You are assuming that noone will be able to build a Quantum Computer to crack it. Quantum encryption cannot be cracked like this but RSA can. Of course it is highly unlikly that anyone could build one today but they could intercept sensitive data today and decrypt it in years to come when quantum computers are available. This is a problem for some data that will remain sensitive for along time in the future.
The next improvemnt on Qunatum Field Theory (the theory used currently to understand things on very small distance scales, on which theory behind Quantum encryption is bassed) seems to be String/M theory. This integrates General Relativity (currently used to understand the things on large distance scales or where gravity is significant) and may predict many of the constants that seem to have to just be choosen to be what we measure them as in particle physics (basically everything fits together much better than without it). There doesn't seem to be any sugestion that it will allow Quantum encryption to be broken. Quantum Mechanics may seem very counter inttuative but all the evidence shows that it actually explains alot and makes predictions that have been tested to stunning accuracy. It is really very very very unlikly that anyone will ever find a way to crack quantum encryuption (it is almost certainly imposible and if a theory was put foward that allowed it to be broken it would be sometime between when it would be known to be possible and when it could actually be done). If you were really paranoid though of course you could encrypt the data using something else then send it over a quantum encrypted link.
Maybe not 100% secure but this is encryption that you can prove is unbreakable. (think OTP but with a way to exchange pads without any posibility of them being intercepted). Unless our understanding of quantum mechanics is seriously flawed there is no way to crack quantum encryption that is done correctly.
These secrete patents are not the only reason to oppose patents. Almost all the arguments against software patents apply to all patents. The main reason they are not opposed so strongly is because most people have always assumed that patents are a good thing and that there is a case for arguing that people should be able to own ideas just because they are the first to announce them. There are numerous economic arguments against all patents with are often not applied to software patents simply because people fear looking like a nut case because they opposes patents in general. I think there was a recent article posted on Slashdot about intellectual property (including patents) while I am unsure if I agree with extending this opposition to copyright (i.e. making copyright non-existent and thus making copyleft unnecessary)
I think it makes many of the points against patents well. The greatest argument against them to me seems to be that they are unnecessary. There have been numerous inventions that have been developed in order to receive royalties from patents but in the absence of patents they would still have been developed to receive more market share by implementing them first in products. Without patents a greater pace of innovation is encouraged because patents grant income from having had a good idea where as a market where ideas are free the income comes from products that are superior because they incorporate new idea that their designers have just had and that have not been copied yet. A continual stream of good ideas is needed to stay on top and so more research staff are needed and more new ideas are available to society.
We are talking about a company that is deliberately clogging the P2P networks with bogus files requests (Media Defender) and a company that is distributing fake copies of files on P2P networks (Overpeer). They are being sued because they do not have permission to use the technology they need to do this. In a perfect world what they are doing would be illegal but since it isn't why shouldn't we be pleased that software pattents are being used against them. I guess it is similar to being pleased when a thief that is getting away with his crimes gets robbed.
Why do so many Americans (I guess I am going to look a bit stupid if the author of the parent turns out not to be american but it is true of many americans anyway) seem to attach such high value to having perfectly arranged beautifully white teeth when they seem to attach so little value to other, more significant, outward signs of health? What makes teeth so important?
I see no reason why google won't just increase their space by the same factor. Noone will use more than a few hundred megabytes (assuming you have rules that prevent online backups etc)
What are you on about? Who cares if CowboyNeal prefers Mac OS X to Linux? Thousands of other Mac users do (I say thousands not millions because the rest of the Mac users haven't used Linux so have no valid opinion on the subject). I am a Linux user (except the odd game which I am forced to use Windows for) but from my limited experience Mac OS X doesn't seem bad and if I had a Mac to run it on I would give it a try.
Now if he preferred windows clearly that would be a different matter altogether.
