synaesthesia

If Microsoft and other BSA members insist that their software patent collections are for defensive purposes only, why are they leading the initiative for software patents to be introduced in Europe? Maybe instead of defending themselves against patent litigation, they mean they intend to defend themselves against competition.

A good idea.

When will people understand that tolerance/approval/endurance of some action (by simply not electing to pay taxes to the government to pay for the force to stop it) is not equivalent to endorsement/encouragement/embracement of that action (by promoting it and idolizing those who engage in it)?

Two solutions:
1) Utilize TCPA chip in upcoming machines. This will only work if the user can manage the keyring, and e.g. it is not preset with RIAA/MPAA keys only.

2) Like on P2P networks, let users accumulate a trust rating based on how many people don't think they are cheating.

So, Bill Gates claims Microsoft software is superior to open source offerings because it is more interoperable. That's a convenient attack, considering the following:
1) Microsoft has deliberately, through patents as well as a combination of secrecy and rapid changes, foiled efforts at open source software interoperating with its products.
2) Microsoft refuses to incorporate support for standards whose origin is in open source software (like OpenOffice document format), limiting their uptake.
So yes, Microsoft software is more interoperable with the existing install base, simply because it has taken steps to ensure a competitor cannot claim that title. Does that say anything about the quality of Microsoft software? No, but it does say something about the assumptions their business model is based on, as well as their attitude towards cooperation and open standards.

A security hole with a patch reflects badly on a vendor because the security hole existed in the first place.
A security hole without a patch reflects badly on a vendor because they are not supporting their software.
Both reflect badly on the vendor, and neither should be apologized for by platform advocates.

A remote push vulnerability is worse than a remote pull vulnerability is worse than a local vulnerability.

A politician who has noble intent but ill implementation is equal in merit to a politican who has ill intent and solid implementation.

a reply from osnews against some anti-rms trolling:

When will people stop with these cheap shots? RMS is not concerned with open source, rather the four freedoms that he feels should be guaranteed to users of software. Many other licenses satisfy this definition and you will notice that there is no problem with them. The only thing “better” about the GPL from his perspective is that it is the strongest way to spread the four freedoms, as opposed to non-reciprocating licenses which can result in a user further down the distribution chain being denied those freedoms.

Is hell such a nasty place because of Satan's malevolence or because of God's malevolence?

Thoughts for the day:
Assuming that neural recognition follows an associative model (key->value pairs), does human memory loss due to non-use more closely resemble magnetic drift on a hard disk platter, or discharge of a capacitive cell such as DRAM?

….

When listening to an improvisational piece and trying to transcribe the melody or changes/modes, I find myself applying the same techniques I use when analyzing binary-only software. First I try to get an overall feel for what is going on (the Zen aspect). Then I start to dig into the minutia (in the code: watching variables, in the music: determining directions of transitions, listening for intervals). Sometimes I will hit a part that defies intuition in both cases, and yet after spending enough time with it, even if all of the details of the passage or code segment have not been worked out to my liking, I am able to form a theory of what is happening. Usually that theory is good enough to garner what feels like a deeper understanding of the piece, even if I'm not sure it is what the author intended when he conceived the idea that ended up as that section.

In some ways the problems are similar; you are taking a work which has already been transformed from its editable “source code” to the form that serves the most useful end. A difference is that source code to binary form can be thought of as a lossy conversion, because all the comments, structure, and conventions of the source code has been utterly lost; while in music, notes to performance is usually an embellishing or improvising process, where the musician actually adds to what is written on the page.

But perhaps a program binary can be thought of as a performance by the compiler – taking the “notes” the programmer gave it, it uses knowledge about the desired result that only it possesses in order to provide a suitable result. In the compiler's case, this is knowledge about the machine language and pipeline architecture of the target to produce the highest performing binary. In the musician's case, this is knowledge about the styles and rhythms that will provoke the widest range of emotions in the audience.

This has interesting implications for copyright law, since a musician can copyright a performance separately from the composition. Should a compiler author be able to assert copyright over a binary produced/”performed” by his compiler? The same mechanisms seem to be at work in both cases.

Or is the compiler simply the instrument, and the person doing the compiling the performer? The compiler has intimate knowledge of how to generate the end result, just as an instrument has intrinsic sound generation properties. But the person doing the compiling also has intimate knowledge of the compiler's characteristics and capabilities, and how to make best use of the compiler for a given piece of code; just like a musician has intimate knowledge about the capabilities of his instrument and knows how to use it for creating music. What if an automated process invokes the compile? What about machine composition? Can it be copyrighted as a performance?

It would almost seem that any non-lossy transformation could be categorized as a performance.

I voted a Libertarian ticket today. Surely my vote will be the tipping point that ushers in a new age of freedom, responsibility, and a progressive, accountable government whose scope of authority both begins and ends with the people.

Maybe I'll start using this thing sometime.