Either this is mental masturbation, or a troll. However, it is also painfully correct, painfully wrong and raises important questions.
Our freedom of speech is constantly being taken away from us. Bit by bit, not-so-huge chunks fly by us, almost unnoticed by the general population. The Internet was invented to technologically improve communications on this globe, but it also lay the grounds of a new and wild territory not yet tamed. 10 years ago, noone cared what you put up on your page. Not because alot of illegal material wasn't put up on the WWW, but because everyone present at that time was tolerant and such behaviour was expected. Now with the mainstream and corporations the Internet is no longer wild and untamed. Now you should expect to get sued if you ever register a domain name or publish a homepage. With the mainstream, sensible solutions doesn't work anymore (because we're so damn diverse!).
However, you can't blame the geeks or anyone of us for stepping back at the violence. We aren't perfect, and we aren't meant to fix anyone's problems. Neither can we hold the general population at bay. What we can do however, is to create new technological wonders. That's what we are good for.
These wonders can and will provide examples and means for people to learn what truly free speech is about. What hypocricy and vote-buying crap political correctness really is.
In the end, events are just that. They are what they are. You can't really blame anyone for being who they are and doing what they do. Blame someone, and you might as well include yourself too. The only _positive_ reaction is to do what you can about it.
Why flip coins? Why not just go through every possibility? Why not skip self-containing sub-programs (lacking relationships to other parts) that have been tested before?
Btw, a coin flip is hardly random. I pity the students that have their thumbs go sore over this;-)
It's called Science Fiction, but they don't get any monopolies on ideas and implementations. Or do you mean the ramblings on the patents of these credit-card sized wireless devices? I'd say society would be benefited more if they just kept it proprietary. It's better to reverse-engineer it or simply come up with something yourself, than reading that garbage.
I'm currently learning Ruby, and MAN is that a beautiful OO-language. My only nit-pick about it so far is that it is not constrained enough, contains a few non-intuitive wrinkles and ambiguities, and don't really treat code as data (as Lisp do). However, I'm certain that it can either be extended (in runtime) to become more constrained (types, const, real protected object methods and variables, private/protected inheritance etc), or its going to develop a standard set of- or arbitrary concepts of constraints.
For RAD Ruby is a clear-cut winner. You have many high level concepts available in the language or the accompanying library (which is almost the same, since it's true OO). The most important and visible: each. No more for (i=sz; --i >= 0; ). Its also got lamdas, closures and eval. If there are some concepts missing in the language, it's usually possible to extend the language and reuse that extension again and again. At no cost of readabilty as in Forth. Oh, and did I mention everything is an object?
Whatever you can do in Python, Perl or Smalltalk, you can do in Ruby (as a language at least). The accompanying libraries are pretty sweet too. Try it, you'll like it.
Basically I agree with everyone else here that diversity is a good thing. However, I do not see the point in difference for difference's sake. When stuff start to break just because you're using a different distribution, windows manager, screen saver or font, It Just Ain't Worth It Anymore. In such situations something is missing, and if you can't conform and agree on the current level, there should be guidelines so that everything can conform on the meta-level. Higher rules to rule different distros could be a way to take the OS to a whole new and (damnit) innovative level.
I guess you failed to see the irony of it all then: CDDB-data submitted to- and shared by rippers to create mp3's. Gracenote shutting down CDDB for public use. Napster using CDDB to filter out songs by request of RIAA.
People have lots of different opinion on this and it's a story, not flamebait. Period.
The outrage that is present is NOT about this story at all. It is about CDDB shutting down public access to their database without sharing out a copy to anyone. If this story is flamebait, entire Slashdot should be moderated down into oblivion. (Yes I know, I know...;)
"Yet, you take the work of musicians and distribute and use it against their expressed wished. How is this any different? You both put time and energy into creating something intangible, and you both were denied its control."
There is a real difference. Most artists distribute their music in a *closed* way through record labels (not all of them do). While the efforts on CDDB were made to keep CD-track information *public* and share with others through the CDDB-database.
"You weren't robbed of the information itself, after all. If you wanted to keep a copy of the information that you submitted to CDDB, it would've been a trivial matter to make a backup. No, you were robbed of nothing."
