Slashdot Mirror

In the excerpt of the article at the top they changed it FROM ("And people who want much slower but conventional broadband can get it for free if they pay a $300 connection fee.") TO: ("and regular 'conventional' internet for a one time $300 fee."). They beat me to the punch. I was about to comment that "much slower" is a bit, unintentionally I'm sure, misleading. "Up to 5Mbps download, 1Mbps upload speed" [ https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/ ]

> Apple hasn't sued Motorola over the the Xoom's appearance

Rewriting history much?

Yes, there have always been occasional extreme weather events. But modern statistical analysis supports the general impression that weather extremes are becoming more frequent, consistent with the predictions of climate science.

30 million years is a long time. Speciation is a slow process, based on what we know about evolution, but that is plenty of time for species to recover. It is clear that there have been mass extinctions in the distant past, and species have diverged subsequently. So I imagine that 30 million years from now, species diversity will have recovered from the impact of CO2 induced global warming.

I suppose the fact that the earth is now "the coldest in 30 million years" would be of comfort to us if our species were 30 million years old. But in fact, it is not. So from our admittedly limited human perspective, we tend to be more concerned about divergence of temperatures from the range that is consistent with our modern life style, with huge numbers of people living on the coast, and with much of the globe dependent upon food produced by a few highly productive regions that up until now have enjoyed a climate consistent with highly productive agriculture.

Also new studies show that temperatures in the mideivel warming period and the roman era were 1C warmer than today with no SUVs around.

I always find it amusing that people who consider themselves to be "skeptics" of global warming become utterly credulous when it comes to anything that might seem to challenge global warming. Estimates of temperatures prior to temperature measurements are very difficult, and are based upon indirect measures of things like tree ring width and density, which are subject to a number of sources of error that are not fully understood, and which provide rather poor coverage of global temperatures. So a genuine skeptic would tell you that we really don't know whether temperatures in the medieval period were as high as today (much less as high as they are projected to become if CO2 release continues unabated), and whether the warming was global or regional to northern europe. But a climate science "skeptic" will happily acclaim third party accounts of agricultural practices in northern Europe as an indisputably accurate measure of global temperature, accurate down to a single degree.

Of course, if there really were a global medieval warming period that was not due to CO2 or to any of the other known causes of climate change, such as orbital shifts or changes in level of volcanic activity, a genuine skeptic would be even more worried. The evidence that the modern warming is due to CO2 is incontrovertible, and the degree of warming is pretty much what is expected from CO2 alone. What if there actually were some other, unknown, mechanism that could produce comparable warming? Then we have to worry that that other unknown mechanism might kick in suddenly to add to (or worse, amplify) the warming predicted from CO2. Modern projections of the consequences of global warming are very disturbing, but not what most people would regard as apocalyptic. But if there is some other unknown mechanism that could add substantially warming to that, then all bets are off, and the apocalyptic scenarios are back on the table. Of course, real climate scientists don't believe that. The "skeptics" apparently do believe it--but they don't understand what it would mean.

Plus six for KCMO.

Here you go:

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=google+earth+for+linux&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CJABEBYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fearth.google.com%2Fdownload-earth.html&ei=Ey8SUOvFLKWC4gTgw4GgCA&usg=AFQjCNHtn4NvUOUoKADPf8ZRNSfED_pErQ&sig2=JNYJ97i-H8p5KMdCEixRHA

You can track their progress here.

If Apple wanted to make a maps app similar to the one on android that uses vector graphics and so on, they could have, but they didn't.

In Apple's defense, from Google Maps' Terms of Use:

2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: [...]
(f) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device

So the question is, did Apple try to get prior written authorization and Google declined their request? Or did they just say, "We'll get our map data from somewhere else because we don't like Google anymore."

In Google's defense, they license some of their data from elsewhere and they may be restricted as to what they can allow others to do. For example, looking at Japan, down in the lower right of the screen we see "Map Data © 2012 Google, ZENRIN" Zenrin is a company that Google uses, I assume, for some Japanese map data. They can use the data for their purposes, but they cannot sublicense that data for other purposes. If Apple wanted to use that data the same way as Google via Google's Maps API, they'd have to also license the data from Zenrin.

