Try reading, I never stated it was the core. I stated that one of the main the goals of the communist movement was to crush Religion. Tell me how many Religions you find in China today, or Russia today. Wholly shit that's a short list huh?
Early on, Marx had a lot of things right. Marx stated that Communism/Utopia was not possible because human nature would not allow it. The lust for power would be the downfall of every civilization including the Republic of the USA. See that? It is not Religion per say, but trying to control all methods of power which becomes the problem. Even Marx was not initially ignorant enough to believe that Religion was a bad thing (though later this changed). Human nature is the problem. Religion was an issue for control. Control the masses by controlling Religion, and Media. The methods and messages must come from the enlightened ones in the communist party.
I have read everything I could find for Marx's works and find him to be brilliant in many areas. At the same time, toward the end he was a spiteful nasty person. Watching your family starve to death has adverse effects on your mind.
What the manifesto and policies state is that Religion must be abolished and/or controlled to a point where it is not Religion. In China, it is completely abolished. In Russia, you have government controlled Religion. In both, you are not allowed to think about it for yourself.
Get off your high Atheist horse and look for an answer! When Religion is at fault you are quick to point that way, but when someone points out that Atheists do the same thing you defend the Atheists? Wow, brainwashed much?
How about the more logical of "Lust for power" or "Lust for money"?
As an amateur Philosopher spanning about a quarter century, I can tell you that I have studied quite a lot of territory which includes a lot of Physics. The cause and effect argument really does not change, you are failing to see the logic in your own point that would show the cause and effect. That argument is nearly identical to the older Atheist argument against a creator by virtue of a Vacuum. I am not going to try and explain, but tell you to find the answer you need to think beyond any point which becomes uncomfortable to your beliefs.
Challenging your beliefs is a hurtful process. Belief in a creator could get you to a point where you have to think about morals and ethics beyond survival instincts. It opens up other questions which Science, at least as we know it now, can not answer.
Thanks for the civil response though, you are a minority in Atheists.
Oh, and by the way. Amateur in this case means lack of PHD, not that I lack formal education. When time allows, I plan to finish up my PHD.
Atheists do the same thing. But lets ignore Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.. etc.. just so you think your point remains valid. I guess you failed to learn that Marx was an avid Atheist and much of Communism's goals are to crush Religion.
Lets see if you can reply without bias, or better, just stop and think.
I'm not going to go on a pro-Religion campaign, since frankly I'm not fond of many Religions. With that said, Science can not answer the base question, and neither side can prove it. So you have speculation verses speculation. Atheists, just like named Religions, refuse to look any further than their own arguments which do nothing to answer the fundamental question.
Evolution does not disprove an intelligent design, and the big bang does not disprove a creator. What I think those arguments do is show that many Religions have some things incorrect. But the base argument of a creator can not be disproved, and logic always takes you to a creator.
Before you go there, remember that a multi-verse or parallel universes just confuse the base question. They don't answer it at all.
We look at how everything works in the Universe and we see that everything relates to cause and effect. Then when you say "What caused it all to start moving" the Atheists go in to a rage. At least the Religions just point to a book and say "that" instead of the Atheist's reaction of "it doesn't matter" or "la la la I'm not listening to you".
I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but rather pay attention to the bias. We live in a society brainwashed not to think about the question, and hate people that do think about it. That should frighten you!
You are comparing Science to Theory however. Electricity was physical, it was measured and touched. What we currently see is expanded theories, not science. It's of course sold as "Science" since they make a hell of a lot of money with this type of research.
I'm not trying to imply that it's not interesting, or that the processing power that went in to the work was not cool. But we are pretty far away from Science and more in to Science fiction on the subject being studied.
I'm not saying that studies like this do nothing mind you, but you are comparing a physical science to theoretical physics.
wanna-be know it alls who vomit up, "citation needed", because doing so makes it appear to other people who have an IQ less than 90 than they have an IQ greater than 90; while failing to understand that such a statement is completely out of place here on slashdot as slashdot never has been nor will it ever be an accreditied source.
