Back around 2000 or so, I sent quite a few emails to various departments of my city and county, telling them to STOP publishing public data online in Word docs. Even though *I* could read them just fine, I tried to tell them how unfair and discriminatory that was... a full version of Word cost $200! Many people did not have access to a computer with Word on it.
For a long time my comments seemed to fall on deaf ears. Finally, they started putting documents out in.pdf format... which was still proprietary, but at least pretty much anybody could read them without having to buy expensive software.
"Not really. MS Office has no competition as a jack-of-all-trades. Sure, if you're doing a lot of report writing you may want Latex or a lot of data analysis you may want specialist software and so on. But for general purpose usage MS Office is the best available software by a country mile. Using Open Office (or whatever they're calling it these days) is like using MS Office from at least a decade ago."
This is simply not true. For one thing, Open Office uses proven icons and menus, as opposed to the almost-universally-despised Ribbon Bar. Secondly, something like 90% of feature requests for Microsoft Office over the last 10 years have been for features it already has.
The point of that last bit is: the vast majority of users don't use anywhere near all the features that the Microsoft programs do, and for people who just need the 80% of most common features, other software works just fine.
I have been using Open Office for 12 years or so now, and I have absolutely zero reason to go back. Negative reason, actually: I like Open Office (or Libre Office) far better than Microsoft Office.
Further, it's cross-platform to an extent that Microsoft can only dream about.
"If you want something that does what Waze does -- or anything that shares data between users -- what you want is a protocol, not a program."
I wasn't referring to the communication part of Waze, which I did not use anyway. I was referring to the mapping and navigation functions.
Despite its name, OpenStreetMap is just data. If you want to draw a map with that data, you need software to do it. (Unless you feel like drawing it manually using that data.)
OsmAnd is a program that does this, but it is strangely limited and it isn't free to use all the features or download more than a few maps.
"Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using)."
I stand corrected. I looked it up myself and you are correct.
There are however two recognized exceptions from case law. One (I don't have the citation handy) was for "determining the veracity and preciseness of the specification", and the other, from Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical, 733 F2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That one says there is an exception
"for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical taste, or curiosity, or for mere amusement"
So yes, if it is just to gratify your philosophical taste or curiosity, or for fun, it is still legal. Otherwise no, unless you are trying to compare the spec.
"(probably) true, but that's because they're trademarked and/or copyrighted, not patented."
No, it isn't. The law is the same. If you have patented a device, I can copy it for my own use and it's perfectly legal. And always has been.
A patent allows you the limited-time right to commercially manufacture and distribute your invention. There is no law (in the U.S.) against copying it for personal use.
I agree about Waze. I got it as an alternative to Google and really liked it... then Google snarfed it up. (I am pretty sure "snarf" is the right word.)
The "problem" with OpenStreetMap is that it needs software wrapped around it to be very useful. That's kind of how Waze worked, but I don't think it used OpenStreetMap.
If we could get a good Open Source program to do what Waze did, more or less, using OpenStreetMap, we'd be in a good place. Waze proved that it is technically feasible. We'd just have to ensure that it stayed free and open.
"Most of america was already on cable or satellite."
Well, yes, that's true. I should not have written that they chose to switch to cable, but rather that they chose to JUST go with cable, rather than bother to buy a converter.
Of course I have. In fact, given the context of your comment, it is likely I know a good deal more about them than you.
Executive Orders may "have the force of law", but ONLY insofar as they are "orders" that Federal employees have to comply with. Executive Orders have no legal authority to bind or compel citizens to follow them.
The President, in effect, is the CEO of the Federal bureaucracy. And an Executive Order is nothing more than an order for his employees to follow. Just as any CEO can tell his or her employees what to do.
No more, no less! The President could (hypothetically) write an executive order saying that the Federal police have to stop everybody on the Interstate and search their vehicles. But NOTHING in the law says that you, as a citizen, have to cooperate with that order. In fact, according to the Supreme Court, such an order would be illegal, and anyone trying to enforce it would be breaking the law, Executive Order or not.
"No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."
It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.
There is no reason to change the laws, because manufacturing patented products for profit without permission is already illegal anyway. I don't see how enforcement of THAT would be significantly more difficult than it is now.
As usual, it's the "I have a RIGHT to suck money out of you" people who are bitching about this. Too bad. They can't stop it, and they'd better not force changes in the laws. People are pissed off enough already.
"Maintaining TOO MUCH backwards compatibility is a great way undermine NEW technologies, too."