A quick jaunt around the world will show you that Google has licensed map data from lots of different companies: GeoBasis, TeleAtlas, AfriGIS, MapLink, Mapcity, Inav/Geosistemas, INEGI, and I'm sure some others I have missed. Apple could run around and try to sign similar licenses with all those companies to use Google's map data, or they could just find someone else.

If Apple wanted to make a maps app similar to the one on android that uses vector graphics and so on, they could have, but they didn't.

In Apple's defense, from Google Maps' Terms of Use:

2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: [...]
(f) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device

So the question is, did Apple try to get prior written authorization and Google declined their request? Or did they just say, "We'll get our map data from somewhere else because we don't like Google anymore."

In Google's defense, they license some of their data from elsewhere and they may be restricted as to what they can allow others to do. For example, looking at Japan, down in the lower right of the screen we see "Map Data © 2012 Google, ZENRIN" Zenrin is a company that Google uses, I assume, for some Japanese map data. They can use the data for their purposes, but they cannot sublicense that data for other purposes. If Apple wanted to use that data the same way as Google via Google's Maps API, they'd have to also license the data from Zenrin.

A quick jaunt around the world will show you that Google has licensed map data from lots of different companies: GeoBasis, TeleAtlas, AfriGIS, MapLink, Mapcity, Inav/Geosistemas, INEGI, and I'm sure some others I have missed. Apple could run around and try to sign similar licenses with all those companies to use Google's map data, or they could just find someone else.

It gets more complicated than that. Can you buy a pipe, craft a breech, and engineer a way for a pin to push through the retaining piece?

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&q=zip+gun

Then it would take just a bit of research to see that a 20 gauge shotgun shell is 0.615", and the nominal inside diameter of 1/2" steel pipe is 0.62, with a wall thickness of 0.11". With a little magic, the barrel thickness can be increased (sacrificing weight, obviously), by using a sheath of a larger pipe (3/4" pipe with a bit of applied heat, or 1" pipe with an epoxy or molten metal filler) to strengthen it. Screw cap, drill hole, a nail, and a rubber band.

Since the article mentioned building a .22, the 20 gauge shotgun would have substantially more power, and not require much of an engineer nor much fancy equipment (vice, power drill, and a willingness to lose a hand, or more, if it doesn't work right). A common wood stock, a decent finish on the metal, and you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference. Well, assuming you did something better than a screw on metal cap for the "bolt", and rubber band for the "firing mechanism". :)

When I was 8 years old, it would never even occur to me to swallow these magnets. It would be as self-defeating as swallowing my own LEGO pieces.

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=swallow+lego&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

~1.37 million results, sadly - Google suggested this at the top of the list once I'd typed "Swallow le"

Lesson: people will always manage to do "stupid" things. And there are lots of people.

"
"should not" is not "can not"
"

I might be able to go with your creative reading of the sentence were it not for the use of the very clear word "permitting" in the prior sentence-

"
Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com] [google.com]

https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/ The router/firewall supports it.

"so it's unlikely to make much difference unless you're planning to host a reasonably heavy server..."

Good Luck With That-

-1 google, your shiny is now worthless to me
"
Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]

-1 google, your shiny is now worthless to me
"
Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic

So if anyone using the service actually cared to look at the SLA, they would see what Google actually promises. http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/sla.html still over 99% at this moment. so paying customers only get 3 free days of service. everyone that is complaining on twitter probably doesn't pay, so they don't get anything anyways.

Gmail does it: http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=45938

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CF0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbc.com%2Fsaturday-night-live%2Fvideo%2Fhappy-fun-ball%2F229058%2F&ei=pW4RUPaBOOjh0QGQkoGYDg&usg=AFQjCNEmsb3EqZ14AH3dNK9pDI8P5UvPLg&sig2=RWsFtT_g8b3Om1FxnMl_vQ

http://www.google.com/search?q=scarecrow+ascii+art

Just...don't look at the top paid apps.

The hole it punches in your argument is pretty big.

1-2$ tops

This is trivially easy to debunk. Just go here.

