Google makes it clear you're talking to a corporation
Yeah, and that's part of the problem right there. I don't want to be talking to a corp... 90% of what I'd consider using voice for shouldn't need internet. I'd like voice-recognition on, but give it no internet access.
Make calls, answer calls, add stuff to calendar, send a text, look up a contact, etc... nothing should need to go to google.
And I'd be ok adding a keyword "bing" or "google" to any search that specifically needed to go there.
e.g. hey phone, google the nearest chevron west of me... I'd be ok with that.
Apple forces you to anthropomorphize your machine.
I'm actually perfectly ok anthropomorphizing 'my machine'; but it has to be MY machine, operating for MY benefit, and not sending everything I say to someone else.
Match goes to Google.
If anything they both lose.
Is there something out there that just runs locally and that's decent?
Write a simple inventory program. Start off with the idea that you want to identify and store all the stuff in your room, apartment, or house.
I inevitably get horribly stuck in the data modelling phase of this project. Sure I could hack something together, but I always try to come up with something that's better than what I've used before gets around the problems I've encountered with those before... and it gets hopelessly complicated. It needs to have tags, and someway of grouping things together... so the headphones adapter is linked to the headphones record, and how to handle multiples of things, multiples of things with different serial numbers, or in different conditions.
Hell, even a much smaller problem domain... I thought I had figured out my Magic the Gathering card collection datamodel at one point several years ago, and then they came out with split cards and broke the whole thing. What's the converted mana cost of a split card? two values?... bastards:p
Then expand it to add stars or figure out how to normalize the database.
Ah well, I guess that's one solution to getting stuck trying to figure out the best way to do the data modelling: just don't bother. done.:p
I feel stupid by asking this, but what would be a decent off-the-shelf permissions/licensing manager suitable for a small business?
I expect most normal people would just use Excel.:)
Or maybe some small off the shelf asset tracking program. Or whip something up from an asset tracking system template for Access or Filemaker Pro, etc.
By then I'll have the most up-to-date version hopefully with all the kinks worked out, plus DLC that will be included ("Gold Package", "Collectors Edition" etc) or cheap to download. I've been buying games like this for years now.
Without the release day buyers, there's not going to be a collectors edition at 50% off a year later.
So you should thank the early adopters / launch day lemmings, because your buying habits are only sustainable on their backs.
If the residents don't want taxpayers parking on streets owned by those same taxpayers
This has nothing to do with parking on the street.
The situation is that many residents are turning their YARDS into pay parking lots. This leads to excess noise, traffic, and has all the aesthetics of a used car lot which in turn pisses off many of the residents who are not doing this.
Your rant about street parking is utterly beside the point.
I don't think it's fair that my property is used for personal vehicle storage by someone else simply because it sits in front of their house
Still not remotely on topic. But...
This is an interesting and valid complaint. It does piss me off no-end the number of streets that are permit-parking only for residents, and the suggestion that they ought buy the 'parking lane' back from the city is both interesting and has merit.
Suppose they did though, or leased it via their property taxes etc since it really doesn't make practical sense for them to actually buy and maintain the parking lane and separaetly from the rest of the street. That'd be fair, right?
Of course, for all I know though they might even be doing just that. I certainly wouldn't know. Maybe they ARE paying something extra for the exclusive parking usage?
Why do the neighbors take exception to it, though?
Because some people don't want their normally quiet residential neighborhood looking like a cross between a night market and an impound lot all summer.
Its hardly unusual for there to be bylaws restricting the amount and type of commerce you conduct from your home, especially if it leads to unwanted traffic, noise, or is unsightly.
So you don't think Al Qaeda is capable of killing Americans?
Sure, terrorists, including al-Qaeda definitely threaten americans on an individual personal level, but they do not constitute a meaningful threat to the united states.
Serial killers, people peddling toys with lead paint, and sharks are all capable of killing Americans. None of these pose the threat to the united states itself though; so we can well afford to defend the US from these threats within the framework of the constitution.
Terrorists? They are less a threat than Cigarette companies. And in most years kill less people than sharks do.
Suggesting that terrorists are so great a threat to the united states that the constitution itself should be ignored to facilitate fighting them is idiotic. What's next? You going to suggest we set aside the constitution institute military rule to go after the sharks next? They've killed americans before, and they'll do it again.
Actually, I bet if there was a large enough movement to do this (perhaps something app-assisted), the city of SF would also put a stop to it.