I don't like IE, but not supporting it is still just plain fucking stupid as you a) throw away a sizeable portion of potential customers
Look, I'm sorry but you have it all wrong IMO. The whole point of HTML (and later JavaScript and CSS) was that it should not matter what browser you have, the stuff just works. The whole "works in my browsers" argument should have never happened, and was avoided so easily that it's scary. To argue that you must at this point in time is a rather retarded way of thinking.
Why do most sites work in Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Netscape, Konquerer, etc... etc... with identical code? OMFG, they support "STANDARDS". Microsoft has a history of bastardizing standards to suite their needs and create lock in to their products. If you waste money supporting their piss poor practices that should be something you choose to pee away money on. The "requirement" was artificially introduced and never should have been there to begin with. With the mass migration from PC to Mobile the argument has little merit any longer.
The arguments now should be what screen size to render, or how to scale based on the odd Mobile display sizes and not what browser is looking at the code.
I really didn't take this as an extreme case of FUD. It points out, correctly, that Open maps have potential for rubbish and dangerous changes (such as what was mentioned where 100,000 changes were made reversing directions on one way streets..). It claims that they have paid people that control the data changes to prevent that type of thing from happening with their maps. Most people looking say "so what". Perhaps they could have done a better job explaining how Open Source works or mentioned how long it took Open Maps to correct those changes but, hell, they are trying to run a business.
What I think they were doing was trying to justify their existence, not so much spread FUD.
I'm not sure articles like this are read as FUD any more. The OS vendors have pretty much ruined the argument. Look how every proprietary OS vendor was "concerned" about Linux, especially after the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit started. We saw horrible articles about how every Linux was root kitted and ran massive amounts of vulnerable software, and worse.. you were going to get sued by everyone and their brother for running it.
It may have slowed the rise, but Linux has been growing rapidly even with the FUD campaigns. Do shit additions get made to Linux sources? Yeah, there are occasionally reversals, pulls, and emergency patches. Overall it has proven to be better than closed OS products. It is self correcting, and faster at problem resolution that closed Operating systems.
People now know what Open Source is, and back it vocally. Look at the response to Wiki's blackout for proof, people really like Open Source. (Which is another example of a site that some businesses said would fail because of open editing.)
If companies like this start threatening suits, I'd really think it was FUD. They should not, at least if they want to stay in business. Hell, they probably invest in and use the Open Maps themselves for verification of their own data.
Oh, and in case you are really challenged, it was never stated that "you" said it. (It's very obvious who the AC is here.). You quoted an article, and the first paragraph that you have quoted states what I pointed out.
If I say the sky is blue and quoted a reference to material written by someone admittedly colorblind, I would hope that people corrected me and directed me to a better reference.
Perhaps this quote from above will explain, but am doubtful.
Could I have stated explicitly the source of the statement with which I was referring? Why yes, but since it's exactly above my post I did not think anyone would need such a reference. Most people would see my comment, read your comment, and realize "Hey, this guy quoted some internet site claiming this stuff".
In closing, If you don't know the material you are quoting, or don't agree with the material that you quote, or the quote does not match up with your point, then why did you bother to quote something? If there is no direct quote attributed to "you", then don't take personal offense when someone brings up the materials "you" quoted.
Except that SCO does not, and never did own the licenses to Unix APIs. Novel owns those, and this was a huge factor in the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit. Licensing with SCO would not do a damn thing if Novel decided to suddenly charge for the UNIX APIs.
I'm not going to find all the links for you, instead I will direct you to Groklaw where there is a very complete case history. If you remember, at the same time SCO was taking IBM to court they were taking Novel to court. The suit against Novel was to obtain what they did not have in their purchase agreements, which was the rights to Unix source code, rights to Unix name, etc.. It was found that SCO owned very very little of Unix.