To put a finer point on it, yes, if you make a casual throw away game then, of course, you can expect to only get a buck or two for it. However, if you make a game with some depth like Final Fantasy 3, Shadowgun, The Dark Knight Rises, etc. then you can price accordingly. It is pure laziness and tech blog echo chamber bandwagoning that developers are bitching and moaning about only being able to charge a dollar for a game on mobile devices. And the really funny thing is it is so easy to actually look for yourself and see it for the lie it is. Make a good game and people will pay. Make crap and bitch.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.logan.bryan.ptotrack

Or if you want to bust the bank and pay $.99 and not have ads - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.logan.bryan.ptotrackpro

It's not Open Source, but if there's something specific you want, let me know and I can think about adding it. Or, if you'd like to purchase the entire source and open source it yourself, I'd be open to discussion.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.logan.bryan.ptotrack

Or if you want to bust the bank and pay $.99 and not have ads - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.logan.bryan.ptotrackpro

It's not Open Source, but if there's something specific you want, let me know and I can think about adding it. Or, if you'd like to purchase the entire source and open source it yourself, I'd be open to discussion.

Look no further than iOS and Android. No matter what the fanbois of each platform say, games invariably are among the top downloads.

Erm no, Your top downloads on the Play store are things like Maps, Streetview, Facebook, Youtube, Viber, hell even Flash is still up there. Out of the free applications, the first game is at number 16 (Angry Birds), out of the top 25 there are 5 games.

This is because a lot of people who own smartphones don't play games. For the most part people own smart phones as mobile email/web. I'm a PC gamer and I've tried to play a few games on my Android phone but most of them have such clunky control schemes that its more annoying than entertaining. Add to this the fact that EA have been losing big on mobile games and it's pretty clearly not the way for a company to go if they want to make good games or make money.

As for Windows 8, Gabe Newell is dead on the money. It's a complete train wreck, the Windows 8 Express has already derailed somewhere between Poor Concept Central and South Retarded Design. What I disagree with Newell is that OEM's are going to be hit hard, they're going to do what they did when Vista was released and keep selling Windows 7 against Microsoft's objections. The big difference is, this time OEM's will be ready to tell MS to bugger off.

Still, might be a good time to get rid of MSFT stock, especially if Windows 9 is just as bad as 8.

U MAD BRO?

ConEmu

It's impossible to keep small magnets away from young children even with the best efforts.

It is not. Buckyballs aren't ubiquitous. Honestly, if it's that big of a risk, why have them around babies/toddlers in the first place? These simply aren't for children.

The Buckeyballs are marketed to 14-year-olds.

Citations please? A Buckyballs 3rd party site states for Adults only, as does the GetBuckyBalls main site. AGoogle cache of Think Geek lists them as Adults Only.

Are you saying that 14-year-olds should be held responsible if younger children ingest them?

Way to put words in my mouth! I never mentioned anything about 14 year olds! But since you bring it up, did the hypothetical 14yo instruct the younger child(ren) to ingest them? If so, yes. Seriously though the responsibility for the well being of a child falls upon the parent. Are you arguing that it's not a parent's responsibility if a child does something out of sight then, like break someone's window? What if your child shoots up a school? the parents of two teenagers were sued after Columbine.

The only way to resolve this is in court. We'll see whether the jury thinks Zucker has any responsibility.

Curiously absent are the parents who weren't watching their snowflakes play hungry hungry hippos with something they're not supposed to have in the first place.

Or MAYBE more judges have personal vested interest in AAPL.

And sometime later your DNS response finally returns and you can then start to connect to the target host.

I mean, have you even looked at the sequence diagram for a single DNSSEC lookup? It's insane and requires non-trivial communication and computation.

The first ten or so hits here should help.

That's a well-know old comment that has been posted many times over the years.
  Half a million matches on Google.
  20 on Slashdot alone.
... and many more that didn't get modded up enough for Google to see, or didn't use that exact whole line. It has also been parodied a lot.

That's a well-know old comment that has been posted many times over the years.
  Half a million matches on Google.
  20 on Slashdot alone.
... and many more that didn't get modded up enough for Google to see, or didn't use that exact whole line. It has also been parodied a lot.

