I think we're seeing pretty much eye-to-eye on the general merits of the two languages. I use VB a fair amount when I'm just trying to get something done quickly and I know it doesn't need to run anywhere but on Windows. VB is a great tool for that. I was mainly taking issue with comparing VB to Java because I felt the comparison wasn't fair. They are really two different languages used for at least two different reasons. VB is great for rapid Windows development. Java is great for writing portable software (and happens to be pretty decent for rapid development, though not quite as easy as VB). I think they both do well at what they are designed for.
but Sun the corporation swung from their goal of creating something that would help people to something that would hurt Microsoft.
I don't think I know what you're talking about here.
Sun isn't concerned with whether or not their stuff will actually be useful. They're more concerned with bashing Microsoft.
I don't see it. The way I saw things happening, Microsoft took the initiative in trying to spoil Java. Sun WAS trying to create something useful, and Microsoft was trying to undermine that creation so that it would not undermine their monopoly power. If Sun doesn't protect its creation from that sort of interference, then it could very well end up as another footnote in computing history and nothing more. Microsoft is an extremely powerful competitor with little in the way of scruples to stop it from doing whatever it takes to eliminate what it sees as a threat. I don't think the Linux comparison fits either. Apples and oranges.
just realize that Java isn't any more platform independent than anything else, it's just got an interpreter that has been written for each platform!
Exactly, which makes it many times more portable than anything made by Microsoft.
If a new platform comes out, it won't run Java at all until someone writes an interpreter for it
So? Do you have a better idea? Interpreters will be written for any platform that needs it. Once the interpreter exists for the platform, then the java compiler will run on that platform and you can use your code there. Again, much more portable than anything Microsoft has done.
and when new releases of Java come out Macs and other platforms lag behind on the new releases so you STILL get code that doesn't work everywhere.
Well, if you decide to update your code to take advantage of new features, and you know you have to support multiple platforms, then you just hold off on releasing changes until updated interpreters are available for those platforms. They will likely be in the works while you are busy updating your code anyway.
I think they did more for application development with that move than all the effect Java has had
Perhaps, but only if you need to support only Windows users and nothing else. Microsoft solutions will always be limited by Microsoft's ambition to be the only game in town.
being just another language to learn that still can only be used in certain places.
Which amounts to a hell of a lot more places than any Microsoft language can be used.
That is my point - the first release after opening the source should have been to simply let web developers write standards-compliant code without hobbling their code and writing convoluted workarounds for Netscape.
That's what they were planning as I understand it. The problem was that the existing code sucked and was proving to be unworkable, so they scrapped it and started over. Maybe they could have kept at it until they got it to at least the point where IE is (which still isn't very good), but the end product would still be crap due to the fact that the codebase sucked. Look how often Netscape crashes. I am glad they decided to start over and do it right.
Microsoft have released three revisions of Internet Explorer since Mozilla was opened, and each one of them supported HTML, CSS and DOM better than Netscape.
And yet no version of IE really supports the standards completely, and the Windows version doesn't even come within sight of full support.
An intermediate release should have supported the existing standards that NS4 tried to support before tackling anything more difficult
Had they tried to make a standards-compliant release before devoting their effort to Mozilla, we'd still be at least a year away from seeing a stable, fully functional release of Mozilla. Mozilla was originally based on the Netscape 4 code-base, but that was scrapped after about a year when they decided that it was just too unwieldy to work with. Then they started from scratch to build what we know as Mozilla today.
They shouldn't have tried to implement new standards until they had released a browser that didn't butcher the existing ones.
What new standards? They've been getting the support for the oldest standards down first and then moving forward from there. Yes, they've been adding features and stuff as well, but when you've got a lot of developers working for free, and the rest working to produce something that consumers will want to use, you pretty much have to add the features. They could crank out a browser that adheres to standards, but doesn't have many features, and then nobody would want to use it, so it wouldn't really be helping anyone. Better to just let them get the final product out when it's finished. Maybe it will serve as an incentive for Microsoft to finally start adhering to standards as well.
