I am in need of source code for the Aho Corasick algorithm. I have
tried searching the web but can't seem to find any code.
Is there a good site for c code I can search?
Thanks in advance.
Nov 14 '05
41  7517 
In <c0**********@c hessie.cirr.com > Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> writes: Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> spoke thus:
Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.
How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...
I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.
A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.
Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)
The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!
So, if you have a bright idea, be sure to patent it before someone else
has the same idea and wins the time-to-patent race ;-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote: In <c0**********@c hessie.cirr.com > Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> writes:
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> spoke thus:
Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola. How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...
I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.
A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.
A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.
Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)
There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.
The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!
Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.
So, if you have a bright idea, be sure to patent it before someone else
has the same idea and wins the time-to-patent race ;-)
Dan
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************* ***********@att .net
Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes: Inventors have a choice as to whether they want to rely on
patent protection for a defined length of time, or trade secret
status for an undefined length of time.
IANAL but I was unaware that trade secrets caused nasal demons.
In <qt************ *************** *****@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes: On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <c0**********@c hessie.cirr.com > Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> writes:
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> spoke thus:
>Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.
How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...
I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.
A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.
A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.
Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions. Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)
There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.
Where would the differences come from, in the case of a coke-like drink? The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!
Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.
That's why I said "removing the *need* of trade secrets" and NOT "removing
the trade secrets". These days, the period of exclusive usage granted by
a patent is, in most cases, orders of magnitude higher than the time it
takes to figure out a trade secret.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
On 11 Feb 2004 13:33:53 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote: In <qt************ *************** *****@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes:
On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <c0**********@c hessie.cirr.com > Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> writes:
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> spoke thus:
>>Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.
> How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
> it, it has expired long ago...
I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.
A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.
A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.
Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions.
Actually, what you call atomical analysis is a goodly part of chemical
analysis. However, chemical analysis is a broad term, covering many
other analytical techniques as well. It's also quite limited. In a
complex substance or mixture of substances, the description of the
sample obtained by chemical analysis won't usually correspond to a
formula for duplicating the sample. Sorry if you don't believe that,
but further elaboration would require a course in analytical
chemistry, which I'm not inclined or qualified to give.Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)
There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.
Where would the differences come from, in the case of a coke-like drink?
The proposition follows from the discussion above.
Actually, many laboratory analyses of Coca-Cola have been done, and
analysts have proclaimed that the formula must contain this or that
set of ingredients, but none has been able to give a formula for
duplicating the product. There was a publication of what was claimed
to be the original formula (from written notes in the Pemberton
estate, not analysis) but the formula has changed since then.
In general, we have only limited success in synthesizing natural
substances, or even identifying them with any certainty, especially if
they have undergone some type of processing. (In spite of the weekly
miracles performed by the CSI teams on TV.) The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!
Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.
That's why I said "removing the *need* of trade secrets" and NOT "removing
the trade secrets". These days, the period of exclusive usage granted by
a patent is, in most cases, orders of magnitude higher than the time it
takes to figure out a trade secret.
But not always. The inventor is gambling. Coca-Cola's formula, and the
variations on it, have been kept secret since 1886. Not that it
actually matters - even if the formula was published, it's too late to
stop that particular juggernaut.
It is part of the mystique, though. Coca-Cola corporate rules are that
two people have possession of the formula, their identities are not
disclosed, and they never travel together. In actuality, I suspect
some of the people on the syrup production floor have a pretty good
notion as to what's in it.
Kentucky Fried Chicken goes even further. Their "secret blend of 11
herbs and spices" is partly made in two different places and combined
at a third location. Again, it doesn't matter much - the brand name is
what sells the chicken.
I'm afraid this is really getting off-topic ;-) I'll stop wasting
people's time with it. Protection of inventions has sort of a nebulous
connection to programming, but fried chicken is way too far off base.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************* ***********@att .net
In <gs************ *************** *****@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes: On 11 Feb 2004 13:33:53 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <qt************ *************** *****@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes:
On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <c0**********@c hessie.cirr.com > Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> writes:
>Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> spoke thus:
>
>>>Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.
>
>> How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
>> it, it has expired long ago...
>
>I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
>effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.
A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.
A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.
Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions .
Actually, what you call atomical analysis is a goodly part of chemical
analysis.
It's a purely physical analysis.
However, chemical analysis is a broad term, covering many
other analytical techniques as well. It's also quite limited. In a
complex substance or mixture of substances, the description of the
sample obtained by chemical analysis won't usually correspond to a
formula for duplicating the sample.
If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult. Especially when you don't need an exact duplication, merely
something that most people cannot organolepticall y discern from the
original.
In general, we have only limited success in synthesizing natural
substances,
Coke hardly qualifies as a natural substance.
It is part of the mystique, though. Coca-Cola corporate rules are that
two people have possession of the formula, their identities are not
disclosed, and they never travel together.
