I hear you on that. I wrote a python module for id3v2 tags. It reminded me of nothing so much as ASN.1/BER/DER.
It does, however, support arbitrary character sets and arbitrary binary formats, though. Not sure there's another way to do it. Vorbis-comments are ASCII only, right?
Isn't there a better way to build a body than upright, two limbs for perambulation, two for manipulation. I mean, our species is sort of stuck with the design. But would it be easier to design something more like an arthropod.
Is the idea that it's be easier to relate to a bipedal critter? Is it easier to program a two legged thing? I'd've thought the balance problems alone would make it much harder to create a humanoid robot.
Solid reply. Thank you. I will give you two counterexamples which I believe will highlight the problem with patents.
The first is a problem with the current implementation of the patent idea as it exists in the US: The PanIP story just covered here yesterday. I think even a strong supporter of Intellectual Property rights will agree that this sort of patent hijacking is an indictment of the USPTO's poor track record in researching patents before granting them. As I said, this is a problem of implementation rather than a fundemental flaw in the idea of Intellectual Property.
An older slashdot posting highlighting a New Republic article on pharmaceutical patents. Highlights what I believe to be a much more fundamental problem with the idea of Intellectual Property. The efforts to patent the results of basic research in biology and medicine have had a major chilling effect on scientific communication between universities. Interestingly, one possible solution to the dilemma mentioned by the article dovetails nicely with the ideas presented by open source apologists, "... five companies are supporting the work of Alfred Gilman, who is trying to build a complete online model of cellular signaling that could dramatically speed drug development while keeping all the data in the public domain."
Your characterization of open source development as being philanthropically motivated is an oversimplification. There may be some open source developers who are motivated by philanthropy, but many developers are motivated by enlightened self-interest. The idea is that the work required to solve a widespread problem can be divided among the people who have both means and motivation to create a solution. The profit motive becomes a savings motive.. savings of cost, savings of time and effort, etc.
To recast your example in patent free terms, and still save the happy ending, consider a manufacturer whose manufacturing process can be improved by the installation of a steam powered film stretcher. This is the person who, before the intellectual property system was imported to the US, would have invented the steam powered film stretcher. His installation of the device would have allowed him to produce his end product [more cheaply | more quickly | with higher quality]. He could alternatively have gleaned higher profits, or undercut his competitors. Progress is made, nobody has to "own" the idea. The problem with this, as another poster has pointed out, is that the manufacturer is highly motivated to keep his device a secret, preventing other manufacturers from realizing the same savings as he does. The independent inventor, hawking his idea to venture capitalists is an idea which sprang up after the patent system decoupled the inventor of a device from the device's eventual users.
As seen here, the patent system, even in it's early days, was not a guarantee that the inventor of a device would ever make a penny from it.
Regardless, the profit motive, was never a significant driver of innovation in computing during it's most innovative periods. The catalog of fundamental innovations that were created and freely distributed during the 70s and 80s have basically defined the landscape of modern computing. Only Xerox PARC, the inventors of the GUI, and mouse were performing basic research for a commercial company who hoped to turn the researchers ideas into dough. The rest of the work was either sponsored by the federal government as a way to streamline or safeguard their own operations (the Internet), or by user's of the those facilities who answered their own personal needs by developing and freely distributing software (email).
I believe that the concept of intellectual property has been a very successful generator of wealth for people who've filed patents, and for patent lawyers, but I'm not sure that it's been a significant source of wealth for inventors, or an enabler of progress. I'm certain that it's been a hindrance in the field of computing. I'm not sure of it's benefits in the areas of goods manufacturing.
Did you derive the "Average slashdot poster" by taking the arithmetic sum and then dividing by the highest user number? Or did you sort them and choose the one in the middle position?
This is a transparent attack on a strawman position. I agree with other posters who have replied that necessity (not the profit motive) is the mother of invention. People invent techniques and devices in order to solve problems other people buy an invention because it's cheaper to buy a finished product than to create their own. Intellectual property protections such as patents are a recent innovation, compared to the history of human invention. People were busy inventing and creating long before the USPTO or its overseas equivalents started taking applications.
This is a point about which reasonable people can disagree - your position would be better served if you substituted reason for addle-pated bombast. In short, the statement that anyone who believes any innovation can exist without the USPTO in it's current state must be a brainless automaton who hates money and wants to nationalize the software industry doesn't count as evidence.