Yay! More ways to download stuff. I was just finishing working my way through this list and now I have 30 pages worth of new knowledge to assimilate. Keep it coming!

well.. they do provide an app for linux, but it's requirements are that you run android on that linux, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.netflix.mediaclient&hl=en

so, it's a bit political and more than just silverlight, though they might have initially received some kickback to use silverlight exclusively in the first place(even if it that kickback was just discounts on sw... phb's can be phb's and don't usually understand if a kickback is an actual kickback).

Not true. They have an Android app and there's one for iOS as well. It's only on the desktop that they rely on Silverlight.

I may be assuming incorrectly that you feel that the bar for entitlements would be substantially smaller than that for the military. If so you will be quite put out. Some individual entitlements may not be as large as the military budget but taken as a whole entitlements are far larger portion of the budget than the military. A quick search produced this course grained pie chart. If you would like a finer grained breakdown of the budget there is the obligitory XKCD reference. Then there is this (Obama's proposed 2012 budget) chart from the NY Times although there are other ones as well from the NY Times that I have previously found. If you just like spinning numbers there is always national debt clock which lists the 6 largest budget items of which military spending is listed as well as some of the entitlements.

That's what people don't get: stocks trade on what people think how well the company will do in the future. And if the earnings miss that, then of course the stock price goes down or the other way if the company does better than projected.

As far as the "greed" is concerned - for us regular Joes, there's no place to get a decent return on our money. Bank rates are chump change, bonds pay nothing and they're effectively paying negative interest, real estate is for shit in most parts of the country, and the only place one could get any sort of decent return is the stock market.

Greed? Pffft! It's more like trying to stay even!

In the meantime, some members of the elite are getting $60 million pay-offs because they worked at Google doing something that for the life of me I can't get a solid idea what they did and look great in a cocktail dress and heels- even though they have no plan on how to justify their pay.

Greed, indeed.

Nobody's talking about that. You're talking about yourself - much like the elderly in the UK, you can't see societal problems and can only think on a selfish basis. We're talking about society as a whole - and how society can best achieve goals laid out by the government. If you're living in a 5 bedroom house with your wife and people are living in tents elsewhere, it benefits more people for you to move to an apartment and allow the government to apportion the vacant housing to more deserving members of society.

Likewise, it's selfish to consume healthcare resources like a privileged person when so many go without. Do a search on "bed blockers" to see the problems that the elderly cause. Can you really say that few deserve to live at tremendous cost, only to allow many others to suffer due to the fact that resources are not available for their care? People with high dependency indices, low cognitive function, and high rates of disease? How would you best allocate healthcare resources if you worked for the government?

Again, not my thinking, not a -1 Troll, these are the conclusions that highly qualified government workers - people with Ph.Ds - have reached. Ignore them at your peril. Do you honestly think you have the qualifications to argue, much less contradict them? Indeed, your entire post seems to be entirely selfish, as it refers to your own situation and totally ignores the less fortunate. In America, healthcare depends on ability to pay, which you seem to have. In other civilized countries, healthcare is apportioned fairly.

Hokay fine. So now we know that you think

...Obama is slightly worse than Bush Jr...

Don't let the fact that Bush ran us into the ground confuse you.
I bet you voted for Bush! Seriously? Twice?
Really? You vote for McCain/Palin too?

Please don't look at charts like this:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+chart#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_adj_nnty_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=49186800000&tend=1279954800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

...where you can see us going into the dumper until 2009 when Obama came in to start bailing us out. (The only bigger dump than Bush Jr. is Nixon, which ends in "74 when he quit.)

And please, don't think I'm anti-Bush. I'm always uplifted when I think of his amazing, inspirational words:

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

George W. Bush - LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

An EM field interacts with itself, too.

So there's a Feynman diagram that's all photons all the time? How does a neutral particle such as the photon interact with an EM field?

See also a sci.physics.particle discussion which notes that the answer to my (rhetorical) question is "no", at least in the Standard Model (there are fermions in the diagram as well). (And, no, that mediated interaction isn't what causes particle-like behavior from an electromagnetic field.)

Result, pretty much what every tablet is. Or a PADD...

And.. here's where your argument falls apart. There are no PADD designs that are confusable for an iPad. They all look like... wait for it... a prop from Star Trek.