Someone must actually "implement" the formula, on an industrial scale, in
each and every Coca-Cola factory around the world.
In actuality, I suspect
some of the people on the syrup production floor have a pretty good
notion as to what's in it.
The big secret is that there is no unique Coca-Cola formula. The thing
tastes differently in different parts of the world and the caffeine
contents is also locale-specific.
I'm afraid this is really getting off-topic ;-)
Otherwise, the [OT] tag of the subthread wouldn't be justified ;-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...] If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult.
I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
In article <c0************ *@ID-179017.news.uni-berlin.de>, "osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:
And thus the fourth category of intellectual property, the trade secret. No
legal protection, just a way of doing business, as in Colonel Sander's
"secret blend of 11 herbs and spices". Or whatever. To me, considering
modern chemistry, this doesn't seem plausible. A lot of mystique and
dependence on the gullibility of the general public. How hard could it be
to reverse engineer a bottle of Coca Cola?
Not hard, and formulations that are so close to the various Coca Colas
(there's more than one) as makes no difference are well-known. Coca
Cola's "secret formula" is a marketing gimick, not a piece of key IP.
William Poundstone has written an entertaining series of books titled
_Big Secrets_, _Bigger Secrets_, and so forth which expose numerous
trade secrets that aren't particularly secret. The KFC seasoning blend
is also among them. (Hint: There aren't 11 components, at least not in
significant amounts.) Of course it is possible that Poundstone's
research and reverse engineering are wrong in some cases, but I suspect
he's generally right.
These books are of course under copyright, which brings us neatly back
around.
--
Michael Wojcik mi************@ microfocus.com
The way things were, were the way things were, and they stayed that way
because they had always been that way. -- Jon Osborne
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Keith Thompson wrote:
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...] If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult.
I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?
Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!
Remember, the Standard makes no claims about efficiency...
-Arthur
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:48:21 -0500 (EST), "Arthur J. O'Dwyer"
<aj*@nospam.and rew.cmu.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Keith Thompson wrote:
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...] > If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
> figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
> difficult.
I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?
Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!
Too much Startrek <G>. The universal synthesizer won't be invented for
a while yet. That's where the time comes in - a century or so <g>.
Remember, the Standard makes no claims about efficiency...
-Arthur
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************* ***********@att .net This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: M.E.Farmer |
last post by:
Hello c.l.py!,
I have just finished this and decided to share.
PySourceColor is a module to convert Python source into colored html.
Yes it has been done before, but I like this better:)
You can easily define your own colorscheme.
example usage:
# Highlight PySourceColor.py
python PySourceColor.py
or
# Show help
|
by: Ilias Lazaridis |
last post by:
I'm a newcomer to python:
- E01: The Java Failure - May Python Helps?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/75f0c5c35374f553
-
I've download (as suggested) the python 2.4 installer for windows.
Now I have problems to compile python extension that some packages
|
by: Michael Dekson |
last post by:
Hello,
Can I exe file made in Microsoft Visual C++ decompile into source code.
If it is possibly please tell me how.
Thanks
|
by: GTi |
last post by:
Is there any source code documentation tools available for Visual
Studio 2005 ?
I have created a LIB that must be documented. Must I do it by hand or
is it
some kind of tools to pre document my source code?
|
by: Cheryl Langdon |
last post by:
Hello everyone,
This is my first attempt at getting help in this manner. Please
forgive me if this is an inappropriate request.
I suddenly find myself in urgent need of instruction on how to
communicate with a MySQL database table on a web server, from inside
of my company's Access-VBA application. I know VBA pretty well but
have never before needed to do this HTTP/XML/MySQL type functions.
| | |
by: Giovanni Bajo |
last post by:
Hello,
I just read this mail by Brett Cannon:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-October/069139.html
where the "PSF infrastracture committee", after weeks of evaluation, recommends
using a non open source tracker (called JIRA - never heard before of course)
for Python itself.
Does this smell "Bitkeeper fiasco" to anyone else than me?
--
|
by: Jon Skeet [C# MVP] |
last post by:
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:
Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.
I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:
|
by: sara |
last post by:
I have a friend doing some pro-bono work for a non-profit that does
job training for distressed kids under DCSS care. He asked me for
code to do the following (he's using A2003).
I can't find code in searches or on the MVP and tool sites I visited -
though I might not understand that there is code that just needs
adaptation. ALL help is appreciated.
He wants a routine (that I'd put into a module) to do the following:
|
by: DarkGiank |
last post by:
Hi, im new to csharp and im trying to create a class that can change the application database without no rewriting all connection code... but cause some reason it is not working... it tells me that im not creating the object but im doing it,,, please help im a newbie to c#
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using System.Data;
using System.Data.SQLite;
using MySql.Data;
using MySql.Data.MySqlClient;
using...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
| | |
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| | |