Groklaw had an article pointing exactly this out, and more. It's not just the top levels like you point out, but also the extremely low level. Things we take for granted, such as printf(), malloc(), and open(), are technically API specifications. How about fprintf() which is build on top of the printf() API, who gets the license?
Think about your statement for a minute. You do realize that Ross Perot ran, and nearly won, where his platforms biggest goals was to reduce the US tax system to a single postage card sized form for all citizens. Point is: We have know that US taxes have been a wreck for 20+ years.
Now, who do you think lobbied hardest against tax reform then? Who do you think lobbies hardest not to reform taxes now?
1. The people that benefit from the 60,000 pages of tax "law" and loop holes.
2. Tax agencies, and Lawyers that specialize in Tax law.
Most of the US would benefit if it was fixed and fair.
The article you quoted is biases to an extent which is not easy to describe.
Look I get the point that the Judge still has to rule on whether or not the API is copyrightable. That point is given numerous times on this page and countless other sites. What I pointed out is that you were using a very biased opinion to back your statement. I even gave you an alternative site to go read which may help you back your opinion.
I believe it is you that does not understand how quotation works.
If I say the sky is blue and quoted a reference to material written by someone admittedly colorblind, I would hope that people corrected me and directed me to a better reference.
On the plus side, anyone that implemented the TCP/IP protocols, HTTP, DNS, FTP, etc.. would immediately have to purchase licenses from the US Government, MIT, Berkley, UC, etc... We could solve the national debt of the USA in pretty much 1 verdict.
This has been discussed in legal channels already, and would probably harm money grubbers much more than help them.
Sadly, this spin has already been played over and over by the media. Somehow, a loss for Oracle in court is always deemed a "partial victory".. if you read the right articles.
I'd recommend that you spend some time on Groklaw and read reviews by legal people on what these rulings really mean. While Groklaw is pro-opensource, their articles are pretty straight views of our legal system. Enough commentary is covered by people (many of which are Lawyers) to fill in gaps, and of course "can" be more biased.
Many of these same magazines claimed that SCO was going to prevail over IBM, and every loss was a "Partial Victory". Groklaw was dead on, though it took a very long time for the courts to finally get things sorted out.
Oh, and if you look back further many of these same magazines claimed that Microsoft had countless "partial victories" in the EU anti-trust case, the Iowa anti-trust case, and the US DOJ anti-trust case. See any trends you may wish to not follow?
One point I believe was being made is that average users in most cases don't know about different browsers. This would be the average person that goes to Best Buy or and just buys a computer for home use, which is most people. Add to this the incredible amount of IT departments that have IE as the only browser installed for their consumers. Average consumers don't know any better, and I'm sure that many companies prefer it this way. It is cheaper in IT providers to keep the default browser, and no extra effort is required to maintain IE.
I think the big push to ".net" has been a big attempt at re-initiating the old browser wars, and Microsoft has had a lot of success with this.
Because most people don't know better (family), I teach them "www.getfirefox.com" to at least get them off of IE. It's simple for them to use and set up and takes no effort outside of explaining that a "Bookmark" is the same as a "Favorite".
I disagree. The legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is most at fault here. If you think the default solution to society's problems is for the judicial branch to override the laws of the land, you are asking for trouble. That's appropriate in a few cases, but it's better to blame those who wrote the bad laws in the first place.
Look, I'm as anti-our-current-corrupt-congress as the next guy, but you do realize that we were founded as a Republic with a code of law as the foundation right? Defining our founding law is exactly the job of SCOTUS when there is a failure to agree at the state level - or - the issue crosses multiple boundaries.
You may wish to say even, that the job of a congress person is to try and corrupt the system. No matter what, the job of the courts is supposed to be prevention of that corruption.