Your post seems to imply that the British government was "trying to forcibly kill a cultural viewpoint" before the Good Friday Agreement. I am no expert on the situation but I don't think this is the case at all. British solders were deployed in NI to help prevent violence between Republicans (mostly catholic people who want NI to become part of The Republic of Ireland) and Unionists (mostly protestant people who want NI to remain part of the United Kingdom). In the Good Friday agreement the major republican and unionist factions agreed to a cease-fire and to govern NI together. The British government agreed to devolve power in NI to the Stormont Assembly (i.e. NI is governed by people democratically elected by people of NI instead of people democratically elected by people of the whole of the UK) allowing parties representing paramilitary factions (like Sinn Fein that represent the IRA and Progressive Unionist Party that represent Ulster Volunteer Force) to participate only while the cease-fire lasted and on the condition they decommission terrorist weapons. The military force deployed to NI is not fighting for either cause. It is there to keep peace (violence in streets is committed by both republicans and unionists). (see This BBC report )
A large number of people outside the UK seem to see the troubles in NI as being caused by the British government trying to keep control of NI while the population or part of it wants independence. This is not the case. I don't think there are many people in Great Britain (UK minus NI) that care if NI is part on the UK but the problem is much of the population of NI seem to feel strongly one way or the other and many are prepared to commit terrorist acts against people in NI (and in the case of the IRA in people in London) to try to get their way.
I also find it quite hypocritical that the US condemns nations that support terrorism but continues to deny the British government's requests for help in brining the people who fund the IRA (who have committed several serious terrorist acts both in NI and in London) to justice even though much of their funding comes from US citizens without which they would be unable to do the terrible things they have done. (see
Another BBC report )
Although the parent post was funny I felt I should make sure people know the full quote was
"Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off, with programs still running."
As far as I can see they are basically saying they can suspend a computer remotely. While this is not in any way innovative it is slightly better than just switching on or off the PC. (which I have just realised I don't know how to do in windows - if anyone knows a command to shutdown a windows PC over a telnet connection then could they reply and tell me)
It is unfortunate that although this is an obvious feature to add they will probably be granted a patent (which at least used to require it to be regarded as a new and innovative idea)
To be able to make an informed choice about whether or not you are prepared to accept the Terms of a particular service you need to know and understand them. Most people do not have the time or inclination to read every EULA they agree to and many would not understand the implications of what they were agreeing to if they did. It is generally articles/posts like this one that inform people of the undesirable terms and allow them to make their own informed decision.
They are not just bitching; they are providing useful information to everyone else.
In the article it mentions that half of all patents are found to be invalid in court. I was wondering how this differs when considering just software patents. Come to think of it have any software patents been used successfully?
The post the parent is replying to was most probably posted by a user from the UK where the age of consent is 16. The original poster's analysis of the law is to the best of my knowledge correct (IANAL).
It would be very foolish of us to use up so much water that there is none left. We would have to switch to using Helium as the fuel well before then.
The question is how much water do we need to supply the power we need?
Well we need Deutrinium and Trittium in equal quantities. These isotopes are much rarer than Hydrogen-1 but we can just burn any Hydrogen and excess Deutrinium and recover most of the energy it took to electrolyse the water to get it and we are left with water.
The world uses about 4x10^17 btus of energy a year ( Source ) which is equal to about 4.2x10^20 joules a year. Each atom of helium 4 produced by fusion of hydrogen provides 2.819x10-12 joules so we need about 1.5x10^32 reactions a year. As each molecule of water gives 2 atoms of hydrogen and 2 are required for each reaction this is the number of molecules of water that need to be electrolysed. This corresponds to about 5 million litres of water (bare in mind that the relative molecular mass of the water we are using is 21 not 18 as the deutrinium and tritium we are extracting are heavier than the hydrogen-1 commonly found in water). If we assume that the power station is 5% efficient (about the same as modern power stations) then we need 20 times this amount (100 million litres per year). Comparing this with the total amount of water in the world which is about 326 million cubic miles ( Source ) (1.4x10^21 litres) we find that the amount we will need in the next million years is about 0.0000000007% of the water in the world assuming current power consumption so the question about what to do when it does run out is accedemic anyway.