Doubtful, unless it rose to the level of being a problem.
Around here, there's a residential area within walking distance of a local roller coaster park / exhibition site (with concerts etc) -- all summer local residents will get out and offer to sell parking space on their driveways etc.
And for the most part its not a problem.
However, some residents are taking it "too far", and open up their entire front and back yards to parking, and there will be 8 or 9 cars all over the front and back lawn, the driveway, the flowerbeds, etc.
And the neighbors do take exception to it. Which is reasonable I think. Its not a big party one night. Its 3-4 months at a time, from morning until midnight.
At the moment its still legal, but i wouldn't be surprised to see them pass a bylaw banning parking cars on the lawns at some point.
It says "on Confession in Open Court" not on "inferred confession from what you saw on youtube"
that's a pretty open and shut case.
So now if someone says "its a pretty open and shut case" we don't need bother with a trial. Is that in the constitution too?
Ideally, he should be captured and tried in open court.
Yes. Ideally, if we're going to cite the constitution as the authority for what we did, we should probably actually do what it said. You know, rather than just taking the parts you like and ignoring the parts that aren't as convenient.
But I would hate to see soldiers die trying to capture him.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
What is the point of defending it with their lives, if they do so by violating it themselves?
I would hate to see soldiers die trying to capture him too; but extra-judicially killing him without a trial is not an option. It is a violation of the principles we seek to uphold. It is cowardly.
Look at the big picture, here, al-Awlaki was at MOST a pest level threat to the overall security of the united states. He was never even the slightest existential threat to the USA nor to any allied nation. And he is no threat whatsoever to the constitution.
Thinking like yours, on the other hand, that we should simply set the constitution aside, just to pursue a violent criminal. Now THAT is a real threat.
The right to freedom of speech is not unrestricted:
Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?
From the linked article he wasn't just posting videos urging violence but was also involved in planning attacks against U.S. persons.
Should be: allegedly involved
So, if he was involved, To what extent was his involvement, and what was the sentence? Was he allowed to confront his accusors? Was he given due process?
I'm not saying he was a good guy, or even that its likely that he was a good guy, but seeing as we just executed him, extra judicially, with no due process, WE are NOT the "good guys" either.
Beating the terrorists by becoming them is not a victory at all.
Anwar al-Awlaki posted videos urging all Muslims to commit violence against American civilians.
Posting videos is sufficient? So not only is "freedom of speech" suspended but posting videos merits extra-judicial capital punishment anywhere in the world.
That's no better than Iranian fatwas urging the assasination of people who offend them. On the other hand Iran didn't actually dispatch the military to execute on those fatwas... we did.
But we're better because we're a "Christian nation" and don't call them fatwas right? Calling our murder justifications a "Classified Legal Memo" makes it ok, right?
(Bonus points look up the word fatwa, the irony is worth it.)
Do you realise that without the ads these sites would not exist or would go behind a paywall?
Ok... here's the deal.
Suppose a click on your site pays you 0.20 cents, and the click through rate is 3%, you make 60 cents per 100 visitors. So what's the value of my visit? 0.6 cents.
Even a site i visit daily... 18 cents per month be ad free.
So yes. I'd pay that amount happily. A couple bucks a month tops and I'd have an ad free internet.
So why doesn't that work?
a) Because the infrastructure to actually take my money costs a fortune. Processing fees, accounting, security, customer support, dispute resolution, regulatory compliance, taxes. Taking 18 cents a month from thousands of users is expensive, taking 6 tenths of a cent from a one off visitor can't be recovered. This leads to the ad-free option being exorbitantly more expensive than the ad revenue that's being compensated for.
b) Because it gets in the way. When I hit a paywall site, I leave. I don't investigate how much it costs. It could be a $1 for a 5 years and I wouldn't even know. And even if I did in that VAST majority of cases I couldn't be bothered to go to the trouble of creating an account, entering in contact and payment information etc. The 'time and energy investment' on my part is just too high even if the financial element were nearly zero.
Yes i do pre pick my soap, i once broke out in hives from kirkland branded stuff so i never stray from lever2000 ever
Soap was just a proxy for 'things people buy at the grocery store', we really aren't that interested in your soap buying habits specifically here.
And unless you break out in hives whenever you vary anything the argument holds... and if you DO break out in hives over any little change... you are hardly remotely representative of 'normal'.