I agree but then disagree also. We as adults learn to fear a legal system that will force us in to stone age poverty if we step on one of those patents in the inventing mind field. Kids don't have that worry, and are often immune to the legal system. Medicine is a late entry to the patent system compared to information technology, so we'll see how something like this goes in a few years. You never know, you may see a headline in a few days about a patent suit against a science fair winner.
Have the additions to the libraries helped tremendously in the age of programming? I think so. We no need any longer to write your own string processing and most of it is uniform from system to system. I'm not sure how that has made programming in general much easier, and wonder about the implications to educating younger programmers. Our old libraries were how we started learning to code. We learned to be portable and stock pile code for re-use in college or we missed deadlines.
[required/. sarcasm]"Java and C# have fixed all of our computer programming problems!" Not by a long shot, and in many cases it makes advanced programming that much more difficult because of how easily someone can mess up the use of libraries. It is nice that people can learn higher level functions and start use with things we found difficult to come up with. I'm sure it helps them do more, but I often want to slap people that don't understand the basic concepts and wonder how they even get a degree. My favorites are the programmers that see memory allocation failures and ask you to add more disks or "Why can't I allocate 1Tb of memory on a 256G sysem?".
So maybe programming now is easier, but I find debugging is now much more complex.
I have had these also, usually very early REM sleep I wake up and say "Wholly crap that is the Fix!". I found at least for myself that I don't even have to keep a pencil and paper near the bed. These ideas are remembered in the morning, and usually refined while getting ready for work.
For TFA, I wonder what they did for "mind wandering" activities? They don't mention their specific method, and most that I know of like meditation require training.
Okay, you find it interesting. Look at any corporate Firewall and monitoring system and you have your answers. Hell I have an O'Reilly book from the very early 90s on TCP/IP security that covers all of the topics you need to know. The technology is nothing new, the only real variations are in how the logs are stored and parsed.
Slashdot Mirror
Try reading, I never stated it was the core. I stated that one of the main the goals of the communist movement was to crush Religion. Tell me how many Religions you find in China today, or Russia today. Wholly shit that's a short list huh?
Early on, Marx had a lot of things right. Marx stated that Communism/Utopia was not possible because human nature would not allow it. The lust for power would be the downfall of every civilization including the Republic of the USA. See that? It is not Religion per say, but trying to control all methods of power which becomes the problem. Even Marx was not initially ignorant enough to believe that Religion was a bad thing (though later this changed). Human nature is the problem. Religion was an issue for control. Control the masses by controlling Religion, and Media. The methods and messages must come from the enlightened ones in the communist party.
I have read everything I could find for Marx's works and find him to be brilliant in many areas. At the same time, toward the end he was a spiteful nasty person. Watching your family starve to death has adverse effects on your mind.
What the manifesto and policies state is that Religion must be abolished and/or controlled to a point where it is not Religion. In China, it is completely abolished. In Russia, you have government controlled Religion. In both, you are not allowed to think about it for yourself.
Get off your high Atheist horse and look for an answer! When Religion is at fault you are quick to point that way, but when someone points out that Atheists do the same thing you defend the Atheists? Wow, brainwashed much?
How about the more logical of "Lust for power" or "Lust for money"?
As an amateur Philosopher spanning about a quarter century, I can tell you that I have studied quite a lot of territory which includes a lot of Physics. The cause and effect argument really does not change, you are failing to see the logic in your own point that would show the cause and effect. That argument is nearly identical to the older Atheist argument against a creator by virtue of a Vacuum. I am not going to try and explain, but tell you to find the answer you need to think beyond any point which becomes uncomfortable to your beliefs.
Challenging your beliefs is a hurtful process. Belief in a creator could get you to a point where you have to think about morals and ethics beyond survival instincts. It opens up other questions which Science, at least as we know it now, can not answer.
Thanks for the civil response though, you are a minority in Atheists.
Oh, and by the way. Amateur in this case means lack of PHD, not that I lack formal education. When time allows, I plan to finish up my PHD.