Firstly giving the amount produced as atoms/molecules a second (the same thing for helium) was quite unhelpful of me but I think producing all the worlds power by fusion would yield about 5.5 billion litres of helium at standard temperature and pressure (atmospheric pressure and 0 degrees celsius) a year. That corresponds to about a million killograms of it a year. This assumes the reactors are 100% efficient which is obviously not the case (since we are currently unable to actually get out more than we put in they currently have negative efficiency) so in reality many times this would be produced (100 times if they turn out to be as inefficient as coal power plants used today).
The Texas oil fields (the world's largest producer of helium) were producing about 4 billion litres a year in the 70's so the amount produced by fusion would probably be enough to cover our current demand (assuming we don't manage to make highly efficient reactors)
On the other hand though if we finally manage fusion we will be making loads of it. Fusion reactors convert hydrogen-2 and hydrogen-3 to helium-4. Each megawatt of power generated assuming even 100% efficiency produces 3.55x10^(17) molecules of helium a second (a less efficient reactor would need to produce more to output the same useful power)
When we run out of Hydrogen we can use Helium to make heavier elements. Eventually we end up with lots of Iron (the most stable atom is an iron isotope but I forget which)
I may be being really stupid here but surely if spam is sent from a spoofed address then you can't tell where it is really from. If you could find the IP it originated from it would be much harder for people to send it and initivies like Domain keys etc would be pointless since if you could tell where it was from easily then there would be no reason to verify if the from address is real.
It is illegal to destroy currency in the UK. This stems from a practice in the past of shaving gold off the edges of coins. When coins were made of gold it was profitable to to do this and the idea was to shave off little enough that you could still use the coin. As postage stamps are also legal tender (although I don't think many shops would allow you to pay for goods with them) I think it may also cover them here.
While protocols used on the net are free and open this can never happen. The only way the net can ever loose the freedom and diversity it has today is if companies come to control the protocols used on it (which is unlikly to ever happen and any attempt to make it happen should be resisted)
Look at Betamax. Beta max tapes were smaller, had better picture and sound quality and lasted longer but people use VHS. Why? Because Sony refused to licence Betamax to other companies so they were the only manufacture. This is a great example of how proprietary standards get in the way. It is far better if the standards are open so companies have no financial incentive to choose inferior standards (like VHS).
The case of rewritable DVDs is similar to the VHS/Betamax case but it was inferior standards that died
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that noone will be able to build a Quantum Computer to crack it. Quantum encryption cannot be cracked like this but RSA can. Of course it is highly unlikly that anyone could build one today but they could intercept sensitive data today and decrypt it in years to come when quantum computers are available. This is a problem for some data that will remain sensitive for along time in the future.
The next improvemnt on Qunatum Field Theory (the theory used currently to understand things on very small distance scales, on which theory behind Quantum encryption is bassed) seems to be String/M theory. This integrates General Relativity (currently used to understand the things on large distance scales or where gravity is significant) and may predict many of the constants that seem to have to just be choosen to be what we measure them as in particle physics (basically everything fits together much better than without it). There doesn't seem to be any sugestion that it will allow Quantum encryption to be broken. Quantum Mechanics may seem very counter inttuative but all the evidence shows that it actually explains alot and makes predictions that have been tested to stunning accuracy. It is really very very very unlikly that anyone will ever find a way to crack quantum encryuption (it is almost certainly imposible and if a theory was put foward that allowed it to be broken it would be sometime between when it would be known to be possible and when it could actually be done). If you were really paranoid though of course you could encrypt the data using something else then send it over a quantum encrypted link.
Maybe not 100% secure but this is encryption that you can prove is unbreakable. (think OTP but with a way to exchange pads without any posibility of them being intercepted). Unless our understanding of quantum mechanics is seriously flawed there is no way to crack quantum encryption that is done correctly.