You know what? When I go to the store, I have a shopping list. I buy the things on that list, and I go home
So you pre-pick the brand of soap your going to buy?
My shopping list usually just says 'soap'... sometimes I just write or 'teeth' to jog my memory when I'm at the store that I need toothpaste and floss rather than write them out individually.
Or I'll write 'snacks thursday' to remember to buy some chips, veggies, dips, m&m's and drinks for Thurs (when, for example, my brother and his wife are coming over)... i'll pick the actual snacks based on what's on sale and what strikes my mood while I'm in the store... and it might even result in me bringing home some new flavor of chips, or whatever that I might have heard about somewhere.
Just wait till someone sends a bomb threat using your Wifi
That's why I don't own a cellphone. Someone might clone my phone and phone in bomb threats.
I also don't throw away any garbage, i just pile it up in my basement. If I throw it out it might end up at some crime scene somehow and get traced back to me. I just can't take the risk. SWAT teams could break in at night and kill the dog... its happened to people.
Me, I've always liked the state motto of NH... "Live Free or Die." because that about sums it up. Better to live free and take a few risks than to cower in fear waiting to die.
So, by your argument, should we ever have sci-fi nanobots that are capable of arranging into any configuration and mimicking a mechanical device, all patents on such devices shall be null and void at that point?
Sure, when you come with nanobots that simply by virtue of being arranged in a specific way can mimic the material properties of glass, carbon fibre, silicon, and nitroglycerine then yeah i think as a species we'll be beyond the need for patents.
The point of patents is not philosophical. It is to encourage innovation by rewarding it with a limited-time monopoly.
Except that we have copyright to encourage creativity by rewarding it with a limited time monopoly. Software is unquestionably covered by copyright. So why does it need patents too?
Just as we don't allow patents on the idea behind the invention but on the invention itself, we don't need protection of the idea behind algorithms, we have copyright on the software implementing the algorithms.
Now, from my perspective, a sufficiently advanced, non-obvious algorithm is certainly valuable, and can take significant time and effort to produce
Sounds like this person is writing software and its already protected by copyright.
but in principle I don't see any problem with patenting something like, say, MP3
Because MP3 is simply a mathematical transformation from data A to data B. By allowing a patent on the mathematical idea of the transformation itself, you preclude the existence of any other implementations of the idea.
I cannot come up with a novel implementation of mp3, because you own the math itself. The person who invented the pencil sharpener to patent the specifc arrangement of hole and blade and so forth. He didn't get a lock on the idea of taking unsharpened pencils and putting a specific sharpened tip on them. If I can come up with a novel way of taking a pensil and sharpening it... maybe I'll use hamsters to power a cutting laser... I can do that.
Input A -> Output B is not patentable. The machine in that arrow "-->"is the patent. If you let someone patent MP3, you've given them monopoly on idea of taking A and producing B, not merely the method to do so.
However, the method, as written in software, IS protected by copyright... so a patent is not required.
The term and other conditions are a different matter (though I think that the terms should be reduced for all patents, not just software patents),
As I noted in another thread, this is really just hair splitting.
Sure, if the difference between pure abstract logic and the observable material world is just splitting hairs.
I mean they are only at opposite ends of the spectrum philosophically.
The scientific method which we use in the observable material world doesn't even really apply the same way to math. In math you actually can prove things -- that's where you get facts. In science you can only disprove them - you only have theory, never facts.
. If you insist that an algorithm does not implement a device as such, fine;
I do so insist.
I present to you a patentable invention, a computer running that algorithm.
That is not an algorithm implementing a device. That is a device implementing an algorithm. Of course its (potentially) patentable.
I say potentially, because of course a computer is patentable. New computers are being invented and patented all the time.
So is the computer you built novel in some way? Or is the sole novelty the fact that its running some algorithm? Because then, no then it is not eligible for a new patent.
Just as inventing a toaster and using it to toast bread is a patentable invention, taking exactly the same toaster and using it to toast waffles is not a new patentable invention.
A general purpose computer is a symbol manipulator. Provided it meets the necessary criteria to be a general purpose computer and has sufficient resources it can run any given algorithm.
So if you built a computer to run the algorithm, it may or may not be patentable -- but it would depend on what exactly you built, and has nothing whatsoever what algorithm you are running on it.
The compiler should have issued a warning pointing out that the code is using undefined behavior
Not all code the compiler removes is using undefined behaviour. I am not talking about undefined behaviors being 'optimized' away.
