Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And this is the same for copyrights. (Score 1) 240

by KramberryKoncerto (#47654585) Attached to: Patents That Kill
Although I hate copyright extensions, your argument is weak. Selling things based older productions is probably a sizable revenue stream for a company over its lifetime. There's copyright on derivative work, so a competitor can't beat you out in making a sequel. It can also snowball into franchise over which you have a monopoly. This gives more incentive to make stuff.

Comment: Re: Take it a step further... (Score 1) 116

by KramberryKoncerto (#47645229) Attached to: Wiring Programmers To Prevent Buggy Code
It won't work. This system detects when a programmer is trying very hard to deal with a difficult problem. On the other hand, a decision to use LOC as a productivity metric is more of a result of a blank head and a habit to avoid inevitable difficulties rather than to face them up front

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 101

by KramberryKoncerto (#47634591) Attached to: Network Hijacker Steals $83,000 In Bitcoin

A lot of the strength in cryptography is lost in areas that depend on trust. Like trusting that the vendor doesn't put a backdoor in your system, or trusting your OS doesn't break your firewall, or that any third-party CA's are actually trustworthy, or there isn't a weird compiler bug that kills your entire encryption system. These things may be tested against and prevented one-by-one, but they are overhead, which makes the notion of security a matter of risk management. Cryptography tries hard to reduce the reliance on trust, but it's always a big issue.

More of a theoretician, I was once lectured by a competent software engineer that in security the devil is in the details, where any system has to stand the test of time and often goes through many fixes to be just usable. Theoretical security guarantees are much stronger what is often realized in practical security systems, because implementation details fall through cracks that are covered up by theoretical abstractions that breed high-level cryptography.

Comment: Re:Case closed (Score 2) 127

Sometimes true, sometimes not. An enterprise parasite looking for a golden parachute would rationally prefer to suppress disruption to his personal agenda in the short term rather than enhancing the business in the long term. Disclaimer: I hold no opinion on any conspiracy theories of this case.

Comment: Re:No it is not. (Score 2) 152

by KramberryKoncerto (#47485339) Attached to: Dell Starts Accepting Bitcoin

US isn't seeing any of the benefits (yet) because it's a massive power that can borrow and print money willy-nilly, and the currency is mostly under control at the moment. But not all countries are like that. There are countries where something like Bitcoin can be a viable alternative to official currency, like Argentina. Bitcoin is flawed, but it guards against certain attacks that can be performed to a currency, in a way that is sometimes useful.

On the other hand, the way Dell accepts Bitcoin doesn't bear a lot of risk; a third-party accepts Bitcoin for them and pay them in cash, and absorbs fluctuation risk in return for some fees. It relies on customers bearing the risks themselves. It isn't a big step for Bitcoin; it is only a very small step towards forming a sufficient number of nodes of a skeleton that may or may not turn into an actual ecosystem that eventually circulates Bitcoin. But isn't a terrible decision for Dell either.

Comment: Re: When misbehavior isn't punished (Score 1) 123

by KramberryKoncerto (#47446541) Attached to: Elite Group of Researchers Rule Scientific Publishing
Build a system that offers only short term incentives, you can often end up, pretty predictably, with *nothing useful at all*. Lots of research is useless, but they often turn out to be so only after some difficult exploration. It's not very often that you can validly point to a researcher and say "I told you so". There are also research that look promising in early stages and turn out to be pure crap. Research is a treasure hunt - you dig the ground and most of the time it's just plain soil. You should reward risk-taking, because that's like paying the scientists of America each for a discount-price lottery ticket. And the results: even with immensely high research costs over the country, the overall profit is huge.

Comment: Re:Well, duh... (Score 1) 210

Practically and theoretically, a lot of these rights come with a few "buts" and trade-offs. Due process forces you to give up a couple of rights under certain circumstances. Property rights are "rights", but virtually all governments have the power to claim land "owned" by anyone, most with policies that mandate compensation. Copyright enforcement excludes "fair use", which is related to public interest and the common good. Free speech is a "right", but there are also widely-accepted libel laws. Many other rights are subject to conditions (being in a certain society, accepted some kind of responsibility), even at the philosophical level, especially those classified as non-natural rights. Even with your definition of "rights", note that the "right to be forgotten" is not a universally accepted concept; the "right" part is just a name arbitrarily given to this legal notion, and this very naming is subject to debate, so is the extent of matters that are covered by this "right". Just because somebody else calls it a right doesn't mean you have to defend it unconditionally. Diminishing this "right" doesn't give you a slippery slope to mess with other rights.

Comment: Re:Well, duh... (Score 1) 210

The "right" to be forgotten has not yet made its way of being seen as a universal human right on par with free speech. Arguably it's often contradictory to free speech. It is not even well-defined; the name "right" was slapped on it too early before the matter was discussed enough. A concern of public interest is still valid here, and it should not affect the way people should view other rights.

Comment: Re:Followed the law. if (false) then false (Score 1) 263

by KramberryKoncerto (#47288487) Attached to: The Supreme Court Doesn't Understand Software

Even "artificial" methods are "discoveries"; "this method can be used to achieve that" is simply a consequence of the laws of nature, discovered by the inventors. An elevator may be seen as man-made, but the engineering of it is still a method, whose usefulness is merely a consequence of laws of nature, hence "discovered". Yet a patent does not "protect" a single elevator, but the method that makes it work. A star can't be patented, but neither can an elevator.

What you advocate is also against the spirit of patents, which is to protect science progress by providing financial incentives to make effort to contribute to science, whether or not some people would think such contribution should be be labelled a "discovery" or an "invention".

I don't have an answer as to whether we should patent mathematical methods, but your argument against it is very weak.

Comment: Re:This just in. (Score 1) 281

by KramberryKoncerto (#47279353) Attached to: Mt. Gox CEO Returns To Twitter, Enrages Burned Investors
Transferring a Bitcoin does not transfer the access to data. You can access exactly the same string of bits (wallet) before and after you make a transaction. Anyway, if someone takes money from your bank account without your consent, by your way of thinking he won't be stealing your money.

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...