That's the unique thing about patents among the disparate areas of law sometimes referred to as "intellectual property": the future is always 2 decades away.
For example, you are the first person who had an idea, implemented it, and sold your products for a while, but you did not patent it. As a result, you could be sued by someone who took your idea and filed for a patent (and got it).
If you had published your idea, you would be able to use this publication to prove lack of novelty and therefore invalidity of the plaintiff's patent. Or are you referring to the specific case where you use an idea but keep it a trade secret rather than publishing?
In order to copyright it you have to publish. Binaries aren't subject to copyright.
Not true, in the U.S. something is copyrighted the moment it is created.
A finding of copyright infringement requires that the alleged infringer have had access to the copyright owner's work. Perhaps one might capture the essence of "you have to publish" as a proposed amendment to the copyright statute to presume lack of access in cases where the alleged infringer lacked access to source code (which the GPL defines as the preferred form of a work for making modifications to it). One possible exception is if the program's output separately qualifies for copyright as an audiovisual work, as in the case of a video game.
Hey it's first-to-file - who gives a fuck that she died after spending 50 years 'inventing' romance novels before I got the patent right ?
The "first to file" change affects only "interference", or conflicts between two patent applications. It does not diminish requirements under "novelty", or conflicts between a patent and published documents in the prior art.
Copyrights give lower level of protection for lower level of innovation and creativity. Whereas patents give higher level of protection for a much higher level of innovation. [...] As a creator, I want the strongest protection, whatever is applicable.
After twenty years, patents give zero protection.
If someone reverse engineers your software and then re-releases it as his own I'm guessing you can still sue for damages.
On what legal basis, other than patent infringement?
Why people use residential service, I'll never know. Comcast Business is awesome.
Comcast Business Internet cannot be combined in a bundle with Xfinity (home) TV service. I've read that Comcast Business TV service is more expensive than Xfinity TV service and lacks on demand, both presumably due to public performance licensing.
Not if the ISP overcharges the "local caching" company. Netflix offered to colo its Open Connect Appliance at Comcast to alleviate Comcast's transit burden, but Comcast refused it on grounds that it could make more money by leasing 4U of space, power, and cooling to another colo customer.
Imposing a monthly data transfer allowance does not meet the legal definition of extortion because subscribers are not coerced to purchase service from Comcast. They still retain the legal right to cancel Comcast service and either subscribe to a competing service or subscribe to no service at all. Saying this is extortion is like saying file sharing is larceny.
Except almost nobody is actually using H.265 for two reasons. One is devices without hardware acceleration for H.265 decoding. The other is the larger royalty associated with H.265 payable to multiple patent pools.
It's a guess, extrapolating the rate of change over time of monthly data usage allowance of cable Internet based on the historic rate of change over time of monthly data usage allowance of cellular Internet.
You choose to have water, electricity, heating, a garage, a car, a TV, a bank account
For the first three, the state has made the choice for me: it will take the owner of the property into custody if the owner does not provide them for residents. I can provide code citations if you wish. As for some of the others: I don't own a car, instead using a bicycle or the city bus. And I don't pay for TV, though my roommate does because she's addicted to audiovisually presented 24-hour political news and opinion.
The argument that banks shouldn't offer more convenient services via a mobile channel because the government hasn't deemed mobile networks a critical public service is a bit moronic.
That's not quite the argument I had in mind. Forgive me for moving the goalposts if this isn't exactly the claim, but I was under the impression that the argument was as follows:
Banks shouldn't suddenly take away services that they had previously provided if an account holder doesn't subscribe to an otherwise unrelated luxury service provided by a third party. For example, if a bank had recently offered check depositing at its ATMs, the bank shouldn't suddenly discontinue ATM depositing in favor of requiring all account holders to purchase a smartphone with a rear-facing camera and an Apple or Google OS and subscribe to cellular Internet on this phone in order to continue to make after-hours deposits. Likewise, if a bank had recently offered limited-use numbers for card-not-present purchases to PC-using shoppers through the web, it shouldn't suddenly discontinue the service in favor of requiring use of both a PC with web access and a smartphone with an Apple or Google OS and SMS service to obtain pieces of the limited-use number.
Voice is an upstream averaging 0.006 Mbps and a downstream averaging 0.006 Mbps.
A home phone is off hook for an average of one hour per day.
Cellular data transfer allowance is sold in "gigs" of 8000 Mbit each for $10.
This means one minute of voice is (0.006 + 0.006) * 60 = 0.72 Mbit, and 30 hours total 0.72 * 60 * 30 = 1296 Mbit, costing 1296 / 8000 * 10 = $1.62.