The article itself
Yeah, we've sort of gone off track vis a vis the original article. The scope of issues the original article talks about is smaller, and I agree with you fully that the compilers should be issuing warnings for the particular scenarios they are talking about.
Any mechanical contraption is just an arrangement of things that uses a set of known facts, in certain combination, to achieve the desired goal.
We don't have a grand unified theory of everything. We don't know how a lot of things work. A pencil sharpener cannot be deduced from the axioms of the universe, and by the mere act of deduction take form in your hands ready to sharpen pencils. A compression algorithm can be deduced from the axioms of mathematics, and performed in your head (at least in theory).
Maybe one day, when we have GUT and a you'll be able to will a pencil sharpener into existence as deductive effort directly from the axioms of the universe, then you can argue its the same thing, but until then its not.
There is no fundamental difference between an algorithm and a device
A device implements an algorithm. An algorithm never implements a device; that doesn't even have meaningful semantics. THAT is a fundamental difference right there.
Every invention is really just a "discovery of fact".
At best it relies on what we've observed to be consistent behaviour about the universe around us. It is not 'fact' itself.
since the buffer overrun in somestuff() already transferred control to pwned() when somestuff() tried to return
That is only -one- failure mode, not all buffer overruns will let you overwrite to the instruction pointer to transfer control to your code.
Security is layered.
Yes, and that problem is not solvable in C, no matter how many sanity checks you litter your code with. As soon as you execute any code from an untrusted source, you don't have any security. Any error puts the system into an undefined state, at which point all bets are off.
Gotcha. So unless you write the operating system from the ground up yourself there's always going to be flaws. Thank you captain obvious. But that doesn't mean that sanity checks are worthless - they catch or mitigate flaws all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Google makes it clear you're talking to a corporation
Yeah, and that's part of the problem right there. I don't want to be talking to a corp... 90% of what I'd consider using voice for shouldn't need internet. I'd like voice-recognition on, but give it no internet access.
Make calls, answer calls, add stuff to calendar, send a text, look up a contact, etc... nothing should need to go to google.
And I'd be ok adding a keyword "bing" or "google" to any search that specifically needed to go there.
e.g. hey phone, google the nearest chevron west of me... I'd be ok with that.
Apple forces you to anthropomorphize your machine.
I'm actually perfectly ok anthropomorphizing 'my machine'; but it has to be MY machine, operating for MY benefit, and not sending everything I say to someone else.
Match goes to Google.
If anything they both lose.
Is there something out there that just runs locally and that's decent?
first you have to say "OK Google" (or "hey SIRI" if you're a hiptard)
Honestly, all things considered "Siri" is far less obnoxious to say than "OK Google" in my books.
Write a simple inventory program. Start off with the idea that you want to identify and store all the stuff in your room, apartment, or house.
I inevitably get horribly stuck in the data modelling phase of this project. Sure I could hack something together, but I always try to come up with something that's better than what I've used before gets around the problems I've encountered with those before... and it gets hopelessly complicated. It needs to have tags, and someway of grouping things together... so the headphones adapter is linked to the headphones record, and how to handle multiples of things, multiples of things with different serial numbers, or in different conditions.
Hell, even a much smaller problem domain... I thought I had figured out my Magic the Gathering card collection datamodel at one point several years ago, and then they came out with split cards and broke the whole thing. What's the converted mana cost of a split card? two values?... bastards :p
Then expand it to add stars or figure out how to normalize the database.
Ah well, I guess that's one solution to getting stuck trying to figure out the best way to do the data modelling: just don't bother. done. :p
I would feel safer if the freedom to travel was specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, personally... wonder historically why it wasn't.
More or less, it actually was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.
I feel stupid by asking this, but what would be a decent off-the-shelf permissions/licensing manager suitable for a small business?
I expect most normal people would just use Excel. :)
Or maybe some small off the shelf asset tracking program. Or whip something up from an asset tracking system template for Access or Filemaker Pro, etc.
By then I'll have the most up-to-date version hopefully with all the kinks worked out, plus DLC that will be included ("Gold Package", "Collectors Edition" etc) or cheap to download. I've been buying games like this for years now.
Without the release day buyers, there's not going to be a collectors edition at 50% off a year later.
So you should thank the early adopters / launch day lemmings, because your buying habits are only sustainable on their backs.
