Hopefully this report means that they've made another advance in this form of projection. Remember that lasers are just light, so if their concentration is low enough it is basically the same as looking at your computer monitor (which bathes you in light.)
Still not something I'd want to spend long, long hours doing, though.
Think about it. What if you were running a small business, and for some reason, got hit with big fees of some kind? If they were insignificant compared to your total profit, you might just shrug them off, but if they weren't, you would have to do something to adjust for this cost. In fact, a legal fee is almost like, in the case of Microsoft, another cost of doing business. This could easily be the case in our country (USA) where frivalous lawsuits (Not saying Microsoft's monopoly lawsuit is frivalous) become an extra cost of doing business. Just as malpractice lawsuit awards drive up the cost for insurance for Physicians (especially, in the US, OBGYN's) and thus crank up doctor's fees, it only makes sense that companies would start charging more to compensate for their new costs.
Really the line is drawn here right where you ask, "Could Microsoft pay for these fees, feasibly, without price increases?" I don't know-- really. But in light of how ridiculous the sums can become in these cases, I would give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here and say maybe not.
Regardless, I feel that lawyers have always had too much clout in the US. And I don't think it is a thing of our law per se, but a cultural trend that has been sneaking up on us for the last 200 years.
As I grow older, I've gotten to hate Microsoft less and less. I guess for some people it may be the opposite-- but as for me, I have begun to actually realise that companies like Microsoft are run by people too, and people make mistakes, and people have limited perspective, etc, etc. The bottom line for me is that I think Linux CAN and SHOULD compete with Windows, and that we don't need any government intervention to muck everything up. Keep Uncy Sam outta this, people. Big Corps love Big Gov't. This has been the rule for 100 years (since the 'Progressive' Era.) If we, as programmers, businessmen, and computer scientists need the government's help to compete with Microsoft, that's pretty sad. I guess I could go through all of the injunctions against MS and say which ones I support and which ones I don't, but I've already been too long winded. I would just say I do support a few of them.
About software patents...
on
Lobbying For Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This may be slightly offtopic, but it relates, I believe, so here it is.
Software (code) is a lot like music. Its really complicated in the end, but the pieces that it is made up of (chords, phrases, arpeggios, melody lines, etc) can be very simple. In fact, basic chord progressions are reused so many times it borders on the ridiculous. In the same way, certain pieces of code are re-used in a similar form many times. If someone can get a software patent on smallish pieces of code, like getting a copyright on a phrase of music, you could skewer a lot of people for royalties.
Similarly, if you could copyright a general form of music, whose parts are somewhat understood, but nonetheless vague enough that someone could write it without trying to, you could again swim in royalties.
There is, fortunately, in music, a rule against this. But in software it seems that the line may be fuzzy. What we really need is a length-of code range for copyrights.
For instance (As mentioned in one of the articles linked to) it would have been unreasonable for Mozart to say, patent the Symphony. Not to say that some musician might want to try to. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to patent something as wide-reaching and ambiguous as 'one-click shopping'. Patents, to my experience, are usually rather complex, so that people will know if they are using it or not. A detailed description is given, so that there is NO confusion. This rule MUST apply to code as well.
In like terms, it would stupid for Mozart to patent, say, the first phrase from '10 Variations' (the melody is identical to 'Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star'.) how many written pieces of music have used the note progression 'C C G G A A G'? Well, I'm not going to look it up. But as a musician should know, the notes Db Db Ab Ab Bb Bb Ab' are analogous to the original progression. So, then, if you consider that as well to be the same melody (it is) and thus under the patent, you can get the idea of what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.
In software, you likewise should not be able to patent significantly minor parts of code. Heck, the size of the patentable pieces should probably relate to how complex they are a combination of the basic parts of a programming language. I mean, eveyone can see that you can't patent an 'if' statement in C. After all, you aren't the first person to make up the If statement and how it is implemented in machine code. If, however, you created a new 'If' function in assembly, could you patent that? I would think that would depend on how complex a combination of machine instructions you need to produce your statement.
Why is that? Well, generally, you would have to consider the chances that someone else writing an 'If' statement would produce the exact same pieces of code you have by accident. If there were, for instance, 1000 machine instructions required to create an If statement (obviously not, but stay with me) and there were a large number of different combinations of commands that would produce the effect (there could be, in fact, but more later..) then your more efficient If statement would be patentable.
But say, for instance, that there are about 5 lines of assembly required to make this 'If'. Basically something to the effect of "Test EAX EBX JZ Then..(code)... Then: (code)" A real If statement can be more complex than this, of course, since it can take any set of arguments that can be reduced to a boolean true or false. (alternatively, the 'EAX' and 'EBX' may be the reduced values created by C and dropped into the function call.) At this, it may be obvious to anyone who has coded assembly that you can make the same statement basically by replacing JZ (jump on zero) with JNZ (jump on not zero), and switching the two blocks of code. This would not count as patentable, in my opinion.
So, I think that software patents should be:
1. Clear and unambiguous. A patent's viability should be judged on whether someone could be under the umbrella of the patent eas
.. but to my experience, and knowledge of history, generally when things are good they are the best for the rich and when they are bad they are worst for the poor.
I think it's just common sense. He who makes the largest percentage of money gets the biggest numeric gain from prosperity.
"US computer security firm iDefense discovered the code being circulated from Chinese websites."
Chinese websites, as in from mainland China, or from Hong Kong?
If it is Hong Kong; then perhaps it is the same fellows that run the bootleg operations. Oddly, it doesn't seem that the new Chinese rule has done anything to stop this. I guess crimes against the US and other world nations and their computer systems don't count for as much as saying that thuggish tyrants shouldn't rule.
