"dleny"'s attitude is shared by cowards all over the country, more concerned about their precious yellow asses than the principles and values that generations of Americans fought and died for.
But the one critical aspect of privacy that Posner misses is that it can be used to hide dissent. And that is crucially important to any free, liberal society.
Political freedom is meaningless without the freedom to conspire for a change of government, in favor of opposition candidates, for changes in laws, in general to work to overturn the powers-that-be...without those powers-that-be knowing about it.
I'm with David Brin in thinking that privacy is, in general, overrated - so long as officials and those in power are willing to be equally transparent (which they aren't).
But this one crucial aspect of privacy is absolutely critical to any semblance of democracy.
They didn't say to use C and C++ for mission-critical systems, they said to learn them.
Learning low-level, primitive languages (including assembly) teaches valuable skills that are applicable in many other areas. Every well-seasoned programmer should know some of these low-level languages - well.
That said, despite the fact that you're correct that these languages have little or nothing in the way of "safety features", they nonetheless have a critical role to play in the software ecosystem. Almost all "high level" and "safe" languages today are implemented in C or C++, and for very good reasons (having to do with memory efficiency and fast execution).
As such, they are not "among the very worst in existence" - they merely have strengths and weaknesses, and places where they're appropriate, and not appropriate.
Just like all the other languages.
[FWIW, I have written a great deal of real-time code that runs close to the metal. Some of it even has flown in rockets.]
But that's not the view of most of the people active in standards committees, who generally represent industry players (real ones for the most part, not trolls).
They represent firms that don't want to lose sales by offering a standards-conformant product that can't compete effectively with a proprietary product.
And given that standards committees by and large make their own rules (more precisely their parent orgs do, but the same people are involved), your idea (that I support) doesn't fly.
So practical politics (the art of the possible...) requires the next least bad solution.
The problem is that sometimes a patent covers a real breakthrough technology that vastly improves the functionality or performance of standards-conformant products.
Then you have a dilemma. You can follow your rule, and just not get those gains (in an interoperable standard) for 25+ years, or you can somehow deal with the patent.
In some cases the patent holder might be willing to license for free in exchange for incorporating their technology into the standard. But not always.
In those case you either need to expropriate the patent holder (assuming that the patent is legit, which only 0.1% are - but that's another rant), or you need to have a system to compensate the patent holder without allowing them to (a) bamboozle the committee re what the license terms will be or (b) play favorites among the licensees.
I was a professional "standards guy" doing this stuff for about 15 years - none of these problems is new.
If a firm wants a standard to incorporate their patent, at the minimum they ought to be required to disclose the detailed licensing terms in advance to the standards committee.
Then the committee can decide whether the value from the patented technology is worth the price being demanded.
Patentable inventions are more-or-less inevitable. If person A doesn't invent a thing, eventually Person B will invent the same thing. Maybe 6 months later (if it's a bad patent), maybe 20 years later (if it's a good patent). But eventually.
Copyrightable works (books, music, etc.) are not inevitable. If The Rolling Stones didn't record Satisfaction, nobody ever will. If Neal Stephenson didn't write Cryptonomicon, then nobody ever will. Ever.
The (supposed) benefit to society from patents is to accelerate technological progress, by making inventions public sooner. [Our present implementation seems to instead make things worse, but that's the idea behind it.]
The (supposed) benefit to society from copyrights is to encourage authors and artists to create, by giving them a way to profit from that creation. This also doesn't work very well anymore (we need a new method, yet it did work OK before computers made things easy to copy). But that's the idea.
I don't support the status quo implementation of either patent or copyright law - a reasonably good idea has become perverted - but there is a very good rational reason why copyrights are longer than patents.
1) Staying anonymous while running this sort of thing is harder than it looks.
2) While having open drug markets (like Silk Road 2) doubtless does reduce violence, it's still against the law.
So although the FBI's actions cause more harm than good here, they are indeed doing their job. The problem is the drug war, not the police who enforce the (idiotic) laws.
A policeman's job is to keep the peace and enforce the law, not to change the law.
Unfortunately, given stupid laws, there is often a conflict between "keeping the peace" and "enforcing the law".
On the post: NY Judge Laments The Lack Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'; Suggests New Laws Fix That
This
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re: Re: More proof that European legislators are idiots...
Please send my sink to the Spanish legislature.
If everyone here asks the same, Mr. Ozio will bury the Spanish legislature in kitchen sinks.
Problem solved??
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re: Re: Typical GOOG apology-- you don't get something for nothing
On the post: Judge Posner Says NSA Should Be Able To Get Everything & That Privacy Is Overrated
Re: Re: Privacy IS overrated...
That's why I used the word "semblance" - because in our republic, (limited) democracy is one element of a complex system of checks and balances.
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Yes, our brave men in blue...
But of course, not at the risk of their steady paychecks or retirement benefits.
On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report
Re:
--Joseph de Maistre
On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report
Re: Re: torture?
"dleny"'s attitude is shared by cowards all over the country, more concerned about their precious yellow asses than the principles and values that generations of Americans fought and died for.
On the post: Judge Posner Says NSA Should Be Able To Get Everything & That Privacy Is Overrated
Privacy IS overrated...
Political freedom is meaningless without the freedom to conspire for a change of government, in favor of opposition candidates, for changes in laws, in general to work to overturn the powers-that-be...without those powers-that-be knowing about it.
I'm with David Brin in thinking that privacy is, in general, overrated - so long as officials and those in power are willing to be equally transparent (which they aren't).
But this one crucial aspect of privacy is absolutely critical to any semblance of democracy.
