In order to convince non-programmers, we have to show how software patents block technology they use and want. An example is Mosaic and the web. (I'd welcome others.)
If the implementers of the Mosaic web browser had patented "displaying hypertext images inline" in 1993, the web and all its benefits would never have happened. (E-mail and FTP still exist if that's any consolation.) Locking up that technology behind a patent that wouldn't have expired until 2010(!), would have hamstrung our technological development. A few very rich companies (Microsoft?) might license it, but the extra cost of licensing would prevent the web from gaining critical mass. Without the web many other technologies never exist. Apple never builds the iPhone (smart phones aren't all that useful without web infrastructure). Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. never even exist.
If this much damage could be done by just one software patent, think how much an entire industry of software patents does.
I oppose software patents, but RSA was a socially useful algorithm that was patented. I'm not sure it being patented was socially useful, but that is a much harder point to argue so I'm not sure your line of argument will get you anywhere.
You know if intelectual "property" were physical proptery, this sounds like something ripe for an anti-trust case. (I'm not sure if the details work out, but it smells that way.)
Haskell also comes to mind. Errors are so well handled in that language, you probably won't notice that they are so well handled. Because of the way things are structured, errors are rare (so no need to check them). When they are present, there are a number of techniques from "Maybe" types to "Error" monads to throwing "IO" monad errors. The "Maybe" type is particularly interesting as it ensures that the user will check the error, and provides convenient notations and combinators for doing that checking.
Third, the keys are editable... Thus, you're really in control of your computer.
Not if you are on an ARM instead of Intel. Microsoft's behavior makes it pretty clear they would like to do the same on Intel even if they can't right now.
[Your mom] doesn't know or care about signing keys and hashes.
Which means that it prevents your mom from running alternative operating systems unless that system (1) pays $99 to Microsoft or (2) requires her to fiddle with keys and hashes.
if someone attempts to transfer the same bitcoin to two different people, the person who gets it is the person who had more computational effort go into recording them as having it
Wait, what? How much computational effort does it take to spend a bitcoin? Would I have to worry about accepting bitcoins with weak transaction histories? Who's responsibility (buyer or seller) is it to ensure the transaction is recorded with enough effort? This sounds like a scary and dangerous way to do things. How is this not a problem? (Just to be clear, I'm asking from honest ignorance.)
Unrelated question:
If people stopped mining (perhaps because the reward got low enough), Bitcoin would collapse.
Bitcoin will let us see if money is something that can truly exist without government
That experiment was tried years ago in the form of coins minted from precious metals. Yes, it does work. It does, however, bring certain disadvantages (e.g. uncontrolled fluctuations in the monetary supply, people trying to corner the market, etc.).
I can't find the quote at the moment, but I think Feynman once said that the problem was like trying to use a flash light to track and hit a running person that is holding a small mirror... from a football field away... in the dark (i.e., only way to track them is by the reflection when you hit).
(Disclaimer: IIRC, the original quote was in reference to the Star Wars program where the distances involved made things like radar less precise/effective and the use of lazers required a prolonged "hit".)
Commercial airliners (e.g., 737, 747, A320, A330, etc.). I would have also thought that the presurization was enough to not matter, but my emperical experience is that it (unfortuntely) does.
The Pilot V5 breaks after I take it on an airplane(*). The pressure change must break a seal or something, because from then on it will bleed around the edges and leave ink all over my fingers. In general it is a great pen that is easy to find in shops, but for being called a "Pilot" pen, it sure doesn't handle flying well.
We tried that, but it didn't work so well (the Exclusionary rule was introduced only a hundred years ago). Basically it comes down to psychology. The motive for breaking the rules of evidence is usually to "get the bad guy" so "not getting the bad guy" is a much more effective deterrent than most other punishments. In addition, a judge is much more likely to be willing to exclude evidence than to send a cop to jail (just look at the relative rates of each) so this is a punishment that is more likely to actually be enforced.
Calling a person ignorant is a claim about the person. Ergo it is an ad hominem. Healthy debate is about the topics being debated. Unless that person's ignorance is the actual topic of debate, it is irrelevant to the truth of the things being debated.
I know it looks like that, but as someone on the inside most of us really try to make it understandable. (This may vary depending on the field. I work in programming languages.) If our reviewers don't understand a paper, they reject it (at least at reputable venues (which are the only ones that matter for tenure)).
Unfortunately, we often fail in that regard. Figuring out how to explain simply a complex idea is really hard. Sometimes it is harder than the original research. I often joke with colleges that explaining certain topics (e.g. explaining monads or category theory to people) is itself an open research problem. (Seriously, there are way too many "tutorials" on monads where people try to make them easy to understand but fail quite spectacularly.)
Compounding this problem is the fact that the metric for understandability is how understandable the idea is to the reviewers, and they are unlikely to be good judges of understandability for people outside the field.
So, yeah. We (at least most of us) really are trying to make our papers understandable (at least to our peers and people with similar background knowledge) and have incentives to do so (otherwise our papers get rejected, cited, etc.). Sadly we rarely do it well, and for that I'm sorry. If you have suggestions about how to improve the situation, I'll try to spread them among my colleges.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to convince non-programmers, we have to show how software patents block technology they use and want. An example is Mosaic and the web. (I'd welcome others.)
If the implementers of the Mosaic web browser had patented "displaying hypertext images inline" in 1993, the web and all its benefits would never have happened. (E-mail and FTP still exist if that's any consolation.) Locking up that technology behind a patent that wouldn't have expired until 2010(!), would have hamstrung our technological development. A few very rich companies (Microsoft?) might license it, but the extra cost of licensing would prevent the web from gaining critical mass. Without the web many other technologies never exist. Apple never builds the iPhone (smart phones aren't all that useful without web infrastructure). Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. never even exist.