It's because people realize that voting their conscience could cause them to end up with the candidate that most people would least like to see in office. Here's an example:
Say 30% of the people really want to vote Nader, but would rather see Gore elected than Bush. Now say another 30% want to vote Gore, but would rather see Nader elected than Bush. Then say that Bush gets 39% of the remaining 40%. Now, most of the country wants either Gore or Nader to get elected, but because they split their vote, they end up with the candidate that most people definitely didn't want. This is a shortcoming of the plurality voting system.
These websites are just one manifestation of people's realization that the current voting system will often not produce the right results if you just vote your conscience. Especially in 3-way (or more) races. We need to change the election system. We should use approval voting or the Boorda count instead of the plurality vote. We should also reform the electoral college system to reflect the voting of a state. It shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. If the Green party gets 20% of the votes in the state, the Green party should get 20% of the electoral votes.
As it is, web developers will have to deal with NS4 bugs for years to come.
Your point being? We've had to deal with bugs and incompatibilities in IE and Netscape both for years, and bitched and moaned about it the whole time. Finally Netscape puts out a browser that is standards compliant (or will be once the bugs are worked out), and you're bitching about that too? If they had put out an intermediate release, it wouldn't have made the situation any better. It still wouldn't be standards compliant. You still would've had to rework your existing apps to use it, and you'd still have to do it again when NS6 was released.
More of that will come no matter which one gets in. They both cave to the interests of the the software, movie, and music industries. Gore says things to make you think he won't sometimes, but then other times he says things that make you think he will. Bush always says things that make me think he will cave. He's a Disney-lovin sort of guy.
From the paperwork on the incident, it looks like there was an arrest, which makes sense. You don't just give a drunk guy a ticket and let him keep going.
I spent over half of my junior year in what they called "Special Assignment Class." Basically you spend your day in one of the portable buildings behind the school and your teachers send you your homework and stuff. It was great! I didn't have to walk through the halls anymore. Didn't have to associate with people. Could do all my work at once without having to listen to all the lectures. Had plenty of time left over to read whatever I wanted. School should always be like this!! It was even better since the coach that had to babysit the class was rather strange. He insisted he was an alien. He decided that the classroom was an aircraft carrier and the desks were planes (even used white tape to draw runway lines and such on the floor). He wrote sci-fi novels, some of which weren't too bad, and we would read and comment on them. And he would bring in food and snacks for lunch and sell them at cost. Made for a nice variety. Best year of highschool I had. Too bad I ended up going to another school the next year.
It wasn't until the last decade that patents have been granted on any old thing you care to dream up. It's a combination of things really. You don't have to submit a working model anymore. You don't have to show that its non-trivial or non-obvious to an expert in the field because there are no experts doing patent reviews. You can basically look at developing trends and start trying to figure out where they will logically go and then start patenting any idea they can come up with. The sad thing is that such patents are likely to be awarded.
If patents are being approved hand-over-fist, it means that innovations are being made hand-over-fist.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe that. You think that just because the PTO approves something it's innovative? Are you nuts!? The guy who runs the PTO has already made several statements to the effect that he wants to make it easier for companies to obtain patents and expand patents into as many areas as possible. They don't even abide by the original standards set for patents, being that it should be something non-trivial and non-obvious to an expert in the appropriate field. They don't have experts to review the patents. They have underpaid reviewers who are not experts do a quick prior art check and rubber-stamp the thing. We've already seen how attaching the words e-commerce or internet seem to automatically allow any old idea to qualify as innovative. We've seen how an obvious use of cookies gets Amazon a patent. These are not innovations, they are just fairly obvious applications of existing technology. Perhaps the cookie itself might have deserved a patent (my bet is that there is plenty of prior art), but using the cookie for the exact purpose for which it was created (i.e. storing state information for a stateless protocol) is not worthy of a patent. The PTO has just gone hog-wild handing out patents like candy on Halloween. Are you seriously telling me that you believe that just because these corps get patents on this stuff that it means that it's innovative?
M$ has been greedy for years, and it hasn't stopped other OS's from coming out, or getting market share.
