsoft products such as MSN messenger and Outlook XP?
Mozilla does have "better" integration with MSN messenger and Outbreak : namely by isolating you from those security risks, it helps preserve the integrity of your user experience.
A theme that more closely matches the award winning Windows look-and-feel would also be helpful.
Who talks like that? I couldn't give a crap about the "award winning" look-and-feel. The only award I care about is the one I give out, and I prefer the award winning orbit skin to the cellar dweller IE skin.
Remedies for copyright infringement are defined in Title 17 Chapter 5 of the US Code.
Specifically, see 17 USC 504 (b): you choose between actual damages and statutory damages, and profits of the infringer due to the infringement count as actuals.
What is to not get? It's pretty simple: if you modify it distribute the source code and offer others the same deal. This is acheived with an absolutely trivial applicaiton of copyright law.
Copyright law, specificially 17 USC 106 provides the owner of a copyright "exclusive rights to do and to authorize" certain activities, including "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Software source code is such a copyrighted work, as is object code. When somebody prepares any form of software whose source or object code is a derivitive work of some other software, then that person has violated 17 USC 106 unless the creation was authorized. The GPL offers such authorization to software protected by it, so long as, among other things, that source code to the derivitive work be made available to anyone that the derivitive work is distributed to, and that modifications to the original, to the extent that they receive separate copyright protection per 17 USC 103(b) must be licenced under the GPL. It's a quid-pro-quo you may make a derivitive of my work if I can choose your licence. If you don't accept and comply with the requirements, you are violating 17 USC 106, and may be subject to civil remedies, injunctions, actual or statutory damages (up to $150K for willful infringement), attourneys fees, loss of profits attributable to infringement, and possibly criminal penalties, all as defined in 17 USC 501-509.
No, unfortunately it doesn't. On most legal matters, patents included, judges take a restrained approach: they only answer the minimal amount that they have to. In this situation, before you toss out the patent, you have to show that if the patent is valid that the defendent infringed it. Since there is no infringement here, the question of validity does not arise.
Slashdot Mirror
The real need is to have a spatial representation for geographic region information. You are trying to translate between two specific maps: zip codes to congressional districts. Actually, 5-digit zip codes are probably not accurate enough (districts cut across zipcode zones) and then you get into the realm of geocoding which attempts to translate a real world address into latitude, longitude and accuracy.
In the proprietary realm, there are products like Mapinfo and Mapmarker for address geocoding and zoning. Oracle has a spatial option which creates object types in the database for storing arbitrary sets of points and polygons and querying based on their intersection/overlap properties.
The java plug-in is very well penetrated into people's browsers. Both python and ruby have implementations in java. This should somehow be enough to make it work.
There is (was?) a project to put java on equal footing with javascript in mozilla. I wonder what is happening with it. > Hmmm, yep it's still there as of April, anyway. It's called blackwood. I also stumbled across Luxor. These look interesting.
Thanks, Socrates, but those aren't part of the mozilla distribution, now, are they? You can write python or ruby XPCOM objects about as easily as you can use perlscript to do client side html-scripting.
Why aren't these part of the mozilla disto?
The one major thing that I dislike about XUL is that it seems determined to make you program in javascript. I don't like javascript. Frankly, I think the web stinks because of the poor programming habits that javascript promotes.
Browsers already have java plug-ins, so why can't I write XUL for mozilla in an object orient fashion using java? or jython? or jruby?
Apache supports a jillion languages, why doesn't mozilla?
You can hide your head in the sand and pretend that you don't want to polarize people over this, but that will result in an "optional DRM" becoming the non-optional standard, and then in a few years DRM will become mandatory.
The critical factor is that we must have better content value than them. Disney and the "cool games" sites you refer to will be for pay, so I definitely think this is possible.
The other side has chosen the route of polarizing, not us. They will only deliver content to people who adopt a certain subserviant mentality and technology. We must make people understand that in addition to accepting shackles, they lose access to things they like.
The only route that leads to information freedom is to polarize and then extinguish the other side.
Soon you will see web pages that you cannot load without Palladium enabled.
This will happen. DRM is "optional" in that you can turn it on or not turn it on. The trick, of course, is that anyone can ask and rely on the trusted client to tell it whether it is on or off. The countermeasure that we MUST be prepared to do is this: we must configure our web pages, content, and programs to require that it be off. That is, we must force users to choose whether they want to see our stuff or DRM stuff.
