it doesn't buy them the ability to develop new technologies.
Sure it does! All new technologies are just small steps from existing technologies, and can be reverse-engineered. The "lone genius inventor" myth perpetuated by the monopoly-making patent system will be the death knell of all existing economic powers.
Bugs are an error in the process, not the code. If you find a bug, you need to find the process error that allowed that bug to occur.
Well bugs can be created at the code level, such as with typos or indirection mistakes, but otherwise I think your point is sound. I would still reword it to better apply TFA by saying it this way:
More interested observers ("eyeballs") can make flaws ("bugs") in every part of the development process shallow, not just code.
A more valid point can be made than what is in TFA by talking more about process transparency and documentation, in terms of making all those "eyeballs" more effective than they are now. TFA utterly fails to make any such points. Instead, they go on a diatribe against a hand-picked list of OSS projects, on the false assumption that any flaws in the example competing systems makes their own system better.
I think the counter-point to the "shallow" rule, that better applies to the claims here, is that projects that lack "eyeballs" (i.e. proprietary projects, which automatically lack transparency to the interested consumer base) leave open the existence of "deep bugs" at every process level. If any of the few eyes deigned worthy of access to the project misses those bugs, the ability of nefarious third parties to exploit these bugs after release goes up significantly. Lack of transparency at every process level, including code, means that these bugs will be exploited before helpful interested third parties can discover them (i.e. white hats). This simple fact about disparity in process transparency makes proprietary development inherently flawed, and the "eyeballs rule" is a method of simplifying the reasoning behind this fact.
Copy rights don't exist -- they are complete legal fictions, currently designed to make sure the Disney Corporation can keep profiting from any configuration of 3 intersecting circles.
The only valid concern here is attribution rights, which are natural in a social sense, and act as a consumer protection against fraud. Plagiarism is usually defined more in terms of proper attribution than "copying", because uses of the terms with the root "copy" are so ambiguous and problematic (esp. in the digital age) as to make it unusable in enforcement, even when limited to enforcement of social norms. Quotes, citations, footnotes, bibliographies, and now hyper-links are all valid methods to lend attributions to originating sources. None of these attribution methods were used in this case, which makes finding of fault very simple.
Please don't let this debate devolve into "fair use" definitions, which are still ambiguous after centuries of contradictory court findings. Defining fair use as less than 140 characters, a few sentences, a chorus, a bar, a frame, an act, or a page are all equally subjective and ambiguous. The variety of potential valid reuse contexts are just far too great to simplify by numerical means. Copyright laws in the U.S. have always been in conflict with the First Amendment, and "fair use" has never been a sufficient work-around.
Let's talk about attribution rights and forget the copy right fiction.
A leaked copy was posted on wikileaks, but they took everything offline due to their financial problems.
I think you may have accidentally buried the lead here. All the wikileaks.org URL sub-paths are failing, except for their secure submissions page, and their home page where they plead for financial help. One of the lines on http://wikileaks.org/ says this:
"Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands"
So I take it from this that you could probably get access to their ACTA leaks for a measly $10, and share it with 9,999 fellow Slashdotters to boot. You can request bank information for electronic transfer donations at wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org. Speaking of Slashdotters... everybody here should think deeply about this section on the wikileak.org plead page:
Support us technically
Wikileaks is currently overloaded by readers. This is a regular difficulty that can only be resolved by deploying additional resources. If you support our mission, you can help us by integrating new hardware into our project infrastructure or developing software for the project. Become patron of a WikiLeaks server or other parts of our technology, adding more pillars to the stability and balance of the WikiLeaks platform. Servers come trouble-free and legally fortified, software is uniquely challenging.
If you can provide rackspace, power and an uplink, or a dedicated server or storage space, for at least 12 months, or software development work for WikiLeaks, please write to wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org
I would say they are perpetually suffering from the "Slashdot Effect." I would be very surprised if no one here could help them out a bit with their technical issues. This seems like an excellent opportunity to test a new International distributed cache system, kind of like what Coral Cache was supposed to be. I wonder if my local hosting company would get mad if I actually took them up one their "unlimited storage and bandwidth" offer...
Ahh ok so it's an issue of it being a linear development of an existing invention, rather than a new invention in and of itself.
No, it's not even a linear development of an existing invention -- it's the SAME invention, just done over TCP/IP now instead of the pre-ARPA network he described. Here's the part you must have missed:
"A company I worked for over 30 years ago had just such a PBX phone system. They routed phone calls along with other data over their own microwave system, leased telco lines and various other media in what looked very much like an Intranet."
This describes prior art in voice data being sent over a network of mitigated circuits. It doesn't matter whether the network is circuit switched, packet switched, or delivered on a bicycle. Voice data over (choose-any-delivery) has been done, it's obvious, it's the opposite of novel, and it has never deserved patent monopoly status.
I'm not sure if I agree with him about VOIP, but I can see the logic of the argument.
The USPTO is supposed to work by non-subjective evidence of things like obviousness to those "skilled in the art", novelty, and exhaustive prior-art searches. It shouldn't matter who anyone agrees with.
This is another case that shows that reality of the bureaucracy inverts the stated ideals: these judgements within the USPTO are completely subjective, based on lack of effort toward finding prior art, and most often completely wrong in favor of validating patents for old and obvious "ideas." They are far more interested in handing out synthetic monopolies than protecting the public [domain] interest.
The data has to get there in some form, whether in UDP or TCP packets, so any need to resend does affect session latency. One way to work around packet drops in games is to send absolute positions instead of motion deltas, but that takes more data and affects transmission speed. Latency IS affected.
Another related issue is any ISP can suddenly decide to privilege their own VoIP service packets in congestion cases, over any other latency or drop sensitive data, like voice chat or other non-ISP VoIP services. Network Neutrality affects fairness in all forms of competition online.
stoolpigeon is exactly right. The only thing I have to add, just to reinforce that Python is the right teaching language, is that it was first developed based on a language (ABC) that was designed specifically for teaching kids how to program.
