Good use of the book as analogy, too. Rights logically imply responsibilities. What's the problem?
The general bias of this board seems to be anti-process patent. But with a great amount US GDP currently being derived from services and intellectual properties which include such processes, is there no benefit from awarding inventors if the only aspect of their invention is algorithmic in nature?
The general opinion of this board, as I see it, is that process patents retard production, especially but not only innovative production, more than they advance it. Can you quantify the "great amount of US GDP currently derived from services and intellectual properties which include such processes"? Once you have, can you honestly claim that taking all those patent-enforced methodological [I will not call this farce "intellectual"] monopolies off the open market really reduces GDP?
When you try to protect a secret by putting in in a locked box, do you put it in a steel box with a good combination lock? Or do you put it in a cheap transparent plastic box with a lock that can be picked by a safety pin and hundreds of holes and little doors that can be opened even more easily?
The answer really depends on what kind of other security measures you're placing on the box, and how accessible it is. If the transparent plastic box with a lock that can be picked with a safety pin is floating on a rock island in the middle of the caldera of an active volcano...
It isn't. Somebody obviously got in, either by socially engineering a soldier or by being a double agent.
The military networks are most certainly hardened against intrusion.
Hardened? Is this about placing the aforementioned plastic box into a steel vault?
With proper security measures installed, and with decent firewalls and traffic monitoring on both the outbound and the inbound, and with intelligent account restrictions in place,
... including prohibiting external storage devices,
... then Windows can be made just as secure as any other OS.
So because its been used in military applications, you've constructed this elaborate fantasy scenario rather than just researching its actual history?
It was developed years ago as a commercial product primarily for the embedded systems market. Military aircraft are just an example of the applications it's been used for after it was already a mature commercial product.
Provide one other "example of the applications it's been used for after it was already a mature commercial product," shit-for-brain. It was developed for my military, after it received a contract from my military. I own it, bitch.
... used in the B1B bomber and other military aircraft...
Now, do you suppose it was given to my military, as a xmas gift? Do you suppose development even began before a no-bid, cost+plus contract was signed? Like I said, I funded the development as a taxpayer already. I own that. Hand it over.
'The key to a con is not that you trust the con man, but that he shows he trusts you. Con men ply their trade by appearing fragile or needing help, by seeming vulnerable,' writes Zak. 'Because of THOMAS, the human brain makes us feel good when we help others -- this is the basis for attachment to family and friends and cooperation with strangers.'
We all experience greed, but knowing that everybody else does too, we are naturally suspicious of "something for nothing," especially if offered by another human. Plants and animals we expect to be able to eat. Thus, the survival advantage of action based on reciprocal trust. Social conventions complex enough to turn this mechanism to any individual's disadvantage are relatively recent in homo sapiens' time on Earth, thus the yet-unsolved problem of con people.
"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson