If you use university resources -- hardware, network, and so forth -- you're definitely operating under their IP policy. Even if you don't use their resources, you still may; chances are, you agreed to abide by *all* their policies, of whatever kind, when you enrolled.
OTOH, despite the policies, if it's a SMALL project utterly disconnected from any profit motive, staff may look the other way and not really care about the license. They may not care if you release a small set of Perl modules useful to other researchers for calculating various metrics; they probably *will* care if you form a startup with work that you did for a course, or for a formal research project.
The primary obstacle to the distribution of aid to, say, the poor in other countries is their own governments and own cultures. For instance, don't expect to get very far in treating HIV in Africa until promiscuity and prostitution are massively reduced, and various myths (e.g. the concept that sex with a virgin cures AIDS) thoroughly dispelled. Don't expect to be able to efficiently distribute food in an area wracked by civil war, either -- not when all sides are willing to use starvation as a weapon. And so forth.
I don't see a problem if it were purely a defensive patent -- one taken specifically to lower the success probability of anybody else being granted a patent that would interfere. He could explicitly grant usage rights to everybody so nobody would be infringing. *shrug*
Well, there's an arrangement by which some the drug companies look the other way with regards to IP violations re: locally producing generic versions of drugs, as long as the local companies and the government play by certain WTO (or was it WIPO or WHO?) rules. There's a company in India, for instance, which clones quite a few drugs researched here, that is basically being permitted to do this for at least several more years IIRC. They're even thinking of exporting the drug outside of India.
Likewise, part of the South African mess was that the government didn't want to admit that there was, in fact, a state of emergency regarding HIV.
What Mundie was referring to is companies like that provide the distribution for free (if you've got the bandwidth)... but try to make money off support, manuals and so forth.
Not really. A clueless user can still quite easily mangle their Windows configuration trying to "fix" problems, to the point that they need to reinstall. The 9Xs are fairly brittle in that regard... and WinNT/2K isn't THAT much better when you're considering that for a home user, the users *is* the administrators. It's also a LOT easier to use a VCR or other appliance, largely because computers are far more versatile (especially the ability to swap components in and out) and complicated...
Good luck. With complex software, it's often possible for a newbie to delete random files, or otherwise misconfigure things all to Hell. Between driver versions, all sorts of unusual network configurations, real-time virus scanners, et al, there are often *many* possible single points of failure.
Hardware may be easier, but you still have to account for bumps, heat, humidity, vibrations, magnetic fields... Hell, my vacuum cleaner is lethal to Travan tape drives (it's probably either the vibrations through the floor or it MIGHT be drawing enough current to provide a sufficiently strong magnetic field... and I'm not going to systematically test tape drives in a quest to find out), and doesn't even need to touch the case for this to happen. I don't expect to see tape drives to be in Faraday cages with some kind of vibration-dampening mount anytime soon, and they'd probably be expensive for a home user if they DID appear.
An 11-pound plane probably can't carry that much of a payload... even using multiple planes you're probably talking about pretty large overhead costs compared to more traditional means.
However, a FindLaw article (read "Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power") suggests that in international issues, such as migratory birds, the treaty power might be strong enough to overwhelm the Tenth Amendment. And language used by Holmes in one ruling suggested a controversy over exact interpretation...
If the Government chooses to argue a compelling interest in international cooperation over computer crime or even easily-duplicated IP, the same logic may perhaps suffice.
To my knowledge, no President or Congressman has been raked over the legal coals solely for breaking his oath, although many have pushed blatantly unconstitutional acts (provisions of the Communications Decency Act, provisions of the Violence against Women act, calling for banning flags via law (rather than amendment)...). Not yet, anyway.
Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec
on
Send out the Clones?
·
· Score: 1
How's that a contradiction? The same thread -- opposition to the killing of embryos -- runs through both abortion (direct killing of embryo) and arguably as a prerequisite for cloning (through creating lots of doomed non-viable embryos... and also, the whole clone-for-spare-parts idea.).
...especially when the local authorities either don't give a damn, or condone it, or even participate. Then you *know* there's a very, very big problem.
It depends on how you interpret Article VI, paragraph II, of the US Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
One can probably make a very good case that this puts treaties on an equal footing as the Constitution itself -- IOW, if a treaty requires replacing our current system with a hereditary monarchy and the Senate was demented enough to ratify, then that might be perfectly legal.
There's plenty of posts with invalid e-mail addresses in the headers. Some are forgeries from spammers, which often contain *no* valid e-mail address in the body, either. Others are 'munged' addresses, or outright invalid ones, but usually with information in the signature that gives a valid address when parsed by a human.
For instance, the From: line might be
From: foo@wFaItSeHr.com
and in the sig --
"Take the fish out of water to respond."
Or, alternately,
From: nobody@invalid.qqq
and in the sig
Reverse and reply to "com dot water at foo".
The theory is that the munging inhibits a harvester program far more than it does a person. A cruel idea might be putting 'spamcop@spamcop.net' in your signature (as in "Spam gets redirected to..."), but a clueful spammer will probably have a script which ignores that and other booby-trapped addresses.