If your point is that $1.62 is greater than zero, then congratulations on being "the best kind of correct". My point is that $1.62 per customer per month is a tiny cost compared to (say) the $8.00 per month that telcos charge for having Caller ID on a POTS line. And that's assuming retail pricing; Verizon's home phone division probably gets a wholesale discount on the use of Verizon Wireless's cellular network.
Against card cloning
A chip is much harder to clone than a magnetic stripe.
Against physical theft of a card
The chip changes nothing.
Against account cancellation out of cardholder frustration with too many changes to the payment method at once
A delay of a few years between instituting chip and instituting PIN is less jarring than instituting both at once.
These days voice is data. It's all packets of digital data. It all takes up bandwidth.
But not nearly as much bandwidth as a session of HTML document viewing or video streaming. Depending on how congested your network is, it could be 0.006 to 0.012 Mbps each way.
Because, as the article states, fax transmission fails on cellular networks. My home state's means testing process for health insurance assistance requires applicants to mail or fax documents supporting my eligibility, including the applicant's birth certificate, most recent tax return, and the last 30 days of pay stubs. The instructions specifically state that a fax is more likely to be received by the deadline than mailed printed documents.
In GPLv2, the other options are a), to distribute every copy of the object code with a copy of the complete corresponding source code and not distribute the object code in any other manner, and c), to forward the offer you received. Option c) is not valid for commercial distribution. So for the avoidance of doubt, you are recommending option a), correct?
On second thought, you may be right that a large nonfiction corpus, such as Simple English Wikipedia, will help put parables such as The Lorax in context. So we'd have the Dr. Seuss stuff and instructions to build a microscope engraved at naked-eye size, then the rest of the corpus engraved on microcards.
Pascal is now self-hosting in most implementations, although Wikipedia notes that GCC Pascal is an exception, being written entirely in C and not self-hosting, which leads me to assume they don't use DDC at all, and the compiler can't compile itself
If you use a DDC-verified C++ compiler to build any GCC language, such as GNU Pascal, and you've combed the source code of GCC for trojans, then the resulting compiler is by extension DDC-verified because the compilation process's only inputs are GCC's source code and a DDC-verified compiler. The important part with respect to avoiding Thompson trojans is to make sure that there's a chain of implementations in publicly available source code form from a widely implemented language to any given language, even if it does have to pass through (say) old GCC, new GCC, OCaml, old Rust, and new Rust.
You mean like how how I have to pay for the privilege of running water and electricity?
A utility can be either a necessity or a luxury, and this changes from year to year and from market to market. You can tell that a utility is a necessity in any of several ways. For example, a utility is a necessity if the state subsidizes its provision, whether at the federal or several-states level. It's also a necessity if the state requires individuals to purchase the utility, such as city sit/lie laws or the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, or enacts a building code placing an unfunded mandate on a home builder or landlord to make the utility available.
In U.S. culture, as far as I can tell, running water and electricity are necessities, and SMS and cellular Internet are luxuries. Even home Internet is a luxury, compared to public library Internet which is a necessity.
Your cave might not have these things, but I assure you the rest of us are happy to pay for such luxuries...
Some people feel the need to borrow money "to pay for such luxuries." Others disagree, such as followers of Dave Ramsey's method, recommending that people cancel all luxury utilities rather than borrowing any money.
Neither does Python. But both languages will warn you when you try to read a variable that you haven't already written. Python raises an exception, and PHP raises a warning, which (under best practices) gets converted into an exception.
If you're hired to help fix someone's website and it's written in PHP, you gotta write your fix in PHP.
That or transpile the entire project into a different language.
You might be tempted to code the fix in a better language and have the PHP script call it, but that destroys the maintainability of the code for future programmers.
Not if "future programmers" understand the language into which you have transpiled the project. It might even be cheaper to hire "future programmers" who understand the language into which you have transpiled the project than to clean up after programmers who fail to avoid PHP gotchas.
Slashdot Mirror
The future is coming.
That's the unique thing about patents among the disparate areas of law sometimes referred to as "intellectual property": the future is always 2 decades away.
Anyone other than mass copyright infringers using it? Mass copyright infringers likely care little about patent compliance either.
For example, you are the first person who had an idea, implemented it, and sold your products for a while, but you did not patent it. As a result, you could be sued by someone who took your idea and filed for a patent (and got it).
If you had published your idea, you would be able to use this publication to prove lack of novelty and therefore invalidity of the plaintiff's patent. Or are you referring to the specific case where you use an idea but keep it a trade secret rather than publishing?