Actually, the only OS that has gained any significant market-share since Microsoft hit the scene is Linux, and that's only because it doesn't really compete in the same space as Microsoft. It's free, it's open, and it's primarily a server OS. It's almost a market unto itself (although it is definitely starting to target Microsoft more and more).
In fact, M$'s greed (and stupidity) proved to be their downfall in the browser legal battle.
They haven't fallen yet. While I'd like to see it happen, I wouldn't be so quick to count them out. They seem to have the upper hand in the appeals court.
Sometimes this means having to look like the evil greedy bastard.
Entire corporations exist that create nothing and do nothing but amass a portfolio of patents to extort money from corporations that do produce and create things. That might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the PTO will give you a patent on damn near anything. That allows those corporate leaches to suck money from the people actually doing real innovation. Combine that with the expense and difficulty of getting a patent overturned and you have a system that acts as a stone around the neck of true innovation.
To sum it up, patents are a good idea, but the current implementation sucks badly. First of all, reform the PTO. They should be a government agency supported and funded by the government, they should not be made to fund themselves by living off the fees collected from patent registrations. That creates a terrible conflict of interest. Second, we need to require that patents be reviewed by qualified experts in the appropriate field. If this means we need to pay more for patent reviews, then so be it. It's cheaper for the economy in the long run than supporting all those corporate leaches. Third, patents should be available for public scrutiny for a period of time before they are actually awarded. This will allow people to present any prior art they are aware of that may block the awarding of the patent. This will help avoid the expense and difficulty of overturning a patent that never should have been awarded. Finally, the term length of a patent should be reduced to 10 years. Software and business model patents should be abolished completely. Copyright covers software. Business models should not be covered at all.
Everyone knows the process by which your invention is created. Which means that they can try to take the next step, by improving that invention.
Sure, if we all want to wait 20 years for that next step to be taken. That's the problem with patents now. The term length is archaic. If a corporation doesn't have a strategy to make a profit from some tech within a 3-5 years, they don't create it. Period. Allowing them to block further innovation for 20 years does nothing to help increase innovation. This is especially obvious in the computer industry.
Then there's the issue of theory versus reality in the granting of patents. Theoretically patents are only given for non-obvious, non-trivial inventions. I think we now know that that's the biggest load of crap you'll ever hear. The patent office is aggressively trying to give out patents for any damn thing you care to submit to them. Then people have to go to the expense to try and overturn the patent, which rarely happens because the patent holders know not to charge too much. Therefore a corporation has to look at its bottom line which tells it that it's cheaper to just pay the royalties rather than spend the cash it will take to overturn the patent (and then do the same with all the others?). So we basically now have tons of patents out there being used as legal extortion, doing nothing to increase innovation, but simply leaching off of a prosperous economy.
So, you see, combine very long patent term lengths with overly broad and ridiculous patents and you have a very effective barrier to innovation. Now, I don't disagree with patents in theory, but too many people seem to think that the theory is the same as the reality. That's about as far from the truth as you can get.
My point is defending the legal portion, there is the possibility for consumer confusion.
Then you're doing a poor job. The standard for deciding whether something infringes on a trademark is NOT whether there is a possibility of consumer confusion. The possibility always exists. You just have to find a really dumb consumer. The standard is that it is LIKELY to cause consumer confusion, which guinness-really-sucks will probably not do. Especially when someone actually looks at the site. If the site doesn't pretend to be Guinness, then there is little likelihood of consumer confusion. Which is exactly why WIPO's decision was crap. WIPO is crap itself. We don't need unaccountable international agencies deciding these things. It's ridiculous.
And simply being rich does not mean that said rich-person stepped on a lot of people to get where they are.
It doesn't necessarily mean that, but that doesn't mean it's not true a lot more often than not. Between corporate welfare and lobbying and the destruction that is done in the name of capitalism, I think there were plenty of people stepped on for the majority of the incredibly rich to get that way.
The judicial system is quite often very unfair to those with little money, and beneficial to those with a lot of money. I don't see the rich doing anything to change that. They know they have a lot of advantages over others. Kinda sick to see them bitch and moan about paying a few percent in taxes.
The trend is well established. The rich are getting richer. This keeps up and we'll be no different than any of the third world countries we bomb every so often where there is a tiny ruling class that controls 90+% of the wealth.