Mainland, on the other hand, would indicate something occuring directly under the pervue of China, and their 'government'.
Neither is particular suprising or unusual, but these kind of folks usually get ignored for swapping copyrighted data and running illegal porn sites. I wonder if swapping viruses will put them on the criminal radar?
Anyone have any information on this particular factoid? It would be interesting to know if these are HK or Mainland.
Except; Plant run by nutcases = Chernobyl. The difference a half of a word can make! Well, I'm sure Chernobyl really cut down on the CO2 emissions. After all, melting down doesn't involve the active burning of Hydrocarbons!... Unless they were eating Macadamia nuts in the cafeteria, then there would be a problem.
I voted in Harford County Maryland. And it was simple as heck, and worked fine. You just complete the arrow to the person (party, name and other information clearly marked) with a black marker. and if you mess up, they give you a new one. I must say, its a joy to go vote in a quaint little elementary school.
Ah, well at least this isn't a 'victory' for demorcracy like the election of Marion Berry. Oh yeah. That's something to talk about. =P
What i -meant-, you mook, (who is, by the way, too cowardly to show his/her name) was, AT the time, i had just woken up (as you suggested) and was like, "Damn, thats wierd." Ex out terrorism for a moment. isn't that just frickin' odd? Anyway, i do agree-- this is definitely an act of war. Is WW3 on the horizon? I think its been put off too long. The middle east folks hate each other so much that the only way that the violence will stop will be the eradication of one of the factions. Sad, but true. We live in a humanistic era, at least in the united states. This doesn't mean that it is not wrong to kill people, its just that we have been given a distorted view of these things. And -no- I am not sheltered, coward. Pardon me for being sleepy. Don't know about you, but my current worry is about getting drafted. Its all assumption, of course-- but its possible. Now if you will excuse me while i sit trapped in my dormatory room (for the most part) and yes, i am aware that evil people exist-- thank you, but many US citizens aren't. Oh, but aside from that, i think you may be raving mad. or just really angry. Crikey.
And cut the raving, dag nabbit. All we need now is for everyone to go into panic. (sigh)
WW3? yeah, sounds far-fetched, but so did planes crashing into buildings awhile ago...
Well, time for this message to get lost in the massive swamp of replies. Wow. Things really get interesting when the world goes under fire.
-Chompster (whom is quite concerned, but not panicked)
Who with the wherewithall to have two planes would be nuts enough to crash them into things? Ok, let me rephrase that, who with the cash to have two planes would crash them into, of all things, the world trade center buildings? Its just -asking- for trouble. Unless there's something deeper involved? Yi.
If you ask me, thats just plain odd.
I do hope this isn't a sign of something worse in the making.
Chompster
Ah, its not to say that it is suprising...
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No doubt-- its quite unfair that they do this-- but, again, its not suprising. I, myself, am not going to get an XBox, and this would be further reinforcement to my decision.
No offense to you guys who like the XBox-- but compared to the Gamecube, (which is made by the very experienced Nintendo,) its sorely lacking.
This is not an encouragement to boycott XBox, but i don't think that this sort of thing should be endorsed. Nintendo . as far as i can remember, always let you buy a bare system (which is to say, one without a game) and if you couldn't, you didn't usually pay much more than 40 or so dollars extra. Sega didn't do that, (correct me if i am wrong) and not even Sony. Microsoft is obviously inexperienced in this market, and hopefully they'll learn a lesson with this.
This could go into a whole "why big business is bad" or something, but i don't want it to. Its just an example of how Microsoft is screwing up because of their inexperience in the console market.
Evangelion is just Freakin' wierd. Really. It is a copmlete and total mind trip. And its quite scary, at least this ending of the series. (Which i remember being Death and Rebirth, the recap, and Air and Love is Destructive, the ending).
I think there are probably some good issues brought up (at least in the terms of morality and such) But before you watch any of it, you would need to understand some psychology among other things, like Japanese culture, I imagine.
I suppose it could be considered "deep", although i would call it more "Disturbing". I am really truly convinced that the popping of people was totally unnecissary. There isn't much way to describe it except to say that it -is- disturbing.
I would admit that some of this could be due to the difference of culture-- but i was seriously freaked out by the twisting of biblical/religious stories/facts. I'm not a stickler about this, but DAMN, this was some weird stuff.
The anime that is closest (That i have seen) to this level of disturbedness is Lain. A lot of death, pain, suffering, anguish and loneliness. Not the kind of thing you want to watch in one sitting.
It undeniably was visually stunning, albiet in a sort of trippy way. It does offer a sensible explanation for the other various weirdnesses(Which i'm sure isn't a real word) in the series, but in retrospect i would rather not have watched it.
However, if you do want to watch something truly mentally stimulating, and aren't particularly concerned with your sanity, please be my guest and watch it. It really is quite excellent in a strange, arabesque way.
And no hard feelings to y'all that liked it. We're all entitled to our opinions, and thats mine.
Although Katz is not totally right, he does have a point-- The American Political System is decaying. Whether this is simply because they are ignoring technology, or one of many other reasons.
The best explanation, i believe, is this. The Politcal System is in a state of decadance; it is untouchable-- there are too few people willing to actually do something about it, and many of those who might are too apathetic or simply too weary. The political system doesn't truly reform itself, because if it did, it would lose its inherent power, its remoteness from the control of the people. Many of those who actively work to reform the system are defeated by it as well, because in trying to grab the attention of the politics-weary majority, they go to extremes, often invalidating themselves in the process. This is to say, most people will not vote for someone they view as over-zealous-- there seems to be a intrinsic detraction from these people amongst many whom i've known. Also, is the fact that there is a divergence amongst those who wish reform. Divided they are not enough force to create any change. There are likely other factors involved here, but I'm far too lazy to list them all. =)
But I'll say this: If given the chance to involve myself in a non-extremist mass reform movement, led by individuals who i would consider reasonable, I would definitely join the movement.