"Guido: Yeah! So a language like Python, which actually has roots in educational languages, will do better. Python is very strongly inspired by a language called ABC; I worked on the ABC implementation designed by colleagues of mine in the early '80s. It was a wonderful language for teaching. The history of Python comes out of the frustration I had with that language when it wasn't being used for teaching, but for day-to-day ad hoc programming—but that's a different story. Python inherits a lot of that focus to make it very simple, easy to understand, easy to remember and easy to learn. It's a very good language to start teaching. We are very hopeful about that side of the CP4E effort."
Also, instead of jumping straight from Python to C, you could use Cython as a bridge, and use it to teach variable typing basics.
If I were teaching programming today, this is the order I would use: HTML, Python Scripts, Python Modules, Python GUI, pygame, Cython, C, C macros, C libraries, C compiler optimization, assembler... and maybe yacc, or just general compiler design. Tangential languages like Perl, Java, Ruby, and C++ can be introduced at any point, to show different implementations of concepts first learned in Python, but they are all optional. If anyone gets stuck somewhere before compiler design, let them stay there as long as they want. Everyone has their own pace.
The actual qualification to being a thin client refers to how the machine is used, not the actual specs of the machine.
This is exactly right. Further, the thin-client isn't limited to a hardware concept. Most thin-client implementations start in software, not hardware -- VNC, RDP, and Citrix are good examples. I would argue that netbooks and nettops are a full replacement for old thin-client hardware concepts, both in terms of function and cost. Local storage can mean local cache, not just offline use.
In any case I don't see the future as cloud vs. desktop. I just see a balance, where the cloud makes for easier sharing and dynamic offloading, and the desktop basics (like storage) allow for offline operation and enhanced compression techniques when the cloud is necessary.
The main piece of missing information that annoys me is that part of the network service list that says "-- and some more." Half the services that were listed could be easily outsourced to any decent ISP, with cost depending on security, storage, and SLA requirements. ISP hosting or even colocation services give you cheap access to better redundant Internet links than your office will ever touch.
The other half could be done with a cheap firewall/VPN box at each site. In the age of OpenWRT, these boxes often have services like Multi-WAN, DNS, DHCP, SSL, VPN, and IDS built-in. Buy two of those, sync configuration, hook them up to a networked power switch, and script the power to shut off one and power up the other whenever a network service test fails. All that equipment is still less than the cost of a single 1U+ server with equivalent services, and any custom scripting would be for minor convenience functions -- not a service requirement. I find specialized hardware/firmware solutions are far more reliable than software/server solutions. They are also often cheap enough to keep an offline spare handy for emergency replacement.
Even a low-power retail NAS box could be used for complete network authentication, SSH, and SSL data services. It could probably serve an office up to 250 users, depending on simultaneous load -- 50 easy. Slap some cheap (less than $0.10/GB!) TB+ SATA drives in there, and you have multi-TB RAID storage per site, that can be rsync replicated to all nodes. Give each site their own cheap master storage node, replicated to each other. The rsync script(s) could be scheduled or event triggered, as needed. Netgear ReadyNAS boxes can also run Subversion/WebDAV/Autocommit/svnsync.
I'm betting the meat of these services are in that nebulous "and some more" area, and that those service requirements change everything.
Some brand names that carry one or more of the products mentioned above, and can be found in any Fry's or decent online store, without even having to deal with a sales rep: Netgear Linksys (now sometimes Cisco rebranded) Dlink Cradlepoint (3G/4G wireless backup!) Apple (Airlink are surprisingly good routers!) Qnap Thecus Sans Digital Digital Loggers, Inc. APC
I wouldn't ever recommend Buffalo, and 3Com might be on the list if HP had not bought them recently.
None of the metrics really have anything to do with the average user.
I think the article is speaking more to the developer and OSS evangelist set, but I get what you're saying. Another non-user metric that I find rather revealing about the comparisons made by the article, yet not addressed by the article, is:
* Can you install one operating environment on the other?
In desktop, this would be handled by VM's, WINE, Wubi, etc. On phones, it's interesting to note that the N900 is powerful enough to run VM's of other OS's, like Palm Garnet, Debian, and even Android itself. Most of the Android stack is on top of a similar Linux base, so potentially Android could even be compiled to run "natively" as an interface alternative on the N900. This has already been done on past N-series tablets, and the N900 is more powerful than any of those past devices. I doubt the inverse is true, that running Maemo on Android is possible, but that might be an interesting hack. I would say the effort required is definitely asymmetrical between the systems at this point, with Maemo being clearly more the flexible operating environment.
Netflix and Blockbuster have special contract arrangements with the movie studios. Redbox doesn't, so they aren't hindered by any such contracts and can use First Sale Doctrine. Redbox are also taking studios to task and accusing them of Antitrust violations, for their attempts at market fixing and excluding Redbox illegally. How the RIAA and MPAA have gone this long without anyone taking them to court over being organizations built on intentional Antitrust collusion I'll never know -- it's about darn time! Insurance, media, and telcos all deserve much more face time with the DOJ.
The overwhelming majority of the R&D costs are imposed by government demanding very expensive and lengthy randomly controlled trials (RCTs) combined with the FDA's excessive conservatism to an extent that is generally not socially optimal.
Assuming this is true, which has to be assumed to give any credence because you give no backing material or references here whatsoever, then I think such government regulation should be funded. In example I think "No Child Left Behind" was a dismal failure because it tested for poor school environments but did nothing to fund those requirements, or to catch schools up to standards. In the same way these RCTs you claim to be a problem (what's the alternative -- beta testing?) should be funded by government.
(some good drugs are bared from the market due to the limitations of RCTs).
[citation needed]
You should also extend this same argument to software and most other technology oriented business since they too depend on government granted monoplies.
Nobody should do any such thing. I actually don't think software is dependent at all on such monopoly grants. Software patents, which are essentially patents on Boolean Math, are inherently counter-productive, and arguably a limitation on free speech rights. I think currently proprietary software isn't even all that dependent on copyright. Proprietary software is dependent on Trade Secret, since they only release binaries and hide the source. Even when they release the source it tends to be under NDA style contract provisions. Open Source also has better business models than Copyright entails.