If this much damage could be done by just one software patent, think how much an entire industry of software patents does.
I oppose software patents, but RSA was a socially useful algorithm that was patented. I'm not sure it being patented was socially useful, but that is a much harder point to argue so I'm not sure your line of argument will get you anywhere.
Gah!! I submitted before I finished, but you get the idea.
[Kiling your self] the most common use of guns against humans
...
why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?
After that absurd level of equivocation,
Having a monopoly is one thing, banding together multiple monopolies to squeeze out competition is another.
You know if intelectual "property" were physical proptery, this sounds like something ripe for an anti-trust case. (I'm not sure if the details work out, but it smells that way.)
Haskell also comes to mind. Errors are so well handled in that language, you probably won't notice that they are so well handled. Because of the way things are structured, errors are rare (so no need to check them). When they are present, there are a number of techniques from "Maybe" types to "Error" monads to throwing "IO" monad errors. The "Maybe" type is particularly interesting as it ensures that the user will check the error, and provides convenient notations and combinators for doing that checking.
The ACLU has a good summary of why this violates due process and in particular constitutes "prior restraint" (a big no-no).
You mean the ones that were seized without regard for due process? That is evil because it sets a precedent for abuse.
Oh, wait ... they've already abused it.
Third, the keys are editable ... Thus, you're really in control of your computer.
Not if you are on an ARM instead of Intel. Microsoft's behavior makes it pretty clear they would like to do the same on Intel even if they can't right now.
[Your mom] doesn't know or care about signing keys and hashes.
Which means that it prevents your mom from running alternative operating systems unless that system (1) pays $99 to Microsoft or (2) requires her to fiddle with keys and hashes.
if someone attempts to transfer the same bitcoin to two different people, the person who gets it is the person who had more computational effort go into recording them as having it
Wait, what? How much computational effort does it take to spend a bitcoin? Would I have to worry about accepting bitcoins with weak transaction histories? Who's responsibility (buyer or seller) is it to ensure the transaction is recorded with enough effort? This sounds like a scary and dangerous way to do things. How is this not a problem? (Just to be clear, I'm asking from honest ignorance.)
Unrelated question:
If people stopped mining (perhaps because the reward got low enough), Bitcoin would collapse.
Could you expound on why it would collapse?
Bitcoin will let us see if money is something that can truly exist without government
That experiment was tried years ago in the form of coins minted from precious metals. Yes, it does work. It does, however, bring certain disadvantages (e.g. uncontrolled fluctuations in the monetary supply, people trying to corner the market, etc.).
I can't find the quote at the moment, but I think Feynman once said that the problem was like trying to use a flash light to track and hit a running person that is holding a small mirror ... from a football field away ... in the dark (i.e., only way to track them is by the reflection when you hit).
(Disclaimer: IIRC, the original quote was in reference to the Star Wars program where the distances involved made things like radar less precise/effective and the use of lazers required a prolonged "hit".)
Phone minutes are often been rounded up to the nearest minute. AT&T may be doing something similar to that. (It's still scummy of course.)
In England, truth is not an absolute defense against defamation like it is in the USA. Maybe the same is true in Australia?
What kind of plane?
Commercial airliners (e.g., 737, 747, A320, A330, etc.). I would have also thought that the presurization was enough to not matter, but my emperical experience is that it (unfortuntely) does.
Yes, please!
The Pilot V5 breaks after I take it on an airplane(*). The pressure change must break a seal or something, because from then on it will bleed around the edges and leave ink all over my fingers. In general it is a great pen that is easy to find in shops, but for being called a "Pilot" pen, it sure doesn't handle flying well.
We tried that, but it didn't work so well (the Exclusionary rule was introduced only a hundred years ago). Basically it comes down to psychology. The motive for breaking the rules of evidence is usually to "get the bad guy" so "not getting the bad guy" is a much more effective deterrent than most other punishments. In addition, a judge is much more likely to be willing to exclude evidence than to send a cop to jail (just look at the relative rates of each) so this is a punishment that is more likely to actually be enforced.
Calling a person ignorant is a claim about the person. Ergo it is an ad hominem. Healthy debate is about the topics being debated. Unless that person's ignorance is the actual topic of debate, it is irrelevant to the truth of the things being debated.
Calling your opponent ignorant is an ad hominem attack regardless of veracity.
Personally, I still wouldn't trust it not to malfunction due to a software bug.
As indeed you shouldn't. See the Therac-25 and the deaths that resulted.
Microsoft requires all ARM devices implement SecureBoot with no way to turn it off. So, no, I have no place for RT.
Wouldn't Intel then just have gone and made their own x86-64 to compete with AMD64? Given the market shares, I don't see AMD winning that fight.
I know it looks like that, but as someone on the inside most of us really try to make it understandable. (This may vary depending on the field. I work in programming languages.) If our reviewers don't understand a paper, they reject it (at least at reputable venues (which are the only ones that matter for tenure)).
Unfortunately, we often fail in that regard. Figuring out how to explain simply a complex idea is really hard. Sometimes it is harder than the original research. I often joke with colleges that explaining certain topics (e.g. explaining monads or category theory to people) is itself an open research problem. (Seriously, there are way too many "tutorials" on monads where people try to make them easy to understand but fail quite spectacularly.)
Compounding this problem is the fact that the metric for understandability is how understandable the idea is to the reviewers, and they are unlikely to be good judges of understandability for people outside the field.
So, yeah. We (at least most of us) really are trying to make our papers understandable (at least to our peers and people with similar background knowledge) and have incentives to do so (otherwise our papers get rejected, cited, etc.). Sadly we rarely do it well, and for that I'm sorry. If you have suggestions about how to improve the situation, I'll try to spread them among my colleges.