Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Hippocampus, Matter, Blogs
Why not a quarter for 15 minutes of access? amy's robot writes "After announcing plans to do so just last week, Verizon has activated the WiFi hotspots built in to their Manhattan payphones. Here's official info and a FAQ along with a map of the hotposts. The catch: you have to be a Verizon Online subscriber to use them, but they're free if you are."
So the blogs can stop fleeing to the hills. GeekLife.com writes "Dave Winer received a note from Google PR stating 'Just want to be sure you know that there's been no consideration of removing weblogs from our index.' Seems The Register's speculation may have somehow been unfounded."
I'd rather see a patent for smart toothpaste. Wil McCarthy writes "Last week on this forum, there was some heated discussion about my nonfiction book, Hacking Matter , and specifically about the patent application included in the book's appendix. I was accused of the intellectual property equivalent of cybersquatting: patenting a speculative idea and then sitting back and waiting 'for someone to actually do the hard work of inventing a useful product before gouging them for royalties.' In this scenario, my book has a chilling effect on an entire industry, stifling innovation.
What may have been lost in the shuffle is the fact that I'm not 'just' a science fiction writer or science journalist. First and foremost I'm an engineer, and to the best of my knowledge the idea of "wellstone," or bulk programmable matter woven from fibers surfaced with quantum dots, is original to me. The patent merely codifies these facts. Also, notably, the field of quantum dot research is lively and growing, but not at all focused on materials science applications. Thus there is no extant programmable matter industry to be squelched by my efforts.
Nor have I, per the discussion, patented a device which a person skilled in the art could not produce. It's true that some embodiments of the invention require nanometer precision in three dimensions and are thus beyond present-day manufacturing capabilities, but other less capable embodiments could be produced today. I didn't provide a working model to the patent office because I wasn't required to, having filed a Provisional Patent Application prior to the RPA.
As I make clear in the book, my interest is in hastening the arrival of programmable matter as both an industry and a field of inquiry. My partner and I are presently engaged in discussions to fund the development of a prototype quantum dot fiber which would be broadly, programmably self-doping at liquid nitrogen temperatures. We're also quite willing to license the technology to interested parties at non-gouge rates, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply foolish. If my aim is to change the world, what do I stand to gain by stifling development of my own invention?"
Sorting through the evidence. CowboyRobot writes "Edward Tufte (known for his book, Envisioning Information) analyzes the Boeing explanation for the Columbia disaster, pointing out design flaws and how those flaws conceal ambiguity in the report."
Tufte's analyis is the kind that should be applied to many more situations -- he dissects the way reassuring, blandly obfuscated PowerPoint slides can be used to slip through statements that might cause justified concern if spoken in plain language.
Dr. Whonow? Mechanik writes "You may remember the previous Slashdot story about the BBC doing a Flash treatment of one of Douglas Adams's Dr. Who scripts, Shada. Just wanted to let everyone know that Part Two is now available."
Welcome to Stepford. ragingmime writes "The Boston Globe has an interesting story on the Polyphonic "hit song science" technology that Slashdot mentioned a while ago. The Globe mentions specific things that the software measures and give opinions from various people in the music industry. It's an interesting - and kinda creepy - read."
Boilerplate or camera tricks? andrel writes "In his Slashdot interview Michael Robertson answered question 10 with:
I believe that if you purchase a product, you should have the right to change it, move it, or alter it for your own personal needs. The seller should have the right to say that you void the warranty or refuse to support it if you change it, but you should still have right as the purchaser to make that choice. This goes for music, software and personal computers. [emphasis added]
Too bad Lindows.Com doesn't share his values. The license agreement for LindowsOS explicitly prohibits users from modifying it (section 1.1.a.iv for individuals and 1.1.b.iv for businesses). As for voiding the warranty, well according to section 4 there wasn't one there in the first place. The EULA also claims that you may not allow a visiting friend to use your LindowsOS computer, nor may you use it to conduct business(both in section 1.1.a.iii)."
Robertson reads Slashdot; I hope we'll see his reaction to this soon.
Imagine the course of a canoe paddled by Microsoft and SCO. SolipsistX writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that Microsoft now says that the iLoo is not a joke. Apparently, execs killed the project after it became a laughing stock. The announcement yesterday that it was a joke was caused by miscommunication, says Microsoft. Needless to say, this does not help Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing initiative."
Oh, and I wanted an iLoo too. It would have given me a chance to use MS products in the way in which they were intended for a change.
Maybe Robertson should spend more time reading his own EULA's and less time reading /.
Which would not be the case if the slides had been created with Agnubis or Impress. That bit of editorial spiel would have read "he clarified points made in the presentation slides".
Thus there is no extant programmable matter industry to be squelched by my efforts.
The whole point is that such patents will "squelch" any burgeoning "programmable matter industry", not simply one that is already extant at the time of your patent application.
The question of what constitutes innovation versus discovery is always a difficult one. The fact is, however, that patents are not meant to protect or aid those "who figure out how to do new stuff", but rather for those "who do new stuff". We do live in a society with a penchant for materialism; as thus, the "ideas behind something cool" are valued much less than that actual "something cool".
Thoughts?
As I make clear in the book, my interest is in hastening the arrival of programmable matter as both an industry and a field of inquiry.
Then why patent part of the field before it even gets off the ground? Why not just publish the description in a journal?
We're also quite willing to license the technology to interested parties at non-gouge rates
Ah yes, that's MIGHTY generous!
If my aim is to change the world, what do I stand to gain by stifling development of my own invention?
Oh, I dunno, a few dollars from the occasional "non-gouge rate" perhaps?
I hear this a lot.. someone patents something, then when asked they say: "I patented it because I want everyone to use it!" .. "I patented it so it would become the standard!" .. etc..
That doesn't make sense to me.
" If my aim is to change the world, what do I stand to gain by stifling development of my own invention?""
ummm, MS changed the world of comuting, but I don't see them opening up there research.
Just because you want to change the world doesn't mean you don't want to control/dominate that change.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bob, buzzing Roger : hey buddy, can I pop to your place to play with your new Lindows box ? ... ...
Roger : Err, actually Bob, I'd love to but we're friends and you'd be visiting me, so you couldn't use my box. The EULA says it, ya know
Bob : What does that mean ? are you kidding me ? you suck ass man !
Roger : hey, don't you dare insult me ! Bob : F*ck you man, you're talking bollocks. You're not my friend anymore. There ! Roger : well then, if we're not friends anymore, I suppose you can come visit me and try out my Lindows box
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The iLoo marks one attempt to create an environment where the internet is everywhere. It was a brave attempt - other attempts have focussed on relatively unusable systems such as bringing the internet to pocketable phones, an exceedingly expensive mechanism that does not deliver what it attempts to do due to the limitations of the medium. Airports have experimented, with moderate success, at providing Internet terminals, and also at 802.11 based systems - though in that case, taking advantage of the high number of laptops owned corporately and the high number of corporate users of air travel. More universal 802.11 solutions are doomed - at least until the development of a $199 Apple iBook.
Putting the Internet everywhere will be a difficult task. An environment needs to be fostered where relatively expensive equipment can be placed in public safely and profitably. This means thinking laterally, and Microsoft has, for once, done so with the iLoo. Systems may eventually be developed that provide usable Internet terminals on public transport or in shops or photobooths. The ideas about where cannot be limited except by trying and failing. But it's inevitable that ideas will not be tried if they're laughed at before they can even be tested. This quagmire of laterally thought ideas not being raised for fear of ridicule will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.
You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that the Internet is important to you, and that universal access, both geographically and sociologically, is vital to the Internet's future and to the many billions of people who rely upon the Internet in their daily lives. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done to bring the Internet out of the offices and homes to where it can be reached by everyone, by groups such as Microsoft, VoiceStream, Palm, and Apple but that if they are unable to bring ideas even to the prototyping stage, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how cramping creativity when it comes to opening the Internet harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their polices on Universal Internet Access .
You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Oh well. Guess I won't have to write "Ctrl+Alt+Del" on my plunger...
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Here's a better question: If your aim is to change the world, what the fuck are you doing wasting time answering questions from a bunch of morons on Slashdot?
Free Hans!
I read that 3 times before I realized that it wasn't a hippopotamus. I was just thinking how cool it would be to see a rat controlling a CGI hippopotamus.
