[QUOTE] If you had billions to lose and were working in a broken patent system, you would apply for some dumb patents too, just to cover your ass.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that what pretty much all tech companies are doing these days?
Yeah, but that research required other research, which required other research , etc. Look, wholly original ideas simply don't exist. But I suppose that goes back to the age old "is information discovered or created" debate.
But let's say you're driving your car by a McDonalds that's been hijacked by cyber-terrorists. You have both Norton (as it came with your car) and AVG Free. Shit, you even run ClamCar from time to time, just to be safe. But these cyber-terrorists are tricky and they upload a worm to your car! It remains dormant and undetected until you pass by a pedestrian. Then BAM! Now you're a murderer. And ALL of this could have been avoided if you just hadn't driven your car through a shady part of town.
But, I digress. You, sir, should not be given a computer license.
It seems as if you lack an argument either way on this. Though, by assuming that complex things generally break down into simpler component, you're completely negating information theory. To get an idea of how much information theory warps the picture, I point you in this direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon
Really? There are sets of natural laws that seem to just exist. As Humans, we have an innate ability to explore, observe, and explain the world surrounding us. Seeing as physics sort of controls the entire Universe, we've set out to explain it in terms of laws, theory, etc.
Now, here's the crazy part. Remember that part about observation? Well, it's not perfect, you see. In fact, there's an entire principle known as Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle that stems off of this imperfection. Unfortunately, this has the side-effect of our understanding always lacking something. But we improve! Technologies improve and we improve! And as we improve, we discover new and wondrous things that often argue with the way that we currently understand the world. So rather than attempt to say that our old models were right all along, we modify the old models (or sometimes do away with them entirely) so as to perfectly explain our new understanding of the world. It's hardly "changing" and more "fixing".
Strangely, The Bible lacks this advantage and yet is still modified in most translations. Hmm.....
Okay, but are you willing to agree that 2 million dollars (AKA financial ruin of a mother assuming Chapter 13 bankruptcy doesn't work, and for 3 years if it does) is fair? Especially for an act that has been performed billions upon billions of times?
And then there are those who would argue that nothing is never created nor destroyed and that the idea of genesis is a flawed concept. As information is nothing more than a state of all defined matter within a particular system (definitions of system may vary), is it truly possible to "create" this state? We're assuming too much before we even get into the question of whether or not created works can or should be copyrighted
*removes tongue from being lodged firmly in cheek*
Oh, that just means she's a lesbian. Some strange stuff happens on the outer edges of the bell curve. Ever wonder why all of the smartest people have also been crazy, too?
ATM machines tend to use telephone networks for all of their information exchange. Traffic is encrypted but a man in the middle attack is very possible (and has been done, you just have to grab the data before encryption). I wish I had some sources to cite for you as this is something I haven't touched upon in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
[QUOTE] If you had billions to lose and were working in a broken patent system, you would apply for some dumb patents too, just to cover your ass.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that what pretty much all tech companies are doing these days?
Yeah, but that research required other research, which required other research , etc. Look, wholly original ideas simply don't exist. But I suppose that goes back to the age old "is information discovered or created" debate.
But let's say you're driving your car by a McDonalds that's been hijacked by cyber-terrorists. You have both Norton (as it came with your car) and AVG Free. Shit, you even run ClamCar from time to time, just to be safe. But these cyber-terrorists are tricky and they upload a worm to your car! It remains dormant and undetected until you pass by a pedestrian. Then BAM! Now you're a murderer. And ALL of this could have been avoided if you just hadn't driven your car through a shady part of town.
But, I digress. You, sir, should not be given a computer license.
You're just biased, Mr. 216268.
It seems as if you lack an argument either way on this. Though, by assuming that complex things generally break down into simpler component, you're completely negating information theory. To get an idea of how much information theory warps the picture, I point you in this direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon
Ah yes. But what about many generations further down the line. Can you say for certain whether or not THAT will be a caterpillar?
Really? There are sets of natural laws that seem to just exist. As Humans, we have an innate ability to explore, observe, and explain the world surrounding us. Seeing as physics sort of controls the entire Universe, we've set out to explain it in terms of laws, theory, etc.
Now, here's the crazy part. Remember that part about observation? Well, it's not perfect, you see. In fact, there's an entire principle known as Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle that stems off of this imperfection. Unfortunately, this has the side-effect of our understanding always lacking something. But we improve! Technologies improve and we improve! And as we improve, we discover new and wondrous things that often argue with the way that we currently understand the world. So rather than attempt to say that our old models were right all along, we modify the old models (or sometimes do away with them entirely) so as to perfectly explain our new understanding of the world. It's hardly "changing" and more "fixing".
Strangely, The Bible lacks this advantage and yet is still modified in most translations. Hmm.....
Give it a few centuries. No one will care at that point.
Well played, sir.
I'd like to remind you that you ARE posting on Slashdot.
But always stays the same.
Tom?
I hate you. Die die die.
Too soon.
Yes, but would that be imperial ducks or rebel ducks?
There, fixed that for you.
Thank you for spelling it out. I wasn't aware that some people wouldn't get it right off. :(
Okay, but are you willing to agree that 2 million dollars (AKA financial ruin of a mother assuming Chapter 13 bankruptcy doesn't work, and for 3 years if it does) is fair? Especially for an act that has been performed billions upon billions of times?
Oh no, just slant the plate!
/ducks
And then there are those who would argue that nothing is never created nor destroyed and that the idea of genesis is a flawed concept. As information is nothing more than a state of all defined matter within a particular system (definitions of system may vary), is it truly possible to "create" this state? We're assuming too much before we even get into the question of whether or not created works can or should be copyrighted
*removes tongue from being lodged firmly in cheek*
Slashdot + talking about menstruation = NO!
Oh, that just means she's a lesbian. Some strange stuff happens on the outer edges of the bell curve. Ever wonder why all of the smartest people have also been crazy, too?
Don't you mean Nanosofts?
ATM machines tend to use telephone networks for all of their information exchange. Traffic is encrypted but a man in the middle attack is very possible (and has been done, you just have to grab the data before encryption). I wish I had some sources to cite for you as this is something I haven't touched upon in a while.
The problem with your response is in the link. That's for 7.04, not 7.10.
Many people pronounce giga as "jigga". The advisor for Back to the Future was one such person. I hope that clears up the confusion.