I would go so far to say that we should set up IP blacklists for people who are "caught" turning DRM on. Palladium is a nasty measure -- we are going to have to fight back with equally nasty responses.
I also predict that when this is finally cracked, somebody will write a virus that cannot be deleted.
Yes, simply include the lookup table in the algorithm. O(1).
Congratulations, you've proved that all solvable problems are O(1): print "The answer is $answer". The hard part is constructing the lookup table given only the rules of the game.
I don't quite understand why a big lookup table is an important step for AI.
What AI wants is code that plays, observes the results, and converges to perfect play. One such algorithm has been produced and perfect play has been determined. Now the question is can an algorithm that converges *faster* be found. Learning speed can now be objectively measured, which opens a whole new scientific basis for studying AI.
To the Donator:
THANK YOU!
One method: You hire an attourney, give the money to them with instructions what to do with it, how to report back to you, and instructions not to reveal your identity. If they do reveal your identity, they are violating attourney client priviledge and you can file a grievance and they will get disbarred. You can probably also sue them for malpractice and recover the original money. This only works if the activity is legal, of course.
It is true that a trademark must be defended or lost, but that does not imply there are no "snooze and lose" aspects to patents. In fact, the original poster is somewhat correct. The doctrine of laches. Patentees against whom the laches defense has been successfully invoked are barred from collecting only those damages that accrued prior to filing suit.
The defense contains two elements:
1) The patent holder delayed bringing suit and that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable; and
2) The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay.
The doctrine is supported by caselaw: A.C. Auckerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 150 U.S. 193 (1893).
This is precisely correct. Computer programs simply expressions of mathematical algorithms which means they are discovered, not "invented". Worse, the fact that source code is not disclosed means that the searches for prior art are essentially impossible. This fact has been made substantially worse because software has traditionally not be patentable, so that nobody has bothered to share novel software discoveries with the patent offices.
In particular, our analysis of the model leads to four potential strategies, which can be used in conjunction:
1. Randomly selecting and litigating against users engaging in piracy
2. Creating fake users that carry (incorrectly named or damaged files)
3. Broadcasting fake queries in order to degrade network performance
4. Selectively targeting litigation against the small percentage of users that carry the majority of the files
This mostly summarizes the war on drugs and the government's strategy against alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. Neither worked and the countermeasures are simple and straight forward.
A "directed" web of trust, objective quality measurement, and knowledge compartimentalization defeat the above strategy. The countermeasure of creating large numbers of mutally trusting attackers doesn't work when trust "flow" is taken into account. The keys to such a system are:
1) trust is assymetric
2) nodes define and change who they trust based on their own assessments
3) Nodes protect their knowledge of the web of trust
To see how this works, consider the cops and the drug dealers. The fact that the cops all trust each other does not result in the drug dealers trusting them. When a dealer is compromised, no matter how high up the chain it goes, trust shifts to rivals. Even when a kingpin falls, lines of trust will still exist that aren't compromised.
Drug dealing is not as popular as file sharing, is substantially more damaging to peoples lives and society, and has motivated levels of funding that are not matchable by publicly traded firms (who must demonstrate at least mid-range ROI). Despite all of these advantages, the war on drugs has been a dismal failure. The bottom line is that the internet makes distribution of content a commidity, where it was formerly a task of enormous complexity and value add. Economics will determine the rest, unless the US adopts and maintains a totalitarian government.
I have heard that they filmed all three at the same time. I don't know for sure that it's true, but it is certainly plausible. What are you basing your statement on?
The situation with Mozillas Relicensing is complicated
They will eventaully have an MPL/NPL/GPL triple licence. All new checkins must conform to this. Unfortunately a lot of their code was submitted by non-Netscape employees before they announced their GPL plans, which means they have to track down everybody and get explicit permission or rewrite that piece of the code.
The standard Mozilla installer clickwrap says the code you are installing is licenced under the MPL only.
California, Peru, the UK, etc... have all *considered* it without jumping in the water. Venezuela seems to be the first to actually do it.