If the residents don't want taxpayers parking on streets owned by those same taxpayers
This has nothing to do with parking on the street.
The situation is that many residents are turning their YARDS into pay parking lots. This leads to excess noise, traffic, and has all the aesthetics of a used car lot which in turn pisses off many of the residents who are not doing this.
Your rant about street parking is utterly beside the point.
I don't think it's fair that my property is used for personal vehicle storage by someone else simply because it sits in front of their house
Still not remotely on topic. But...
This is an interesting and valid complaint. It does piss me off no-end the number of streets that are permit-parking only for residents, and the suggestion that they ought buy the 'parking lane' back from the city is both interesting and has merit.
Suppose they did though, or leased it via their property taxes etc since it really doesn't make practical sense for them to actually buy and maintain the parking lane and separaetly from the rest of the street. That'd be fair, right?
Of course, for all I know though they might even be doing just that. I certainly wouldn't know. Maybe they ARE paying something extra for the exclusive parking usage?
Why do the neighbors take exception to it, though?
Because some people don't want their normally quiet residential neighborhood looking like a cross between a night market and an impound lot all summer.
Its hardly unusual for there to be bylaws restricting the amount and type of commerce you conduct from your home, especially if it leads to unwanted traffic, noise, or is unsightly.
This situation is all of those.
Vancouver PNE by any chance?
Got it on the first swing.
Its *is* currently legal; within surprisingly well documented limits:
http://vancouver.ca/streets-tr...
Although I'm sure its exceeded, and I'm not sure how well enforced even the published limits are.
So you don't think Al Qaeda is capable of killing Americans?
Sure, terrorists, including al-Qaeda definitely threaten americans on an individual personal level, but they do not constitute a meaningful threat to the united states.
Serial killers, people peddling toys with lead paint, and sharks are all capable of killing Americans. None of these pose the threat to the united states itself though; so we can well afford to defend the US from these threats within the framework of the constitution.
Terrorists? They are less a threat than Cigarette companies. And in most years kill less people than sharks do.
Suggesting that terrorists are so great a threat to the united states that the constitution itself should be ignored to facilitate fighting them is idiotic. What's next? You going to suggest we set aside the constitution institute military rule to go after the sharks next? They've killed americans before, and they'll do it again.
Actually, I bet if there was a large enough movement to do this (perhaps something app-assisted), the city of SF would also put a stop to it.
Doubtful, unless it rose to the level of being a problem.
Around here, there's a residential area within walking distance of a local roller coaster park / exhibition site (with concerts etc) -- all summer local residents will get out and offer to sell parking space on their driveways etc.
And for the most part its not a problem.
However, some residents are taking it "too far", and open up their entire front and back yards to parking, and there will be 8 or 9 cars all over the front and back lawn, the driveway, the flowerbeds, etc.
And the neighbors do take exception to it. Which is reasonable I think. Its not a big party one night. Its 3-4 months at a time, from morning until midnight.
At the moment its still legal, but i wouldn't be surprised to see them pass a bylaw banning parking cars on the lawns at some point.
It says "on Confession in Open Court" not on "inferred confession from what you saw on youtube"
that's a pretty open and shut case.
So now if someone says "its a pretty open and shut case" we don't need bother with a trial. Is that in the constitution too?
Ideally, he should be captured and tried in open court.
Yes. Ideally, if we're going to cite the constitution as the authority for what we did, we should probably actually do what it said. You know, rather than just taking the parts you like and ignoring the parts that aren't as convenient.
But I would hate to see soldiers die trying to capture him.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
What is the point of defending it with their lives, if they do so by violating it themselves?
I would hate to see soldiers die trying to capture him too; but extra-judicially killing him without a trial is not an option. It is a violation of the principles we seek to uphold. It is cowardly.
Look at the big picture, here, al-Awlaki was at MOST a pest level threat to the overall security of the united states. He was never even the slightest existential threat to the USA nor to any allied nation. And he is no threat whatsoever to the constitution.
Thinking like yours, on the other hand, that we should simply set the constitution aside, just to pursue a violent criminal. Now THAT is a real threat.
The right to freedom of speech is not unrestricted:
Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?
From the linked article he wasn't just posting videos urging violence but was also involved in planning attacks against U.S. persons.
Should be: allegedly involved
So, if he was involved, To what extent was his involvement, and what was the sentence? Was he allowed to confront his accusors? Was he given due process?