Also, I can do magic. If I hold a Galaxy Tab in the perspective it is designed to be used in, it suddenly doesn't look like an iPad. Magic!

I've accidentally reached for my Tab when intending to reach for my iPad. People I work with have asked me what I put on my iPad to make it look 'cooler', not realizing I was holding the Galaxy Tab. (I think the people I work with ache for Android's most sophisticated home screen.) This has never happened with my HP TouchPad.

You're confusing "Meets a small handful of broad requirements" with "one can be confused for another." Samsung copied Apple, the other competition has not, it is *very* obvious.

Oddly, I'd find the HP Touchpad far easier to confuse to the iPad and have had the opposite experience with people. I suppose I just don't see it. The Galaxy Tab is larger, and clearly designed to be used primarily in landscape. The iPad is is smaller and clearly designed for portrait mode.

Users don't want everything tied to a single identifier, particularly one controlled by Microsoft, Google, Facebook or some other company.

Exactly.

However, the sad part about this is we have already gone way past the point where compartmentalization of our on-line experience is anything but a pipe dream.

Those people who may want to link all your accounts across various websites can now do so without so much as a warrant. And they don't need to be a three letter agency to pull this off. Any hick sheriff or small town detective can do the same thing with a few simple letters.

The technology of single sign on, when done right, doesn't expose much more than the fact that Google (by way of example) says the person attempting to sign on with that google id knew the password. It really does not pass much info back to the requesting site other than the email address. The site never sees the password, or other account details.

When people sign up for a site with a custom log in and password, they usually end up giving an email address anyway, but at least when doing it that way, the perception remains that this login stands alone and discrete from other logins. (This is a questionable assumption at best).

Someone cracking Slashdot's database does not get much. One could make the case that cracking any site that uses OpenID authentication via another site gets even less. No passwords are stored locally at site xyz. If done right. But that is hard to verify.

The big scary part is when the OpenID provider gets cracked everything is cracked. Unless combined with some form of two factor identification a stolen password is all it takes.

Result, pretty much what every tablet is. Or a PADD...

And.. here's where your argument falls apart. There are no PADD designs that are confusable for an iPad. They all look like... wait for it... a prop from Star Trek.

Also, I can do magic. If I hold a Galaxy Tab in the perspective it is designed to be used in, it suddenly doesn't look like an iPad. Magic!

I've accidentally reached for my Tab when intending to reach for my iPad. People I work with have asked me what I put on my iPad to make it look 'cooler', not realizing I was holding the Galaxy Tab. (I think the people I work with ache for Android's most sophisticated home screen.) This has never happened with my HP TouchPad.

You're confusing "Meets a small handful of broad requirements" with "one can be confused for another." Samsung copied Apple, the other competition has not, it is *very* obvious.

You can see a bunch of postage-stamp sized thumbnails of them.

Check out these not-iPads: http://tablets-planet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Best-Buy-Tablet-Central-in-store-display.jpg

Oh, hey, here's more: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=best+buy+tablet+section&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=BvUOUOK6IaKMiAKsuYGQBA&biw=1334&bih=848&sei=CPUOULanJ4WXiAKMwIHgCQ

Follow instructions next time.

Except, describe an iPad: A rectangular device with an all black front, rounded corners, thinish bezel and limited physical buttons
Now, describe the design likely to come out of these requirements: Touch interface, comfortable to hold, simple.

Result, pretty much what every tablet is. Or a PADD. Odd that only Apple is running around suing everyone left and right for copying their "great innovations" of rounded corners and few buttons.

Also, I can do magic. If I hold a Galaxy Tab in the perspective it is designed to be used in, it suddenly doesn't look like an iPad. Magic!

You can see a bunch of postage-stamp sized thumbnails of them.

Check out these not-iPads: http://tablets-planet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Best-Buy-Tablet-Central-in-store-display.jpg

Oh, hey, here's more: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=best+buy+tablet+section&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=BvUOUOK6IaKMiAKsuYGQBA&biw=1334&bih=848&sei=CPUOULanJ4WXiAKMwIHgCQ

Follow instructions next time.

Yes, they'll be quite happy that you helped them pin something on you.

