I see this argument repeated over and over by IP proponents, but I've yet to see anyone who can point me to a peer-reviewed study that this effect actually exists. Do you know of any studies which show that preventing people from copying works/ideas actually retards innovation, or are you just have "faith" that such an effect is real?
The idea of anarchy is that you can do what you like so long as you are not denying others of their freedom.
And who does the judging of whether or not someone's freedom has been "denied", who decides on an appropriate response, and who carries out the response?
Unless you know the public key of the other party beforehand there's no way to defend against this.
Ummm...that's kind of why the key of BOTH parties is PUBLIC. It's not that much different than exchanging your [public] phone numbers at an earlier time before making your [secure] call.
A successful man-in-the-middle attack requires that the man-in-the-middle also intercept & modify the transfer of the public key information.
The Bush Administration has been one of the best examples (in a bad way) against the arguments of people like you who insist that all politicans "are the same" and it doesn't matter who gets to be in charge.
Off the top of my head, a few examples of major things that would've been different if Bush hadn't become U.S. President:
We wouldn't be in Iraq (probably still in Afghanistan though). The troops would have had a CinC that had actually seen combat in Vietnam (and would supposedly eager to avoid making the same mistakes).
The federal budget would've been a helluva lot more balanced (especially if the Congress had remained in Republican hands).
The U.S. government wouldn't be regarded with contempt by most of the rest of the world, including many of our "allies".
There probably wouldn't have been such a big emphasis on torture & "extraordinary rendition" as part of our response to 9/11 (see #3 for partial results of that).
The Supreme Court wouldn't have had a couple more big-business apologist, social-moral-enforcing, excuses for jurists.
The various federal agencies wouldn't have been populated with a bunch of incompetent neocon political tools.
I'm sure even YOU could think of a couple others if you're willing to put some thought into it rather than a stupid knee-jerk "they're all the same!" response.
Kerry could have just stayed in the White House & picked his nose for his entire term, and the country would've been better off than it is now.
Sailer seems to be doing something similar to what he's accusing Levitt of doing: focusing on whateverclusters of small aberrations he can find in Levitt's data to "disprove" Levitt's conclusions. There's not enough information in that exchange for me to come to a conclusion about who is more "right".
I wouldn't call that debate "done" - I'd like to hear that debate continue (at least Levitt's response to that last page) before I could be as conclusive as you seem to be.
Unless A & B published their work before C filed, in which case the published details would serve as prior art that could be used to invalidate C's attempt to file (or more likely, could be used to challenge C's granted patent after the USPTO completely overlooked A's & B's published work).
How do you think the U.S. advanced so rapidly during the Industrial Revolution? It wasn't because they did a lot of innovating themselves - they stole a LOT of technology from Europe, over Europe's protests (with lots of outrage about "intellectual property theft").
Now China is doing the same thing the U.S. (and the rest of the Western countries), with pretty much the same we-cant-compete! whining from the "victim" countries. Funny how that works out.
Let's see, what will look better to the potential employer - the potential new hire got pranked and responded in a calm, rational manner, or what they'll see now: the guy went completely overboard, brought the place he was managing to a complete halt, and got the organization involved in some nasty litigation.
Yeah, I can see how the results of that Google search might provide some valuable insights to the potential employer.
Well, it'll cost the taxpayers a fair bit to do that kind of testing properly - looking at it that way, you'll get a dollar value of how much the taxpayers think a corruption-resistant democracy is worth!
as well as a bar code that includes the name of the candidate.
You don't want to use a machine-code identifier which can be potentially different than the accompanying picture/text, since an attacker or a bug could cause the machine code to be something different than the displayed text.
It's better to have the counting machine directly read the text (OCR) so that what the person sees & what a counting machine reads is exactly the same thing. There are a number of fonts available that can be used which have been specifically designed to have a high OCR accuracy. This also reduces some of the issues with doing hand recounts (when you are double-checking the counting machines).
You should try and find some more information about her, or even try and contact her for more information (she's a strong proponent of stereoscopic optometrical therapy at any age) - or that other doctor guy mentioned in the story.
She said that it took specialised stereoscopic vision therapy to get that "3Dness" to pop up, and the training is only available from about 500 licensed "stereoscopic vision" optical specialists in the country. She apparently achieved the stereoscopy unexpectedly after getting the therapy just to reduce the "jittering" of her vision (up until then she didn't think it was possible for the brain to "fix" itself like that). She also said that she still has to do "maintenance" therapy to keep things from drifting out of alignment.