I didn't say it HAD TO be compatible. I just said that at least it should be capable of allowing the old technology to run in parallel, to avoid making everybody's existing investments obsolete. (Unlike what they did with TV.)
As for the NTSC to ATSC switchover, go read up on the choices that they considered before settling on the standard. They did in fact have a choice that allowed backward compatibility with NTSC. It did use more bandwidth than current ATSC, but it didn't sacrifice significant digital quality.
"And how on earth do you propose a digital TV standard that's backwards compatible and still uses only 6MHz? We optimized our bandwidth usage and gained a whole block of frequencies for LTE."
It wasn't something I proposed. But it was ONE of the proposals that was being considered. It did exist, and it was one of the choices.
"If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best choice."
Maybe so, but statistics show that was the choice most of America made.
The reason I wrote the above is because it has a real impact on our lives.
Let's take Obamacare for an example, because it's a recent and good example. Congress passed, and Obama signed, some things into law.
When events did not go as planned, Obama announced that they were going to ignore certain parts of the law. (Which, in fact, he has no legal authority to do.)
But that means the law is still in place. If he can ignore it by degree at any time, then he can reinstate it by decree at any time.
If the law isn't changed, but just some bureaucrat is deciding to ignore the regulations today, who is to say they won't stop ignoring it again tomorrow?
Answer: nobody. And that's why it's important to know.
This country is supposed to be subject to The Rule Of Law. It isn't run by "whatever the fuck I feel like doing today".
I didn't ask who was ultimately responsible (both Obama and Congress are culpable). I was asking who actually made the change to the regulations... or did they? Are they just ignoring regulations? Did they change regulations? Or are they just ignoring all the rules as they usually have in this administration? Or maybe they're ceasing to ignore the laws as they actually existed?
"Whilst the USA might be having an unusually cold snap, how often is the temp below 0F there, other than Alaska?"
You would probably be surprised just how often it is. (Especially now, in the coldest winter in the Eastern U.S. in decades.) Even here, it usually gets below 0F at least one day each winter, sometimes more.
Your point is taken that there are probably more people in Europe who experience 0C than there are in the U.S. who experience 0 degrees F. But even people who don't experience it still talk about it.
I am left with the impression that you deliberately tried to find a loophole in my comment, just to argue.
"... no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router..."
Backwards compatibility (or at least capability) is important. Look at TV.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices.
Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
If you want to kill off a technology, abandoning backward compatibility is a great way to do it. (Again I will add "or capability"... the new system doesn't have to be "compatible" with the old, as long as it will work in parallel.)
"Yes, that is what we are going to live in, for the next years."
How pessimistic.
But what I want to know is: where are these "changes to regulations" coming from? Are they orders directly from the President? Was Congress involved?
Bureaucrats don't get to make national security laws. Just more evidence of Obama administration ignoring actual law, and doing whatever the hell it wants.
"Right, so why did you then jump on to the conclusion about it being dictatorial and police state like if you accept that when something people do matters in terms of needing investigation that it's chased up?"
Because they weren't being investigated for something they DID (i.e., some sort of activity related to terrorism). Instead, they were simply investigated for somewhere they went. That's not responsible security investigation! That's discriminatory profiling, which doesn't work.
As someone else mentioned: maybe they have relatives in the area. Who knows? But the point is: investigating people for such superficial things as what country they visit is a pointless waste of time. Or maybe even damaging. I compare it to internet filters that prevent college psych students from even researching child molesters. It's counterproductive.
If you look at Israel, for a very good example: in their airports they don't profile people for where they come from or where they're going. (Even though -- if it actually worked -- they would have more reason than most to do so.) They profile people by how they behave. What they do. It's the only important thing.
"Below zero is a turn of phrase that means freezing, so 0C."
Just no. "Below zero" is a turn of phrase that means "below zero". It is used as much in the United States to mean below 32F as it is elsewhere to mean 0C.
Slashdot Mirror
Giving it a try. There seems to be more "open" mapping software now than when I last checked. Most of it is still proprietary though.
Back around 2000 or so, I sent quite a few emails to various departments of my city and county, telling them to STOP publishing public data online in Word docs. Even though *I* could read them just fine, I tried to tell them how unfair and discriminatory that was... a full version of Word cost $200! Many people did not have access to a computer with Word on it.
.pdf format... which was still proprietary, but at least pretty much anybody could read them without having to buy expensive software.