If you are not arguing that government action is inherently bad, then you should at least present a coherent argument for why I am wrong.
Why would I pose the idea of Democratic government taking over an industry if I thought it was inherently bad? You're making that claim, not me. And you have the burden of proof here -- the need for big pharma has never been proven, in that it has never been proven that similar or better treatments wouldn't arise without giant drug companies and monopolistic patents.
If you accept my arguments, then you really need to explain why strong patent protection is problematic since those drugs would not be developed without it and the "problem" would be entirely academic.
I do not accept your arguments, and the burden of proof is with those that say patents are needed, or that the same or better results cannot be achieved through less exclusionary means. That is what has not been proven.
I thank you for enumerating all the ways that big pharma would fail without government protection. Any business that depends on so much government protection should simply be made part of the government, and thus subject to Democratic decision making instead of private profiteering. Short of that, they should be allowed to fail just like any similarly poor business model would on the free market.
None of the problems with the big pharma business model you enumerated show them to be anything worth saving or protecting. Quite the opposite, they should be allowed to fail as quickly as possible, so something better can take their place.
1) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&D, and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.
This argument completely ignores how far these clinical trials are already subsidized by a mix of government, private, and non-profit grants.
2) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patients
This argument is completely false in the cases most worthy of any government protections: if the drug is really that new and effective, it will market itself via the clinical trial results alone.
3) The costs of R&D, trials, approval, marketing, *and* reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year window
This is assuming that the drug isn't held as a Trade Secret until just before commercial release, making the patent period equal to the market period. This also assumes the drug is really all that new, and not just a remix or increment on older well-known drugs or coctails. Drugs are rarely all that "novel", because the mechanisms of truly new drugs can't be trusted not to create bad reactions. Most drugs are also derived from natural or organic materials and processes, which also brings their novelty and non-obviousness into question.
I'd personally much rather pay for the R&D and clinical trials of life-saving devices, procedures, and pharmaceuticals via taxes, as we are already doing anyway. That sounds better right now than continuing to be taxed by monopoly rents, via health insurance Trust markets, as we are now.
The general "reimbursement for R&D" claim about the need for patents is completely bogus. I have not seen one proof that such costs can't be made up via early-mover and brand establishment advantage, through a mix of first-to-market and Trade Secret status. Trade Secret status alone requires costly reverse-engineering for others to enter the market without independent invention, and if the reverse-engineering is cheap why is the patent worthwhile exactly? When I say "worthwhile" I don't mean to the monopoly rent seeker but to the public, which is the entity (via government) that is granting this "temporary" monopoly via patents. What other incentive does the public have to grant these temporary monopolies?
I personally think the long history of the USPTO has shown the entire current patent system to be counter-productive, and in no way keeping the original Constitutional intent of "progress" in the "useful arts and sciences." Instead what we have is an endless parade of trolls seeking monopoly rents on minor increments or remixes of past inventions instead of real novel, non-obvious, and truly *new* discoveries.
I think it should be replaced with a Registered Trademark System, which doesn't contain unenforceable "obviousness" tests, and doesn't punish independent invention where referencing the other work wasn't needed -- in most cases they were just "beat to the punch" in getting the patent first, if they bothered to apply at all. The only punishable offenses should be direct industrial espionage, or licensing Registered Trade Secrets only to use the RTS materials without following through on the licensing contract agreement. Otherwise real inventors shouldn't be forced to read through the USPTO's long history of non-inventive patents, just to avoid overlap that might lead to litigation, whether the overlapping patents are truly valid or not.
To match the patent system, once the Registered Trade Secrets expire, they should go to the public domain. The same net benefit of "progress" in the public domain data is gained, without all these hurtful unenforceable "obviousness" tests ruining everything. The RTS obviousness test becomes: if anyone can recreate or reverse-engineer the product with nothing more than the summary abstract and/or the available market product, the invention is obvious.
The USPTO has proven nothing except its own corruption and incompetence, and violated Constitutional intent via rampant market counter-progress, and thus should be dissolved.
The problem isn't only IP count but the fact that all the traffic ends up over a handful of trunk lines between any given set of countries. I once calculated that a single 64-bit subnet of IPv6 addresses would give you enough IPs to cover roughly every square centimeter of the Earth with IPv6 addressable devices, including uninhabited areas and oceans. We could allocate such a IPv6 subnet to use by a new short-link mesh topology network, set up completely between immediate neighbors and outside the control of any government. Longish range directed links could be set up along any border between a free/democratic nation and an authoritarian/censored nation. Any great-firewall would have to be augmented with a great-Faraday-wall as well. IPv6-to-IPv4 could be used at any sufficiently close neighbor node as an "escape route" both to balance connection loads and avoid censor tracking, in a manner similar but superior to I2P. The key is getting mesh topology routing technology cheap and in the hands of common people.
1) Pony up the dough for satellite coverage 2) Get a cellular data plan and live with no connectivity in dead zones
You missed "all of the above".
More seriously, Multi-WAN firewalls are relatively cheap now. If you know Linux or BSD you can probably configure a custom Multi-WAN router on a CULV PC. If you have the money for an RV and still want constant access, why not buy and mix all available forms? Use the WifiInMotion or another amplifier+Cradlepoint alike option to maximize cellular data range. Use an amplified directional WiFi antenna (the Internets are full of DIY parabolic and cantenna designs) with some netstumbler software to search out WiFi connections wherever you go. Use a satellite service as a fail-over or backup WAN. If you buy a pay-per-bit type satellite service, definitely define rules to only use that connection when none of the other connection have ping. If you have the means, buy multiple cell data services on different 3/3.5/4G network types, as they have different ranges and coverage areas.
Mod parent up Informative, not Funny. Unfortunately, given the current state of the USPTO and Copyright offices, any sarcasm about "granting of legal monopolies" is not funny at all. It's all too real.