For the record, this is really whacked.
a. Family License: If You are a Family or Individual, You agree to the following terms of this Section 1.1.a: LindowsOS is a modular operating system made up of individual software components (each individual software component and all accompanying documentation, enhancements, upgrades and extensions thereto are referred to herein as "Software Program(s)") that were created either by Lindows or various individuals and entities ("Third Parties"). Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Lindows grants You a non-exclusive license to use the object code form of LindowsOS for Your personal use in accordance with the accompanying documentation. You may download and use LindowsOS on multiple computers owned, leased or rented by You; provided, however, You and members of Your Household (a "Household" consists of those individuals that currently reside with You) are the only individuals with the right to use Your licensed copy(ies) of LindowsOS. For example, if You have a desktop computer at home and a laptop computer which You travel with, You may download a copy of LindowsOS on both machines for the personal use of members of Your Household and You. You agree that You are responsible for the members of Your Household's compliance with the terms of this Agreement as though they were You and had agreed to all terms and conditions herein. Except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, You may not (and shall not allow any member of Your Household or any other Third Party to) (i) remove any product identification or other notices; (ii) copy LindowsOS (other than for back-up purposes, for Your personal use on Your multiple machines as set forth in this Section 1.1.a, or for archival purposes); (iii) provide, lease, lend, use for timesharing or service bureau purposes or otherwise use or allow others to use LindowsOS to or for the benefit of Third Parties, or (iv) modify LindowsOS or incorporate LindowsOS into or with other software, except as may be provided for in this agreement.
I have no pants and I must scream
You know, at first I thought this was a good idea. People go to google to find out "objective info," not what I and some guy down the block think about it, right?
But then I started thinking maybe that's wrong. I mean what is it that makes millions of us sit up at night on the web rather than watching late-night tv? I believe that it is because there is some kinds of information that you can get on the web that you can't get on television, newspapers, magazines, or radio.
That information is simply real people speaking plainly in their own voices. Complete with lies, swear words, misunderstandings, misspellings, everything. it's completely devoid of slick, corporate, boardroom approved, focus-group tested, marketing speak. People like that, it seems. They like it enough to shut off Letterman and hang here.
If you wanted to buy a car for example you could go to the dealer showroom and listen to the sales person and read the glossy brochure. Or, you could go to an independent web discussion site to hear what owners have to say about it. Even if some of the things they say aren't true you're a lot more likely to get the straight scoop after reading a hundred posts there than you are by reading all the promotional materials the maker can throw at you.
So, given that this type of information is what makes the web a cool place to begin with, in the end maybe the real smart thing for google to do would be the opposite: the default behavior is to include blogs. You'd have to deliberately exclude them if you wanted to. An opt-out scenario.
And please excuse me for butchering the ideas of David Weinberger in his magnificent Small Pieces Loosely Joined .
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
...it was, you know, *his idea*, and that's the whole point?
He came up with this thing. He knows, apparently, how to produce it. And this is what patents were made for--not stupid business practices which are all but common sense, or software concepts with only minute differences from other software concepts, or whatever.
This is the sort of thing the patent office was meant to do: Allow people who really innovate to secure ownership of those innovations and therefore rights to money made from them later if they so choose. This is a good thing, because it prevents me from inventing the machine that does your homework for you... and having my neighbor start up a company producing those machines and make millions, not giving me so much as a dime.
My father once new a guy who invented a new gadget of some variety. I want to say it had something to do with a regulator for an airgun or something. He patented it--not a cheap proposition. But he'd invented it; it was his. A largish company in that field, shortly thereafter, copied his design to use for their own products. He innovated--they stole it. And because he'd patented it, he was able to take them to court over it, and protect his work, so that he could continue to produce that item and make his living.
There's a difference between 'using the system' and 'abusing the system'. Patents are not completely evil in and of themselves. The problem comes when the goal becomes stifling competition instead of protecting innovation.
Timothy,
This was the EULA our lawyers put together a year ago when Michael and I were buried trying to get LindowsOS off the ground. Now that we are up and running, Michael and I will go through this and review it. I think you've pointed out some good areas that probably don't really fit with what we're trying to do and could use some updating.
Thanks,
Kevin Carmony
President, Lindows.com