For a long time my comments seemed to fall on deaf ears. Finally, they started putting documents out in
"Not really. MS Office has no competition as a jack-of-all-trades. Sure, if you're doing a lot of report writing you may want Latex or a lot of data analysis you may want specialist software and so on. But for general purpose usage MS Office is the best available software by a country mile. Using Open Office (or whatever they're calling it these days) is like using MS Office from at least a decade ago."
This is simply not true. For one thing, Open Office uses proven icons and menus, as opposed to the almost-universally-despised Ribbon Bar. Secondly, something like 90% of feature requests for Microsoft Office over the last 10 years have been for features it already has.
The point of that last bit is: the vast majority of users don't use anywhere near all the features that the Microsoft programs do, and for people who just need the 80% of most common features, other software works just fine.
I have been using Open Office for 12 years or so now, and I have absolutely zero reason to go back. Negative reason, actually: I like Open Office (or Libre Office) far better than Microsoft Office.
Further, it's cross-platform to an extent that Microsoft can only dream about.
"If you want something that does what Waze does -- or anything that shares data between users -- what you want is a protocol, not a program."
I wasn't referring to the communication part of Waze, which I did not use anyway. I was referring to the mapping and navigation functions.
Despite its name, OpenStreetMap is just data. If you want to draw a map with that data, you need software to do it. (Unless you feel like drawing it manually using that data.)
OsmAnd is a program that does this, but it is strangely limited and it isn't free to use all the features or download more than a few maps.
"Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using)."
I stand corrected. I looked it up myself and you are correct.
There are however two recognized exceptions from case law. One (I don't have the citation handy) was for "determining the veracity and preciseness of the specification", and the other, from Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical, 733 F2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That one says there is an exception
"for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical taste, or curiosity, or for mere amusement"
So yes, if it is just to gratify your philosophical taste or curiosity, or for fun, it is still legal. Otherwise no, unless you are trying to compare the spec.
"(probably) true, but that's because they're trademarked and/or copyrighted, not patented."
No, it isn't. The law is the same. If you have patented a device, I can copy it for my own use and it's perfectly legal. And always has been.
A patent allows you the limited-time right to commercially manufacture and distribute your invention. There is no law (in the U.S.) against copying it for personal use.
I agree about Waze. I got it as an alternative to Google and really liked it... then Google snarfed it up. (I am pretty sure "snarf" is the right word.)
The "problem" with OpenStreetMap is that it needs software wrapped around it to be very useful. That's kind of how Waze worked, but I don't think it used OpenStreetMap.
If we could get a good Open Source program to do what Waze did, more or less, using OpenStreetMap, we'd be in a good place. Waze proved that it is technically feasible. We'd just have to ensure that it stayed free and open.
"Most of america was already on cable or satellite."
Well, yes, that's true. I should not have written that they chose to switch to cable, but rather that they chose to JUST go with cable, rather than bother to buy a converter.
"What? Never heard of executive orders?"
Of course I have. In fact, given the context of your comment, it is likely I know a good deal more about them than you.
Executive Orders may "have the force of law", but ONLY insofar as they are "orders" that Federal employees have to comply with. Executive Orders have no legal authority to bind or compel citizens to follow them.
The President, in effect, is the CEO of the Federal bureaucracy. And an Executive Order is nothing more than an order for his employees to follow. Just as any CEO can tell his or her employees what to do.
No more, no less! The President could (hypothetically) write an executive order saying that the Federal police have to stop everybody on the Interstate and search their vehicles. But NOTHING in the law says that you, as a citizen, have to cooperate with that order. In fact, according to the Supreme Court, such an order would be illegal, and anyone trying to enforce it would be breaking the law, Executive Order or not.
"No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."
It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.
There is no reason to change the laws, because manufacturing patented products for profit without permission is already illegal anyway. I don't see how enforcement of THAT would be significantly more difficult than it is now.
As usual, it's the "I have a RIGHT to suck money out of you" people who are bitching about this. Too bad. They can't stop it, and they'd better not force changes in the laws. People are pissed off enough already.
Everybody has their pet theory.
I think it's evidence that the martian police pulled the rover over for driving too slow.
"Maintaining TOO MUCH backwards compatibility is a great way undermine NEW technologies, too."
I didn't say it HAD TO be compatible. I just said that at least it should be capable of allowing the old technology to run in parallel, to avoid making everybody's existing investments obsolete. (Unlike what they did with TV.)
As for the NTSC to ATSC switchover, go read up on the choices that they considered before settling on the standard. They did in fact have a choice that allowed backward compatibility with NTSC. It did use more bandwidth than current ATSC, but it didn't sacrifice significant digital quality.