You're right, it's not a debate. The laws of physics show that radio frequencies are just light outside human visible range. Light has no interference -- that's why passing a lot of light through a space the size of a pin hole accurately projects visible light from disparate sources onto the opposite side, thus a creating camera obscura. The problem is the sensing equipment -- you can only claim light "interferes" when you are trying to pick out one signal, yet your sensor can't discriminate between signals from any given direction. RF antennas are like a 1-CCD camera with no occluding body -- it just gets the aggregate of all light passing by in all directions. No wonder reception sucks everywhere -- even bacteria can discriminate between light sources better than our radio equipment can detect light waves on any given frequency.
Parent is short and sweet. Here's the long version.
Depending on the size of the job, I would say hire at least one knowledgeable IT staff on-site, to manage all the off-site or outsourced resources. If you're not already that person, you can't cram your way into it fast enough, or you're already too busy, so hire someone with lots of trustworthy references. You can use the hiring process as a learning tool. If a lone SysAdmin can handle it all, you want the best most experienced IT professional you can afford on staff (which you can't determine until you interview at least 3 respected candidates), and then make some hit-by-bus provisions immediately. You need at least one person on IT staff beholden to your company's interests at all times, and not another company's inherently different interests.
If you outsource it all, you're also dealing with a bunch of yes-men up until the point of "sale", where they start claiming "I never promised that!" Which brings up my next point: if you're concerned about something, PUT IT IN THE CONTRACT! Then if they screw up, you have something to point to, and sue if they don't follow through or fix it sufficiently. In fact, put the damage assessment for the types of acts you're most worried about in the contract! Be sure the payback amounts slightly exceed your potential costs fixing the damage. If they absolutely don't want to sign into a certain provision, at least then you know why not to trust them.
This section is defined by the words "defense to infringement", an act that has nothing to do with getting a patent granted. Since proof of this defense shows that prior-art existed for the patent in question, it should actually invalidate any patent that this defense is successfully used against. It looks like it was written to a rare edge-case where the prior-art was put in practice yet not publicly documented, but I would still argue that such a prior implementation would also show the patent's obviousness (if this defense is validated, that means the patent claims in question were obvious to someone other than the patent filer, at least one year before filing). This whole section is written specifically to get businesses out of court who are determined to have "infringed a patent" at least one year BEFORE it was filed, without ever having contacted the filer. I don't see any way any court (or even a prejudiced but reasoned lawyer) could ever construe anything under a title like this to determine what kinds of patents the USPTO should *accept*. Being able to avoid infringement claims is the opposite of being able to have a patent granted.
You do recall the dot-com crash in 2000, right? Bush wasn't in office until 2001.a
It's still his fault. We KNEW he would be elected. That alone crashed the dot-com bubble.
Why is this being modded as funny? Markets, if at all rational (which is debatable), are based on predictions of changing economic conditions in the future. The fact that an idiot like Bush was even a leading candidate at the time should have served as a harsh warning to smart investors, that things in the U.S. economy might head south real quick. They were right. And just look at all the bumps up the stock market took whenever Obama announced a new appointee anywhere in government finance. The markets obviously pay close attention to politics.
magically encrypted by the NSA's army of highly trained ninja code monkeys as it leaves the senders' machines.
While this is obviously not true, the NSA contractors are trained to look out for emails to or from whitehouse.gov addresses. When such emails are detected, all contractors are trained to immediately cover their eyes with their hands, press their thumbs into their ears, and yell "nananana" for the 30 seconds while the email passes through their screens. The e-mails are never presented in audio form, but the audio self-impairment methods are considered a redundant form of encryption.
All of our other e-mails are read, made fun of, and passed around if deemed NSFW.
I will say that although I have not had the joy of opening Office 2000 files with OO.o 3.0, I do recall there being some serious issues between powerpoint slides.
I've heard that about prior versions of OO.o, but I don't know if the same is true of 3.x. I have had problems with some older Word documents not showing some images when opened in OO.o, including 3.0. If your main concern is viewing or converting old files, why not keep Office 2000 around? What's the point of getting rid of it completely?
Just use OpenOffice.org to create all new or revised files, as they can be opened universally, in part because free ODF plug-ins and converters are everywhere. If you have an older file that needs a revision, convert it to an older or more consistent format (Office '95 and '97 formats work for me most of the time), and then open the converted file in OO.o, without losing any formatting or data. A variety of external or command-line format converters also exist, which are useful for batch converting legacy files.
I have several old copies of Office 2000 and 2003 floating around the office, mainly to convert between old file types ad-hoc. Microsoft also offers read-only Office document viewers and converters of their Office line, for free:
Going forward, the ability to convert almost every legacy document format that ever existed, to an International Standard like ODF, makes most file format differences a non-issue.
Not everyone has caught up with current standards, so we make it company policy to use ODF formats internally, but we convert files down to Office '97 or PDF when sharing them with external contacts. Everyone with any Office suite from the last 10 years can open our converted files without installations or issues.
I know Slashdotters don't actually value reading TFA, but +5 Insightful for THIS! From Ms. Warrior's bio at the Cisco site:
"Warrior is also a strong and vocal advocate for women and minorities in math, science and engineering. In 2007, she was inducted into the Women in Information Technology International Hall of Fame, and received the YWCA Metropolitan Chicago Outstanding Woman of Achievement Award."
As a knee-jerk reaction to the summary, I have to admit I was against the Cisco pick, but after reading both biographies I have to admit they're both great choices. I just hope that whoever it is, they can see beyond COTS options, and start promoting innovation on par with DARPA, as well as just catching up with current IT standards.
Slashdot Mirror
it doesn't buy them the ability to develop new technologies.
Sure it does! All new technologies are just small steps from existing technologies, and can be reverse-engineered. The "lone genius inventor" myth perpetuated by the monopoly-making patent system will be the death knell of all existing economic powers.
Bugs are an error in the process, not the code. If you find a bug, you need to find the process error that allowed that bug to occur.