I don't often respond to AC's, but when I do, I prefer to usurp AC's point.

Fashion... that's a good idea. I like that.

No, really... it makes more sense than other allegories. Think about it, people buy clothes; some for function, some for style. People buy software; some for sheer functionality (Linux packages, some PC offerings) and others for more stylish flair. (most Mac software, also some PC offerings but Adobe comes to mind the most)

Every new season, it seems there's a new fashion. Designers and textile plants keep striving to stay on the cutting edge. Every so often, it seems that some software bundle is being upgraded. However, developers aren't always striving to stay ahead, but only to be different enough to keep from being sued. Starting to see the similarities now?

And by the by... clothing may not be patented, but zippers are... so are snaps... even cuff-links. Still, point taken. These patents do nothing to protect the design of clothes that feature them nor prevent others from innovating their own fasteners, they simply prevent others from manufacturing the exact-same fastener mechanism.

So, why would the software business model suffer if there were no patents? Frankly, I don't think it would because it--and every user bound by their efforts--suffers for it now. It would remove this bass-ackward economy of patent litigation and infringement maneuvering, a sub-economy that should (IMHO) be outlawed by the UN. Competition without the fear of patent mongers would foster innovation at a faster pace and drive the larger firms to keep up with the smaller, agile indie developers. They pound their files in an earnest display of defending their innovation, when the line between true innovation and simple tropes or conventions becomes increasingly thinner. In fashion, you can tell when it's a knock-off... so guess what? We can tell when an app is a knock-off of a more popular app, too! Ultimately, it comes down to the label; whether it's sewed into the hem or printed on the CD.

So, it begs the question of why this patent system still exists? It's easy, really. The largest developers and the largest stakeholders in tech are so afraid of having to rapidly react to competitors that they move their legal teams instead. They know a dedicated partnership or legal firm is going to move much faster than it would take to compete with actual innovation. They can fire off a C&D faster than a gold CD.

We hear this rallying cry from the behemoths, "too big to fail," when it should be, "too ponderously slow to compete." (Hello, Mr. Ballmer)

IANAL, but let the litigation fall back to where it belongs; contract law. Every EULA has a clause about reverse-engineering or hacking the software. If there's an infringement, then let it be covered by that clause. Let the so-called "patents" (e.g., a 'right-click' or context menu, a vertical scrollbar without calling it a 'vertical scrollbar', et al) be diminished to a more-fitting role; as fashions past.

The burden of proof with software should be a simple test: Is it ripping-off an original? True, that would have to be coined in legal terms that must take about five pages to be fully

I don't often respond to AC's, but when I do, I prefer to usurp AC's point.

Fashion... that's a good idea. I like that.

No, really... it makes more sense than other allegories. Think about it, people buy clothes; some for function, some for style. People buy software; some for sheer functionality (Linux packages, some PC offerings) and others for more stylish flair. (most Mac software, also some PC offerings but Adobe comes to mind the most)

Every new season, it seems there's a new fashion. Designers and textile plants keep striving to stay on the cutting edge. Every so often, it seems that some software bundle is being upgraded. However, developers aren't always striving to stay ahead, but only to be different enough to keep from being sued. Starting to see the similarities now?

And by the by... clothing may not be patented, but zippers are... so are snaps... even cuff-links. Still, point taken. These patents do nothing to protect the design of clothes that feature them nor prevent others from innovating their own fasteners, they simply prevent others from manufacturing the exact-same fastener mechanism.

So, why would the software business model suffer if there were no patents? Frankly, I don't think it would because it--and every user bound by their efforts--suffers for it now. It would remove this bass-ackward economy of patent litigation and infringement maneuvering, a sub-economy that should (IMHO) be outlawed by the UN. Competition without the fear of patent mongers would foster innovation at a faster pace and drive the larger firms to keep up with the smaller, agile indie developers. They pound their files in an earnest display of defending their innovation, when the line between true innovation and simple tropes or conventions becomes increasingly thinner. In fashion, you can tell when it's a knock-off... so guess what? We can tell when an app is a knock-off of a more popular app, too! Ultimately, it comes down to the label; whether it's sewed into the hem or printed on the CD.