I'm not saying he was a good guy, or even that its likely that he was a good guy, but seeing as we just executed him, extra judicially, with no due process, WE are NOT the "good guys" either.
Beating the terrorists by becoming them is not a victory at all.
Anwar al-Awlaki posted videos urging all Muslims to commit violence against American civilians.
Posting videos is sufficient? So not only is "freedom of speech" suspended but posting videos merits extra-judicial capital punishment anywhere in the world.
That's no better than Iranian fatwas urging the assasination of people who offend them. On the other hand Iran didn't actually dispatch the military to execute on those fatwas... we did.
But we're better because we're a "Christian nation" and don't call them fatwas right? Calling our murder justifications a "Classified Legal Memo" makes it ok, right?
(Bonus points look up the word fatwa, the irony is worth it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Do you realise that without the ads these sites would not exist or would go behind a paywall?
Ok... here's the deal.
Suppose a click on your site pays you 0.20 cents, and the click through rate is 3%, you make 60 cents per 100 visitors. So what's the value of my visit? 0.6 cents.
Even a site i visit daily ... 18 cents per month be ad free.
So yes. I'd pay that amount happily. A couple bucks a month tops and I'd have an ad free internet.
So why doesn't that work?
a) Because the infrastructure to actually take my money costs a fortune. Processing fees, accounting, security, customer support, dispute resolution, regulatory compliance, taxes. Taking 18 cents a month from thousands of users is expensive, taking 6 tenths of a cent from a one off visitor can't be recovered. This leads to the ad-free option being exorbitantly more expensive than the ad revenue that's being compensated for.
b) Because it gets in the way. When I hit a paywall site, I leave. I don't investigate how much it costs. It could be a $1 for a 5 years and I wouldn't even know. And even if I did in that VAST majority of cases I couldn't be bothered to go to the trouble of creating an account, entering in contact and payment information etc. The 'time and energy investment' on my part is just too high even if the financial element were nearly zero.
Yes i do pre pick my soap, i once broke out in hives from kirkland branded stuff so i never stray from lever2000 ever
Soap was just a proxy for 'things people buy at the grocery store', we really aren't that interested in your soap buying habits specifically here.
And unless you break out in hives whenever you vary anything the argument holds... and if you DO break out in hives over any little change... you are hardly remotely representative of 'normal'.
Uh, yes.
Uh. What on earth for?
You know what? When I go to the store, I have a shopping list. I buy the things on that list, and I go home
So you pre-pick the brand of soap your going to buy?
My shopping list usually just says 'soap'... sometimes I just write or 'teeth' to jog my memory when I'm at the store that I need toothpaste and floss rather than write them out individually.
Or I'll write 'snacks thursday' to remember to buy some chips, veggies, dips, m&m's and drinks for Thurs (when, for example, my brother and his wife are coming over)... i'll pick the actual snacks based on what's on sale and what strikes my mood while I'm in the store... and it might even result in me bringing home some new flavor of chips, or whatever that I might have heard about somewhere.
Just wait till someone sends a bomb threat using your Wifi
That's why I don't own a cellphone. Someone might clone my phone and phone in bomb threats.
I also don't throw away any garbage, i just pile it up in my basement. If I throw it out it might end up at some crime scene somehow and get traced back to me. I just can't take the risk. SWAT teams could break in at night and kill the dog... its happened to people.
Me, I've always liked the state motto of NH... "Live Free or Die." because that about sums it up. Better to live free and take a few risks than to cower in fear waiting to die.
So, by your argument, should we ever have sci-fi nanobots that are capable of arranging into any configuration and mimicking a mechanical device, all patents on such devices shall be null and void at that point?
Sure, when you come with nanobots that simply by virtue of being arranged in a specific way can mimic the material properties of glass, carbon fibre, silicon, and nitroglycerine then yeah i think as a species we'll be beyond the need for patents.
The point of patents is not philosophical. It is to encourage innovation by rewarding it with a limited-time monopoly.
Except that we have copyright to encourage creativity by rewarding it with a limited time monopoly. Software is unquestionably covered by copyright. So why does it need patents too?
Just as we don't allow patents on the idea behind the invention but on the invention itself, we don't need protection of the idea behind algorithms, we have copyright on the software implementing the algorithms.