The number I quoted was something GW Bush said in a debate. Gore seemed to nod in agreement with the number. I've also read a similar figure elsewhere but can't find a reference right now.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of their numbers. And I'd still like to see the numbers on how much of the wealth they control in this country. It tends to put the tax thing into perspective.
A really fair tax system would require people to pay for their fair share of the burden, rather than as a proportion of what they earn.
Sure, if everyone got the money they have without getting anything from the government then yeah... it wouldn't be fair. But that's not reality. You'd like everyone to believe that all these unimaginably wealthy people got that way by hard work and smart investments. Everyone knows that's a load of crap. Corporations are huge recipients of welfare paid for by taxpayers. So, in effect, many of these incredibly wealthy people are getting kickbacks on the taxes they pay. Additionally, they have a lot more power to direct the creation of legislation in this country than people in the middle to lower class. Therefore they are able to get laws passed that favor them and their businesses over regular workers in this country, thereby moving more wealth in their direction.
Look at the copyright extensions. Those were bought and paid for by big corporations that wanted to make sure they would continue to get government protection for their information monopolies rather than allow the information to become public domain as it was intended. Did anyone mention any of this to the public? Hell no. Did the media say anything about it? Nope. Why? Guess who owns the media. There was once a balance struck between the creator and the public. That balance is long gone. Now we get crap like the DMCA and other major laws passed anonymously by our Congress with a voice vote. Why are they afraid to let their position be recorded? Because they know they're serving corporate masters and are taking precautions against people gathering evidence against them.
Taxation helps make the country liveable for most people. Pity the poor souls who make more money than most people can fathom and then have to pay a few percent of it in taxes. They should pay that few percent and be happy that most people don't realize just how many benefits those few get from this country that the rest of the people don't get. They are the fortunate ones. The taxes they pay have no noticeable impact on their quality of life, unlike most other people. Talk about ungrateful. Kinda getting tired of them continuously trying to tip the scales even more in their favor.
I'd love to know where you came up with those numbers. Care to provide a reference? Also, it would be quite beneficial to know much of the money in the country that 1% controls. That would have a direct impact on how much you can tax various segments of the public. As another poster pointed out, once some small portion of the population controls a very large percentage of the wealth, the tax system is in trouble due to thinking such as yours.
Did they offer any reason why you should lose your property just because you are accused of a crime? Do they compensate you for the value of that property at the time it was taken if they don't bring charges or lose the case? If not, then why?
Downloading MP3s isn't a crime. Distributing them publicly is a crime. I can send some to my friend and I've done nothing wrong, but if i put them on my public ftp server and post the address in irc, then i'm distributing. According to Hillary Rosen, the RIAA isn't concerned with you sharing music with your friends.
The problem here is that law enforcement officers don't give a rat's ass about your property. They take it as evidence and if and when you ever get it back, it's broken and/or worthless. Do I suddenly lose my right to own property just because someone suspects that I might have had some part in a crime? Does that justify the confiscation of my computers, the loss of all my personal data (they don't let you make a copy before they take your stuff, and they take every disk they can find too), and the likely outcome that I will never get most of it back in any reasonable amount of time, if ever? Maybe the FBI schmuck was just doing his job, but we need to redefine exactly what he is allowed to do to get that job done. Confiscating people's property on mere suspicion, and then keeping it for extended periods of time and often forever is not the way things should be done. They should be held responsible for anything that happens to that property while it's in their possession too. Good luck getting people to understand this though. They think the FBI only does this stuff to the bad guys. This war on hacking is gonna be just like the war on drugs. Suspects have no rights. The law is supreme and those who represent the law have supreme power. Speak against them and you will be branded a deviant, a criminal sympathizer, and perhaps much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're seeing pretty much eye-to-eye on the general merits of the two languages. I use VB a fair amount when I'm just trying to get something done quickly and I know it doesn't need to run anywhere but on Windows. VB is a great tool for that. I was mainly taking issue with comparing VB to Java because I felt the comparison wasn't fair. They are really two different languages used for at least two different reasons. VB is great for rapid Windows development. Java is great for writing portable software (and happens to be pretty decent for rapid development, though not quite as easy as VB). I think they both do well at what they are designed for.
but Sun the corporation swung from their goal of creating something that would help people to something that would hurt Microsoft.