Stealing, robbing and piracy are such stupid terms for information, so I have to agree. However, it is not nice to put up an open service for everyone to share and then close it down to paying customers, without giving a copy back to the community. What CDDB decides to do with their service is entirely up to them.
"If you use Napster to download copyrighted material and feel ripped off by the CDDB, then you are an utterly despicable hypocrite."
Feelings are irrational;-) It doesn't make you despicable, but it can certainly make you a hypocrite because our ego tends to focus on negative stuff happening to _us_. Now, let me just say that I agree that this would be hypocritical behaviour. After all, if some information should be free, then all information should be free. Personally I have no problems with that, but many do. The problem is that they don't always see the big picture, like you do;-)
I dunno, but I favour the UI of KDE. Gnome and Tk have ugly UI, the applications more buggy and slow (at least on my machines, but I only got a measly P-III 667Mhz and 128Mb RAM so maybe I ought to buy a cryotech AMD?). However, I like the ideas behind Gnome and hope the project will prosper.
"1.For Software, only the code that impliments the idea is protectible."
That's copyright, both binary and source form are usually protected by default. Remember that you cannot think of software as hardware, without distinction you only manage to draw faulty conclusions. For instance, a manufactured chip is not protected by copyright but its specification is.
"2.Packet design is protectible (as it is a concrete implimentation) provided it is part of the whole application. Likewise with APIs."
Huh? Why would you want API's to be protectable by patents? What is so revolutionary about them? Likewise with packet design, which is equivalent with protocols and formats. These are not THAT innovative, and would only be made to further a few scrupulous companies. Imagine everyone having to pay licenses (mob protection-money springs to my mind) to use TCP/IP and HTTP! We should make laws today keeping in mind that they could've been made many years ago.
"3.Specifications are NOT patentable, as they are ideas, and not implimentations."
What is the difference between source code and specification if the programming language is very high level? Absolutely none, and even with C/C++ and other low-level languages the distinction is very hard to make. Code can be made to document and specify itself, in LOTS of different ways (both statically and dynamically). In the most dynamic way, a specification in sourceform would be utterly indistinuable from a specification in a Word-document.
"4.Mathematical Algorithms are patentable. However, a patent on an algorithm must be obtained seperately. Thus, you cannot invent some neat new way to do Bubble Sort in C, and then claim ownership of all Bubble Sort algorithms. You can invent SuperDuperSort ( a/2 + b/2 +.. = z) and apply for a patent on the algorithm alone."
What is the difference between Bubble Sort and SuperDuperSort seen from a legal perspective? Absolutely none, if SuperDuperSort should be protected, BubbleSort should also be protected. Again we should make laws today keeping in mind that they could've been made hundreds of years ago.
I think you are confused here since Bubblesort is prior art, but that is non-essential to this discussion. What is interesting is what we do with _new_ innovations (lock them up in dark'n dusty corners or share them freely).
"5.Business Methods can only be allowed if they are specified in great detail (exactly how each step is to be completed, with what methods, etc.). Methods must be completely different than anything in use anywhere else in order to be granted. In my mind, the model should be similar to cooking recipes - you have a specified series of steps, each of which details what to do."
Firstly, every patent must be explained in detail, so this is hardly new. The only problem is that what is the point of applying to a patent if you have to detail it so much, anyone can bypass it by changing a few points? That's why alot of patents today contain alot of general mumbo-jumbo in an attempt to broaden it. Now who is going to spend time and effort going through all these applications and make the right decisions in every case? Who's to pay for all this, and who does it benefit?
What is a "business method" anyways, and how can you monopolize it? What happened to a free and competitive market?
"6.The protection time should be much shorter than 20 years for Software/Business/Algorithms. The original time was long because there was a considerable setup delay, which doesn't apply in these cases. I would vote for a 3-5 year period.
This I agree with, but I don't see the point. 3-5 years is hardly enough to extract much profit. Hell, most projects only barely start to make a profit. The net result would be for companies to put off new projects until the existing patent expires.
You are confusing implementation with the idea/algorithm, as many here. What you patent when you patent a physical implementation is how the gas-pedal is built, the blueprint of a working implemention. Not just the orientation of the pedal. That means that there are many ways you can build a gas-pedal, without infringing on other's patents.