Well bugs can be created at the code level, such as with typos or indirection mistakes, but otherwise I think your point is sound. I would still reword it to better apply TFA by saying it this way:
More interested observers ("eyeballs") can make flaws ("bugs") in every part of the development process shallow, not just code.
A more valid point can be made than what is in TFA by talking more about process transparency and documentation, in terms of making all those "eyeballs" more effective than they are now. TFA utterly fails to make any such points. Instead, they go on a diatribe against a hand-picked list of OSS projects, on the false assumption that any flaws in the example competing systems makes their own system better.
I think the counter-point to the "shallow" rule, that better applies to the claims here, is that projects that lack "eyeballs" (i.e. proprietary projects, which automatically lack transparency to the interested consumer base) leave open the existence of "deep bugs" at every process level. If any of the few eyes deigned worthy of access to the project misses those bugs, the ability of nefarious third parties to exploit these bugs after release goes up significantly. Lack of transparency at every process level, including code, means that these bugs will be exploited before helpful interested third parties can discover them (i.e. white hats). This simple fact about disparity in process transparency makes proprietary development inherently flawed, and the "eyeballs rule" is a method of simplifying the reasoning behind this fact.
Copy rights don't exist -- they are complete legal fictions, currently designed to make sure the Disney Corporation can keep profiting from any configuration of 3 intersecting circles.
The only valid concern here is attribution rights, which are natural in a social sense, and act as a consumer protection against fraud. Plagiarism is usually defined more in terms of proper attribution than "copying", because uses of the terms with the root "copy" are so ambiguous and problematic (esp. in the digital age) as to make it unusable in enforcement, even when limited to enforcement of social norms. Quotes, citations, footnotes, bibliographies, and now hyper-links are all valid methods to lend attributions to originating sources. None of these attribution methods were used in this case, which makes finding of fault very simple.
Please don't let this debate devolve into "fair use" definitions, which are still ambiguous after centuries of contradictory court findings. Defining fair use as less than 140 characters, a few sentences, a chorus, a bar, a frame, an act, or a page are all equally subjective and ambiguous. The variety of potential valid reuse contexts are just far too great to simplify by numerical means. Copyright laws in the U.S. have always been in conflict with the First Amendment, and "fair use" has never been a sufficient work-around.
Let's talk about attribution rights and forget the copy right fiction.
A leaked copy was posted on wikileaks, but they took everything offline due to their financial problems.
I think you may have accidentally buried the lead here. All the wikileaks.org URL sub-paths are failing, except for their secure submissions page, and their home page where they plead for financial help. One of the lines on http://wikileaks.org/ says this:
"Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands"
So I take it from this that you could probably get access to their ACTA leaks for a measly $10, and share it with 9,999 fellow Slashdotters to boot. You can request bank information for electronic transfer donations at wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org. Speaking of Slashdotters... everybody here should think deeply about this section on the wikileak.org plead page:
Support us technically
Wikileaks is currently overloaded by readers. This is a regular difficulty that can only be resolved by deploying additional resources. If you support our mission, you can help us by integrating new hardware into our project infrastructure or developing software for the project. Become patron of a WikiLeaks server or other parts of our technology, adding more pillars to the stability and balance of the WikiLeaks platform. Servers come trouble-free and legally fortified, software is uniquely challenging.
If you can provide rackspace, power and an uplink, or a dedicated server or storage space, for at least 12 months, or software development work for WikiLeaks, please write to wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org
I would say they are perpetually suffering from the "Slashdot Effect." I would be very surprised if no one here could help them out a bit with their technical issues. This seems like an excellent opportunity to test a new International distributed cache system, kind of like what Coral Cache was supposed to be. I wonder if my local hosting company would get mad if I actually took them up one their "unlimited storage and bandwidth" offer...
Ahh ok so it's an issue of it being a linear development of an existing invention, rather than a new invention in and of itself.
No, it's not even a linear development of an existing invention -- it's the SAME invention, just done over TCP/IP now instead of the pre-ARPA network he described. Here's the part you must have missed:
"A company I worked for over 30 years ago had just such a PBX phone system. They routed phone calls along with other data over their own microwave system, leased telco lines and various other media in what looked very much like an Intranet."
This describes prior art in voice data being sent over a network of mitigated circuits. It doesn't matter whether the network is circuit switched, packet switched, or delivered on a bicycle. Voice data over (choose-any-delivery) has been done, it's obvious, it's the opposite of novel, and it has never deserved patent monopoly status.
I'm not sure if I agree with him about VOIP, but I can see the logic of the argument.
The USPTO is supposed to work by non-subjective evidence of things like obviousness to those "skilled in the art", novelty, and exhaustive prior-art searches. It shouldn't matter who anyone agrees with.
This is another case that shows that reality of the bureaucracy inverts the stated ideals: these judgements within the USPTO are completely subjective, based on lack of effort toward finding prior art, and most often completely wrong in favor of validating patents for old and obvious "ideas." They are far more interested in handing out synthetic monopolies than protecting the public [domain] interest.
Throttling does not affect packet latency.
The data has to get there in some form, whether in UDP or TCP packets, so any need to resend does affect session latency. One way to work around packet drops in games is to send absolute positions instead of motion deltas, but that takes more data and affects transmission speed. Latency IS affected.
Another related issue is any ISP can suddenly decide to privilege their own VoIP service packets in congestion cases, over any other latency or drop sensitive data, like voice chat or other non-ISP VoIP services. Network Neutrality affects fairness in all forms of competition online.
stoolpigeon is exactly right. The only thing I have to add, just to reinforce that Python is the right teaching language, is that it was first developed based on a language (ABC) that was designed specifically for teaching kids how to program.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5028
"Guido: Yeah! So a language like Python, which actually has roots in educational languages, will do better. Python is very strongly inspired by a language called ABC; I worked on the ABC implementation designed by colleagues of mine in the early '80s. It was a wonderful language for teaching. The history of Python comes out of the frustration I had with that language when it wasn't being used for teaching, but for day-to-day ad hoc programming—but that's a different story. Python inherits a lot of that focus to make it very simple, easy to understand, easy to remember and easy to learn. It's a very good language to start teaching. We are very hopeful about that side of the CP4E effort."