Oh.. please do tell me "how the world actually works". That should be amusing.
Ach! The Documentation link does work. I'm using an NT workstation and it invisibly and helpfully opened the document without providing any visual indication that anything had happened. Please mod the parent down.
There's a documentation download link here, but it doesn't seem to work. I'm baffled. Everyone is discussing it as though it were a wireless internet access route, but the Newbie Quick Start only mentions cell phone text messaging. What the hell is it, and what is it supposed to do? Is "Locust" a particular "Community Mesh Network"? Is a "Community Mesh Network" an architecture making use of standard protocols? What services does a Community Mesh Network offer? Are the any Community Mesh users or admins who can speak up?
Point of order re: b) Everything from B1 up to A1 (never ever reached by any OS).
There are several OS's rated B1 or above.
From Dynamoo:
B - Mandatory Protection
Division B specifies that the TCB protection
systems should be mandatory, not discretionary.
B1 - Labelled Security Protection
As C2 plus:
Mandatory security and access labelling
of all objects, e.g. files, processes, devices etc.
Label integrity checking (e.g. maintenance
of sensitivity labels when data is exported).
Auditing of labelled objects.
Mandatory access control for all operations.
Ability to specify security level printed
on human-readable output (e.g. printers).
Ability to specify security level on
any machine-readable output.
There are a number of documents discussing the pros and cons of the Big Bang, although I don't know if there are any serious alternative theories.
I think the real answer to your question is that Evolution, as has been correctly pointed out by both proponents and opponents, undermines the idea that the universe was created for the sake of man. In that regard, it's extremely contentious, and I believe this is the only reason why Evolution is considered "controversial" by anyone. Certainly, there's no doubt in scientific circles of the truth of the theory. The fundamentalists are edgy and on the warpath because the advance of empirical science has significantly undermined their authority. I think evolution is an important symbolic battle for them. Although it is a little disingenuous that they are really only agitating for their own version of the creation myth. I mean, what about the Hindus, or the Native Americans?
However, if you really are curious, the history of the tectonic plate theory is pretty fascinating. It was considered as kooky as the search for E.T. for a while.
This states that a species will get stronger, but it cannot explain how a species would turn into another species, such as a lizard into a bird.
I'm not sure whether you're saying that genetic mutation cannot cause species to diverge. If you are not suggesting that, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
The theory of evolution unequivocally states that genetic mutation can cause speciation. It is discussed at length here.
>>>>Do you use the primitive data types directly when streaming?
>>Yes. See InputStream and OutputStream. They use primitive types
Point taken. Let me clarify my stance. [In|Out]putStream should be implemented using hard 8 bit thingies internally, but that when I request a number of 8 bit thingies from the stream, I'd just a soon stuff them into a Byte (the object) as a byte (the primitive). But there shouldn't be Bytes and bytes. Since we are dealing with objects, lets just use objects. Needless to say, we'll need to use objects representing byte arrays, and so forth.
>>>> there's no reason that the bytestream classes can't assume 8 bit chunks, but I like the python-esque "everything as an object" approach.
>>There are many scripting languages that have taken this approach. Java is not a scripting language but rather interpreted. There is a difference
I'm not sure I follow you. I can compile Python source into bytecode. The semantics of the language don't change. If you mean that Java is trying to achieve higher performance, well I'm not a compiler/VM author but the original article suggests that it's possible for the internal representation of objects to be quite close in size to their primitive counterparts (a simple matter of coding:) ). If true, and depending on the local value of "acceptible" the overhead may be acceptible.
>>>>And, yes I have done bitwise arithmetic in both C, Java and Python.
>>Thats good but I have no idea how this supports your point.
I just mean that I've used all the languages, and am not comparing features of languages I'm not familiar with. I mean that I've been frustrated by the need to use Java like a half-assed C when dealing with byte sized chunks, when C's procedural approach is delightful and Python's pure object approach is delightful. Seems that they tried to provide pseudo low level access to bytes, when it might have been better to go as far down in abstraction as C or as high as python.
>>>>However, as long as we're talking about streaming data I/O, I would love to see bytes become unsigned.
>>Since you know bitwise arithmatic in Java you should know this is not an issue.
Which is bigger, 0xFE or 0x01? When is 0x80 + 0x01 not 0x81? Having to manually compensate for two's complement representation gave me a big headache.