With sourcecode/algorithms, you have no such distinction, because it is so easily modified and expressible in any language. Therefore software patents can only patent the ideas/concepts, which is no good at all. They either get too broad or too narrow, and are therefore useless to furthering research in society.
Patents are mini-monopolies granted by the government. It is a way to extort money from your competitors, or simply deny them access into your domain. Start issuing patents on ideas (software), and your rosy-red last paragraph of what patents can do for you turns blood-red on you.
The main point is that other's CAN'T create extensions on a patent, since that patent is owned by someone else. THEY invested on R&D, not you.
What happened to giving back to the community? Everyone are given so much. Sharing knowledge and information freely is a much more prospectful practice. For all, not just for the greedy and rich.
What a silly argument. There is no point in arguing objectively when you can't match definitions. About your point a) and b), those are highly subjective opinions that most people share because they (we) are trained to believe in them. A belief-system on which our science is founded.
Agreed. "Let the ones free of guilt cast the first stone" Unfortunately, someone is always willing to cast the first stone. It's just too easy to point out errors in others and not in oneself.
"Not very effective. The problem is that encryption excludes anonymity (authentication boils down to proving that you're a person who can be trusted) -- if you want to make the material unavailable to certain parties, you can no longer make it publically available. Moreover, the majority of users will not go to such extreme lengths. Since the effectiveness of the service depends on its size, it's sufficient to diminish its user base."
I believe it should be possible to create an encrypted karma-based peer-to-peer network faciliating anonymity, without having authentication being an obstacle. However, it would still be pretty promiscous. In such a network, you could potentially deal with an undercover agent, but so could your RL friend be. It'll be East-Berlin all over again. So, I'm not proposing a solution that will "nuke" the battleground, only that the game will harden. Just take a look at FreeNet for ideas.
"Well, tell that to the napsterites. THey're the ones proposing some kind of neo-Marxist revolution, where the mob make a "grab" at resources by depriving others of their livelihood. All I'm proposing is fines for those who break the law and deprive others of their livelihood for short term economic gain."
Congratulations. You have discovered that in every conflict there are no good-guys, and no bad-guys. That's just a manipulative tool to spur the situation further. The truly wise guys stay out of it (too bad I'm not one of them;-).
I have no belief in vandalism or depriving others' livelihood. Likewise, I have no belief in control or use of violence, threats or undercover agents to further goals of a few powerful people.
Real-life scenario, one of these really annoying things:
However, buying games that cease to work because the CD-player/OS becomes/is defective, has taught me one thing: Either I'm not gonna buy another copyprotected game again, or I'll install a crack so that I can play my legally bought games! Basically, people will not tolerate crap for too long.
There are two connected reasons this is not a cost-effective solution:
1) There are too many users.
2) They will adopt new techniques like anonymity and encryption.
So you see, whatever force you strain this system with will ultimately just make it stronger. Sure you may break a little havoc at first, deter some poor individuals and crush a few scapegoats. However, at the end of the day you will will just have made the situation harder to contain in the future.
Violence and FUD has never solved any problem completely.
Welcome to the age of Digital Content, where people are slaves to content-providers and huge impersonal companies. Where you you can't really buy or own anything, only a right to use on their terms. Where you don't really have anything to say about it, because common consumers are made redundant. The workforce taken for granted and unemployment coldly calculated to the decimal. Where new laws and authority is created by demand of higher economic growth, not by belief in the people. Where most of the citizens live in apathy and docility, because they have started to believe the false fantasies spouted out from Hollywood. This is the Age of Information as it was meant to be from the start; the stuff nightmares are made of.
Slashdot Mirror
Either this is mental masturbation, or a troll. However, it is also painfully correct, painfully wrong and raises important questions.
Our freedom of speech is constantly being taken away from us. Bit by bit, not-so-huge chunks fly by us, almost unnoticed by the general population. The Internet was invented to technologically improve communications on this globe, but it also lay the grounds of a new and wild territory not yet tamed. 10 years ago, noone cared what you put up on your page. Not because alot of illegal material wasn't put up on the WWW, but because everyone present at that time was tolerant and such behaviour was expected. Now with the mainstream and corporations the Internet is no longer wild and untamed. Now you should expect to get sued if you ever register a domain name or publish a homepage. With the mainstream, sensible solutions doesn't work anymore (because we're so damn diverse!).