Atheists do the same thing. But lets ignore Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.. etc.. just so you think your point remains valid. I guess you failed to learn that Marx was an avid Atheist and much of Communism's goals are to crush Religion.
Lets see if you can reply without bias, or better, just stop and think.
I'm not going to go on a pro-Religion campaign, since frankly I'm not fond of many Religions. With that said, Science can not answer the base question, and neither side can prove it. So you have speculation verses speculation. Atheists, just like named Religions, refuse to look any further than their own arguments which do nothing to answer the fundamental question.
Evolution does not disprove an intelligent design, and the big bang does not disprove a creator. What I think those arguments do is show that many Religions have some things incorrect. But the base argument of a creator can not be disproved, and logic always takes you to a creator.
Before you go there, remember that a multi-verse or parallel universes just confuse the base question. They don't answer it at all.
We look at how everything works in the Universe and we see that everything relates to cause and effect. Then when you say "What caused it all to start moving" the Atheists go in to a rage. At least the Religions just point to a book and say "that" instead of the Atheist's reaction of "it doesn't matter" or "la la la I'm not listening to you".
I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but rather pay attention to the bias. We live in a society brainwashed not to think about the question, and hate people that do think about it. That should frighten you!
You are comparing Science to Theory however. Electricity was physical, it was measured and touched. What we currently see is expanded theories, not science. It's of course sold as "Science" since they make a hell of a lot of money with this type of research.
I'm not trying to imply that it's not interesting, or that the processing power that went in to the work was not cool. But we are pretty far away from Science and more in to Science fiction on the subject being studied.
I'm not saying that studies like this do nothing mind you, but you are comparing a physical science to theoretical physics.
wanna-be know it alls who vomit up, "citation needed", because doing so makes it appear to other people who have an IQ less than 90 than they have an IQ greater than 90; while failing to understand that such a statement is completely out of place here on slashdot as slashdot never has been nor will it ever be an accreditied source.
I READ IT ON THE INTERNET, IT HAS TO BE TRUE!
I don't like IE, but not supporting it is still just plain fucking stupid as you a) throw away a sizeable portion of potential customers
Look, I'm sorry but you have it all wrong IMO. The whole point of HTML (and later JavaScript and CSS) was that it should not matter what browser you have, the stuff just works. The whole "works in my browsers" argument should have never happened, and was avoided so easily that it's scary. To argue that you must at this point in time is a rather retarded way of thinking.
Why do most sites work in Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Netscape, Konquerer, etc... etc... with identical code? OMFG, they support "STANDARDS". Microsoft has a history of bastardizing standards to suite their needs and create lock in to their products. If you waste money supporting their piss poor practices that should be something you choose to pee away money on. The "requirement" was artificially introduced and never should have been there to begin with. With the mass migration from PC to Mobile the argument has little merit any longer.
The arguments now should be what screen size to render, or how to scale based on the odd Mobile display sizes and not what browser is looking at the code.
I really didn't take this as an extreme case of FUD. It points out, correctly, that Open maps have potential for rubbish and dangerous changes (such as what was mentioned where 100,000 changes were made reversing directions on one way streets..). It claims that they have paid people that control the data changes to prevent that type of thing from happening with their maps. Most people looking say "so what". Perhaps they could have done a better job explaining how Open Source works or mentioned how long it took Open Maps to correct those changes but, hell, they are trying to run a business.
What I think they were doing was trying to justify their existence, not so much spread FUD.
I'm not sure articles like this are read as FUD any more. The OS vendors have pretty much ruined the argument. Look how every proprietary OS vendor was "concerned" about Linux, especially after the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit started. We saw horrible articles about how every Linux was root kitted and ran massive amounts of vulnerable software, and worse.. you were going to get sued by everyone and their brother for running it.
It may have slowed the rise, but Linux has been growing rapidly even with the FUD campaigns. Do shit additions get made to Linux sources? Yeah, there are occasionally reversals, pulls, and emergency patches. Overall it has proven to be better than closed OS products. It is self correcting, and faster at problem resolution that closed Operating systems.