In order to copyright it you have to publish. Binaries aren't subject to copyright.
Not true, in the U.S. something is copyrighted the moment it is created.
A finding of copyright infringement requires that the alleged infringer have had access to the copyright owner's work. Perhaps one might capture the essence of "you have to publish" as a proposed amendment to the copyright statute to presume lack of access in cases where the alleged infringer lacked access to source code (which the GPL defines as the preferred form of a work for making modifications to it). One possible exception is if the program's output separately qualifies for copyright as an audiovisual work, as in the case of a video game.
I'd best run off to the patent office really quick to patent "Romance novels
I think a business actually tried "plot patents" and got shot down. See "What's the Story with Storyline Patents" by Ben Manevitz.
Hey it's first-to-file - who gives a fuck that she died after spending 50 years 'inventing' romance novels before I got the patent right ?
The "first to file" change affects only "interference", or conflicts between two patent applications. It does not diminish requirements under "novelty", or conflicts between a patent and published documents in the prior art.
Copyrights give lower level of protection for lower level of innovation and creativity. Whereas patents give higher level of protection for a much higher level of innovation. [...] As a creator, I want the strongest protection, whatever is applicable.
After twenty years, patents give zero protection.
If someone reverse engineers your software and then re-releases it as his own I'm guessing you can still sue for damages.
On what legal basis, other than patent infringement?
Nonliteral copying. It worked for The Tetris Company.
Why people use residential service, I'll never know. Comcast Business is awesome.
Comcast Business Internet cannot be combined in a bundle with Xfinity (home) TV service. I've read that Comcast Business TV service is more expensive than Xfinity TV service and lacks on demand, both presumably due to public performance licensing.
big ISPs will have local caching for many things
Not if the ISP overcharges the "local caching" company. Netflix offered to colo its Open Connect Appliance at Comcast to alleviate Comcast's transit burden, but Comcast refused it on grounds that it could make more money by leasing 4U of space, power, and cooling to another colo customer.
Imposing a monthly data transfer allowance does not meet the legal definition of extortion because subscribers are not coerced to purchase service from Comcast. They still retain the legal right to cancel Comcast service and either subscribe to a competing service or subscribe to no service at all. Saying this is extortion is like saying file sharing is larceny.
Except almost nobody is actually using H.265 for two reasons. One is devices without hardware acceleration for H.265 decoding. The other is the larger royalty associated with H.265 payable to multiple patent pools.
It is if enough people A. threaten to get an apartment on the other side of that road and/or B. demand telecommuting from their employers.
perfect price inelasticity of demand only exists in theory, not in the real world.
What would buyers substitute for the privilege of traveling on a given road?
Besides, market power need not be "perfect" in a theoretical economics sense in order to trigger restrictions under applicable competition laws.
It is about time.
And it'll take a lot of time for long-term exclusive contracts with professional and collegiate sport leagues to expire.
What does mobile data pricing have to do with residential wired
The fact that when forced to make the choice in order to make ends meet, people are canceling the latter and relying on the former.
and how is your response relevant to my OP?
It's a guess, extrapolating the rate of change over time of monthly data usage allowance of cable Internet based on the historic rate of change over time of monthly data usage allowance of cellular Internet.
You choose to have water, electricity, heating, a garage, a car, a TV, a bank account
For the first three, the state has made the choice for me: it will take the owner of the property into custody if the owner does not provide them for residents. I can provide code citations if you wish. As for some of the others: I don't own a car, instead using a bicycle or the city bus. And I don't pay for TV, though my roommate does because she's addicted to audiovisually presented 24-hour political news and opinion.
The argument that banks shouldn't offer more convenient services via a mobile channel because the government hasn't deemed mobile networks a critical public service is a bit moronic.
That's not quite the argument I had in mind. Forgive me for moving the goalposts if this isn't exactly the claim, but I was under the impression that the argument was as follows:
Banks shouldn't suddenly take away services that they had previously provided if an account holder doesn't subscribe to an otherwise unrelated luxury service provided by a third party. For example, if a bank had recently offered check depositing at its ATMs, the bank shouldn't suddenly discontinue ATM depositing in favor of requiring all account holders to purchase a smartphone with a rear-facing camera and an Apple or Google OS and subscribe to cellular Internet on this phone in order to continue to make after-hours deposits. Likewise, if a bank had recently offered limited-use numbers for card-not-present purchases to PC-using shoppers through the web, it shouldn't suddenly discontinue the service in favor of requiring use of both a PC with web access and a smartphone with an Apple or Google OS and SMS service to obtain pieces of the limited-use number.