"[citation needed]"
[Google needed]
"And how on earth do you propose a digital TV standard that's backwards compatible and still uses only 6MHz? We optimized our bandwidth usage and gained a whole block of frequencies for LTE."
It wasn't something I proposed. But it was ONE of the proposals that was being considered. It did exist, and it was one of the choices.
"If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best choice."
Maybe so, but statistics show that was the choice most of America made.
"Which, in fact, he has no legal authority to do"
No, he doesn't. Obama has NO legal power to either make or ignore LAWS. Congress makes the laws. The President does not.
The reason I wrote the above is because it has a real impact on our lives.
Let's take Obamacare for an example, because it's a recent and good example. Congress passed, and Obama signed, some things into law.
When events did not go as planned, Obama announced that they were going to ignore certain parts of the law. (Which, in fact, he has no legal authority to do.)
But that means the law is still in place. If he can ignore it by degree at any time, then he can reinstate it by decree at any time.
If the law isn't changed, but just some bureaucrat is deciding to ignore the regulations today, who is to say they won't stop ignoring it again tomorrow?
Answer: nobody. And that's why it's important to know.
This country is supposed to be subject to The Rule Of Law. It isn't run by "whatever the fuck I feel like doing today".
"It's from the DOJ. Go see who they report to."
That's not an answer.
I didn't ask who was ultimately responsible (both Obama and Congress are culpable). I was asking who actually made the change to the regulations... or did they? Are they just ignoring regulations? Did they change regulations? Or are they just ignoring all the rules as they usually have in this administration? Or maybe they're ceasing to ignore the laws as they actually existed?
This is all very ambiguous. And it should not be.
"Whilst the USA might be having an unusually cold snap, how often is the temp below 0F there, other than Alaska?"
You would probably be surprised just how often it is. (Especially now, in the coldest winter in the Eastern U.S. in decades.) Even here, it usually gets below 0F at least one day each winter, sometimes more.
Your point is taken that there are probably more people in Europe who experience 0C than there are in the U.S. who experience 0 degrees F. But even people who don't experience it still talk about it.
I am left with the impression that you deliberately tried to find a loophole in my comment, just to argue.
"... no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router..."
Backwards compatibility (or at least capability) is important. Look at TV.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices.
Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
If you want to kill off a technology, abandoning backward compatibility is a great way to do it. (Again I will add "or capability"... the new system doesn't have to be "compatible" with the old, as long as it will work in parallel.)
"If golf courses and farmers wouldn't mow and plow right down to the water and then over-fertilize, we could reduce phosphorus in streams a ton."
I was wondering when someone was going to mention farming. In the overall scheme of things, golf courses mean next to nothing.
"Yes, that is what we are going to live in, for the next years."
How pessimistic.
But what I want to know is: where are these "changes to regulations" coming from? Are they orders directly from the President? Was Congress involved?
Bureaucrats don't get to make national security laws. Just more evidence of Obama administration ignoring actual law, and doing whatever the hell it wants.
"No, it isn't. In the U.S. "5 degrees below zero" is not 27 degrees F."
It was a typing mistake. I had already corrected myself. See above.
"Right, so why did you then jump on to the conclusion about it being dictatorial and police state like if you accept that when something people do matters in terms of needing investigation that it's chased up?"
Because they weren't being investigated for something they DID (i.e., some sort of activity related to terrorism). Instead, they were simply investigated for somewhere they went. That's not responsible security investigation! That's discriminatory profiling, which doesn't work.
As someone else mentioned: maybe they have relatives in the area. Who knows? But the point is: investigating people for such superficial things as what country they visit is a pointless waste of time. Or maybe even damaging. I compare it to internet filters that prevent college psych students from even researching child molesters. It's counterproductive.
If you look at Israel, for a very good example: in their airports they don't profile people for where they come from or where they're going. (Even though -- if it actually worked -- they would have more reason than most to do so.) They profile people by how they behave. What they do. It's the only important thing.
Apologies. Typed too fast. I meant "It is used in the United States to mean below 0F (-17.8C), just as much as it is elsewhere to mean below 0C."
The point being that the phrase "below zero" means just that... the units you use are irrelevant.
"Below zero is a turn of phrase that means freezing, so 0C."
Just no. "Below zero" is a turn of phrase that means "below zero". It is used as much in the United States to mean below 32F as it is elsewhere to mean 0C.