People now know what Open Source is, and back it vocally. Look at the response to Wiki's blackout for proof, people really like Open Source. (Which is another example of a site that some businesses said would fail because of open editing.)
If companies like this start threatening suits, I'd really think it was FUD. They should not, at least if they want to stay in business. Hell, they probably invest in and use the Open Maps themselves for verification of their own data.
Oh, and in case you are really challenged, it was never stated that "you" said it. (It's very obvious who the AC is here.). You quoted an article, and the first paragraph that you have quoted states what I pointed out.
If I say the sky is blue and quoted a reference to material written by someone admittedly colorblind, I would hope that people corrected me and directed me to a better reference.
Perhaps this quote from above will explain, but am doubtful.
Could I have stated explicitly the source of the statement with which I was referring? Why yes, but since it's exactly above my post I did not think anyone would need such a reference. Most people would see my comment, read your comment, and realize "Hey, this guy quoted some internet site claiming this stuff".
In closing, If you don't know the material you are quoting, or don't agree with the material that you quote, or the quote does not match up with your point, then why did you bother to quote something? If there is no direct quote attributed to "you", then don't take personal offense when someone brings up the materials "you" quoted.
Wholly shit the lengths people will go through to prove themselves correct are just fucking astonishing.
Except that SCO does not, and never did own the licenses to Unix APIs. Novel owns those, and this was a huge factor in the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit. Licensing with SCO would not do a damn thing if Novel decided to suddenly charge for the UNIX APIs.
I'm not going to find all the links for you, instead I will direct you to Groklaw where there is a very complete case history. If you remember, at the same time SCO was taking IBM to court they were taking Novel to court. The suit against Novel was to obtain what they did not have in their purchase agreements, which was the rights to Unix source code, rights to Unix name, etc.. It was found that SCO owned very very little of Unix.
Groklaw had an article pointing exactly this out, and more. It's not just the top levels like you point out, but also the extremely low level. Things we take for granted, such as printf(), malloc(), and open(), are technically API specifications. How about fprintf() which is build on top of the printf() API, who gets the license?
Think about your statement for a minute. You do realize that Ross Perot ran, and nearly won, where his platforms biggest goals was to reduce the US tax system to a single postage card sized form for all citizens. Point is: We have know that US taxes have been a wreck for 20+ years.
Now, who do you think lobbied hardest against tax reform then? Who do you think lobbies hardest not to reform taxes now?
1. The people that benefit from the 60,000 pages of tax "law" and loop holes.
2. Tax agencies, and Lawyers that specialize in Tax law.
Most of the US would benefit if it was fixed and fair.
The article you quoted is biases to an extent which is not easy to describe.
Look I get the point that the Judge still has to rule on whether or not the API is copyrightable. That point is given numerous times on this page and countless other sites. What I pointed out is that you were using a very biased opinion to back your statement. I even gave you an alternative site to go read which may help you back your opinion.
I believe it is you that does not understand how quotation works.
If I say the sky is blue and quoted a reference to material written by someone admittedly colorblind, I would hope that people corrected me and directed me to a better reference.
Did you read what you quoted?
The ruling is a partial victory for Oracle, which accused Google of violating copyright law.
Doh!
On the plus side, anyone that implemented the TCP/IP protocols, HTTP, DNS, FTP, etc.. would immediately have to purchase licenses from the US Government, MIT, Berkley, UC, etc... We could solve the national debt of the USA in pretty much 1 verdict.
This has been discussed in legal channels already, and would probably harm money grubbers much more than help them.
Sadly, this spin has already been played over and over by the media. Somehow, a loss for Oracle in court is always deemed a "partial victory".. if you read the right articles.