Why hasn't such a thing happened? Do we really need 1000 miles between "us" and "them" to successfully do this?
This is what i'd like to see. A bnuch of people who want reform in different areas to get together and COMPROMISE on the issues, and form a single movement. That and that alone can create the demise of the current political incarnation... at least in my opinion.
Um, how exactly this completely relates to the topic, I'm not overly sure. But, I think it gives a better explanation of our current state of politics. I'm not stating that i'm right, Just perhaps a bit more perceptive and less buzzwordy.
I haven't seen how their licencing routine works.. and I bet you haven't either.. but chances are its quite inconspicous..
So What?
If its like i think it is, and it has those lines in there after the legalese its akin to false advertising. Most people don't read the fine print on the ads on TV, and thats what this is probably like.
If only there were more people in the world like this. And perhaps there will be-- If, that is, our founding Fathers were correct in their assumption (a pretty sound one, i might add) that an educated populace is a good, productive and happy populace, able to get what it needs (at least) and hopefully what it wants.
I don't recall the name of the Philosopher who first conceived this.. (Socrates?) but i think the idea here is Eudaimonia. Which, in so many words says that happiness is achieved through excellence (in mind, body and spirit) and thus, a happy life is one conducted in excellence. Excellence, i have come to believe, refers to living to your fullest, doing what you do best, and helping others as you would have them help you.
So, i would guess and say that if we continue towards a morally sound, intellectually open and productive future we would eventually achieve Eudaimonia, the Real Utopia. Wild Fantasies? Eh, who knows. Its not like we are that guy from foundations or anything. This future, of course, is bereft of the corporate blandness and mind control. (exaggeration, nonetheless, but... really.. isnt telling you what to buy a very mild form of mind control?)
And blah, blah, blah et cetera. To make a long story short, the solution is goes like this.
1. Find the best facts you can get.
2. Act on this information in the best way (most excellent?) you can.
3. And perhaps, through simple iteration, generations in the future may have better lives than we have ever imagined.
-Chompster, in the depths of his ignorance: 200ft and falling!
Heh, its kind of funny, but i really wonder if my suggestions will be marked as over-idealistic, bombastic and hackneyed? Well.. only way to tell is... [post]
This sounds very interesting, but did it really happen? It's very possible for something to get blown out of proportion...
Still. It is amusing to see corporations get a bit of their just deserts. Has the era of cyber-terrorists began? or is it cyber-revolutionaries? (your choice)
Can I laugh at the corporations again?
Chompster Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
Re:Subverting the process with external systems...
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 2
A short point i would like to present, however...
The leaders of the hierarchical system marginalize themselves.
Despite this fact being true, there are situations where it didnt matter that this happened (like with Napoleon. He did extreme things, but after his escape he still managed the 100 days) More modern leaders exist who are self-serving enough to marginalize themselves, but still recover their power because they have the charisma or intelligence to re-rally the people they once controlled. And because many of said people were ignorant of important issues to begin with (and made their original decision to rebel not based on what the real reason would or should have been) it would be easy to convince them to rejoin with promises and the like.
These people seem to be very malleable. Changing their lives in the hopes that these new promises will fulfill their needs or wants. Or perhaps, following along because they do not feel(or believe) that they have the power to resist
It also seems to me that people have an amazing ability to adapt. This is to say that despite excruciating conditions, they can still survive. A good example of this could be Bad Software. Some configurations of computers (hardware and software) using Windows crash very frequently. One would think that this sort of thing would put a halt to business, but people still manage to adapt to this and get on with things. Adaptation is generally a good thing, but is it possible that our ability to survive in these situations blinds us from the reality that it should not have to be that way?
Knowing is half the battle, right?
I think it is a very good argument for our founding fathers' ideals that a properly educated populace could fend for itself. [sorry about the absence of a refernce here; i am looking for the document that I found this in] (Of course, as we can see today, it has become er, Trendy, almost, to be Ignorant.) I feel that education and foremost understanding are the real problem with the issue with WTO and almost any other issue facing us. If we can understand and define our problem, we are that much closer to solving it. But with so many ignorant people, how are we going to do that? Perhaps an overhaul to our idea of what education is(or should be) is in order? Still there are many questions and few answers.
Relating to what i said above, the hardest part about making a judgement about the WTO is understanding the problem that they pose.(or don't, for that matter) It is very hard to discuss a issue such as the actions of the WTO with someone without inadvertantly regressing into the use of a large number of possibly mis-based assumptions. Perhaps if we had been trained better as children on how to think rather than what to think, we could determine the root of this problem and fix it.
But the saddest part of all, as i see it, is that our ancestors (as Americans, at least) worked for freedom, giving up their lives and work in its pursuit. And what do we do to thank them? We break the golden rule to gain more for ourselves, and destroy what they had worked to create.
Oh, and that education reform? Are we going to get it? No.
-Chompster, in his infinite pessimism Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
P.S. Sorry about the lack of references. I'm workin on it:)
Yeah, so perhaps (as said before) this is not a problem with the people sending the email, but with HTTP/HTML itself.
-Chompster Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
Re:Laws, Geeks, History, Et Cetera.