He was joking (or at least flaming in a humerous way). Stop taking life so seriously.
These secrete patents are not the only reason to oppose patents. Almost all the arguments against software patents apply to all patents. The main reason they are not opposed so strongly is because most people have always assumed that patents are a good thing and that there is a case for arguing that people should be able to own ideas just because they are the first to announce them. There are numerous economic arguments against all patents with are often not applied to software patents simply because people fear looking like a nut case because they opposes patents in general. I think there was a recent article posted on Slashdot about intellectual property (including patents) while I am unsure if I agree with extending this opposition to copyright (i.e. making copyright non-existent and thus making copyleft unnecessary) I think it makes many of the points against patents well. The greatest argument against them to me seems to be that they are unnecessary. There have been numerous inventions that have been developed in order to receive royalties from patents but in the absence of patents they would still have been developed to receive more market share by implementing them first in products. Without patents a greater pace of innovation is encouraged because patents grant income from having had a good idea where as a market where ideas are free the income comes from products that are superior because they incorporate new idea that their designers have just had and that have not been copied yet. A continual stream of good ideas is needed to stay on top and so more research staff are needed and more new ideas are available to society.
I think this gives you a numerical solution not an algebraic one which is impossible but I may be wrong (IANAM)
Does anyone know if the paper the article is talking about is available free on-line and if so where?
We are talking about a company that is deliberately clogging the P2P networks with bogus files requests (Media Defender) and a company that is distributing fake copies of files on P2P networks (Overpeer). They are being sued because they do not have permission to use the technology they need to do this. In a perfect world what they are doing would be illegal but since it isn't why shouldn't we be pleased that software pattents are being used against them. I guess it is similar to being pleased when a thief that is getting away with his crimes gets robbed.
Surely their new playlist is a derrived work of the old one and so they would still need the permission of the station to use it.
Why do so many Americans (I guess I am going to look a bit stupid if the author of the parent turns out not to be american but it is true of many americans anyway) seem to attach such high value to having perfectly arranged beautifully white teeth when they seem to attach so little value to other, more significant, outward signs of health? What makes teeth so important?
I see no reason why google won't just increase their space by the same factor. Noone will use more than a few hundred megabytes (assuming you have rules that prevent online backups etc)
Now if he preferred windows clearly that would be a different matter altogether.
A large number of people outside the UK seem to see the troubles in NI as being caused by the British government trying to keep control of NI while the population or part of it wants independence. This is not the case. I don't think there are many people in Great Britain (UK minus NI) that care if NI is part on the UK but the problem is much of the population of NI seem to feel strongly one way or the other and many are prepared to commit terrorist acts against people in NI (and in the case of the IRA in people in London) to try to get their way.
I also find it quite hypocritical that the US condemns nations that support terrorism but continues to deny the British government's requests for help in brining the people who fund the IRA (who have committed several serious terrorist acts both in NI and in London) to justice even though much of their funding comes from US citizens without which they would be unable to do the terrible things they have done. (see Another BBC report )
"Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off, with programs still running."
As far as I can see they are basically saying they can suspend a computer remotely. While this is not in any way innovative it is slightly better than just switching on or off the PC. (which I have just realised I don't know how to do in windows - if anyone knows a command to shutdown a windows PC over a telnet connection then could they reply and tell me)
It is unfortunate that although this is an obvious feature to add they will probably be granted a patent (which at least used to require it to be regarded as a new and innovative idea)
To be able to make an informed choice about whether or not you are prepared to accept the Terms of a particular service you need to know and understand them. Most people do not have the time or inclination to read every EULA they agree to and many would not understand the implications of what they were agreeing to if they did. It is generally articles/posts like this one that inform people of the undesirable terms and allow them to make their own informed decision. They are not just bitching; they are providing useful information to everyone else.