I'd recommend that you spend some time on Groklaw and read reviews by legal people on what these rulings really mean. While Groklaw is pro-opensource, their articles are pretty straight views of our legal system. Enough commentary is covered by people (many of which are Lawyers) to fill in gaps, and of course "can" be more biased.
Many of these same magazines claimed that SCO was going to prevail over IBM, and every loss was a "Partial Victory". Groklaw was dead on, though it took a very long time for the courts to finally get things sorted out.
Oh, and if you look back further many of these same magazines claimed that Microsoft had countless "partial victories" in the EU anti-trust case, the Iowa anti-trust case, and the US DOJ anti-trust case. See any trends you may wish to not follow?
One point I believe was being made is that average users in most cases don't know about different browsers. This would be the average person that goes to Best Buy or and just buys a computer for home use, which is most people. Add to this the incredible amount of IT departments that have IE as the only browser installed for their consumers. Average consumers don't know any better, and I'm sure that many companies prefer it this way. It is cheaper in IT providers to keep the default browser, and no extra effort is required to maintain IE.
I think the big push to ".net" has been a big attempt at re-initiating the old browser wars, and Microsoft has had a lot of success with this.
Because most people don't know better (family), I teach them "www.getfirefox.com" to at least get them off of IE. It's simple for them to use and set up and takes no effort outside of explaining that a "Bookmark" is the same as a "Favorite".
If we had purely elected judges we would have a better shot at fairness. Most judges in the US are appointed by politicians.
I disagree. The legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is most at fault here. If you think the default solution to society's problems is for the judicial branch to override the laws of the land, you are asking for trouble. That's appropriate in a few cases, but it's better to blame those who wrote the bad laws in the first place.
Look, I'm as anti-our-current-corrupt-congress as the next guy, but you do realize that we were founded as a Republic with a code of law as the foundation right? Defining our founding law is exactly the job of SCOTUS when there is a failure to agree at the state level - or - the issue crosses multiple boundaries.
You may wish to say even, that the job of a congress person is to try and corrupt the system. No matter what, the job of the courts is supposed to be prevention of that corruption.
I agree but then disagree also. We as adults learn to fear a legal system that will force us in to stone age poverty if we step on one of those patents in the inventing mind field. Kids don't have that worry, and are often immune to the legal system. Medicine is a late entry to the patent system compared to information technology, so we'll see how something like this goes in a few years. You never know, you may see a headline in a few days about a patent suit against a science fair winner.
Have the additions to the libraries helped tremendously in the age of programming? I think so. We no need any longer to write your own string processing and most of it is uniform from system to system. I'm not sure how that has made programming in general much easier, and wonder about the implications to educating younger programmers. Our old libraries were how we started learning to code. We learned to be portable and stock pile code for re-use in college or we missed deadlines.
[required /. sarcasm]"Java and C# have fixed all of our computer programming problems!" Not by a long shot, and in many cases it makes advanced programming that much more difficult because of how easily someone can mess up the use of libraries. It is nice that people can learn higher level functions and start use with things we found difficult to come up with. I'm sure it helps them do more, but I often want to slap people that don't understand the basic concepts and wonder how they even get a degree. My favorites are the programmers that see memory allocation failures and ask you to add more disks or "Why can't I allocate 1Tb of memory on a 256G sysem?".
So maybe programming now is easier, but I find debugging is now much more complex.
I have had these also, usually very early REM sleep I wake up and say "Wholly crap that is the Fix!". I found at least for myself that I don't even have to keep a pencil and paper near the bed. These ideas are remembered in the morning, and usually refined while getting ready for work.
For TFA, I wonder what they did for "mind wandering" activities? They don't mention their specific method, and most that I know of like meditation require training.
Okay, you find it interesting. Look at any corporate Firewall and monitoring system and you have your answers. Hell I have an O'Reilly book from the very early 90s on TCP/IP security that covers all of the topics you need to know. The technology is nothing new, the only real variations are in how the logs are stored and parsed.
Good Lord I like that! Mind if I use it?