There's a fair chance it wouldn't work. Every algorithm will have bit strings it cannot compress... so, basically, it's a search through the infinite space of possible algorithms to find one that does apply.
Not in the general case. No method will in the general problem of being ONE algorithm that will losslessly, strictly compress/uncompress every possible bit string.
(strictly compress => must reduce in size)
The usual proof --
* For arbitrary $n$ within $\mathcal{Z}^{+}$, there are $2^{n}$ unique binary strings of that length.
* There are only $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} 2^{i}$ unique binary strings that are *fewer* than $n$ bits long.
* That summation adds up to... $2^{n}-1$.
* Therefore, the pigeonhole principle applies; if all $2^{n}$ strings map to strings of length $n-1$ or smaller, there must be at least one output (compressed) string which is now ambiguous since it could mean either of at least two strings of length $n$. Ergo you've lost information. Conversely, if there is no ambiguity, then at least on string of length $n$ was mapped to a string of at least length $n$ -- IOW, not compressed. And this holds for every positive $n$...
And when you combine different methods, you have to remember to account for the bits that tell you *which* decompression method to use.
You've clearly never heard of the pigeon-hole principle, or considered applying it to compression theory.
You can't squeeze the 2^n unique possible strings of 1s and 0s of length n into the (2^n)-1 unique possible strings of 1s and 0s of length 0..(n-1) without loss.
On the other hand, they might be able to sell far greater quantities and benefit from economies of scale. Still profitable I'd suspect -- most people don't have the time, knowledge or resources to produce their own heroin or cocaine, say. And still possibly profitable enough to kill for.
Military training usually teaches you that running amok, charging about and shooting people is a pretty easy way to paint a target on your back. They don't do it. They're also taught to point guns only at targets -- be they cardboard, or simulated or actual armed combatants.
And if schools weren't a soft target -- where it's generally easy to smuggle in weapons, but very few people, if any are supposed to *have* them, let alone are good with them, would they still have targetted a school?
I've never heard of somebody walking into a police station and trying a mass shooting. Or a gun club. Or a military base. Ever wonder why?
Slashdot Mirror
If you use university resources -- hardware, network, and so forth -- you're definitely operating under their IP policy. Even if you don't use their resources, you still may; chances are, you agreed to abide by *all* their policies, of whatever kind, when you enrolled.
OTOH, despite the policies, if it's a SMALL project utterly disconnected from any profit motive, staff may look the other way and not really care about the license. They may not care if you release a small set of Perl modules useful to other researchers for calculating various metrics; they probably *will* care if you form a startup with work that you did for a course, or for a formal research project.
The primary obstacle to the distribution of aid to, say, the poor in other countries is their own governments and own cultures. For instance, don't expect to get very far in treating HIV in Africa until promiscuity and prostitution are massively reduced, and various myths (e.g. the concept that sex with a virgin cures AIDS) thoroughly dispelled. Don't expect to be able to efficiently distribute food in an area wracked by civil war, either -- not when all sides are willing to use starvation as a weapon. And so forth.
I don't see a problem if it were purely a defensive patent -- one taken specifically to lower the success probability of anybody else being granted a patent that would interfere. He could explicitly grant usage rights to everybody so nobody would be infringing. *shrug*
Well, there's an arrangement by which some the drug companies look the other way with regards to IP violations re: locally producing generic versions of drugs, as long as the local companies and the government play by certain WTO (or was it WIPO or WHO?) rules. There's a company in India, for instance, which clones quite a few drugs researched here, that is basically being permitted to do this for at least several more years IIRC. They're even thinking of exporting the drug outside of India.
Likewise, part of the South African mess was that the government didn't want to admit that there was, in fact, a state of emergency regarding HIV.
Nope. IE isn't their cash cow; IIS is.
What Mundie was referring to is companies like that provide the distribution for free (if you've got the bandwidth)... but try to make money off support, manuals and so forth.
Not really. A clueless user can still quite easily mangle their Windows configuration trying to "fix" problems, to the point that they need to reinstall. The 9Xs are fairly brittle in that regard... and WinNT/2K isn't THAT much better when you're considering that for a home user, the users *is* the administrators. It's also a LOT easier to use a VCR or other appliance, largely because computers are far more versatile (especially the ability to swap components in and out) and complicated...
Good luck. With complex software, it's often possible for a newbie to delete random files, or otherwise misconfigure things all to Hell. Between driver versions, all sorts of unusual network configurations, real-time virus scanners, et al, there are often *many* possible single points of failure.
Hardware may be easier, but you still have to account for bumps, heat, humidity, vibrations, magnetic fields... Hell, my vacuum cleaner is lethal to Travan tape drives (it's probably either the vibrations through the floor or it MIGHT be drawing enough current to provide a sufficiently strong magnetic field... and I'm not going to systematically test tape drives in a quest to find out), and doesn't even need to touch the case for this to happen. I don't expect to see tape drives to be in Faraday cages with some kind of vibration-dampening mount anytime soon, and they'd probably be expensive for a home user if they DID appear.
And for 5000 points, they give you a portable DVD player and a DVD of _Soylent Green_. ;-)
You weren't forced to sign the license or to use MSFT products; if you don't like the terms, you don't have to use their software. No comparison.