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps, they should make a law.. but one that prevents trolls from having children. Or people who abuse their current children?
"No, that would be wrong. "
Either way, that would become just another "dumb law" on the list, which we would laugh at and promptly disobey. Judging by the ignorance of the message this is a reply to, shouldn't the person who wrote that be immediately neutralized? Do people really hate geeks that much? To remain on topic, i think there should be laws against the use of Microsoft products. Which, amusingly, might be the case in Germany, with their possible banning of W2K.
What i would like to know is the history behind some of these laws. Could give some good insight on American culture.
Truthfully, these laws look to be "The Fruits of Arbitrary Power" (which BTW is the name of a poster protesting the Boston Massacre) and often just a way for a possibly corrupt politician to get his way. What do you think?
(how about a law banning trolls from any BBS or similar service:)
-Chompster Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
The topic of dumb laws is kind of interesting, because these outdated laws definitely reflect the history of the state or place of their origin.
For example: In Baltimore, MD you can't throw a bale of hay out of a window in the second story w/in city limits. Fascinating! did they have some kind of criminal who killed people by throwing bales of hay on their heads from the 2nd story? (bales of hay weigh pretty much) or did a few people get killed when some chump thoughtlessly chucked a bale of hay out of his window?
I watched the anime movie "Armitage" and this topic made me think about possible dumb laws on earth in this Sci-Fi setting. (for those of you who don't know, In Armitage, The Earth is a feminist society) The most obvious one is "It is illegal to leave a toilet seat up. 25$ fine" Another: "It is illegal to refer to anyone using a label or term that denominates gender. Punishable by death" Perhaps even: "It is illegal for a man to ogle a woman, even if she is wearing revealing or otherwise purposefully attractive clothing. 50$ fine"
But what about other movies? like, Deliverance? or, Dumb Laws in Klingon society? It could be a source of endless humor:)
-Chompster Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
It isn't too suprising that something like this happened.
Browsers do warn you about sending information. Should they also warn about opening Emails? Perhaps a browser should check the email for cookies before opening. If it finds one, then it could warn you that this could be a security risk.
Lets hope to god that those banner companies don't get in on this. They probably will, unless the Better Business Bureau or the Department of Commerce does something (if they even can) We can always hope. (or start writing to them)
-Chompster Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
I will agree with the above statements, but I believe the comments written above this one were less of a "blame the NSA" and more of a "this is another example of the corruptness of our government" argument.
The main thing you have to remember about survailence is this: Consider the number of people in the U.S.; some 200 million, i suppose, and in order for a given random individual who happens to be making an especially seditious post-- they would have to have very very many homes or businesses surveiled. Stop for a minute and consider the sheer volume of survailence equipment that would entail! Of course, even the strangest things are possible.
Does the FBI or NSA(or whatever government agency) really keep tabs on every fractious individual? It is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. And secondly, in theory, they should not be so stupid as to partake in such actions. Think about the implications! The scorn and odium generated from such actions should be immense!
Well, i will cease rambling and make a point.
This implies several possibilities:
1. The FBI is NOT surveiling us, it is merely paranoia and a misguided search for answers. 2. The FBI is surveiling a high number or random locations in order to gain intel. The company from which they ordered their supplies was forced into silence and the records of the purchase were successfully destroyed. Our supposedly wasted tax money has been used for the purpose of purchases similar to these. 3. The FBI is surveiling a high number of random locations in order to gain intel. They have another means of acquiring equipment, perhaps through the government. This could mean that there are government factories. 4. (in deferrence) The FBI does partake in surveilance, but only under certain circumstances such as people whom are reported to partake in things such as gang activity, certain activist groups, etc,. Since not many are watched, not much equipment is needed. 5. (Ad Absurdum) The FBI a/o NSA keeps track of everyone's characteristics. Seditious individuals are tracked constantly, and surveiled at all times. The resources needed for such operations are either purchased from allied businesses or from acquired from a possibly unknown and vast governent resource. If even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence, leaving themselves unknown. 6. (the mean) The FBI engages in surveilance, but is kept in check by other parts of the government. Some invasion of privacy they get away with because of corruption. They do not spy very much, and if even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence. Their invasion of privacy is by no means right, but does not account for a major conspiracy. They do move against seditious groups, often totally ignoring any rights they have as citizens. 7. (a completely different view) The FBI does not exist, but is just a facade used to deter and redirect. The real agency engages in any of the six above.
If there are any you think i left out feel free to tell me. Solving a problem like this can be done using the classic and pragmatic scientific method. Which would mean we are 1.indentifying our problem or 2.creating a hypothesis.
Either way, it is a constructive way to deal with this problem. Granted some of my ideas above were very fantastic, but because the chance that they could exist was greater than 0% I had to include them.
Lastly, i would like to say that if we are able to indentify our problem correctly, then we can more properly deal with it. Throwing rocks and shooting guns (or screaming conspiracy for that matter) does naught but rouse people into impulsive and probably destructive action. We have a problem to solve, and we should solve it the best that we are able. Hopefully.
-Chompster Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010 Don't Panic!
thats all i can say. finally there is "official" evidence for what has been nagging us for so long... and it came from a Judge! I'm not sure it would be the greatest thing if M$ went totally bankrupt, but then again.. its very complex... so it might reignite real competition between the I-Tech Corporations. We can only hope for the best... maybe M$ will get the 'ol splitter that Bell got? I just am glad that they finally got what was coming to them. And thanks, don, for the great interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully this report means that they've made another advance in this form of projection. Remember that lasers are just light, so if their concentration is low enough it is basically the same as looking at your computer monitor (which bathes you in light.)