I don't think I know what you're talking about here.
Sun isn't concerned with whether or not their stuff will actually be useful. They're more concerned with bashing Microsoft.
I don't see it. The way I saw things happening, Microsoft took the initiative in trying to spoil Java. Sun WAS trying to create something useful, and Microsoft was trying to undermine that creation so that it would not undermine their monopoly power. If Sun doesn't protect its creation from that sort of interference, then it could very well end up as another footnote in computing history and nothing more. Microsoft is an extremely powerful competitor with little in the way of scruples to stop it from doing whatever it takes to eliminate what it sees as a threat. I don't think the Linux comparison fits either. Apples and oranges.
just realize that Java isn't any more platform independent than anything else, it's just got an interpreter that has been written for each platform!
Exactly, which makes it many times more portable than anything made by Microsoft.
If a new platform comes out, it won't run Java at all until someone writes an interpreter for it
So? Do you have a better idea? Interpreters will be written for any platform that needs it. Once the interpreter exists for the platform, then the java compiler will run on that platform and you can use your code there. Again, much more portable than anything Microsoft has done.
and when new releases of Java come out Macs and other platforms lag behind on the new releases so you STILL get code that doesn't work everywhere.
Well, if you decide to update your code to take advantage of new features, and you know you have to support multiple platforms, then you just hold off on releasing changes until updated interpreters are available for those platforms. They will likely be in the works while you are busy updating your code anyway.
I think they did more for application development with that move than all the effect Java has had
Perhaps, but only if you need to support only Windows users and nothing else. Microsoft solutions will always be limited by Microsoft's ambition to be the only game in town.
being just another language to learn that still can only be used in certain places.
Which amounts to a hell of a lot more places than any Microsoft language can be used.
That is my point - the first release after opening the source should have been to simply let web developers write standards-compliant code without hobbling their code and writing convoluted workarounds for Netscape.
That's what they were planning as I understand it. The problem was that the existing code sucked and was proving to be unworkable, so they scrapped it and started over. Maybe they could have kept at it until they got it to at least the point where IE is (which still isn't very good), but the end product would still be crap due to the fact that the codebase sucked. Look how often Netscape crashes. I am glad they decided to start over and do it right.
Microsoft have released three revisions of Internet Explorer since Mozilla was opened, and each one of them supported HTML, CSS and DOM better than Netscape.
And yet no version of IE really supports the standards completely, and the Windows version doesn't even come within sight of full support.
An intermediate release should have supported the existing standards that NS4 tried to support before tackling anything more difficult
Had they tried to make a standards-compliant release before devoting their effort to Mozilla, we'd still be at least a year away from seeing a stable, fully functional release of Mozilla. Mozilla was originally based on the Netscape 4 code-base, but that was scrapped after about a year when they decided that it was just too unwieldy to work with. Then they started from scratch to build what we know as Mozilla today.
They shouldn't have tried to implement new standards until they had released a browser that didn't butcher the existing ones.
What new standards? They've been getting the support for the oldest standards down first and then moving forward from there. Yes, they've been adding features and stuff as well, but when you've got a lot of developers working for free, and the rest working to produce something that consumers will want to use, you pretty much have to add the features. They could crank out a browser that adheres to standards, but doesn't have many features, and then nobody would want to use it, so it wouldn't really be helping anyone. Better to just let them get the final product out when it's finished. Maybe it will serve as an incentive for Microsoft to finally start adhering to standards as well.
It's because people realize that voting their conscience could cause them to end up with the candidate that most people would least like to see in office. Here's an example:
Say 30% of the people really want to vote Nader, but would rather see Gore elected than Bush. Now say another 30% want to vote Gore, but would rather see Nader elected than Bush. Then say that Bush gets 39% of the remaining 40%. Now, most of the country wants either Gore or Nader to get elected, but because they split their vote, they end up with the candidate that most people definitely didn't want. This is a shortcoming of the plurality voting system.