The title is misleading. Venezuela is going GPL, not open source. There are presumably a lot of open source apps that cannot be used in Venezuela because they are licenced under terms that are not GPL compatible. I'm assuming that GPL compatible is good enough (I hope).
I usually think in terms of "open source" meaning OSI approved licence. I wonder what the "gaps" are in terms of types of apps that aren't really ready using GPL only. Some of the things that come to mind are: enterprise grade RDBMS, java swing libraries, RDBMS report writer. For that matter, is Apache's licence GPL compatible !? If not, what will they use? Is there an AutoCAD solution? Is there a geocoding solution? What other GPL gaps are out there?
Amen.
I call what we have now "corporatism". Capitalism is about competition, a system in which yesterdays success guarantees nothing. The US, because of the corruption of our political process, has adopted a view that governments should regulate for the benefit of those who were previously successful.
Many posters have tried to divert attention from this by blaming capitalism. The US has adopted a political/economic paradigm that is fundamentally at odds with capitalism. It is NOT a matter of us being less than a "pure" capatilist society -- we are not capitalist AT ALL -- we are something different.
Sooner or later you have to decide whether you support competition or corporation. Capitalism always chooses the former, the fools in Washington always choose the later. WE ARE NOT CAPITALIST.
If I had one of these things, I'd certainly be willing to open it up to anybody around, EXCEPT I wouldn't necessarily let my firewall pass traffic from the wireless network to the internet unless it was from my machine.
So I'm thinking of end users getting these things and cooperating with each other.
Pretty soon people will be able to set up a CityNet: imagine everybody gathering together on a common IP subnet just like your home LAN except that it's multiple people who show up anonymously by simply setting their IP to within a particular submask.
This has got to be the RIAA absolute worst nightmare. With the Internet if you set up a service that an anonymous person can find and download files from, then so can they and they send you a C&D letter. With multi-user anonymous LANs, not only would they have to have a presense in each city, but even if they do, once they know that IP 198.168.31.331 is trading the whole Metallica collection, they have no way to track you down.
Medium range wireless offers an opportunity to remove, at least locally, the last barrier to a truly free internet : corporate/government regulation of the backbone.
When will Mozilla feature speedier web browsing, and better integration with best-of-breed Microsoft products such as MSN messenger and Outlook XP?
Mozilla does have "better" integration with MSN messenger and Outbreak : namely by isolating you from those security risks, it helps preserve the integrity of your user experience.
A theme that more closely matches the award winning Windows look-and-feel would also be helpful.
Who talks like that? I couldn't give a crap about the "award winning" look-and-feel. The only award I care about is the one I give out, and I prefer the award winning orbit skin to the cellar dweller IE skin.
Who is Coble's Democratic Opponent?
Anybody know where they stand on user rights?
Remedies for copyright infringement are defined in Title 17 Chapter 5 of the US Code.
Specifically, see 17 USC 504 (b): you choose between actual damages and statutory damages, and profits of the infringer due to the infringement count as actuals.
What is to not get? It's pretty simple: if you modify it distribute the source code and offer others the same deal. This is acheived with an absolutely trivial applicaiton of copyright law.
Copyright law, specificially 17 USC 106 provides the owner of a copyright "exclusive rights to do and to authorize" certain activities, including "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Software source code is such a copyrighted work, as is object code. When somebody prepares any form of software whose source or object code is a derivitive work of some other software, then that person has violated 17 USC 106 unless the creation was authorized. The GPL offers such authorization to software protected by it, so long as, among other things, that source code to the derivitive work be made available to anyone that the derivitive work is distributed to, and that modifications to the original, to the extent that they receive separate copyright protection per 17 USC 103(b) must be licenced under the GPL. It's a quid-pro-quo you may make a derivitive of my work if I can choose your licence. If you don't accept and comply with the requirements, you are violating 17 USC 106, and may be subject to civil remedies, injunctions, actual or statutory damages (up to $150K for willful infringement), attourneys fees, loss of profits attributable to infringement, and possibly criminal penalties, all as defined in 17 USC 501-509.
No, unfortunately it doesn't. On most legal matters, patents included, judges take a restrained approach: they only answer the minimal amount that they have to. In this situation, before you toss out the patent, you have to show that if the patent is valid that the defendent infringed it. Since there is no infringement here, the question of validity does not arise.