Now, from my perspective, a sufficiently advanced, non-obvious algorithm is certainly valuable, and can take significant time and effort to produce
Sounds like this person is writing software and its already protected by copyright.
but in principle I don't see any problem with patenting something like, say, MP3
Because MP3 is simply a mathematical transformation from data A to data B. By allowing a patent on the mathematical idea of the transformation itself, you preclude the existence of any other implementations of the idea.
I cannot come up with a novel implementation of mp3, because you own the math itself. The person who invented the pencil sharpener to patent the specifc arrangement of hole and blade and so forth. He didn't get a lock on the idea of taking unsharpened pencils and putting a specific sharpened tip on them. If I can come up with a novel way of taking a pensil and sharpening it... maybe I'll use hamsters to power a cutting laser... I can do that.
Input A -> Output B is not patentable.
The machine in that arrow "-->"is the patent. If you let someone patent MP3, you've given them monopoly on idea of taking A and producing B, not merely the method to do so.
However, the method, as written in software, IS protected by copyright... so a patent is not required.
The term and other conditions are a different matter (though I think that the terms should be reduced for all patents, not just software patents),
On this we agree. :)
As I noted in another thread, this is really just hair splitting.
Sure, if the difference between pure abstract logic and the observable material world is just splitting hairs.
I mean they are only at opposite ends of the spectrum philosophically.
The scientific method which we use in the observable material world doesn't even really apply the same way to math. In math you actually can prove things -- that's where you get facts. In science you can only disprove them - you only have theory, never facts.
. If you insist that an algorithm does not implement a device as such, fine;
I do so insist.
I present to you a patentable invention, a computer running that algorithm.
That is not an algorithm implementing a device. That is a device implementing an algorithm. Of course its (potentially) patentable.
I say potentially, because of course a computer is patentable. New computers are being invented and patented all the time.
So is the computer you built novel in some way? Or is the sole novelty the fact that its running some algorithm? Because then, no then it is not eligible for a new patent.
Just as inventing a toaster and using it to toast bread is a patentable invention, taking exactly the same toaster and using it to toast waffles is not a new patentable invention.
A general purpose computer is a symbol manipulator. Provided it meets the necessary criteria to be a general purpose computer and has sufficient resources it can run any given algorithm.
So if you built a computer to run the algorithm, it may or may not be patentable -- but it would depend on what exactly you built, and has nothing whatsoever what algorithm you are running on it.
The compiler should have issued a warning pointing out that the code is using undefined behavior
Not all code the compiler removes is using undefined behaviour. I am not talking about undefined behaviors being 'optimized' away.
The article itself
Yeah, we've sort of gone off track vis a vis the original article. The scope of issues the original article talks about is smaller, and I agree with you fully that the compilers should be issuing warnings for the particular scenarios they are talking about.
Any mechanical contraption is just an arrangement of things that uses a set of known facts, in certain combination, to achieve the desired goal.
We don't have a grand unified theory of everything. We don't know how a lot of things work. A pencil sharpener cannot be deduced from the axioms of the universe, and by the mere act of deduction take form in your hands ready to sharpen pencils. A compression algorithm can be deduced from the axioms of mathematics, and performed in your head (at least in theory).
Maybe one day, when we have GUT and a you'll be able to will a pencil sharpener into existence as deductive effort directly from the axioms of the universe, then you can argue its the same thing, but until then its not.
There is no fundamental difference between an algorithm and a device
A device implements an algorithm. An algorithm never implements a device; that doesn't even have meaningful semantics. THAT is a fundamental difference right there.
Every invention is really just a "discovery of fact".
At best it relies on what we've observed to be consistent behaviour about the universe around us. It is not 'fact' itself.
either write code that can be checked to be secure by static analysis tools
Which just catches a limited subset of vulnerabilities.
or switch to a real managed language.
Because you can't write exploitable code in a managed language?
since the buffer overrun in somestuff() already transferred control to pwned() when somestuff() tried to return
That is only -one- failure mode, not all buffer overruns will let you overwrite to the instruction pointer to transfer control to your code.
Security is layered.
Yes, and that problem is not solvable in C, no matter how many sanity checks you litter your code with. As soon as you execute any code from an untrusted source, you don't have any security. Any error puts the system into an undefined state, at which point all bets are off.
Gotcha. So unless you write the operating system from the ground up yourself there's always going to be flaws. Thank you captain obvious. But that doesn't mean that sanity checks are worthless - they catch or mitigate flaws all the time.