She was quite emotional about the quality of the experience when she achieved stereoscopy. Provided that you can afford it (specialised labor always ends up being darn expensive), it might be worth the pursuit. Of course, this being the web, you might be able to find a description of the stereoscopic therapy exercises on a web site somewhere.
I'm not saying we should be erecting trade barriers because history shows that is _really_ bad.
Really? Where does history show that?
I'm sure there are examples where drastic trade barriers have caused massive disruptions in a country's economy, but it seems like common sense that in a global economy with drastically different standards of living between countries, _moderate_ trade barriers can help local economies gradually adapt to external influences rather than being crushed by them.
(Whether or not politicians are capable of instituting "moderate" trade barriers is a whole 'nother issue, of course.)
If someone is religious to the point where their ideology is more "real" to them than the fruits of scientific discovery & experimentation, then they are also too irrational to make good scientists or engineers. You would not have gotten "microchips" from a society full of religious nutcases.
Are you actually blind on one of your eyes, or are your eyes just misaligned?
Heard an interesting lecture from a doctor who recently (at about 40 or 50?) achieved stereoscopic vision after living for most of her life having no depth perception.
She was born crosseyed, and the corrective surgery was a little late so she didn't retrain her eyes. She ended up using one eye or the other to look at stuff until she started having some bad vision problems (the images from her eyes started "fighting" each other, made the whole world look like it was jittering).
She got "eye focus training" from an stereoscopic-development optometrist (who are apparently a rare breed), and in the process of retraining her eyes to focus on one point, unexpectedly her brain figured out how to achieve stereoscopic vision (even though it was fairly late in her life). According to her, the experience of suddenly achieving stereoscopic vision was quite emotional.
It'd never happen - the EU market is too big. Besides, software companies live & die with support for copyright by local governments. They can't afford to piss off the people enforcing their business model.
If Microsoft said they weren't going to sell in the EU, the EU could just make it perfectly legal in the EU to copy any of Microsoft's products from anywhere in the world (including any source code that anyone could get their hands on), and there wouldn't be a damn thing Microsoft could do about it except complain a lot.
Uhhh...brute forcing the key for a symmetric cryptography scheme is a different problem than brute-forcing a user's password. And being able to crack up to 64-bit in a "reasonable" amount of time is a pretty useless feat when faced with 3DES or similar strength cryptographic schemes - that's when you start talking about lifetime-of-the-universe scenarios, no matter what kind of hardware you've got.
Your original argument of cracking the user's password (and taking advantage of the fact that a lot of users pick lousy passwords) was a better argument.
Not lifetime-of-the-universe lengths of time, but any security-conscious individual can certainly make their hidden password long enough so that they'll be long dead before anyone short of the NSA can crack it.
Go look up how long it would take to "brute force" a good key with a good (as in, hasn't been mathematically broken yet) encryption implementation. It's not something you should worry about.
Of course, if someone can access your computer as freely as you've described, it would probably be a lot easier for them to install a keylogger program (or a hardware hack) & get your secret key when you type it in.
That sounds like a good approach to engineer an ecosystem collapse.
Mosquitoes are near the bottom of the food chain for a lot of species, and being too aggressive about removing them would reduce the diversity of the food chain for a lot of animals.
At least with the GM solution, you're not removing them from the food chain.
Good grief, the intermittent windshield patent is hardly a shining example of "an invention that greatly benefited society but could only have been created by that single talented inventor".
People just like that story because it shows a little guy putting one over on the big guys, but it hardly shows anything "innovative" - once the automakers figured out that it was a desirable feature, it wouldn't have taken more than a day or two for one of their engineers to come up with something that did the job. Unfortunately, these kinds of mindless little concepts seem to be more the rule than the exception in the patent system.
Besides, how likely do you think the little-inventor-uses-patents-to-win-against-the-bi g-company scenario is? As far as I can tell, it's MUCH more likely that a big company is going to use their patent portfolio to crush any up-and-coming competitors before they can get a foothold in the market.
The patent was never perfect but the principal and general application was sound.
Since the very fundamental basis of "patent protection" is enforced by stifling competition, how can you possibly claim that the "principle" is sound?
Patent proponents keep stating that "it's obvious that patents encourage innovation" like a mantra, but I've never heard of any kind of evidence that this is so - and I've seen mention of a few academic studies showing that patent systems tend to retard innovation.
Can you point me to anything other than anecdotes & demagoguery showing how a patent system encourages innovation? I'd settle for a few peer-reviewed "behavioral-experiment-done-on-college-students" as proof there might be a valid point to patents. So far, I haven't seen it.