So, it begs the question of why this patent system still exists? It's easy, really. The largest developers and the largest stakeholders in tech are so afraid of having to rapidly react to competitors that they move their legal teams instead. They know a dedicated partnership or legal firm is going to move much faster than it would take to compete with actual innovation. They can fire off a C&D faster than a gold CD.

We hear this rallying cry from the behemoths, "too big to fail," when it should be, "too ponderously slow to compete." (Hello, Mr. Ballmer)

IANAL, but let the litigation fall back to where it belongs; contract law. Every EULA has a clause about reverse-engineering or hacking the software. If there's an infringement, then let it be covered by that clause. Let the so-called "patents" (e.g., a 'right-click' or context menu, a vertical scrollbar without calling it a 'vertical scrollbar', et al) be diminished to a more-fitting role; as fashions past.

The burden of proof with software should be a simple test: Is it ripping-off an original? True, that would have to be coined in legal terms that must take about five pages to be fully

I don't often respond to AC's, but when I do, I prefer to usurp AC's point.

Fashion... that's a good idea. I like that.

No, really... it makes more sense than other allegories. Think about it, people buy clothes; some for function, some for style. People buy software; some for sheer functionality (Linux packages, some PC offerings) and others for more stylish flair. (most Mac software, also some PC offerings but Adobe comes to mind the most)

Every new season, it seems there's a new fashion. Designers and textile plants keep striving to stay on the cutting edge. Every so often, it seems that some software bundle is being upgraded. However, developers aren't always striving to stay ahead, but only to be different enough to keep from being sued. Starting to see the similarities now?

And by the by... clothing may not be patented, but zippers are... so are snaps... even cuff-links. Still, point taken. These patents do nothing to protect the design of clothes that feature them nor prevent others from innovating their own fasteners, they simply prevent others from manufacturing the exact-same fastener mechanism.

So, why would the software business model suffer if there were no patents? Frankly, I don't think it would because it--and every user bound by their efforts--suffers for it now. It would remove this bass-ackward economy of patent litigation and infringement maneuvering, a sub-economy that should (IMHO) be outlawed by the UN. Competition without the fear of patent mongers would foster innovation at a faster pace and drive the larger firms to keep up with the smaller, agile indie developers. They pound their files in an earnest display of defending their innovation, when the line between true innovation and simple tropes or conventions becomes increasingly thinner. In fashion, you can tell when it's a knock-off... so guess what? We can tell when an app is a knock-off of a more popular app, too! Ultimately, it comes down to the label; whether it's sewed into the hem or printed on the CD.

So, it begs the question of why this patent system still exists? It's easy, really. The largest developers and the largest stakeholders in tech are so afraid of having to rapidly react to competitors that they move their legal teams instead. They know a dedicated partnership or legal firm is going to move much faster than it would take to compete with actual innovation. They can fire off a C&D faster than a gold CD.

We hear this rallying cry from the behemoths, "too big to fail," when it should be, "too ponderously slow to compete." (Hello, Mr. Ballmer)

IANAL, but let the litigation fall back to where it belongs; contract law. Every EULA has a clause about reverse-engineering or hacking the software. If there's an infringement, then let it be covered by that clause. Let the so-called "patents" (e.g., a 'right-click' or context menu, a vertical scrollbar without calling it a 'vertical scrollbar', et al) be diminished to a more-fitting role; as fashions past.

The burden of proof with software should be a simple test: Is it ripping-off an original? True, that would have to be coined in legal terms that must take about five pages to be fully

I don't often respond to AC's, but when I do, I prefer to usurp AC's point.

Fashion... that's a good idea. I like that.

No, really... it makes more sense than other allegories. Think about it, people buy clothes; some for function, some for style. People buy software; some for sheer functionality (Linux packages, some PC offerings) and others for more stylish flair. (most Mac software, also some PC offerings but Adobe comes to mind the most)

Every new season, it seems there's a new fashion. Designers and textile plants keep striving to stay on the cutting edge. Every so often, it seems that some software bundle is being upgraded. However, developers aren't always striving to stay ahead, but only to be different enough to keep from being sued. Starting to see the similarities now?