However, you can't blame the geeks or anyone of us for stepping back at the violence. We aren't perfect, and we aren't meant to fix anyone's problems. Neither can we hold the general population at bay. What we can do however, is to create new technological wonders. That's what we are good for.
These wonders can and will provide examples and means for people to learn what truly free speech is about. What hypocricy and vote-buying crap political correctness really is.
In the end, events are just that. They are what they are. You can't really blame anyone for being who they are and doing what they do. Blame someone, and you might as well include yourself too. The only _positive_ reaction is to do what you can about it.
- Steeltoe
Why flip coins? Why not just go through every possibility? Why not skip self-containing sub-programs (lacking relationships to other parts) that have been tested before?
;-)
Btw, a coin flip is hardly random. I pity the students that have their thumbs go sore over this
- Steeltoe
All your pants are belong to us!!
;-)
(Sorry, I quite agree
- Steeltoe
It's called Science Fiction, but they don't get any monopolies on ideas and implementations. Or do you mean the ramblings on the patents of these credit-card sized wireless devices? I'd say society would be benefited more if they just kept it proprietary. It's better to reverse-engineer it or simply come up with something yourself, than reading that garbage.
- Steeltoe
For RAD Ruby is a clear-cut winner. You have many high level concepts available in the language or the accompanying library (which is almost the same, since it's true OO). The most important and visible: each. No more for (i=sz; --i >= 0; ). Its also got lamdas, closures and eval. If there are some concepts missing in the language, it's usually possible to extend the language and reuse that extension again and again. At no cost of readabilty as in Forth. Oh, and did I mention everything is an object?
Whatever you can do in Python, Perl or Smalltalk, you can do in Ruby (as a language at least). The accompanying libraries are pretty sweet too. Try it, you'll like it.
- Steeltoe
Basically I agree with everyone else here that diversity is a good thing. However, I do not see the point in difference for difference's sake. When stuff start to break just because you're using a different distribution, windows manager, screen saver or font, It Just Ain't Worth It Anymore. In such situations something is missing, and if you can't conform and agree on the current level, there should be guidelines so that everything can conform on the meta-level. Higher rules to rule different distros could be a way to take the OS to a whole new and (damnit) innovative level.
- Steeltoe
I guess you failed to see the irony of it all then: CDDB-data submitted to- and shared by rippers to create mp3's. Gracenote shutting down CDDB for public use. Napster using CDDB to filter out songs by request of RIAA.
;)
People have lots of different opinion on this and it's a story, not flamebait. Period.
The outrage that is present is NOT about this story at all. It is about CDDB shutting down public access to their database without sharing out a copy to anyone. If this story is flamebait, entire Slashdot should be moderated down into oblivion. (Yes I know, I know...
- Steeltoe
"Yet, you take the work of musicians and distribute and use it against their expressed wished. How is this any different? You both put time and energy into creating something intangible, and you both were denied its control."
;-) It doesn't make you despicable, but it can certainly make you a hypocrite because our ego tends to focus on negative stuff happening to _us_. Now, let me just say that I agree that this would be hypocritical behaviour. After all, if some information should be free, then all information should be free. Personally I have no problems with that, but many do. The problem is that they don't always see the big picture, like you do ;-)
There is a real difference. Most artists distribute their music in a *closed* way through record labels (not all of them do). While the efforts on CDDB were made to keep CD-track information *public* and share with others through the CDDB-database.
"You weren't robbed of the information itself, after all. If you wanted to keep a copy of the information that you submitted to CDDB, it would've been a trivial matter to make a backup. No, you were robbed of nothing."
Stealing, robbing and piracy are such stupid terms for information, so I have to agree. However, it is not nice to put up an open service for everyone to share and then close it down to paying customers, without giving a copy back to the community. What CDDB decides to do with their service is entirely up to them.
"If you use Napster to download copyrighted material and feel ripped off by the CDDB, then you are an utterly despicable hypocrite."