These websites are just one manifestation of people's realization that the current voting system will often not produce the right results if you just vote your conscience. Especially in 3-way (or more) races. We need to change the election system. We should use approval voting or the Boorda count instead of the plurality vote. We should also reform the electoral college system to reflect the voting of a state. It shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. If the Green party gets 20% of the votes in the state, the Green party should get 20% of the electoral votes.
As it is, web developers will have to deal with NS4 bugs for years to come.
Your point being? We've had to deal with bugs and incompatibilities in IE and Netscape both for years, and bitched and moaned about it the whole time. Finally Netscape puts out a browser that is standards compliant (or will be once the bugs are worked out), and you're bitching about that too? If they had put out an intermediate release, it wouldn't have made the situation any better. It still wouldn't be standards compliant. You still would've had to rework your existing apps to use it, and you'd still have to do it again when NS6 was released.
Or maybe because letting convicted felons out of prision is a Bad Idea (tm).
What if they're in prison due to the War On Drugs(tm), which is also a Bad Idea(tm)?
More of that will come no matter which one gets in. They both cave to the interests of the the software, movie, and music industries. Gore says things to make you think he won't sometimes, but then other times he says things that make you think he will. Bush always says things that make me think he will cave. He's a Disney-lovin sort of guy.
He wasn't even in Texas when he was stopped.
From the paperwork on the incident, it looks like there was an arrest, which makes sense. You don't just give a drunk guy a ticket and let him keep going.
True. Maybe he and his parents just never realized that the record doesn't mean squat. He can always keep the news clippings and stuff as evidence.
I spent over half of my junior year in what they called "Special Assignment Class." Basically you spend your day in one of the portable buildings behind the school and your teachers send you your homework and stuff. It was great! I didn't have to walk through the halls anymore. Didn't have to associate with people. Could do all my work at once without having to listen to all the lectures. Had plenty of time left over to read whatever I wanted. School should always be like this!! It was even better since the coach that had to babysit the class was rather strange. He insisted he was an alien. He decided that the classroom was an aircraft carrier and the desks were planes (even used white tape to draw runway lines and such on the floor). He wrote sci-fi novels, some of which weren't too bad, and we would read and comment on them. And he would bring in food and snacks for lunch and sell them at cost. Made for a nice variety. Best year of highschool I had. Too bad I ended up going to another school the next year.
I completely agree with patents in theory. I'm just disgusted with the way the system is currently handled.
Excuse me, but how are we waiting for anything?
It wasn't until the last decade that patents have been granted on any old thing you care to dream up. It's a combination of things really. You don't have to submit a working model anymore. You don't have to show that its non-trivial or non-obvious to an expert in the field because there are no experts doing patent reviews. You can basically look at developing trends and start trying to figure out where they will logically go and then start patenting any idea they can come up with. The sad thing is that such patents are likely to be awarded.
If patents are being approved hand-over-fist, it means that innovations are being made hand-over-fist.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe that. You think that just because the PTO approves something it's innovative? Are you nuts!? The guy who runs the PTO has already made several statements to the effect that he wants to make it easier for companies to obtain patents and expand patents into as many areas as possible. They don't even abide by the original standards set for patents, being that it should be something non-trivial and non-obvious to an expert in the appropriate field. They don't have experts to review the patents. They have underpaid reviewers who are not experts do a quick prior art check and rubber-stamp the thing. We've already seen how attaching the words e-commerce or internet seem to automatically allow any old idea to qualify as innovative. We've seen how an obvious use of cookies gets Amazon a patent. These are not innovations, they are just fairly obvious applications of existing technology. Perhaps the cookie itself might have deserved a patent (my bet is that there is plenty of prior art), but using the cookie for the exact purpose for which it was created (i.e. storing state information for a stateless protocol) is not worthy of a patent. The PTO has just gone hog-wild handing out patents like candy on Halloween. Are you seriously telling me that you believe that just because these corps get patents on this stuff that it means that it's innovative?
M$ has been greedy for years, and it hasn't stopped other OS's from coming out, or getting market share.