An 11-pound plane probably can't carry that much of a payload... even using multiple planes you're probably talking about pretty large overhead costs compared to more traditional means.
Perhaps the monarchy idea was extreme. ;-)
However, a FindLaw article (read "Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power") suggests that in international issues, such as migratory birds, the treaty power might be strong enough to overwhelm the Tenth Amendment. And language used by Holmes in one ruling suggested a controversy over exact interpretation...
If the Government chooses to argue a compelling interest in international cooperation over computer crime or even easily-duplicated IP, the same logic may perhaps suffice.
To my knowledge, no President or Congressman has been raked over the legal coals solely for breaking his oath, although many have pushed blatantly unconstitutional acts (provisions of the Communications Decency Act, provisions of the Violence against Women act, calling for banning flags via law (rather than amendment)...). Not yet, anyway.
How's that a contradiction? The same thread -- opposition to the killing of embryos -- runs through both abortion (direct killing of embryo) and arguably as a prerequisite for cloning (through creating lots of doomed non-viable embryos... and also, the whole clone-for-spare-parts idea.).
...especially when the local authorities either don't give a damn, or condone it, or even participate. Then you *know* there's a very, very big problem.
It depends on how you interpret Article VI, paragraph II, of the US Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
One can probably make a very good case that this puts treaties on an equal footing as the Constitution itself -- IOW, if a treaty requires replacing our current system with a hereditary monarchy and the Senate was demented enough to ratify, then that might be perfectly legal.
Well, considering that Huey, Dewey (sp?) and Louie don't even wear pants, is it really that surprising?
;-)
There's plenty of posts with invalid e-mail addresses in the headers. Some are forgeries from spammers, which often contain *no* valid e-mail address in the body, either. Others are 'munged' addresses, or outright invalid ones, but usually with information in the signature that gives a valid address when parsed by a human.
For instance, the From: line might be
From: foo@wFaItSeHr.com
and in the sig --
"Take the fish out of water to respond."
Or, alternately,
From: nobody@invalid.qqq
and in the sig
Reverse and reply to "com dot water at foo".
The theory is that the munging inhibits a harvester program far more than it does a person. A cruel idea might be putting 'spamcop@spamcop.net' in your signature (as in "Spam gets redirected to..."), but a clueful spammer will probably have a script which ignores that and other booby-trapped addresses.
There's a fair chance it wouldn't work. Every algorithm will have bit strings it cannot compress... so, basically, it's a search through the infinite space of possible algorithms to find one that does apply.
Not in the general case. No method will in the general problem of being ONE algorithm that will losslessly, strictly compress/uncompress every possible bit string.
(strictly compress => must reduce in size)
The usual proof --
* For arbitrary $n$ within $\mathcal{Z}^{+}$, there are $2^{n}$ unique binary strings of that length.
* There are only $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} 2^{i}$ unique binary strings that are *fewer* than $n$ bits long.
* That summation adds up to... $2^{n}-1$.
* Therefore, the pigeonhole principle applies; if all $2^{n}$ strings map to strings of length $n-1$ or smaller, there must be at least one output (compressed) string which is now ambiguous since it could mean either of at least two strings of length $n$. Ergo you've lost information. Conversely, if there is no ambiguity, then at least on string of length $n$ was mapped to a string of at least length $n$ -- IOW, not compressed. And this holds for every positive $n$...
And when you combine different methods, you have to remember to account for the bits that tell you *which* decompression method to use.
You've clearly never heard of the pigeon-hole principle, or considered applying it to compression theory.
You can't squeeze the 2^n unique possible strings of 1s and 0s of length n into the (2^n)-1 unique possible strings of 1s and 0s of length 0..(n-1) without loss.
That only compresses if a, b and c combined use fewer bits. That's not necessarily the case. For instance, if n=5:
n = 101 : 3 bits
n = (10 * 10) + 1 : 5 bits
n = (100 * 1) + 1 : 5 bits
And that's ignoring overhead bytes to specify how many bits each number has.
*blink*
Er, how would you encode the strategy? There's the rub; Chess has a massive state space with a large number of possible transitions, after all.
The other bit is that AI vs. AI may lead to AIs that are only good at defeating AI opponents.
On the other hand, they might be able to sell far greater quantities and benefit from economies of scale. Still profitable I'd suspect -- most people don't have the time, knowledge or resources to produce their own heroin or cocaine, say. And still possibly profitable enough to kill for.
Hm. Perhaps it's possible to replace the face textures in _Combat Mission_?
Then you could mow 'em down en masse with artillery, machine guns, rifles and tank shells to your heart's content.
Military training usually teaches you that running amok, charging about and shooting people is a pretty easy way to paint a target on your back. They don't do it. They're also taught to point guns only at targets -- be they cardboard, or simulated or actual armed combatants.
And if schools weren't a soft target -- where it's generally easy to smuggle in weapons, but very few people, if any are supposed to *have* them, let alone are good with them, would they still have targetted a school?
I've never heard of somebody walking into a police station and trying a mass shooting. Or a gun club. Or a military base. Ever wonder why?