Also, instead of jumping straight from Python to C, you could use Cython as a bridge, and use it to teach variable typing basics.
http://www.cython.org/
If I were teaching programming today, this is the order I would use: HTML, Python Scripts, Python Modules, Python GUI, pygame, Cython, C, C macros, C libraries, C compiler optimization, assembler... and maybe yacc, or just general compiler design. Tangential languages like Perl, Java, Ruby, and C++ can be introduced at any point, to show different implementations of concepts first learned in Python, but they are all optional. If anyone gets stuck somewhere before compiler design, let them stay there as long as they want. Everyone has their own pace.
The actual qualification to being a thin client refers to how the machine is used, not the actual specs of the machine.
This is exactly right. Further, the thin-client isn't limited to a hardware concept. Most thin-client implementations start in software, not hardware -- VNC, RDP, and Citrix are good examples. I would argue that netbooks and nettops are a full replacement for old thin-client hardware concepts, both in terms of function and cost. Local storage can mean local cache, not just offline use.
In any case I don't see the future as cloud vs. desktop. I just see a balance, where the cloud makes for easier sharing and dynamic offloading, and the desktop basics (like storage) allow for offline operation and enhanced compression techniques when the cloud is necessary.
The main piece of missing information that annoys me is that part of the network service list that says "-- and some more." Half the services that were listed could be easily outsourced to any decent ISP, with cost depending on security, storage, and SLA requirements. ISP hosting or even colocation services give you cheap access to better redundant Internet links than your office will ever touch.
The other half could be done with a cheap firewall/VPN box at each site. In the age of OpenWRT, these boxes often have services like Multi-WAN, DNS, DHCP, SSL, VPN, and IDS built-in. Buy two of those, sync configuration, hook them up to a networked power switch, and script the power to shut off one and power up the other whenever a network service test fails. All that equipment is still less than the cost of a single 1U+ server with equivalent services, and any custom scripting would be for minor convenience functions -- not a service requirement. I find specialized hardware/firmware solutions are far more reliable than software/server solutions. They are also often cheap enough to keep an offline spare handy for emergency replacement.
Even a low-power retail NAS box could be used for complete network authentication, SSH, and SSL data services. It could probably serve an office up to 250 users, depending on simultaneous load -- 50 easy. Slap some cheap (less than $0.10/GB!) TB+ SATA drives in there, and you have multi-TB RAID storage per site, that can be rsync replicated to all nodes. Give each site their own cheap master storage node, replicated to each other. The rsync script(s) could be scheduled or event triggered, as needed. Netgear ReadyNAS boxes can also run Subversion/WebDAV/Autocommit/svnsync.
I'm betting the meat of these services are in that nebulous "and some more" area, and that those service requirements change everything.
Some brand names that carry one or more of the products mentioned above, and can be found in any Fry's or decent online store, without even having to deal with a sales rep:
Netgear
Linksys (now sometimes Cisco rebranded)
Dlink
Cradlepoint (3G/4G wireless backup!)
Apple (Airlink are surprisingly good routers!)
Qnap
Thecus
Sans Digital
Digital Loggers, Inc.
APC
I wouldn't ever recommend Buffalo, and 3Com might be on the list if HP had not bought them recently.
None of the metrics really have anything to do with the average user.
I think the article is speaking more to the developer and OSS evangelist set, but I get what you're saying. Another non-user metric that I find rather revealing about the comparisons made by the article, yet not addressed by the article, is:
* Can you install one operating environment on the other?
In desktop, this would be handled by VM's, WINE, Wubi, etc. On phones, it's interesting to note that the N900 is powerful enough to run VM's of other OS's, like Palm Garnet, Debian, and even Android itself. Most of the Android stack is on top of a similar Linux base, so potentially Android could even be compiled to run "natively" as an interface alternative on the N900. This has already been done on past N-series tablets, and the N900 is more powerful than any of those past devices. I doubt the inverse is true, that running Maemo on Android is possible, but that might be an interesting hack. I would say the effort required is definitely asymmetrical between the systems at this point, with Maemo being clearly more the flexible operating environment.
Netflix and Blockbuster have special contract arrangements with the movie studios. Redbox doesn't, so they aren't hindered by any such contracts and can use First Sale Doctrine. Redbox are also taking studios to task and accusing them of Antitrust violations, for their attempts at market fixing and excluding Redbox illegally. How the RIAA and MPAA have gone this long without anyone taking them to court over being organizations built on intentional Antitrust collusion I'll never know -- it's about darn time!
Insurance, media, and telcos all deserve much more face time with the DOJ.
The overwhelming majority of the R&D costs are imposed by government demanding very expensive and lengthy randomly controlled trials (RCTs) combined with the FDA's excessive conservatism to an extent that is generally not socially optimal.
Assuming this is true, which has to be assumed to give any credence because you give no backing material or references here whatsoever, then I think such government regulation should be funded. In example I think "No Child Left Behind" was a dismal failure because it tested for poor school environments but did nothing to fund those requirements, or to catch schools up to standards. In the same way these RCTs you claim to be a problem (what's the alternative -- beta testing?) should be funded by government.
(some good drugs are bared from the market due to the limitations of RCTs).
[citation needed]
You should also extend this same argument to software and most other technology oriented business since they too depend on government granted monoplies.
Nobody should do any such thing. I actually don't think software is dependent at all on such monopoly grants. Software patents, which are essentially patents on Boolean Math, are inherently counter-productive, and arguably a limitation on free speech rights. I think currently proprietary software isn't even all that dependent on copyright. Proprietary software is dependent on Trade Secret, since they only release binaries and hide the source. Even when they release the source it tends to be under NDA style contract provisions. Open Source also has better business models than Copyright entails.
If you are not arguing that government action is inherently bad, then you should at least present a coherent argument for why I am wrong.
