Slashdot Mirror

I like the overall idea, and I commend Microsoft for releasing the idea under a CC license, but my problem with SSE is that it requires RSS as the underlying grammar. Shoe-horning arbitrary XML data into RSS just to take advantage of SSE is seriously short-sighted.

SSE should be an aspect-oriented namespace that can be used to synchronize any XML data without regard to the underlying semantics, not one that requires bludgeoning XML data into a channel/item/headline/story format to take advantage of it.

More:

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=c dc97850-c187-41e2-aaba-2875e457bcb1

and a rebuttal of the rebuttal can be found here: Tallent.

Response-response, by Richard Tallent. Choice quote:

Once, we had DSL choice here in Southeast Texas. There were at least three companies with DSLAMs (DSL modems) around Beaumont. Then SBC went crying to the FCC, paid off both major parties, and got permission to block anyone else from using their facilities and to remove wholesale prices that local ISPs used to resell DSL services. So now, DSL service runs only about twice as fast as ISDN for about the same price as the RoadRunner service (avg. 6Mbps), and is nowhere near as stable.

Damn, that's a fierce ecosystem we have goin' here. The problem is that we have predators who won't die when they kill all the prey. They have the ability to buy laws, which creates an ecosystem of unnatural selection.

'Marking' software patents will work about as well as 'marking' spam--without a "spam filter", the conjestion and abuse are not improved because the incentive for such abuse is still there.

The problem is that, whether by laziness, incompetance, or corruption, the USPTO has exceeded its Constitutional mandate and is extending protection to companies for "inventions" outside the litmus tests that are required by law.

We also have really decent campaign finance disclosure regulations here in the US, but does that really stop politicians from being beholden to [insert evil special interest]?

Companies claim that they are just "keeping up with the flow of traffic"--filing frivolous patents for defensive protection against other frivolous patents (Eolas, etc.).

The sad fact is that, under the current system, this *is* necessary. But, like a stampede, the *individual* defensive solution only makes things worse for *everyone* in the end.

I think I have a solution that would solve the problem, I posted it to my blog (too much detail to repeat here):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 6d2ed56-6e64-480d-81e7-b4e7b41d074a

More rantings on this subject (yeah, I'm a broken record):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 fd0f532-e606-4381-a953-a56030723d00
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=b 24816d0-ffc9-46e9-a6b4-f6ae8bda9dad
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=d 2cb7e55-8aa1-44bc-ad2e-d16f536f1a77
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 0cec4db-87c1-4335-81c6-446c8612b528
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7 01f454d-3310-4df5-8b12-8d8363cdb8e7

'Marking' software patents will work about as well as 'marking' spam--without a "spam filter", the conjestion and abuse are not improved because the incentive for such abuse is still there.

The problem is that, whether by laziness, incompetance, or corruption, the USPTO has exceeded its Constitutional mandate and is extending protection to companies for "inventions" outside the litmus tests that are required by law.

We also have really decent campaign finance disclosure regulations here in the US, but does that really stop politicians from being beholden to [insert evil special interest]?

Companies claim that they are just "keeping up with the flow of traffic"--filing frivolous patents for defensive protection against other frivolous patents (Eolas, etc.).

The sad fact is that, under the current system, this *is* necessary. But, like a stampede, the *individual* defensive solution only makes things worse for *everyone* in the end.

I think I have a solution that would solve the problem, I posted it to my blog (too much detail to repeat here):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 6d2ed56-6e64-480d-81e7-b4e7b41d074a

More rantings on this subject (yeah, I'm a broken record):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 fd0f532-e606-4381-a953-a56030723d00
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=b 24816d0-ffc9-46e9-a6b4-f6ae8bda9dad
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=d 2cb7e55-8aa1-44bc-ad2e-d16f536f1a77
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 0cec4db-87c1-4335-81c6-446c8612b528
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7 01f454d-3310-4df5-8b12-8d8363cdb8e7

'Marking' software patents will work about as well as 'marking' spam--without a "spam filter", the conjestion and abuse are not improved because the incentive for such abuse is still there.

The problem is that, whether by laziness, incompetance, or corruption, the USPTO has exceeded its Constitutional mandate and is extending protection to companies for "inventions" outside the litmus tests that are required by law.

We also have really decent campaign finance disclosure regulations here in the US, but does that really stop politicians from being beholden to [insert evil special interest]?

Companies claim that they are just "keeping up with the flow of traffic"--filing frivolous patents for defensive protection against other frivolous patents (Eolas, etc.).

The sad fact is that, under the current system, this *is* necessary. But, like a stampede, the *individual* defensive solution only makes things worse for *everyone* in the end.

I think I have a solution that would solve the problem, I posted it to my blog (too much detail to repeat here):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 6d2ed56-6e64-480d-81e7-b4e7b41d074a

More rantings on this subject (yeah, I'm a broken record):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 fd0f532-e606-4381-a953-a56030723d00
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=b 24816d0-ffc9-46e9-a6b4-f6ae8bda9dad
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=d 2cb7e55-8aa1-44bc-ad2e-d16f536f1a77
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 0cec4db-87c1-4335-81c6-446c8612b528
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7 01f454d-3310-4df5-8b12-8d8363cdb8e7

'Marking' software patents will work about as well as 'marking' spam--without a "spam filter", the conjestion and abuse are not improved because the incentive for such abuse is still there.

The problem is that, whether by laziness, incompetance, or corruption, the USPTO has exceeded its Constitutional mandate and is extending protection to companies for "inventions" outside the litmus tests that are required by law.