On the post: DailyDirt: Made In The USA Rockets
Re: among the very worst in existence
Learning low-level, primitive languages (including assembly) teaches valuable skills that are applicable in many other areas. Every well-seasoned programmer should know some of these low-level languages - well.
That said, despite the fact that you're correct that these languages have little or nothing in the way of "safety features", they nonetheless have a critical role to play in the software ecosystem. Almost all "high level" and "safe" languages today are implemented in C or C++, and for very good reasons (having to do with memory efficiency and fast execution).
As such, they are not "among the very worst in existence" - they merely have strengths and weaknesses, and places where they're appropriate, and not appropriate.
Just like all the other languages.
[FWIW, I have written a great deal of real-time code that runs close to the metal. Some of it even has flown in rockets.]
On the post: How Should Standard-Essential Patents Be Licensed?
Re: Re: Re: Patent-free standards
But that's not the view of most of the people active in standards committees, who generally represent industry players (real ones for the most part, not trolls).
They represent firms that don't want to lose sales by offering a standards-conformant product that can't compete effectively with a proprietary product.
And given that standards committees by and large make their own rules (more precisely their parent orgs do, but the same people are involved), your idea (that I support) doesn't fly.
So practical politics (the art of the possible...) requires the next least bad solution.
On the post: How Should Standard-Essential Patents Be Licensed?
Re: Patent-free standards
Then you have a dilemma. You can follow your rule, and just not get those gains (in an interoperable standard) for 25+ years, or you can somehow deal with the patent.
In some cases the patent holder might be willing to license for free in exchange for incorporating their technology into the standard. But not always.
In those case you either need to expropriate the patent holder (assuming that the patent is legit, which only 0.1% are - but that's another rant), or you need to have a system to compensate the patent holder without allowing them to (a) bamboozle the committee re what the license terms will be or (b) play favorites among the licensees.
Been there, done that.
On the post: Labels Barely Release 1964 Dylan, Beach Boys Archive Materials Solely To Get Extended Copyrights
Uncommon honesty on the part of Sony
On the post: How Should Standard-Essential Patents Be Licensed?
Known terms in advance
If a firm wants a standard to incorporate their patent, at the minimum they ought to be required to disclose the detailed licensing terms in advance to the standards committee.
Then the committee can decide whether the value from the patented technology is worth the price being demanded.
Transparency is what is needed here.
On the post: As Expected: Trial Lawyers Made A Huge Miscalculation In Killing Recent Patent Reform
Re: Never understood Copyright vs Patents
Patentable inventions are more-or-less inevitable. If person A doesn't invent a thing, eventually Person B will invent the same thing. Maybe 6 months later (if it's a bad patent), maybe 20 years later (if it's a good patent). But eventually.
Copyrightable works (books, music, etc.) are not inevitable. If The Rolling Stones didn't record Satisfaction, nobody ever will. If Neal Stephenson didn't write Cryptonomicon, then nobody ever will. Ever.
The (supposed) benefit to society from patents is to accelerate technological progress, by making inventions public sooner. [Our present implementation seems to instead make things worse, but that's the idea behind it.]
The (supposed) benefit to society from copyrights is to encourage authors and artists to create, by giving them a way to profit from that creation. This also doesn't work very well anymore (we need a new method, yet it did work OK before computers made things easy to copy). But that's the idea.
I don't support the status quo implementation of either patent or copyright law - a reasonably good idea has become perverted - but there is a very good rational reason why copyrights are longer than patents.
On the post: As Expected: Trial Lawyers Made A Huge Miscalculation In Killing Recent Patent Reform
Re: big companies who continues to steal ideas
2) Ideas are a dime-a-dozen, as any VC will be happy to explain, and de minimis non curat lex. (The law does not concern itself with trifles.)
Implementation and execution are what have value.
On the post: Patent Troll Kills Open Source Project On Speeding Up The Computation Of Erasure Codes
Re: Re: Re: People need to show some backbone
If you find one, let me know - I'd like to move there.
In the meantime, we have to do it ourselves.
On the post: Patent Troll Kills Open Source Project On Speeding Up The Computation Of Erasure Codes
Re: Re: People need to show some backbone
But even if I didn't - we don't always get to choose our battles; sometimes the battles come to us.
As citizens we have a responsibility to do our share. Yes, sometimes it hurts.
People volunteer for worse things than lawsuits to protect their societies, you know.
On the post: Patent Troll Kills Open Source Project On Speeding Up The Computation Of Erasure Codes
People need to show some backbone
If we make it easy for the trolls to roll over people, that's what they'll do.
The proper thing is to say "see you in court, asshole" and then call the EFF.
If the case is really as clear-cut as people here think, he can even represent himself - and win.
But we all - as citizens - have a responsibility to be a little bit tough.
On the post: Guy Accused Of Operating Silk Road 2.0 Arrested In SF... Just Like The Last One
Two takeaways
2) While having open drug markets (like Silk Road 2) doubtless does reduce violence, it's still against the law.
So although the FBI's actions cause more harm than good here, they are indeed doing their job. The problem is the drug war, not the police who enforce the (idiotic) laws.
A policeman's job is to keep the peace and enforce the law, not to change the law.
Unfortunately, given stupid laws, there is often a conflict between "keeping the peace" and "enforcing the law".
On the post: Dish Pulls CNN, Doesn't Think Customers Still Paying For It Are Missing Much
Simple solution: Unbundle
Pass it along to the customer. Transparently.
Drop the monthly fee by the amount paid to Turner on the old contract.
Then offer Turner's channels a-la-carte as add-ons, for whatever Turner wants to charge.
Let the customer decide if the price is worth paying, or not.
That ought to put a lot more pressure on Turner's pricing.
Next >>