Still not something I'd want to spend long, long hours doing, though.
Think about it. What if you were running a small business, and for some reason, got hit with big fees of some kind? If they were insignificant compared to your total profit, you might just shrug them off, but if they weren't, you would have to do something to adjust for this cost. In fact, a legal fee is almost like, in the case of Microsoft, another cost of doing business. This could easily be the case in our country (USA) where frivalous lawsuits (Not saying Microsoft's monopoly lawsuit is frivalous) become an extra cost of doing business. Just as malpractice lawsuit awards drive up the cost for insurance for Physicians (especially, in the US, OBGYN's) and thus crank up doctor's fees, it only makes sense that companies would start charging more to compensate for their new costs.
Really the line is drawn here right where you ask, "Could Microsoft pay for these fees, feasibly, without price increases?" I don't know-- really. But in light of how ridiculous the sums can become in these cases, I would give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here and say maybe not.
Regardless, I feel that lawyers have always had too much clout in the US. And I don't think it is a thing of our law per se, but a cultural trend that has been sneaking up on us for the last 200 years.
As I grow older, I've gotten to hate Microsoft less and less. I guess for some people it may be the opposite-- but as for me, I have begun to actually realise that companies like Microsoft are run by people too, and people make mistakes, and people have limited perspective, etc, etc. The bottom line for me is that I think Linux CAN and SHOULD compete with Windows, and that we don't need any government intervention to muck everything up. Keep Uncy Sam outta this, people. Big Corps love Big Gov't. This has been the rule for 100 years (since the 'Progressive' Era.) If we, as programmers, businessmen, and computer scientists need the government's help to compete with Microsoft, that's pretty sad. I guess I could go through all of the injunctions against MS and say which ones I support and which ones I don't, but I've already been too long winded. I would just say I do support a few of them.
I don't mean to sound pollyanna-ish, but that sounds like the future! ... Or maybe I've read too much Sci-fi.
Which is why I see it causing cancer in 50 years.
Carpe Diem!
What? That's ridiculous!!!!!
Oh.. that's MY post. Oops.
-Chompster
This may be slightly offtopic, but it relates, I believe, so here it is.
..(code)... Then: (code)" A real If statement can be more complex than this, of course, since it can take any set of arguments that can be reduced to a boolean true or false. (alternatively, the 'EAX' and 'EBX' may be the reduced values created by C and dropped into the function call.) At this, it may be obvious to anyone who has coded assembly that you can make the same statement basically by replacing JZ (jump on zero) with JNZ (jump on not zero), and switching the two blocks of code. This would not count as patentable, in my opinion.
Software (code) is a lot like music. Its really complicated in the end, but the pieces that it is made up of (chords, phrases, arpeggios, melody lines, etc) can be very simple. In fact, basic chord progressions are reused so many times it borders on the ridiculous. In the same way, certain pieces of code are re-used in a similar form many times. If someone can get a software patent on smallish pieces of code, like getting a copyright on a phrase of music, you could skewer a lot of people for royalties.
Similarly, if you could copyright a general form of music, whose parts are somewhat understood, but nonetheless vague enough that someone could write it without trying to, you could again swim in royalties.
There is, fortunately, in music, a rule against this. But in software it seems that the line may be fuzzy. What we really need is a length-of code range for copyrights.
For instance (As mentioned in one of the articles linked to) it would have been unreasonable for Mozart to say, patent the Symphony. Not to say that some musician might want to try to. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to patent something as wide-reaching and ambiguous as 'one-click shopping'. Patents, to my experience, are usually rather complex, so that people will know if they are using it or not. A detailed description is given, so that there is NO confusion. This rule MUST apply to code as well.
In like terms, it would stupid for Mozart to patent, say, the first phrase from '10 Variations' (the melody is identical to 'Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star'.) how many written pieces of music have used the note progression 'C C G G A A G'? Well, I'm not going to look it up. But as a musician should know, the notes Db Db Ab Ab Bb Bb Ab' are analogous to the original progression. So, then, if you consider that as well to be the same melody (it is) and thus under the patent, you can get the idea of what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.
In software, you likewise should not be able to patent significantly minor parts of code. Heck, the size of the patentable pieces should probably relate to how complex they are a combination of the basic parts of a programming language. I mean, eveyone can see that you can't patent an 'if' statement in C. After all, you aren't the first person to make up the If statement and how it is implemented in machine code. If, however, you created a new 'If' function in assembly, could you patent that? I would think that would depend on how complex a combination of machine instructions you need to produce your statement.
Why is that? Well, generally, you would have to consider the chances that someone else writing an 'If' statement would produce the exact same pieces of code you have by accident. If there were, for instance, 1000 machine instructions required to create an If statement (obviously not, but stay with me) and there were a large number of different combinations of commands that would produce the effect (there could be, in fact, but more later..) then your more efficient If statement would be patentable.
But say, for instance, that there are about 5 lines of assembly required to make this 'If'. Basically something to the effect of "Test EAX EBX
JZ Then
So, I think that software patents should be:
1. Clear and unambiguous. A patent's viability should be judged on whether someone could be under the umbrella of the patent eas
.. but to my experience, and knowledge of history, generally when things are good they are the best for the rich and when they are bad they are worst for the poor.
I think it's just common sense. He who makes the largest percentage of money gets the biggest numeric gain from prosperity.
-Chompster
"US computer security firm iDefense discovered the code being circulated from Chinese websites."
Chinese websites, as in from mainland China, or from Hong Kong?