We also have really decent campaign finance disclosure regulations here in the US, but does that really stop politicians from being beholden to [insert evil special interest]?

Companies claim that they are just "keeping up with the flow of traffic"--filing frivolous patents for defensive protection against other frivolous patents (Eolas, etc.).

The sad fact is that, under the current system, this *is* necessary. But, like a stampede, the *individual* defensive solution only makes things worse for *everyone* in the end.

I think I have a solution that would solve the problem, I posted it to my blog (too much detail to repeat here):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 6d2ed56-6e64-480d-81e7-b4e7b41d074a

More rantings on this subject (yeah, I'm a broken record):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 fd0f532-e606-4381-a953-a56030723d00
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=b 24816d0-ffc9-46e9-a6b4-f6ae8bda9dad
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=d 2cb7e55-8aa1-44bc-ad2e-d16f536f1a77
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 0cec4db-87c1-4335-81c6-446c8612b528
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7 01f454d-3310-4df5-8b12-8d8363cdb8e7

'Marking' software patents will work about as well as 'marking' spam--without a "spam filter", the conjestion and abuse are not improved because the incentive for such abuse is still there.

The problem is that, whether by laziness, incompetance, or corruption, the USPTO has exceeded its Constitutional mandate and is extending protection to companies for "inventions" outside the litmus tests that are required by law.

We also have really decent campaign finance disclosure regulations here in the US, but does that really stop politicians from being beholden to [insert evil special interest]?

Companies claim that they are just "keeping up with the flow of traffic"--filing frivolous patents for defensive protection against other frivolous patents (Eolas, etc.).

The sad fact is that, under the current system, this *is* necessary. But, like a stampede, the *individual* defensive solution only makes things worse for *everyone* in the end.

I think I have a solution that would solve the problem, I posted it to my blog (too much detail to repeat here):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 6d2ed56-6e64-480d-81e7-b4e7b41d074a

More rantings on this subject (yeah, I'm a broken record):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 fd0f532-e606-4381-a953-a56030723d00
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=b 24816d0-ffc9-46e9-a6b4-f6ae8bda9dad
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=d 2cb7e55-8aa1-44bc-ad2e-d16f536f1a77
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 0cec4db-87c1-4335-81c6-446c8612b528
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7 01f454d-3310-4df5-8b12-8d8363cdb8e7

'Marking' software patents will work about as well as 'marking' spam--without a "spam filter", the conjestion and abuse are not improved because the incentive for such abuse is still there.

The problem is that, whether by laziness, incompetance, or corruption, the USPTO has exceeded its Constitutional mandate and is extending protection to companies for "inventions" outside the litmus tests that are required by law.

We also have really decent campaign finance disclosure regulations here in the US, but does that really stop politicians from being beholden to [insert evil special interest]?

Companies claim that they are just "keeping up with the flow of traffic"--filing frivolous patents for defensive protection against other frivolous patents (Eolas, etc.).

The sad fact is that, under the current system, this *is* necessary. But, like a stampede, the *individual* defensive solution only makes things worse for *everyone* in the end.

I think I have a solution that would solve the problem, I posted it to my blog (too much detail to repeat here):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 6d2ed56-6e64-480d-81e7-b4e7b41d074a

More rantings on this subject (yeah, I'm a broken record):

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 fd0f532-e606-4381-a953-a56030723d00
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=b 24816d0-ffc9-46e9-a6b4-f6ae8bda9dad
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=d 2cb7e55-8aa1-44bc-ad2e-d16f536f1a77
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=0 0cec4db-87c1-4335-81c6-446c8612b528
http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7 01f454d-3310-4df5-8b12-8d8363cdb8e7

I got the same letter from GoDaddy (former customer, love how they don't let me unsubscribe without snail-mail), but though I am a HUGE believer in privacy/speech rights, I had a different reaction to it:

1. This is only the .US TLD, a limited (if artificial) resource, just like frequency spectrum, real estate, game animals, trademarks, etc. You are trading some public registration information for a monopoly on a domain name. Get over it.

2. If you have a legitimate need to be private, don't register a domain name. Not all URLs must be in the form "www\.[^.]{3,}\.us".

3. GoDaddy makes a FREAKING CRAPLOAD of money with their "unlisted" domain "feature." Even if there are NO spammers among their customers, GoDaddy has a huge incentive to spread FUD about information anyone could find in a phone book anyway.

More on my blog:

http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=2 864defd-c34b-403b-a789-6172ffe61186

1. User gets a spam, greps for the spammer's phone number, and sends it (along with his own area code and exchange) to a server.
2. The server searches the list of recent people who also forwarded spam who's own listed area/exchange is local to that of the spammer.
3. The server sends out an email to *those* people telling them about their neighborhood spammer.
4. Everyone local to that spammer then instructs their computer to dial that number occasionally and send them a warm personal greeting expressing their interest in their wares.

There are also a few ideas/sudgestions for doing this in a much larger scale.

You can read the full article here: http://www.tallent.us/blog/default.aspx?date=2003- 07-24#a6b033bc4-bc7b-48a8-968f-980f71662a5d

Also if you scroll down a few BLOGs you will find one titled "Study: Legislators are Pandering Idiots". It lays out a decent "anti spam" plan.

Agree, I just suggested this on my blog... I'm reading through it again now. The entire Perelandra series by Lewis is highly underrated, likely because it was *not* targeted to children, yet still has Lewis' distinctive allegorical bent.