Why would I pose the idea of Democratic government taking over an industry if I thought it was inherently bad? You're making that claim, not me. And you have the burden of proof here -- the need for big pharma has never been proven, in that it has never been proven that similar or better treatments wouldn't arise without giant drug companies and monopolistic patents.
If you accept my arguments, then you really need to explain why strong patent protection is problematic since those drugs would not be developed without it and the "problem" would be entirely academic.
I do not accept your arguments, and the burden of proof is with those that say patents are needed, or that the same or better results cannot be achieved through less exclusionary means. That is what has not been proven.
I thank you for enumerating all the ways that big pharma would fail without government protection. Any business that depends on so much government protection should simply be made part of the government, and thus subject to Democratic decision making instead of private profiteering. Short of that, they should be allowed to fail just like any similarly poor business model would on the free market.
None of the problems with the big pharma business model you enumerated show them to be anything worth saving or protecting. Quite the opposite, they should be allowed to fail as quickly as possible, so something better can take their place.
1) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&D, and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.
This argument completely ignores how far these clinical trials are already subsidized by a mix of government, private, and non-profit grants.
2) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patients
This argument is completely false in the cases most worthy of any government protections: if the drug is really that new and effective, it will market itself via the clinical trial results alone.
3) The costs of R&D, trials, approval, marketing, *and* reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year window
This is assuming that the drug isn't held as a Trade Secret until just before commercial release, making the patent period equal to the market period. This also assumes the drug is really all that new, and not just a remix or increment on older well-known drugs or coctails. Drugs are rarely all that "novel", because the mechanisms of truly new drugs can't be trusted not to create bad reactions. Most drugs are also derived from natural or organic materials and processes, which also brings their novelty and non-obviousness into question.
I'd personally much rather pay for the R&D and clinical trials of life-saving devices, procedures, and pharmaceuticals via taxes, as we are already doing anyway. That sounds better right now than continuing to be taxed by monopoly rents, via health insurance Trust markets, as we are now.
The general "reimbursement for R&D" claim about the need for patents is completely bogus. I have not seen one proof that such costs can't be made up via early-mover and brand establishment advantage, through a mix of first-to-market and Trade Secret status. Trade Secret status alone requires costly reverse-engineering for others to enter the market without independent invention, and if the reverse-engineering is cheap why is the patent worthwhile exactly? When I say "worthwhile" I don't mean to the monopoly rent seeker but to the public, which is the entity (via government) that is granting this "temporary" monopoly via patents. What other incentive does the public have to grant these temporary monopolies?
I personally think the long history of the USPTO has shown the entire current patent system to be counter-productive, and in no way keeping the original Constitutional intent of "progress" in the "useful arts and sciences." Instead what we have is an endless parade of trolls seeking monopoly rents on minor increments or remixes of past inventions instead of real novel, non-obvious, and truly *new* discoveries.
I think it should be replaced with a Registered Trademark System, which doesn't contain unenforceable "obviousness" tests, and doesn't punish independent invention where referencing the other work wasn't needed -- in most cases they were just "beat to the punch" in getting the patent first, if they bothered to apply at all. The only punishable offenses should be direct industrial espionage, or licensing Registered Trade Secrets only to use the RTS materials without following through on the licensing contract agreement. Otherwise real inventors shouldn't be forced to read through the USPTO's long history of non-inventive patents, just to avoid overlap that might lead to litigation, whether the overlapping patents are truly valid or not.
To match the patent system, once the Registered Trade Secrets expire, they should go to the public domain. The same net benefit of "progress" in the public domain data is gained, without all these hurtful unenforceable "obviousness" tests ruining everything. The RTS obviousness test becomes: if anyone can recreate or reverse-engineer the product with nothing more than the summary abstract and/or the available market product, the invention is obvious.
The USPTO has proven nothing except its own corruption and incompetence, and violated Constitutional intent via rampant market counter-progress, and thus should be dissolved.
The problem isn't only IP count but the fact that all the traffic ends up over a handful of trunk lines between any given set of countries. I once calculated that a single 64-bit subnet of IPv6 addresses would give you enough IPs to cover roughly every square centimeter of the Earth with IPv6 addressable devices, including uninhabited areas and oceans. We could allocate such a IPv6 subnet to use by a new short-link mesh topology network, set up completely between immediate neighbors and outside the control of any government. Longish range directed links could be set up along any border between a free/democratic nation and an authoritarian/censored nation. Any great-firewall would have to be augmented with a great-Faraday-wall as well. IPv6-to-IPv4 could be used at any sufficiently close neighbor node as an "escape route" both to balance connection loads and avoid censor tracking, in a manner similar but superior to I2P. The key is getting mesh topology routing technology cheap and in the hands of common people.
You have two choices:
1) Pony up the dough for satellite coverage
2) Get a cellular data plan and live with no connectivity in dead zones
You missed "all of the above".
More seriously, Multi-WAN firewalls are relatively cheap now. If you know Linux or BSD you can probably configure a custom Multi-WAN router on a CULV PC. If you have the money for an RV and still want constant access, why not buy and mix all available forms? Use the WifiInMotion or another amplifier+Cradlepoint alike option to maximize cellular data range. Use an amplified directional WiFi antenna (the Internets are full of DIY parabolic and cantenna designs) with some netstumbler software to search out WiFi connections wherever you go. Use a satellite service as a fail-over or backup WAN. If you buy a pay-per-bit type satellite service, definitely define rules to only use that connection when none of the other connection have ping. If you have the means, buy multiple cell data services on different 3/3.5/4G network types, as they have different ranges and coverage areas.
Mod parent up Informative, not Funny. Unfortunately, given the current state of the USPTO and Copyright offices, any sarcasm about "granting of legal monopolies" is not funny at all. It's all too real.