If it is Hong Kong; then perhaps it is the same fellows that run the bootleg operations. Oddly, it doesn't seem that the new Chinese rule has done anything to stop this. I guess crimes against the US and other world nations and their computer systems don't count for as much as saying that thuggish tyrants shouldn't rule.
Mainland, on the other hand, would indicate something occuring directly under the pervue of China, and their 'government'.
Neither is particular suprising or unusual, but these kind of folks usually get ignored for swapping copyrighted data and running illegal porn sites. I wonder if swapping viruses will put them on the criminal radar?
Anyone have any information on this particular factoid? It would be interesting to know if these are HK or Mainland.
Eh.
-Chompster
Cellphones already spread one infection;
Friends don't let friends call and drive.
(supposedly, talking on a cellphone and driving is like driving while under the influence of alcohol)
-Chompster
Except; Plant run by nutcases = Chernobyl. The difference a half of a word can make! Well, I'm sure Chernobyl really cut down on the CO2 emissions. After all, melting down doesn't involve the active burning of Hydrocarbons! ... Unless they were eating Macadamia nuts in the cafeteria, then there would be a problem.
-Chompster
I voted in Harford County Maryland. And it was simple as heck, and worked fine. You just complete the arrow to the person (party, name and other information clearly marked) with a black marker. and if you mess up, they give you a new one. I must say, its a joy to go vote in a quaint little elementary school.
Ah, well at least this isn't a 'victory' for demorcracy like the election of Marion Berry. Oh yeah. That's something to talk about. =P
What i -meant-, you mook, (who is, by the way, too cowardly to show his/her name) was, AT the time, i had just woken up (as you suggested) and was like, "Damn, thats wierd." Ex out terrorism for a moment. isn't that just frickin' odd? Anyway, i do agree-- this is definitely an act of war. Is WW3 on the horizon? I think its been put off too long. The middle east folks hate each other so much that the only way that the violence will stop will be the eradication of one of the factions. Sad, but true. We live in a humanistic era, at least in the united states. This doesn't mean that it is not wrong to kill people, its just that we have been given a distorted view of these things. And -no- I am not sheltered, coward. Pardon me for being sleepy. Don't know about you, but my current worry is about getting drafted. Its all assumption, of course-- but its possible. Now if you will excuse me while i sit trapped in my dormatory room (for the most part) and yes, i am aware that evil people exist-- thank you, but many US citizens aren't. Oh, but aside from that, i think you may be raving mad. or just really angry. Crikey.
And cut the raving, dag nabbit. All we need now is for everyone to go into panic. (sigh)
WW3? yeah, sounds far-fetched, but so did planes crashing into buildings awhile ago...
Well, time for this message to get lost in the massive swamp of replies. Wow. Things really get interesting when the world goes under fire.
-Chompster (whom is quite concerned, but not panicked)
Odd. I mean, really odd.
Who with the wherewithall to have two planes would be nuts enough to crash them into things? Ok, let me rephrase that, who with the cash to have two planes would crash them into, of all things, the world trade center buildings? Its just -asking- for trouble. Unless there's something deeper involved? Yi.
If you ask me, thats just plain odd.
I do hope this isn't a sign of something worse in the making.
Chompster
No doubt-- its quite unfair that they do this-- but, again, its not suprising. I, myself, am not going to get an XBox, and this would be further reinforcement to my decision.
No offense to you guys who like the XBox-- but compared to the Gamecube, (which is made by the very experienced Nintendo,) its sorely lacking.
This is not an encouragement to boycott XBox, but i don't think that this sort of thing should be endorsed. Nintendo . as far as i can remember, always let you buy a bare system (which is to say, one without a game) and if you couldn't, you didn't usually pay much more than 40 or so dollars extra. Sega didn't do that, (correct me if i am wrong) and not even Sony. Microsoft is obviously inexperienced in this market, and hopefully they'll learn a lesson with this.
This could go into a whole "why big business is bad" or something, but i don't want it to. Its just an example of how Microsoft is screwing up because of their inexperience in the console market.
Just my two cents =)
Evangelion is just Freakin' wierd. Really. It is a copmlete and total mind trip. And its quite scary, at least this ending of the series. (Which i remember being Death and Rebirth, the recap, and Air and Love is Destructive, the ending).
I think there are probably some good issues brought up (at least in the terms of morality and such) But before you watch any of it, you would need to understand some psychology among other things, like Japanese culture, I imagine.
I suppose it could be considered "deep", although i would call it more "Disturbing". I am really truly convinced that the popping of people was totally unnecissary. There isn't much way to describe it except to say that it -is- disturbing. I would admit that some of this could be due to the difference of culture-- but i was seriously freaked out by the twisting of biblical/religious stories/facts. I'm not a stickler about this, but DAMN, this was some weird stuff.
The anime that is closest (That i have seen) to this level of disturbedness is Lain. A lot of death, pain, suffering, anguish and loneliness. Not the kind of thing you want to watch in one sitting.
It undeniably was visually stunning, albiet in a sort of trippy way. It does offer a sensible explanation for the other various weirdnesses(Which i'm sure isn't a real word) in the series, but in retrospect i would rather not have watched it.
However, if you do want to watch something truly mentally stimulating, and aren't particularly concerned with your sanity, please be my guest and watch it. It really is quite excellent in a strange, arabesque way.
And no hard feelings to y'all that liked it. We're all entitled to our opinions, and thats mine.
Although Katz is not totally right, he does have a point-- The American Political System is decaying. Whether this is simply because they are ignoring technology, or one of many other reasons.
