Slashdot Mirror

As above, but with links, done with HTML Kit, a free HTML editor:

Here are a few articles written by/about TJ Rodgers (Cypress' CEO) and/or about Cypress:

On Jesse Jackson (towards the bottom): http://www.reasonvsracism.com/essay_race_century.h tm
http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?o bjectID=00268C54-86B3-4E6C-978C016CEF39A32A

Regarding affirmative action (to a Nun, no less):
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0241.htm l

On Second Harvest Food Bank:
http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?o bjectID=F2451423-D66F-438C-BB283FC6673CACC0

Solar Power:
http://www.cypress.com/aboutus/press_release.cfm?o bjectID=A571C5CC-0870-447C-993E7DE2BC4E8A02

He also had an interesting piece in the May 20th USA Today regarding frivilous lawsuits, but I can't find a link to it anywhere.

Steve works for an annual salary of one dollar per year for Apple (Annual Report, 1998). He also owns only one share of stock in Apple, and has consistently rejected their offers of a salary and stock options (1998).

Check this out.

Sorry, but Bill owns his own Challenger 604 for which he paid something like $20,000,000.00

It was also Bill Gates who once said "What's a network?" - a quote that really doesn't get enough coverage these days. Get the full story.

Of course, this isn't about Bill Gates, though. It's naive to assume that Microsoft don't know what open source is - they see it is a serious threat, and any apparent confusion over what it is (confusing open source with free software, or the GPL with Marxism) is just more FUD.

And why should open source force MS to drop their prices? If people are still willing to pay $500 for Office then more power to them. They like the features it offers, they like the support and accountability, they like the hundreds of books on Word for Dummies. You're not likely to get all that for an open source product. There's room in the world for both models, which is something the hardliners from both sides seem to be unaware of. Or just ignoring.

Since the current best theory seems to be based on premises of incredible simplicity - your question is utterly meaningless. It is (precisely!) as if you observed the radioactive decay of a neutron - and then pointed to it saying "God did it!". All you have done is 'multiplied entities unnecessarily'. Rather than apply the known laws of physics (which, surprisingly, can explain a 'a singularity that exploded for no apparent reason and existed for no apparent reason' - and in fact *demands* the existence of such entities) and note 'oh - physics can do that' - you say 'physics can do that, but I want to believe physics + X did it'. NOW you have the problem of explaining X! Why does X exist? How long? How does it work? What created 'X'? You have not solved the original problem, you have just moved it back a 'meta-level'. If the initial singularity can't "just exist" - why can 'X'?

Given the controversy about the Amazon.com patents related to basic web technology, and as a holder of several web-related patents, how do you feel the US patent process has helped foster or hinder development of new web technology?

if you truly believe in the web why have you patented a large number of highly obvious mechanisms such as "Apparatus and method for displaying enhanced hypertext link anchor information " and "Client-side, server-side and collaborative spell check of URLs" ??? I personally detest this type of behavior as do many other slashdot readers.

You are the holder (or co-holder) of quite a number of patents. Can Open Source software builders who construct, for example, something that "prints a hyperspacial document" or "updates visual bookmarks" expect to be hearing from your attorneys?

i wouldn't say that webmethods is phenominally successful...check out this item on them filing for IPO on FoRK (think of fork as slashdot for non-trolls). they're another company with shaky financials and a story. anyway point taken about xml being used fairly often now.