Do you use the primitive data types directly when streaming? Remember that the bytecode compiler and jvm are free to represent the data internally more efficiently if that is appropriate, there's no reason that the bytestream classes can't assume 8 bit chunks, but I like the python-esque "everything as an object" approach. And, yes I have done bitwise arithmetic in both C, Java and Python. However, as long as we're talking about streaming data I/O, I would love to see bytes become unsigned.
I don't care too much for alot of house-y electronica, but there are a couple of bands I love from other corners of electronic music.
* Add N to X - Fun, crazy inventive funny campy. Moogs and singing computers and a drum kit. * Coil - Half of Throbbing Gristle, after Throbbing Gristle * NON (Boyd Rice) - When watching "The Never Ending Story", this guy roots for "the nothing". * Scorn - heavy.
"Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950."
Slashdot Mirror
He said a real Final Fantasy :)
I hope you're not suggesting someone make a video game based on "Birth of a Nation" :)
I hear you on that. I wrote a python module for id3v2 tags. It reminded me of nothing so much as ASN.1/BER/DER.
It does, however, support arbitrary character sets and arbitrary binary formats, though. Not sure there's another way to do it. Vorbis-comments are ASCII only, right?
I look forward to your reply.
If you're concerned about your right to a secret ballot, perhaps simply not answering the exit poll would be a better strategy.
I think if you answer the exit poll question, you're kind of already waving your right to a secret ballot.
I have never wanted moderator points so badly in my entire life. Kudos to you, sir!
The big deal is, to quote the article
"[sex.com] is worth $500,000 a month just in advertising space"
I'll bite...
Can you give me an example of another way to 'validate knowledge' besides the scientific method?
Isn't there a better way to build a body than upright, two limbs for perambulation, two for manipulation. I mean, our species is sort of stuck with the design. But would it be easier to design something more like an arthropod.
Is the idea that it's be easier to relate to a bipedal critter? Is it easier to program a two legged thing? I'd've thought the balance problems alone would make it much harder to create a humanoid robot.
Any MIT calibre eggheads want to weigh in?
"No one is entirely happy, and that's the essence of compromise," Intel spokesman Peter Pitsch said.
Can you get a linux PC for less than USD 45?
Solid reply. Thank you. I will give you two counterexamples which I believe will highlight the problem with patents.
The first is a problem with the current implementation of the patent idea as it exists in the US: The PanIP story just covered here yesterday. I think even a strong supporter of Intellectual Property rights will agree that this sort of patent hijacking is an indictment of the USPTO's poor track record in researching patents before granting them. As I said, this is a problem of implementation rather than a fundemental flaw in the idea of Intellectual Property.
An older slashdot posting highlighting a New Republic article on pharmaceutical patents. Highlights what I believe to be a much more fundamental problem with the idea of Intellectual Property. The efforts to patent the results of basic research in biology and medicine have had a major chilling effect on scientific communication between universities. Interestingly, one possible solution to the dilemma mentioned by the article dovetails nicely with the ideas presented by open source apologists, "... five companies are supporting the work of Alfred Gilman, who is trying to build a complete online model of cellular signaling that could dramatically speed drug development while keeping all the data in the public domain."
Your characterization of open source development as being philanthropically motivated is an oversimplification. There may be some open source developers who are motivated by philanthropy, but many developers are motivated by enlightened self-interest. The idea is that the work required to solve a widespread problem can be divided among the people who have both means and motivation to create a solution. The profit motive becomes a savings motive.. savings of cost, savings of time and effort, etc.
To recast your example in patent free terms, and still save the happy ending, consider a manufacturer whose manufacturing process can be improved by the installation of a steam powered film stretcher. This is the person who, before the intellectual property system was imported to the US, would have invented the steam powered film stretcher. His installation of the device would have allowed him to produce his end product [more cheaply | more quickly | with higher quality]. He could alternatively have gleaned higher profits, or undercut his competitors. Progress is made, nobody has to "own" the idea. The problem with this, as another poster has pointed out, is that the manufacturer is highly motivated to keep his device a secret, preventing other manufacturers from realizing the same savings as he does. The independent inventor, hawking his idea to venture capitalists is an idea which sprang up after the patent system decoupled the inventor of a device from the device's eventual users.
As seen here, the patent system, even in it's early days, was not a guarantee that the inventor of a device would ever make a penny from it.