Feelings are irrational
- Steeltoe
I dunno, but I favour the UI of KDE. Gnome and Tk have ugly UI, the applications more buggy and slow (at least on my machines, but I only got a measly P-III 667Mhz and 128Mb RAM so maybe I ought to buy a cryotech AMD?). However, I like the ideas behind Gnome and hope the project will prosper.
- Steeltoe
"1.For Software, only the code that impliments the idea is protectible."
That's copyright, both binary and source form are usually protected by default. Remember that you cannot think of software as hardware, without distinction you only manage to draw faulty conclusions. For instance, a manufactured chip is not protected by copyright but its specification is.
"2.Packet design is protectible (as it is a concrete implimentation) provided it is part of the whole application. Likewise with APIs."
Huh? Why would you want API's to be protectable by patents? What is so revolutionary about them? Likewise with packet design, which is equivalent with protocols and formats. These are not THAT innovative, and would only be made to further a few scrupulous companies. Imagine everyone having to pay licenses (mob protection-money springs to my mind) to use TCP/IP and HTTP! We should make laws today keeping in mind that they could've been made many years ago.
"3.Specifications are NOT patentable, as they are ideas, and not implimentations."
What is the difference between source code and specification if the programming language is very high level? Absolutely none, and even with C/C++ and other low-level languages the distinction is very hard to make. Code can be made to document and specify itself, in LOTS of different ways (both statically and dynamically). In the most dynamic way, a specification in sourceform would be utterly indistinuable from a specification in a Word-document.
"4.Mathematical Algorithms are patentable. However, a patent on an algorithm must be obtained seperately. Thus, you cannot invent some neat new way to do Bubble Sort in C, and then claim ownership of all Bubble Sort algorithms. You can invent SuperDuperSort ( a/2 + b/2 +.. = z) and apply for a patent on the algorithm alone."
What is the difference between Bubble Sort and SuperDuperSort seen from a legal perspective? Absolutely none, if SuperDuperSort should be protected, BubbleSort should also be protected. Again we should make laws today keeping in mind that they could've been made hundreds of years ago.
I think you are confused here since Bubblesort is prior art, but that is non-essential to this discussion. What is interesting is what we do with _new_ innovations (lock them up in dark'n dusty corners or share them freely).
"5.Business Methods can only be allowed if they are specified in great detail (exactly how each step is to be completed, with what methods, etc.). Methods must be completely different than anything in use anywhere else in order to be granted. In my mind, the model should be similar to cooking recipes - you have a specified series of steps, each of which details what to do."
Firstly, every patent must be explained in detail, so this is hardly new. The only problem is that what is the point of applying to a patent if you have to detail it so much, anyone can bypass it by changing a few points? That's why alot of patents today contain alot of general mumbo-jumbo in an attempt to broaden it. Now who is going to spend time and effort going through all these applications and make the right decisions in every case? Who's to pay for all this, and who does it benefit?
What is a "business method" anyways, and how can you monopolize it? What happened to a free and competitive market?
"6.The protection time should be much shorter than 20 years for Software/Business/Algorithms. The original time was long because there was a considerable setup delay, which doesn't apply in these cases. I would vote for a 3-5 year period.
This I agree with, but I don't see the point. 3-5 years is hardly enough to extract much profit. Hell, most projects only barely start to make a profit. The net result would be for companies to put off new projects until the existing patent expires.
You are confusing implementation with the idea/algorithm, as many here. What you patent when you patent a physical implementation is how the gas-pedal is built, the blueprint of a working implemention. Not just the orientation of the pedal. That means that there are many ways you can build a gas-pedal, without infringing on other's patents.
With sourcecode/algorithms, you have no such distinction, because it is so easily modified and expressible in any language. Therefore software patents can only patent the ideas/concepts, which is no good at all. They either get too broad or too narrow, and are therefore useless to furthering research in society.
- Steeltoe
Patents are mini-monopolies granted by the government. It is a way to extort money from your competitors, or simply deny them access into your domain. Start issuing patents on ideas (software), and your rosy-red last paragraph of what patents can do for you turns blood-red on you.
The main point is that other's CAN'T create extensions on a patent, since that patent is owned by someone else. THEY invested on R&D, not you.
What happened to giving back to the community? Everyone are given so much. Sharing knowledge and information freely is a much more prospectful practice. For all, not just for the greedy and rich.
