Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?
Here's some points that would actually work in that direction:
Don't let copyright expire too much in the future. We want artists (especially good ones) to work on new material, not spend the rest of their lives on a multi-million dollar yacht.
Stimulate that the work be released in source form, so that others can build on it. For computer programs, we are already see the positive effects this may have. For music, releasing not just the final (mixed) song, but also the sheet music, and the distinct tracks used in the recording would be absolutely fabulous. For movies, release an uncut version. For digital animations, release the 3d representations. For hardware, release the schematics and VHDL code, etc. Don't allow vendor lock-in of any kind.
Stimulate the teaching of arts by professional artists.
This is just from the top of my head, but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now.
Unfortunately, modern hard-drives are more closed than the iPhone. It's practically impossible to get anything past the built-in controller, unless you're willing to open up your HD and do some hard hacking.
Imagine something like an open version of the ".NET" framework, where you could have multiple languages mapping to a single virtual machine architecture. Also, you could have compilers which can transform a program from one language into another, etc. A language could be marked "scientifically approved" when it can be translated to the language which is the "scientific" standard (just like English is a scientific standard for most journals).
Note that it doesn't need to be fast, reproducibility should have the highest priority. A "virtual clock" can be used to reproduce the timings.
It may seem far-fetched, but again, we should think in the longer term.
The one it was written in. What should be published is the exact code that was compiled and run to generate the data. Think of it as similar to making the raw data available.
That's nice, but then the experiment would be very difficult to reproduce. For example, if the code is in matlab, then you'd need a matlab license (as another poster noted). Also differences in operating system version, etc. could make it difficult. Further, if somebody wants to reproduce the experiment, say, 100 years from now, and the whole software ecosystem is different (very likely), then that somebody would have a real problem.
I'm getting somewhat tired from reading articles, where there is little or no information regarding program accuracy, total running time, memory used, etc. And in some cases, i'm actually questioning whether the proposed algorithms actually work in practical situations...
And then finally they'll get the bright idea to implement software that recognizes whether it's upside down and only print out the ones that are right-side up!
They can't implement that software because a method for doing that has already been patented!
As you point out, it's quite a bit easier to get negative results published if someone else had already claimed them as positive results.
This one is my favorite:
G. Hathaway, B. Cleveland, Y. Bao, Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields, Physica C: Superconductivity, Volume 385, Issue 4, 1 April 2003, Pages 488-500, ISSN 0921-4534, DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4534(02)02284-0.
I don't know if it is such a good idea to bundle unexpected facts from so many disciplines in one journal... I mean, if you're in computer science, would you like reading that such and such method for manipulating the DNA of a fruit-fly produces an anomaly in its social behavior? I think not...
Slashdot Mirror
But what happens if you call scp from a number of scripts in parallel? You will get banned?
The problem is that you want to act only on the failed login attempts.
Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?
Here's some points that would actually work in that direction:
This is just from the top of my head, but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now.
Unfortunately, modern hard-drives are more closed than the iPhone. It's practically impossible to get anything past the built-in controller, unless you're willing to open up your HD and do some hard hacking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
first make sure you can measure the level of radiation to an acceptable accuracy.
then, line one or more of your walls with conducting material to shield the radiation.
use measurements to determine if there are still hot spots in the most important areas of your home, and add shielding until they are all gone.
It is still a quite relevant question, since in the wikipedia article it says:
Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University.
ah, so it is a patent of the type: ... but now we do it on a computer"
"the same as
I guess that we're just lucky that Earth is moving at roughly the same speed as those hydrogen atoms.
Might be so. But at least they can never be 100% certain about that information.
Also, you could use information about the tricks used by data-miners to "shape" the noise you are producing.
It seems that the only solution is to add so much noise that data miners will have a really hard time filtering out the real data.
Here is a start.
Variable screen size is not an issue.
We'll see if that's true when the ipad comes out.
They (google) can always copy facebook information by asking the user for their facebook login + password.
We will control the pipes, but we will not inspect your data packets.
Well, maybe we will, but only for advertisement purposes.
Yeah right.
The big question is how smart a machine really can get, even if it can improve itself.
Perhaps the limit of intelligence of this machine (i.e., in the asymptotic sense) is only slightly larger than our own intelligence.
In that case, AI will only speed up our progress, but will not be capable of doing a lot of things we could not do on our own.
LOL, that's probably the silliest name you can have in that industry!
No wonder he's using a pseudonym...
This would be true in a perfect world.
A somewhat more realistic motto would be: support only browsers which have a built-in update mechanism.
That would help prevent disasters like IE6 to happen again.
Okay, but think in the longer term.
Imagine something like an open version of the ".NET" framework, where you could have multiple languages mapping to a single virtual machine architecture.
Also, you could have compilers which can transform a program from one language into another, etc.
A language could be marked "scientifically approved" when it can be translated to the language which is the "scientific" standard (just like English is a scientific standard for most journals).
Note that it doesn't need to be fast, reproducibility should have the highest priority.
A "virtual clock" can be used to reproduce the timings.
It may seem far-fetched, but again, we should think in the longer term.
The one it was written in. What should be published is the exact code that was compiled and run to generate the data. Think of it as similar to making the raw data available.
That's nice, but then the experiment would be very difficult to reproduce. For example, if the code is in matlab, then you'd need a matlab license (as another poster noted). Also differences in operating system version, etc. could make it difficult. Further, if somebody wants to reproduce the experiment, say, 100 years from now, and the whole software ecosystem is different (very likely), then that somebody would have a real problem.
Besides code, it would be nice to have mechanically verifyable proofs too!
But code would be a nice first bit of progression.
This raises the question in what programming language the scientific code should be published.
Should there be a universal language, so that stronger guarantees are obtained on the reproducibility of the work?
Of course, this is a difficult topic since a lot of scientific programs are specifically designed for (specific) clusters.
Great!
I'm getting somewhat tired from reading articles, where there is little or no information regarding program accuracy, total running time, memory used, etc.
And in some cases, i'm actually questioning whether the proposed algorithms actually work in practical situations...
Sigh, when do people get it.
With the iphone, ipod and ipad, you do not buy a full fledged computational platform... you only rent a seat in a theatre.
And then finally they'll get the bright idea to implement software that recognizes whether it's upside down and only print out the ones that are right-side up!
They can't implement that software because a method for doing that has already been patented!
As you point out, it's quite a bit easier to get negative results published if someone else had already claimed them as positive results.
This one is my favorite:
G. Hathaway, B. Cleveland, Y. Bao, Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields, Physica C: Superconductivity, Volume 385, Issue 4, 1 April 2003, Pages 488-500, ISSN 0921-4534, DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4534(02)02284-0.
I don't know if it is such a good idea to bundle unexpected facts from so many disciplines in one journal... I mean, if you're in computer science, would you like reading that such and such method for manipulating the DNA of a fruit-fly produces an anomaly in its social behavior? I think not...