Slashdot Mirror
I see this argument repeated over and over by IP proponents, but I've yet to see anyone who can point me to a peer-reviewed study that this effect actually exists. Do you know of any studies which show that preventing people from copying works/ideas actually retards innovation, or are you just have "faith" that such an effect is real?
And who does the judging of whether or not someone's freedom has been "denied", who decides on an appropriate response, and who carries out the response?
Ummm...that's kind of why the key of BOTH parties is PUBLIC. It's not that much different than exchanging your [public] phone numbers at an earlier time before making your [secure] call.
A successful man-in-the-middle attack requires that the man-in-the-middle also intercept & modify the transfer of the public key information.
That's the free market for you. What are you, some kind of communist?
...that guy is scratching!
Off the top of my head, a few examples of major things that would've been different if Bush hadn't become U.S. President:
- We wouldn't be in Iraq (probably still in Afghanistan though). The troops would have had a CinC that had actually seen combat in Vietnam (and would supposedly eager to avoid making the same mistakes).
- The federal budget would've been a helluva lot more balanced (especially if the Congress had remained in Republican hands).
- The U.S. government wouldn't be regarded with contempt by most of the rest of the world, including many of our "allies".
- There probably wouldn't have been such a big emphasis on torture & "extraordinary rendition" as part of our response to 9/11 (see #3 for partial results of that).
- The Supreme Court wouldn't have had a couple more big-business apologist, social-moral-enforcing, excuses for jurists.
- The various federal agencies wouldn't have been populated with a bunch of incompetent neocon political tools.
I'm sure even YOU could think of a couple others if you're willing to put some thought into it rather than a stupid knee-jerk "they're all the same!" response.Kerry could have just stayed in the White House & picked his nose for his entire term, and the country would've been better off than it is now.
Sailer seems to be doing something similar to what he's accusing Levitt of doing: focusing on whateverclusters of small aberrations he can find in Levitt's data to "disprove" Levitt's conclusions. There's not enough information in that exchange for me to come to a conclusion about who is more "right".
I wouldn't call that debate "done" - I'd like to hear that debate continue (at least Levitt's response to that last page) before I could be as conclusive as you seem to be.
When were Levitt's conclusions about abortion discredited?
Unless A & B published their work before C filed, in which case the published details would serve as prior art that could be used to invalidate C's attempt to file (or more likely, could be used to challenge C's granted patent after the USPTO completely overlooked A's & B's published work).
How do you think the U.S. advanced so rapidly during the Industrial Revolution? It wasn't because they did a lot of innovating themselves - they stole a LOT of technology from Europe, over Europe's protests (with lots of outrage about "intellectual property theft").
Now China is doing the same thing the U.S. (and the rest of the Western countries), with pretty much the same we-cant-compete! whining from the "victim" countries. Funny how that works out.
Let's see, what will look better to the potential employer - the potential new hire got pranked and responded in a calm, rational manner, or what they'll see now: the guy went completely overboard, brought the place he was managing to a complete halt, and got the organization involved in some nasty litigation.
Yeah, I can see how the results of that Google search might provide some valuable insights to the potential employer.
Well, it'll cost the taxpayers a fair bit to do that kind of testing properly - looking at it that way, you'll get a dollar value of how much the taxpayers think a corruption-resistant democracy is worth!
You don't want to use a machine-code identifier which can be potentially different than the accompanying picture/text, since an attacker or a bug could cause the machine code to be something different than the displayed text.
It's better to have the counting machine directly read the text (OCR) so that what the person sees & what a counting machine reads is exactly the same thing. There are a number of fonts available that can be used which have been specifically designed to have a high OCR accuracy. This also reduces some of the issues with doing hand recounts (when you are double-checking the counting machines).
You should try and find some more information about her, or even try and contact her for more information (she's a strong proponent of stereoscopic optometrical therapy at any age) - or that other doctor guy mentioned in the story.
She said that it took specialised stereoscopic vision therapy to get that "3Dness" to pop up, and the training is only available from about 500 licensed "stereoscopic vision" optical specialists in the country. She apparently achieved the stereoscopy unexpectedly after getting the therapy just to reduce the "jittering" of her vision (up until then she didn't think it was possible for the brain to "fix" itself like that). She also said that she still has to do "maintenance" therapy to keep things from drifting out of alignment.
She was quite emotional about the quality of the experience when she achieved stereoscopy. Provided that you can afford it (specialised labor always ends up being darn expensive), it might be worth the pursuit. Of course, this being the web, you might be able to find a description of the stereoscopic therapy exercises on a web site somewhere.
Really? Where does history show that?