- Steeltoe
What a silly argument. There is no point in arguing objectively when you can't match definitions. About your point a) and b), those are highly subjective opinions that most people share because they (we) are trained to believe in them. A belief-system on which our science is founded.
Btw, what is deep?
- Steeltoe
Just too bad karma paybacks comes back to you too.
- Steeltoe
Only 75%? Oh wait, I take that back. We norwegians are as usual lagging behind US of a year or two.
Now if they just could start sending Southpark again..
- Steeltoe
Funny thing is, the OS may enable and disable the PIII PID at will...
- Steeltoe
The final cracks will most likely activate your OS locally and block all communications with microsoft-networks.
- Steeltoe
Intel disabled the Processor ID as default, and I believe it is not in P4. (Am I right there?)
Anyways, the PIII PID is probably the least-used feature on any CPU (even NOPs gets used alot), so I bet Intel lost on this overall.
- Steeltoe
Agreed. "Let the ones free of guilt cast the first stone" Unfortunately, someone is always willing to cast the first stone. It's just too easy to point out errors in others and not in oneself.
- Steeltoe
Couldn't this be effectively counter-measured by putting in random error in the public maps?
I mean, it worked so well with the GPS....
- Steeltoe
"Not very effective. The problem is that encryption excludes anonymity (authentication boils down to proving that you're a person who can be trusted) -- if you want to make the material unavailable to certain parties, you can no longer make it publically available. Moreover, the majority of users will not go to such extreme lengths. Since the effectiveness of the service depends on its size, it's sufficient to diminish its user base."
;-).
I believe it should be possible to create an encrypted karma-based peer-to-peer network faciliating anonymity, without having authentication being an obstacle. However, it would still be pretty promiscous. In such a network, you could potentially deal with an undercover agent, but so could your RL friend be. It'll be East-Berlin all over again. So, I'm not proposing a solution that will "nuke" the battleground, only that the game will harden. Just take a look at FreeNet for ideas.
"Well, tell that to the napsterites. THey're the ones proposing some kind of neo-Marxist revolution, where the mob make a "grab" at resources by depriving others of their livelihood. All I'm proposing is fines for those who break the law and deprive others of their livelihood for short term economic gain."
Congratulations. You have discovered that in every conflict there are no good-guys, and no bad-guys. That's just a manipulative tool to spur the situation further. The truly wise guys stay out of it (too bad I'm not one of them
I have no belief in vandalism or depriving others' livelihood. Likewise, I have no belief in control or use of violence, threats or undercover agents to further goals of a few powerful people.
Real-life scenario, one of these really annoying things:
However, buying games that cease to work because the CD-player/OS becomes/is defective, has taught me one thing: Either I'm not gonna buy another copyprotected game again, or I'll install a crack so that I can play my legally bought games! Basically, people will not tolerate crap for too long.
- Steeltoe
There are two connected reasons this is not a cost-effective solution:
1) There are too many users.
2) They will adopt new techniques like anonymity and encryption.
So you see, whatever force you strain this system with will ultimately just make it stronger. Sure you may break a little havoc at first, deter some poor individuals and crush a few scapegoats. However, at the end of the day you will will just have made the situation harder to contain in the future.
Violence and FUD has never solved any problem completely.
- Steeltoe
Not anymore :-)
Welcome to the age of Digital Content, where people are slaves to content-providers and huge impersonal companies. Where you you can't really buy or own anything, only a right to use on their terms. Where you don't really have anything to say about it, because common consumers are made redundant. The workforce taken for granted and unemployment coldly calculated to the decimal. Where new laws and authority is created by demand of higher economic growth, not by belief in the people. Where most of the citizens live in apathy and docility, because they have started to believe the false fantasies spouted out from Hollywood. This is the Age of Information as it was meant to be from the start; the stuff nightmares are made of.
- Steeltoe
Why make it hard when you can use ange-ftp and regular save? :-)
- Steeltoe
"I read my docs online
;-)
Pretty hard to do if you can't boot or if your video subsystem isn't working."
Well I guess he has to go buy a Linux-book then (duh!).
Anyways, everybody replying to this thread is a damn juvenile!
...
...
Hey waitaminute!
- Steeltoe
(Nice ranting folks, but isn't this discussion a bit _old_?