In the article it mentions that half of all patents are found to be invalid in court. I was wondering how this differs when considering just software patents. Come to think of it have any software patents been used successfully?
The post the parent is replying to was most probably posted by a user from the UK where the age of consent is 16. The original poster's analysis of the law is to the best of my knowledge correct (IANAL).
The question is how much water do we need to supply the power we need?
Well we need Deutrinium and Trittium in equal quantities. These isotopes are much rarer than Hydrogen-1 but we can just burn any Hydrogen and excess Deutrinium and recover most of the energy it took to electrolyse the water to get it and we are left with water.
The world uses about 4x10^17 btus of energy a year ( Source ) which is equal to about 4.2x10^20 joules a year. Each atom of helium 4 produced by fusion of hydrogen provides 2.819x10-12 joules so we need about 1.5x10^32 reactions a year. As each molecule of water gives 2 atoms of hydrogen and 2 are required for each reaction this is the number of molecules of water that need to be electrolysed. This corresponds to about 5 million litres of water (bare in mind that the relative molecular mass of the water we are using is 21 not 18 as the deutrinium and tritium we are extracting are heavier than the hydrogen-1 commonly found in water). If we assume that the power station is 5% efficient (about the same as modern power stations) then we need 20 times this amount (100 million litres per year). Comparing this with the total amount of water in the world which is about 326 million cubic miles ( Source ) (1.4x10^21 litres) we find that the amount we will need in the next million years is about 0.0000000007% of the water in the world assuming current power consumption so the question about what to do when it does run out is accedemic anyway.
Firstly giving the amount produced as atoms/molecules a second (the same thing for helium) was quite unhelpful of me but I think producing all the worlds power by fusion would yield about 5.5 billion litres of helium at standard temperature and pressure (atmospheric pressure and 0 degrees celsius) a year. That corresponds to about a million killograms of it a year. This assumes the reactors are 100% efficient which is obviously not the case (since we are currently unable to actually get out more than we put in they currently have negative efficiency) so in reality many times this would be produced (100 times if they turn out to be as inefficient as coal power plants used today). The Texas oil fields (the world's largest producer of helium) were producing about 4 billion litres a year in the 70's so the amount produced by fusion would probably be enough to cover our current demand (assuming we don't manage to make highly efficient reactors)
On the other hand though if we finally manage fusion we will be making loads of it. Fusion reactors convert hydrogen-2 and hydrogen-3 to helium-4. Each megawatt of power generated assuming even 100% efficiency produces 3.55x10^(17) molecules of helium a second (a less efficient reactor would need to produce more to output the same useful power)
When we run out of Hydrogen we can use Helium to make heavier elements. Eventually we end up with lots of Iron (the most stable atom is an iron isotope but I forget which)
I may be being really stupid here but surely if spam is sent from a spoofed address then you can't tell where it is really from. If you could find the IP it originated from it would be much harder for people to send it and initivies like Domain keys etc would be pointless since if you could tell where it was from easily then there would be no reason to verify if the from address is real.
It is illegal to destroy currency in the UK. This stems from a practice in the past of shaving gold off the edges of coins. When coins were made of gold it was profitable to to do this and the idea was to shave off little enough that you could still use the coin. As postage stamps are also legal tender (although I don't think many shops would allow you to pay for goods with them) I think it may also cover them here.
While protocols used on the net are free and open this can never happen. The only way the net can ever loose the freedom and diversity it has today is if companies come to control the protocols used on it (which is unlikly to ever happen and any attempt to make it happen should be resisted)
Look at Betamax. Beta max tapes were smaller, had better picture and sound quality and lasted longer but people use VHS. Why? Because Sony refused to licence Betamax to other companies so they were the only manufacture. This is a great example of how proprietary standards get in the way. It is far better if the standards are open so companies have no financial incentive to choose inferior standards (like VHS). The case of rewritable DVDs is similar to the VHS/Betamax case but it was inferior standards that died