Re: Hypothetical Question

"john wayne" <attackack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144921283.441487.311360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can't understand why when somebody has a new code or method need to
patent it.

they want money...

Is possible to crack a code entirely? I remember when the
Netscape Browser was a private software and its code was secret. When
the code of Netscape become public all the coders from all the world
discovered its secrets. Not before of it.

note: netscape went opensource in a sense (in the form of mozilla...).

The European Community want
to force Microsoft to reveal the real code about Windows XP. Why nobody
know the Microsoft code? I know that is possible to crack software
about passwords or keys regard trial version and similar or to copy DVD
cracking its key frame but I think that nobody know how a software work
inside axactly.

disassemblers can get at the assembly code of the app, which is hardly that
useful (a large pita to read and work with). decompilers, generally, don't
work that well, and even if they did, all the symbols (function and var
names), comments, ... are gone, leaving one looking at some rather
dissatisfying code.

better to just get at the original, from the original authors...

as for cracking, usually that is just someone with a disassembler figuring
out how to break something. this is rather different than actually coding
anything.

Another thing I ask myself is why there are coders that
waste month or years of their life to put their code as GPL with no
money return and people that do it only for money ;-)


different motivations.

those who are greedy, are motivated by the money, and often don't care so
much about the coding in its own right.

those who enjoy coding in itself will often release things under the gpl, as
it is typically too much work to try to expect anyone to pay for it...

some of us have little better to do sometimes.


what is there to do besides coding?

well, one would have to face thier (well, absence of a) social life. it is a
dismal world out there, one of having no one to talk to and lack of any real
female interest, and of being generally hated by anyone who is around.

now, someone could go and off themselves, but that is hardly useful. better
to just isolate oneself in their activities...

it is a world of open spaces and non-finite decision sets, with endless
people moving about, cars driving around, roads going off in endless
directions, ...

meanwhile, there are masses of people are engaging in seemingly strutured,
albeit hopelessly chaotic interactions, talking about a large number of
things and performing various operations, all the while nearly completely
hiding their underlying logic or state (or, if they do say anything, it
makes little sense and is often based on apparently incomplete or
self-referential patterns).

if people would upfront state their current state and present sets of
constraints, along with their current set of possible decisions and the
rules they use for choosing which actions to perform, then interaction would
be easier. instead, people seem to actively defy attempts at sensible
interaction, either stalling out decision making or actively defying
constraints.

easier sometimes just to do some coding...

at least with coding, one only really has to worry about decisions somehow
related to coding...


I am above the level of the programs I write for the reason that I write
myself, but even as such I fall outside my own constraints sometimes,
creating masses of self-referencing decisions and other such paradoxical
behavior. all I can try to do is make sure that my constraints for myself
hold, and doing everything as I have before, as any unexpected variations
can lead to broken patterns, mass constraint failures, and a seemingly
unrecognized and new world...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fermis Paradox and DNA
    ... > The coding is arbitrary (more or less, there may be some constraints), ... > it is determined by transfer RNAs. ... One part of the tRNA contains the 3 ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Cantors circular "proof" that evens = integers
    ... It can't just be "some" initial coding! ... There are CONSTRAINTS on the KINDS of codings ... ARE NOT EVEN FIRST-ORDER DEFINABLE! ... that context is the one that makes the finite ordinals actually ...
    (sci.logic)