Actually, the only OS that has gained any significant market-share since Microsoft hit the scene is Linux, and that's only because it doesn't really compete in the same space as Microsoft. It's free, it's open, and it's primarily a server OS. It's almost a market unto itself (although it is definitely starting to target Microsoft more and more).
In fact, M$'s greed (and stupidity) proved to be their downfall in the browser legal battle.
They haven't fallen yet. While I'd like to see it happen, I wouldn't be so quick to count them out. They seem to have the upper hand in the appeals court.
Sometimes this means having to look like the evil greedy bastard.
Entire corporations exist that create nothing and do nothing but amass a portfolio of patents to extort money from corporations that do produce and create things. That might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the PTO will give you a patent on damn near anything. That allows those corporate leaches to suck money from the people actually doing real innovation. Combine that with the expense and difficulty of getting a patent overturned and you have a system that acts as a stone around the neck of true innovation.
To sum it up, patents are a good idea, but the current implementation sucks badly. First of all, reform the PTO. They should be a government agency supported and funded by the government, they should not be made to fund themselves by living off the fees collected from patent registrations. That creates a terrible conflict of interest. Second, we need to require that patents be reviewed by qualified experts in the appropriate field. If this means we need to pay more for patent reviews, then so be it. It's cheaper for the economy in the long run than supporting all those corporate leaches. Third, patents should be available for public scrutiny for a period of time before they are actually awarded. This will allow people to present any prior art they are aware of that may block the awarding of the patent. This will help avoid the expense and difficulty of overturning a patent that never should have been awarded. Finally, the term length of a patent should be reduced to 10 years. Software and business model patents should be abolished completely. Copyright covers software. Business models should not be covered at all.
Everyone knows the process by which your invention is created. Which means that they can try to take the next step, by improving that invention.
Sure, if we all want to wait 20 years for that next step to be taken. That's the problem with patents now. The term length is archaic. If a corporation doesn't have a strategy to make a profit from some tech within a 3-5 years, they don't create it. Period. Allowing them to block further innovation for 20 years does nothing to help increase innovation. This is especially obvious in the computer industry.
Then there's the issue of theory versus reality in the granting of patents. Theoretically patents are only given for non-obvious, non-trivial inventions. I think we now know that that's the biggest load of crap you'll ever hear. The patent office is aggressively trying to give out patents for any damn thing you care to submit to them. Then people have to go to the expense to try and overturn the patent, which rarely happens because the patent holders know not to charge too much. Therefore a corporation has to look at its bottom line which tells it that it's cheaper to just pay the royalties rather than spend the cash it will take to overturn the patent (and then do the same with all the others?). So we basically now have tons of patents out there being used as legal extortion, doing nothing to increase innovation, but simply leaching off of a prosperous economy.
So, you see, combine very long patent term lengths with overly broad and ridiculous patents and you have a very effective barrier to innovation. Now, I don't disagree with patents in theory, but too many people seem to think that the theory is the same as the reality. That's about as far from the truth as you can get.
My point is defending the legal portion, there is the possibility for consumer confusion.
Then you're doing a poor job. The standard for deciding whether something infringes on a trademark is NOT whether there is a possibility of consumer confusion. The possibility always exists. You just have to find a really dumb consumer. The standard is that it is LIKELY to cause consumer confusion, which guinness-really-sucks will probably not do. Especially when someone actually looks at the site. If the site doesn't pretend to be Guinness, then there is little likelihood of consumer confusion. Which is exactly why WIPO's decision was crap. WIPO is crap itself. We don't need unaccountable international agencies deciding these things. It's ridiculous.
You obviously have no idea how these people who run the corporations get around tax laws. It is very much relevant.
This argument reminds me of the middle east peace talks.
And simply being rich does not mean that said rich-person stepped on a lot of people to get where they are.
It doesn't necessarily mean that, but that doesn't mean it's not true a lot more often than not. Between corporate welfare and lobbying and the destruction that is done in the name of capitalism, I think there were plenty of people stepped on for the majority of the incredibly rich to get that way.