Yes, voice is less bandwidth, but it is bandwidth
Let's start with these assumptions:
This means one minute of voice is (0.006 + 0.006) * 60 = 0.72 Mbit, and 30 hours total 0.72 * 60 * 30 = 1296 Mbit, costing 1296 / 8000 * 10 = $1.62.
If your point is that $1.62 is greater than zero, then congratulations on being "the best kind of correct". My point is that $1.62 per customer per month is a tiny cost compared to (say) the $8.00 per month that telcos charge for having Caller ID on a POTS line. And that's assuming retail pricing; Verizon's home phone division probably gets a wholesale discount on the use of Verizon Wireless's cellular network.
It depends on the attack model.
Against card cloning A chip is much harder to clone than a magnetic stripe. Against physical theft of a card The chip changes nothing. Against account cancellation out of cardholder frustration with too many changes to the payment method at once A delay of a few years between instituting chip and instituting PIN is less jarring than instituting both at once.These days voice is data. It's all packets of digital data. It all takes up bandwidth.
But not nearly as much bandwidth as a session of HTML document viewing or video streaming. Depending on how congested your network is, it could be 0.006 to 0.012 Mbps each way.
Because, as the article states, fax transmission fails on cellular networks. My home state's means testing process for health insurance assistance requires applicants to mail or fax documents supporting my eligibility, including the applicant's birth certificate, most recent tax return, and the last 30 days of pay stubs. The instructions specifically state that a fax is more likely to be received by the deadline than mailed printed documents.
In GPLv2, the other options are a), to distribute every copy of the object code with a copy of the complete corresponding source code and not distribute the object code in any other manner, and c), to forward the offer you received. Option c) is not valid for commercial distribution. So for the avoidance of doubt, you are recommending option a), correct?
On second thought, you may be right that a large nonfiction corpus, such as Simple English Wikipedia, will help put parables such as The Lorax in context. So we'd have the Dr. Seuss stuff and instructions to build a microscope engraved at naked-eye size, then the rest of the corpus engraved on microcards.
Pascal is now self-hosting in most implementations, although Wikipedia notes that GCC Pascal is an exception, being written entirely in C and not self-hosting, which leads me to assume they don't use DDC at all, and the compiler can't compile itself
If you use a DDC-verified C++ compiler to build any GCC language, such as GNU Pascal, and you've combed the source code of GCC for trojans, then the resulting compiler is by extension DDC-verified because the compilation process's only inputs are GCC's source code and a DDC-verified compiler. The important part with respect to avoiding Thompson trojans is to make sure that there's a chain of implementations in publicly available source code form from a widely implemented language to any given language, even if it does have to pass through (say) old GCC, new GCC, OCaml, old Rust, and new Rust.
You mean like how how I have to pay for the privilege of running water and electricity?
A utility can be either a necessity or a luxury, and this changes from year to year and from market to market. You can tell that a utility is a necessity in any of several ways. For example, a utility is a necessity if the state subsidizes its provision, whether at the federal or several-states level. It's also a necessity if the state requires individuals to purchase the utility, such as city sit/lie laws or the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, or enacts a building code placing an unfunded mandate on a home builder or landlord to make the utility available.
In U.S. culture, as far as I can tell, running water and electricity are necessities, and SMS and cellular Internet are luxuries. Even home Internet is a luxury, compared to public library Internet which is a necessity.
Your cave might not have these things, but I assure you the rest of us are happy to pay for such luxuries...
Some people feel the need to borrow money "to pay for such luxuries." Others disagree, such as followers of Dave Ramsey's method, recommending that people cancel all luxury utilities rather than borrowing any money.
Consider The Romantics' song, What I Like About You - published 1979
And largely a rip of "Cherry, Cherry" by Neil Diamond.
PHP doesn't require you to declare variables.
Neither does Python. But both languages will warn you when you try to read a variable that you haven't already written. Python raises an exception, and PHP raises a warning, which (under best practices) gets converted into an exception.
If you're hired to help fix someone's website and it's written in PHP, you gotta write your fix in PHP.
That or transpile the entire project into a different language.
You might be tempted to code the fix in a better language and have the PHP script call it, but that destroys the maintainability of the code for future programmers.
Not if "future programmers" understand the language into which you have transpiled the project. It might even be cheaper to hire "future programmers" who understand the language into which you have transpiled the project than to clean up after programmers who fail to avoid PHP gotchas.