The best explanation, i believe, is this. The Politcal System is in a state of decadance; it is untouchable-- there are too few people willing to actually do something about it, and many of those who might are too apathetic or simply too weary. The political system doesn't truly reform itself, because if it did, it would lose its inherent power, its remoteness from the control of the people. Many of those who actively work to reform the system are defeated by it as well, because in trying to grab the attention of the politics-weary majority, they go to extremes, often invalidating themselves in the process. This is to say, most people will not vote for someone they view as over-zealous-- there seems to be a intrinsic detraction from these people amongst many whom i've known. Also, is the fact that there is a divergence amongst those who wish reform. Divided they are not enough force to create any change. There are likely other factors involved here, but I'm far too lazy to list them all. =)
But I'll say this: If given the chance to involve myself in a non-extremist mass reform movement, led by individuals who i would consider reasonable, I would definitely join the movement.
Why hasn't such a thing happened? Do we really need 1000 miles between "us" and "them" to successfully do this?
This is what i'd like to see. A bnuch of people who want reform in different areas to get together and COMPROMISE on the issues, and form a single movement. That and that alone can create the demise of the current political incarnation... at least in my opinion.
Um, how exactly this completely relates to the topic, I'm not overly sure. But, I think it gives a better explanation of our current state of politics. I'm not stating that i'm right, Just perhaps a bit more perceptive and less buzzwordy.
Yow. That was a mouthful.
So What?
If its like i think it is, and it has those lines in there after the legalese its akin to false advertising. Most people don't read the fine print on the ads on TV, and thats what this is probably like.
Hot Damn!
... really.. isnt telling you what to buy a very mild form of mind control?)
Preach the word! (seriously)
If only there were more people in the world like this. And perhaps there will be-- If, that is, our founding Fathers were correct in their assumption (a pretty sound one, i might add) that an educated populace is a good, productive and happy populace, able to get what it needs (at least) and hopefully what it wants.
I don't recall the name of the Philosopher who first conceived this.. (Socrates?) but i think the idea here is Eudaimonia. Which, in so many words says that happiness is achieved through excellence (in mind, body and spirit) and thus, a happy life is one conducted in excellence.
Excellence, i have come to believe, refers to living to your fullest, doing what you do best, and helping others as you would have them help you.
So, i would guess and say that if we continue towards a morally sound, intellectually open and productive future we would eventually achieve Eudaimonia, the Real Utopia. Wild Fantasies? Eh, who knows. Its not like we are that guy from foundations or anything. This future, of course, is bereft of the corporate blandness and mind control. (exaggeration, nonetheless, but
And blah, blah, blah et cetera. To make a long story short, the solution is goes like this.
1. Find the best facts you can get.
2. Act on this information in the best way (most excellent?) you can.
3. And perhaps, through simple iteration, generations in the future may have better lives than we have ever imagined.
-Chompster, in the depths of his ignorance: 200ft and falling!
Heh, its kind of funny, but i really wonder if my suggestions will be marked as over-idealistic, bombastic and hackneyed? Well.. only way to tell is... [post]
This sounds very interesting, but did it really happen? It's very possible for something to get blown out of proportion...
Still. It is amusing to see corporations get a bit of their just deserts. Has the era of cyber-terrorists began? or is it cyber-revolutionaries? (your choice)
Can I laugh at the corporations again?
Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
A short point i would like to present, however...
:)
The leaders of the hierarchical system marginalize themselves.
Despite this fact being true, there are situations where it didnt matter that this happened (like with Napoleon. He did extreme things, but after his escape he still managed the 100 days) More modern leaders exist who are self-serving enough to marginalize themselves, but still recover their power because they have the charisma or intelligence to re-rally the people they once controlled. And because many of said people were ignorant of important issues to begin with (and made their original decision to rebel not based on what the real reason would or should have been) it would be easy to convince them to rejoin with promises and the like.
These people seem to be very malleable. Changing their lives in the hopes that these new promises will fulfill their needs or wants. Or perhaps, following along because they do not feel(or believe) that they have the power to resist
It also seems to me that people have an amazing ability to adapt. This is to say that despite excruciating conditions, they can still survive. A good example of this could be Bad Software. Some configurations of computers (hardware and software) using Windows crash very frequently. One would think that this sort of thing would put a halt to business, but people still manage to adapt to this and get on with things. Adaptation is generally a good thing, but is it possible that our ability to survive in these situations blinds us from the reality that it should not have to be that way?
Knowing is half the battle, right?
I think it is a very good argument for our founding fathers' ideals that a properly educated populace could fend for itself. [sorry about the absence of a refernce here; i am looking for the document that I found this in] (Of course, as we can see today, it has become er, Trendy, almost, to be Ignorant.) I feel that education and foremost understanding are the real problem with the issue with WTO and almost any other issue facing us. If we can understand and define our problem, we are that much closer to solving it. But with so many ignorant people, how are we going to do that? Perhaps an overhaul to our idea of what education is(or should be) is in order? Still there are many questions and few answers.
Relating to what i said above, the hardest part about making a judgement about the WTO is understanding the problem that they pose.(or don't, for that matter) It is very hard to discuss a issue such as the actions of the WTO with someone without inadvertantly regressing into the use of a large number of possibly mis-based assumptions. Perhaps if we had been trained better as children on how to think rather than what to think, we could determine the root of this problem and fix it.
But the saddest part of all, as i see it, is that our ancestors (as Americans, at least) worked for freedom, giving up their lives and work in its pursuit. And what do we do to thank them? We break the golden rule to gain more for ourselves, and destroy what they had worked to create.
Oh, and that education reform? Are we going to get it? No.