I'm sure there are examples where drastic trade barriers have caused massive disruptions in a country's economy, but it seems like common sense that in a global economy with drastically different standards of living between countries, _moderate_ trade barriers can help local economies gradually adapt to external influences rather than being crushed by them.
(Whether or not politicians are capable of instituting "moderate" trade barriers is a whole 'nother issue, of course.)
If someone is religious to the point where their ideology is more "real" to them than the fruits of scientific discovery & experimentation, then they are also too irrational to make good scientists or engineers. You would not have gotten "microchips" from a society full of religious nutcases.
Well, terrorism outside his own country anyway.
Are you actually blind on one of your eyes, or are your eyes just misaligned?
y Id=5507789
Heard an interesting lecture from a doctor who recently (at about 40 or 50?) achieved stereoscopic vision after living for most of her life having no depth perception.
She was born crosseyed, and the corrective surgery was a little late so she didn't retrain her eyes. She ended up using one eye or the other to look at stuff until she started having some bad vision problems (the images from her eyes started "fighting" each other, made the whole world look like it was jittering).
She got "eye focus training" from an stereoscopic-development optometrist (who are apparently a rare breed), and in the process of retraining her eyes to focus on one point, unexpectedly her brain figured out how to achieve stereoscopic vision (even though it was fairly late in her life). According to her, the experience of suddenly achieving stereoscopic vision was quite emotional.
I found an article about the doctor:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
It'd never happen - the EU market is too big. Besides, software companies live & die with support for copyright by local governments. They can't afford to piss off the people enforcing their business model.
If Microsoft said they weren't going to sell in the EU, the EU could just make it perfectly legal in the EU to copy any of Microsoft's products from anywhere in the world (including any source code that anyone could get their hands on), and there wouldn't be a damn thing Microsoft could do about it except complain a lot.
Uhhh...brute forcing the key for a symmetric cryptography scheme is a different problem than brute-forcing a user's password. And being able to crack up to 64-bit in a "reasonable" amount of time is a pretty useless feat when faced with 3DES or similar strength cryptographic schemes - that's when you start talking about lifetime-of-the-universe scenarios, no matter what kind of hardware you've got.
Your original argument of cracking the user's password (and taking advantage of the fact that a lot of users pick lousy passwords) was a better argument.
I was talking about the user's password when I mentioned a "good" key.
/ articles/itproviewpoint091004.mspx
/ articles/itproviewpoint100504.mspx
Here's a page from Microsoft that does some calculations on how hard it is to brute force a good key:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/secnews
and the followup article about using passphrases:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/secnews
Not lifetime-of-the-universe lengths of time, but any security-conscious individual can certainly make their hidden password long enough so that they'll be long dead before anyone short of the NSA can crack it.
Go look up how long it would take to "brute force" a good key with a good (as in, hasn't been mathematically broken yet) encryption implementation. It's not something you should worry about.
Of course, if someone can access your computer as freely as you've described, it would probably be a lot easier for them to install a keylogger program (or a hardware hack) & get your secret key when you type it in.
That sounds like a good approach to engineer an ecosystem collapse.
Mosquitoes are near the bottom of the food chain for a lot of species, and being too aggressive about removing them would reduce the diversity of the food chain for a lot of animals.
At least with the GM solution, you're not removing them from the food chain.
Good grief, the intermittent windshield patent is hardly a shining example of "an invention that greatly benefited society but could only have been created by that single talented inventor".
i g-company scenario is? As far as I can tell, it's MUCH more likely that a big company is going to use their patent portfolio to crush any up-and-coming competitors before they can get a foothold in the market.
People just like that story because it shows a little guy putting one over on the big guys, but it hardly shows anything "innovative" - once the automakers figured out that it was a desirable feature, it wouldn't have taken more than a day or two for one of their engineers to come up with something that did the job. Unfortunately, these kinds of mindless little concepts seem to be more the rule than the exception in the patent system.
Besides, how likely do you think the little-inventor-uses-patents-to-win-against-the-b
Since the very fundamental basis of "patent protection" is enforced by stifling competition, how can you possibly claim that the "principle" is sound?
Patent proponents keep stating that "it's obvious that patents encourage innovation" like a mantra, but I've never heard of any kind of evidence that this is so - and I've seen mention of a few academic studies showing that patent systems tend to retard innovation.
Can you point me to anything other than anecdotes & demagoguery showing how a patent system encourages innovation? I'd settle for a few peer-reviewed "behavioral-experiment-done-on-college-students" as proof there might be a valid point to patents. So far, I haven't seen it.