The judicial system is quite often very unfair to those with little money, and beneficial to those with a lot of money. I don't see the rich doing anything to change that. They know they have a lot of advantages over others. Kinda sick to see them bitch and moan about paying a few percent in taxes.
The trend is well established. The rich are getting richer. This keeps up and we'll be no different than any of the third world countries we bomb every so often where there is a tiny ruling class that controls 90+% of the wealth.
The number I quoted was something GW Bush said in a debate. Gore seemed to nod in agreement with the number. I've also read a similar figure elsewhere but can't find a reference right now.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of their numbers. And I'd still like to see the numbers on how much of the wealth they control in this country. It tends to put the tax thing into perspective.
A really fair tax system would require people to pay for their fair share of the burden, rather than as a proportion of what they earn.
Sure, if everyone got the money they have without getting anything from the government then yeah... it wouldn't be fair. But that's not reality. You'd like everyone to believe that all these unimaginably wealthy people got that way by hard work and smart investments. Everyone knows that's a load of crap. Corporations are huge recipients of welfare paid for by taxpayers. So, in effect, many of these incredibly wealthy people are getting kickbacks on the taxes they pay. Additionally, they have a lot more power to direct the creation of legislation in this country than people in the middle to lower class. Therefore they are able to get laws passed that favor them and their businesses over regular workers in this country, thereby moving more wealth in their direction.
Look at the copyright extensions. Those were bought and paid for by big corporations that wanted to make sure they would continue to get government protection for their information monopolies rather than allow the information to become public domain as it was intended. Did anyone mention any of this to the public? Hell no. Did the media say anything about it? Nope. Why? Guess who owns the media. There was once a balance struck between the creator and the public. That balance is long gone. Now we get crap like the DMCA and other major laws passed anonymously by our Congress with a voice vote. Why are they afraid to let their position be recorded? Because they know they're serving corporate masters and are taking precautions against people gathering evidence against them.
Taxation helps make the country liveable for most people. Pity the poor souls who make more money than most people can fathom and then have to pay a few percent of it in taxes. They should pay that few percent and be happy that most people don't realize just how many benefits those few get from this country that the rest of the people don't get. They are the fortunate ones. The taxes they pay have no noticeable impact on their quality of life, unlike most other people. Talk about ungrateful. Kinda getting tired of them continuously trying to tip the scales even more in their favor.
I'd love to know where you came up with those numbers. Care to provide a reference? Also, it would be quite beneficial to know much of the money in the country that 1% controls. That would have a direct impact on how much you can tax various segments of the public. As another poster pointed out, once some small portion of the population controls a very large percentage of the wealth, the tax system is in trouble due to thinking such as yours.
Did they offer any reason why you should lose your property just because you are accused of a crime? Do they compensate you for the value of that property at the time it was taken if they don't bring charges or lose the case? If not, then why?
Downloading MP3s isn't a crime. Distributing them publicly is a crime. I can send some to my friend and I've done nothing wrong, but if i put them on my public ftp server and post the address in irc, then i'm distributing. According to Hillary Rosen, the RIAA isn't concerned with you sharing music with your friends.
They'll probably keep the computer until the statute of limitations on the crime runs out. By then it will be an antique.
The problem here is that law enforcement officers don't give a rat's ass about your property. They take it as evidence and if and when you ever get it back, it's broken and/or worthless. Do I suddenly lose my right to own property just because someone suspects that I might have had some part in a crime? Does that justify the confiscation of my computers, the loss of all my personal data (they don't let you make a copy before they take your stuff, and they take every disk they can find too), and the likely outcome that I will never get most of it back in any reasonable amount of time, if ever? Maybe the FBI schmuck was just doing his job, but we need to redefine exactly what he is allowed to do to get that job done. Confiscating people's property on mere suspicion, and then keeping it for extended periods of time and often forever is not the way things should be done. They should be held responsible for anything that happens to that property while it's in their possession too. Good luck getting people to understand this though. They think the FBI only does this stuff to the bad guys. This war on hacking is gonna be just like the war on drugs. Suspects have no rights. The law is supreme and those who represent the law have supreme power. Speak against them and you will be branded a deviant, a criminal sympathizer, and perhaps much worse.