Regardless, the profit motive, was never a significant driver of innovation in computing during it's most innovative periods. The catalog of fundamental innovations that were created and freely distributed during the 70s and 80s have basically defined the landscape of modern computing. Only Xerox PARC, the inventors of the GUI, and mouse were performing basic research for a commercial company who hoped to turn the researchers ideas into dough. The rest of the work was either sponsored by the federal government as a way to streamline or safeguard their own operations (the Internet), or by user's of the those facilities who answered their own personal needs by developing and freely distributing software (email).
I believe that the concept of intellectual property has been a very successful generator of wealth for people who've filed patents, and for patent lawyers, but I'm not sure that it's been a significant source of wealth for inventors, or an enabler of progress. I'm certain that it's been a hindrance in the field of computing. I'm not sure of it's benefits in the areas of goods manufacturing.
Did you derive the "Average slashdot poster" by taking the arithmetic sum and then dividing by the highest user number? Or did you sort them and choose the one in the middle position?
This is a transparent attack on a strawman position. I agree with other posters who have replied that necessity (not the profit motive) is the mother of invention. People invent techniques and devices in order to solve problems other people buy an invention because it's cheaper to buy a finished product than to create their own. Intellectual property protections such as patents are a recent innovation, compared to the history of human invention. People were busy inventing and creating long before the USPTO or its overseas equivalents started taking applications.
This is a point about which reasonable people can disagree - your position would be better served if you substituted reason for addle-pated bombast. In short, the statement that anyone who believes any innovation can exist without the USPTO in it's current state must be a brainless automaton who hates money and wants to nationalize the software industry doesn't count as evidence.
Oh.. please do tell me "how the world actually works". That should be amusing.
Ach! The Documentation link does work. I'm using an NT workstation and it invisibly and helpfully opened the document without providing any visual indication that anything had happened. Please mod the parent down.
There's a documentation download link here, but it doesn't seem to work. I'm baffled. Everyone is discussing it as though it were a wireless internet access route, but the Newbie Quick Start only mentions cell phone text messaging. What the hell is it, and what is it supposed to do? Is "Locust" a particular "Community Mesh Network"? Is a "Community Mesh Network" an architecture making use of standard protocols? What services does a Community Mesh Network offer? Are the any Community Mesh users or admins who can speak up?
Good ... we'll have a miracle hybrid with the loyalty of a cat and the cleanliness of a dog!
b) Everything from B1 up to A1 (never ever reached by any OS).
There are several OS's rated B1 or above.
From Dynamoo:
B - Mandatory Protection Division B specifies that the TCB protection systems should be mandatory, not discretionary. B1 - Labelled Security Protection As C2 plus:
-
Mandatory security and access labelling
of all objects, e.g. files, processes, devices etc.
- Label integrity checking (e.g. maintenance
of sensitivity labels when data is exported).
- Auditing of labelled objects.
- Mandatory access control for all operations.
- Ability to specify security level printed
on human-readable output (e.g. printers).
- Ability to specify security level on
any machine-readable output.
- Enhanced auditing.
- Enhanced protection of Operating System.
- Improved documentation.
- Example OSes are: HP-UX
BLS, Cray Research Trusted
Unicos 8.0, Digital SEVMS,
Harris CS/SX,
SGI Trusted
IRIX.
B2 - Structured Protection As B1 plus:- Notification of security level changes
affecting interactive users.
- Hierarchical device labels.
- Mandatory access over all objects and
devices.
- Trusted path communications between
user and system.
- Tracking down of covert storage channels.
- Tighter system operations mode into
multilevel independent units.
- Covert channel analysis.
- Improved security testing.
- Formal models of TCB.
- Version, update and patch analysis and
auditing.
- Example systems are: Honeywell Multics,
Cryptek VSLAN,
Trusted XENIX.
B3 - Security Domains As B2 plus:- ACLs additionally based on groups and
identifiers.
- Trusted path access and authentication.
- Automatic security analysis.
- TCB models more formal.
- Auditing of security auditing events.
- Trusted recovery after system down and
relevant documentation.
- Zero design flaws in TCB, and minimum
implementation flaws.
- The only B3-certified OS is Getronics/Wang
Federal XTS-300.
A - Verified Protection Division A is the highest security division. A1 - Verified Protection As B3 plus:-
Formal methods and proof of integrity
of TCB.