And by the by... clothing may not be patented, but zippers are... so are snaps... even cuff-links. Still, point taken. These patents do nothing to protect the design of clothes that feature them nor prevent others from innovating their own fasteners, they simply prevent others from manufacturing the exact-same fastener mechanism.

So, why would the software business model suffer if there were no patents? Frankly, I don't think it would because it--and every user bound by their efforts--suffers for it now. It would remove this bass-ackward economy of patent litigation and infringement maneuvering, a sub-economy that should (IMHO) be outlawed by the UN. Competition without the fear of patent mongers would foster innovation at a faster pace and drive the larger firms to keep up with the smaller, agile indie developers. They pound their files in an earnest display of defending their innovation, when the line between true innovation and simple tropes or conventions becomes increasingly thinner. In fashion, you can tell when it's a knock-off... so guess what? We can tell when an app is a knock-off of a more popular app, too! Ultimately, it comes down to the label; whether it's sewed into the hem or printed on the CD.

So, it begs the question of why this patent system still exists? It's easy, really. The largest developers and the largest stakeholders in tech are so afraid of having to rapidly react to competitors that they move their legal teams instead. They know a dedicated partnership or legal firm is going to move much faster than it would take to compete with actual innovation. They can fire off a C&D faster than a gold CD.

We hear this rallying cry from the behemoths, "too big to fail," when it should be, "too ponderously slow to compete." (Hello, Mr. Ballmer)

IANAL, but let the litigation fall back to where it belongs; contract law. Every EULA has a clause about reverse-engineering or hacking the software. If there's an infringement, then let it be covered by that clause. Let the so-called "patents" (e.g., a 'right-click' or context menu, a vertical scrollbar without calling it a 'vertical scrollbar', et al) be diminished to a more-fitting role; as fashions past.

The burden of proof with software should be a simple test: Is it ripping-off an original? True, that would have to be coined in legal terms that must take about five pages to be fully

Foxnoise

Is that French?

Are you seriously telling me that some academics at Harvard telling politicians what they want to hear, (that "using killer robots like you are already doing works great") is a good thing? That academics advocating policies with obvious "blowback" potential is "solving a small problem" that "improves the world"?
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-American/dp/0805075593

When even people at the CIA are expressing doubts?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LF05Df02.html
"Some United States Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in the agency's drone strikes program in Pakistan and elsewhere are privately expressing their opposition to the program within the agency because it is helping al-Qaeda and its allies recruit, according to a retired military officer in contact with them.
"Some of the CIA operators are concerned that, because of its blowback effect, it is doing more harm than good," said Jeffrey
Addicott, former legal adviser to US Special Forces and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS).
Addicott said the CIA operatives that he knows have told him al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders are effectively using the drone strikes to recruit more militants.
CIA officers "are very upset" with the drone strike policy, Addicott said. "They'll do what the boss says, but they view it as a harmful exercise. They say we're largely killing rank and file Pakistani Taliban, and they are the ones who are agitated by the campaign."
Because the drone strikes kill innocent civilians and bystanders along with leaders from far away, they "infuriate the Muslim male", said Addicott, thus making them more willing to join the movement. The men in Pakistan's tribal region "view Americans as cowards and weasels", he said. "

Have you ever given any thought to the implications of Harvard academics endorsing the ever wider use of killer robots to solve political problems? Including the political problems resulting from earlier use of killer robots by the USA? Where does it end?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

So many things in our world are complex feedback loops. And yes, many academics actually study such complex things (especially in biology and ecology). But apparently it is too hard for those two guys at Harvard to google on "CIA drone blowback"?

I have collected plenty of fairly straight-forward alternative solutions. For example, a "basic income" which is supported by five Nobel prize winners in economics according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee#Advocates

I outline them on my website in various spots, including here (both positive and negative ones, in this case):
http://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html

Here is a book of alternatives collected by others:
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Dictionary_of_Alternatives.html?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC

The issue is not whether solutions are simple or complex (witness the US tax code's complexity, or the complexity of all sorts of numerical models, including most recently one to simulate a bacterium posted recently on slashdot). The issue outline in "Disciplined Minds" is about putting on ideological blinders -- ones that may even prevent someone from seeing or advocating for simple solutions (like a basic