-Chompster, in his infinite pessimism
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
P.S. Sorry about the lack of references. I'm workin on it
Yeah, so perhaps (as said before) this is not a problem with the people sending the email, but with HTTP/HTML itself.
-Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
Perhaps, they should make a law.. but one that prevents trolls from having children. Or people who abuse their current children?
:)
"No, that would be wrong. "
Either way, that would become just another "dumb law" on the list, which we would laugh at and promptly disobey. Judging by the ignorance of the message this is a reply to, shouldn't the person who wrote that be immediately neutralized? Do people really hate geeks that much?
To remain on topic, i think there should be laws against the use of Microsoft products. Which, amusingly, might be the case in Germany, with their possible banning of W2K.
What i would like to know is the history behind some of these laws. Could give some good insight on American culture.
Truthfully, these laws look to be "The Fruits of Arbitrary Power" (which BTW is the name of a poster protesting the Boston Massacre) and often just a way for a possibly corrupt politician to get his way.
What do you think?
(how about a law banning trolls from any BBS or similar service
-Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
The topic of dumb laws is kind of interesting, because these outdated laws definitely reflect the history of the state or place of their origin.
:)
For example: In Baltimore, MD you can't throw a bale of hay out of a window in the second story w/in city limits. Fascinating! did they have some kind of criminal who killed people by throwing bales of hay on their heads from the 2nd story? (bales of hay weigh pretty much) or did a few people get killed when some chump thoughtlessly chucked a bale of hay out of his window?
I watched the anime movie "Armitage" and this topic made me think about possible dumb laws on earth in this Sci-Fi setting. (for those of you who don't know, In Armitage, The Earth is a feminist society)
The most obvious one is "It is illegal to leave a toilet seat up. 25$ fine"
Another: "It is illegal to refer to anyone using a label or term that denominates gender. Punishable by death"
Perhaps even: "It is illegal for a man to ogle a woman, even if she is wearing revealing or otherwise purposefully attractive clothing. 50$ fine"
But what about other movies? like, Deliverance? or, Dumb Laws in Klingon society? It could be a source of endless humor
-Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
It isn't too suprising that something like this happened.
Browsers do warn you about sending information. Should they also warn about opening Emails? Perhaps a browser should check the email for cookies before opening. If it finds one, then it could warn you that this could be a security risk.
Lets hope to god that those banner companies don't get in on this. They probably will, unless the Better Business Bureau or the Department of Commerce does something (if they even can) We can always hope. (or start writing to them)
-Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
I will agree with the above statements, but I believe the comments written above this one were less of a "blame the NSA" and more of a "this is another example of the corruptness of our government" argument.
The main thing you have to remember about survailence is this: Consider the number of people in the U.S.; some 200 million, i suppose, and in order for a given random individual who happens to be making an especially seditious post-- they would have to have very very many homes or businesses surveiled. Stop for a minute and consider the sheer volume of survailence equipment that would entail! Of course, even the strangest things are possible.
Does the FBI or NSA(or whatever government agency) really keep tabs on every fractious individual? It is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. And secondly, in theory, they should not be so stupid as to partake in such actions. Think about the implications! The scorn and odium generated from such actions should be immense!
Well, i will cease rambling and make a point.
This implies several possibilities:
1. The FBI is NOT surveiling us, it is merely paranoia and a misguided search for answers.
2. The FBI is surveiling a high number or random locations in order to gain intel. The company from which they ordered their supplies was forced into silence and the records of the purchase were successfully destroyed. Our supposedly wasted tax money has been used for the purpose of purchases similar to these.
3. The FBI is surveiling a high number of random locations in order to gain intel. They have another means of acquiring equipment, perhaps through the government. This could mean that there are government factories.
4. (in deferrence) The FBI does partake in surveilance, but only under certain circumstances such as people whom are reported to partake in things such as gang activity, certain activist groups, etc,. Since not many are watched, not much equipment is needed.
5. (Ad Absurdum) The FBI a/o NSA keeps track of everyone's characteristics. Seditious individuals are tracked constantly, and surveiled at all times. The resources needed for such operations are either purchased from allied businesses or from acquired from a possibly unknown and vast governent resource. If even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence, leaving themselves unknown.
6. (the mean) The FBI engages in surveilance, but is kept in check by other parts of the government. Some invasion of privacy they get away with because of corruption. They do not spy very much, and if even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence. Their invasion of privacy is by no means right, but does not account for a major conspiracy. They do move against seditious groups, often totally ignoring any rights they have as citizens.
7. (a completely different view) The FBI does not exist, but is just a facade used to deter and redirect. The real agency engages in any of the six above.
If there are any you think i left out feel free to tell me. Solving a problem like this can be done using the classic and pragmatic scientific method. Which would mean we are 1.indentifying our problem or 2.creating a hypothesis.
Either way, it is a constructive way to deal with this problem. Granted some of my ideas above were very fantastic, but because the chance that they could exist was greater than 0% I had to include them.
Lastly, i would like to say that if we are able to indentify our problem correctly, then we can more properly deal with it. Throwing rocks and shooting guns (or screaming conspiracy for that matter) does naught but rouse people into impulsive and probably destructive action. We have a problem to solve, and we should solve it the best that we are able. Hopefully.
-Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!
thats all i can say. finally there is "official" evidence for what has been nagging us for so long... and it came from a Judge!
I'm not sure it would be the greatest thing if M$ went totally bankrupt, but then again.. its very complex... so it might reignite real competition between the I-Tech Corporations. We can only hope for the best... maybe M$ will get the 'ol splitter that Bell got? I just am glad that they finally got what was coming to them. And thanks, don, for the great interpretation.