-
These are the only A1-certified systems:
Boeing MLS
LAN, Gemini
Trusted Network Processor, Honeywell SCOMP.
A2 and above Provision is made for security levels higher than A2, although these have not yet been formally defined. No OSes are rated above A1.> For another 50 bucks, can I not get an industrial strength handheld?
Or for $20 less.
How about this?
There are a number of documents discussing the pros and cons of the Big Bang, although I don't know if there are any serious alternative theories.
I think the real answer to your question is that Evolution, as has been correctly pointed out by both proponents and opponents, undermines the idea that the universe was created for the sake of man. In that regard, it's extremely contentious, and I believe this is the only reason why Evolution is considered "controversial" by anyone. Certainly, there's no doubt in scientific circles of the truth of the theory. The fundamentalists are edgy and on the warpath because the advance of empirical science has significantly undermined their authority. I think evolution is an important symbolic battle for them. Although it is a little disingenuous that they are really only agitating for their own version of the creation myth. I mean, what about the Hindus, or the Native Americans?
However, if you really are curious, the history of the tectonic plate theory is pretty fascinating. It was considered as kooky as the search for E.T. for a while.
This states that a species will get stronger, but it cannot explain how a species would turn into another species, such as a lizard into a bird.
I'm not sure whether you're saying that genetic mutation cannot cause species to diverge. If you are not suggesting that, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
The theory of evolution unequivocally states that genetic mutation can cause speciation. It is discussed at length here.
>>>>Do you use the primitive data types directly when streaming?
:) ). If true, and depending on the local value of "acceptible" the overhead may be acceptible.
>>Yes. See InputStream and OutputStream. They use primitive types
Point taken. Let me clarify my stance. [In|Out]putStream should be implemented using hard 8 bit thingies internally, but that when I request a number of 8 bit thingies from the stream, I'd just a soon stuff them into a Byte (the object) as a byte (the primitive). But there shouldn't be Bytes and bytes. Since we are dealing with objects, lets just use objects. Needless to say, we'll need to use objects representing byte arrays, and so forth.
>>>> there's no reason that the bytestream classes can't assume 8 bit chunks, but I like the python-esque "everything as an object" approach.
>>There are many scripting languages that have taken this approach. Java is not a scripting language but rather interpreted. There is a difference
I'm not sure I follow you. I can compile Python source into bytecode. The semantics of the language don't change. If you mean that Java is trying to achieve higher performance, well I'm not a compiler/VM author but the original article suggests that it's possible for the internal representation of objects to be quite close in size to their primitive counterparts (a simple matter of coding
>>>>And, yes I have done bitwise arithmetic in both C, Java and Python.
>>Thats good but I have no idea how this supports your point.
I just mean that I've used all the languages, and am not comparing features of languages I'm not familiar with. I mean that I've been frustrated by the need to use Java like a half-assed C when dealing with byte sized chunks, when C's procedural approach is delightful and Python's pure object approach is delightful. Seems that they tried to provide pseudo low level access to bytes, when it might have been better to go as far down in abstraction as C or as high as python.
>>>>However, as long as we're talking about streaming data I/O, I would love to see bytes become unsigned.
>>Since you know bitwise arithmatic in Java you should know this is not an issue.
Which is bigger, 0xFE or 0x01? When is 0x80 + 0x01 not 0x81? Having to manually compensate for two's complement representation gave me a big headache.
Do you use the primitive data types directly when streaming? Remember that the bytecode compiler and jvm are free to represent the data internally more efficiently if that is appropriate, there's no reason that the bytestream classes can't assume 8 bit chunks, but I like the python-esque "everything as an object" approach. And, yes I have done bitwise arithmetic in both C, Java and Python. However, as long as we're talking about streaming data I/O, I would love to see bytes become unsigned.
Your views intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don't care too much for alot of house-y electronica, but there are a couple of bands I love from other corners of electronic music.
* Add N to X - Fun, crazy inventive funny campy. Moogs and singing computers and a drum kit.
* Coil - Half of Throbbing Gristle, after Throbbing Gristle
* NON (Boyd Rice) - When watching "The Never Ending Story", this guy roots for "the nothing".
* Scorn - heavy.
He expanded his scary essay into a scary book, which I highly recommend.
Obedience to Authority
Also from the article:
"Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950."
Try to keep an open mind.