You're right, it's not a debate. The laws of physics show that radio frequencies are just light outside human visible range. Light has no interference -- that's why passing a lot of light through a space the size of a pin hole accurately projects visible light from disparate sources onto the opposite side, thus a creating camera obscura. The problem is the sensing equipment -- you can only claim light "interferes" when you are trying to pick out one signal, yet your sensor can't discriminate between signals from any given direction. RF antennas are like a 1-CCD camera with no occluding body -- it just gets the aggregate of all light passing by in all directions. No wonder reception sucks everywhere -- even bacteria can discriminate between light sources better than our radio equipment can detect light waves on any given frequency.
Parent is short and sweet. Here's the long version.
Depending on the size of the job, I would say hire at least one knowledgeable IT staff on-site, to manage all the off-site or outsourced resources. If you're not already that person, you can't cram your way into it fast enough, or you're already too busy, so hire someone with lots of trustworthy references. You can use the hiring process as a learning tool. If a lone SysAdmin can handle it all, you want the best most experienced IT professional you can afford on staff (which you can't determine until you interview at least 3 respected candidates), and then make some hit-by-bus provisions immediately. You need at least one person on IT staff beholden to your company's interests at all times, and not another company's inherently different interests.
If you outsource it all, you're also dealing with a bunch of yes-men up until the point of "sale", where they start claiming "I never promised that!" Which brings up my next point: if you're concerned about something, PUT IT IN THE CONTRACT! Then if they screw up, you have something to point to, and sue if they don't follow through or fix it sufficiently. In fact, put the damage assessment for the types of acts you're most worried about in the contract! Be sure the payback amounts slightly exceed your potential costs fixing the damage. If they absolutely don't want to sign into a certain provision, at least then you know why not to trust them.
Based on the section title, I would say that 35 USC 273 has nothing to do with patents being *allowed*:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_273.htm
"35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor."
This section is defined by the words "defense to infringement", an act that has nothing to do with getting a patent granted. Since proof of this defense shows that prior-art existed for the patent in question, it should actually invalidate any patent that this defense is successfully used against. It looks like it was written to a rare edge-case where the prior-art was put in practice yet not publicly documented, but I would still argue that such a prior implementation would also show the patent's obviousness (if this defense is validated, that means the patent claims in question were obvious to someone other than the patent filer, at least one year before filing). This whole section is written specifically to get businesses out of court who are determined to have "infringed a patent" at least one year BEFORE it was filed, without ever having contacted the filer. I don't see any way any court (or even a prejudiced but reasoned lawyer) could ever construe anything under a title like this to determine what kinds of patents the USPTO should *accept*. Being able to avoid infringement claims is the opposite of being able to have a patent granted.
It's still his fault. We KNEW he would be elected. That alone crashed the dot-com bubble.
Why is this being modded as funny? Markets, if at all rational (which is debatable), are based on predictions of changing economic conditions in the future. The fact that an idiot like Bush was even a leading candidate at the time should have served as a harsh warning to smart investors, that things in the U.S. economy might head south real quick. They were right. And just look at all the bumps up the stock market took whenever Obama announced a new appointee anywhere in government finance. The markets obviously pay close attention to politics.
magically encrypted by the NSA's army of highly trained ninja code monkeys as it leaves the senders' machines.
While this is obviously not true, the NSA contractors are trained to look out for emails to or from whitehouse.gov addresses. When such emails are detected, all contractors are trained to immediately cover their eyes with their hands, press their thumbs into their ears, and yell "nananana" for the 30 seconds while the email passes through their screens. The e-mails are never presented in audio form, but the audio self-impairment methods are considered a redundant form of encryption.
All of our other e-mails are read, made fun of, and passed around if deemed NSFW.
I will say that although I have not had the joy of opening Office 2000 files with OO.o 3.0, I do recall there being some serious issues between powerpoint slides.
I've heard that about prior versions of OO.o, but I don't know if the same is true of 3.x. I have had problems with some older Word documents not showing some images when opened in OO.o, including 3.0. If your main concern is viewing or converting old files, why not keep Office 2000 around? What's the point of getting rid of it completely?
Just use OpenOffice.org to create all new or revised files, as they can be opened universally, in part because free ODF plug-ins and converters are everywhere. If you have an older file that needs a revision, convert it to an older or more consistent format (Office '95 and '97 formats work for me most of the time), and then open the converted file in OO.o, without losing any formatting or data. A variety of external or command-line format converters also exist, which are useful for batch converting legacy files.
I have several old copies of Office 2000 and 2003 floating around the office, mainly to convert between old file types ad-hoc. Microsoft also offers read-only Office document viewers and converters of their Office line, for free:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/HA010449811033.aspx
I think most of these tools, and some versions of the full MS Office Suites, also work on other OS platforms via WINE.
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=31
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/differences/
I regrettably give you the option of getting Novell's OO.o distribution (here) in which you can install an extension for OpenXML.
Why the regret? Novell maintains a good package of OpenOffice installers and extensions. There are also Open Source ODF and OpenXML converters:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter
And OpenXML support comes with OpenOffice.org 3+ "out of the box":
http://blog.mypapit.net/2008/04/openofficeorg-30-supports-microsoft-openxml-docx.html
Going forward, the ability to convert almost every legacy document format that ever existed, to an International Standard like ODF, makes most file format differences a non-issue.
Not everyone has caught up with current standards, so we make it company policy to use ODF formats internally, but we convert files down to Office '97 or PDF when sharing them with external contacts. Everyone with any Office suite from the last 10 years can open our converted files without installations or issues.
...dude from Cisco. He at least has his roots...
I know Slashdotters don't actually value reading TFA, but +5 Insightful for THIS! From Ms. Warrior's bio at the Cisco site:
"Warrior is also a strong and vocal advocate for women and minorities in math, science and engineering. In 2007, she was inducted into the Women in Information Technology International Hall of Fame, and received the YWCA Metropolitan Chicago Outstanding Woman of Achievement Award."
As a knee-jerk reaction to the summary, I have to admit I was against the Cisco pick, but after reading both biographies I have to admit they're both great choices. I just hope that whoever it is, they can see beyond COTS options, and start promoting innovation on par with DARPA, as well as just catching up with current IT standards.