While I don't believe in creation, mutations occuring in 40,000 generations (one mutation every 63 generations) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.
Well I understand your point. But then what would you suggest is more likely?
Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner."
Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on/. if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.
That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...
Well, since you asked I'll describe the order of priorities of what we are against:
1. Installing software without our consent, that includes sneaking in software in methods that classify as "gray zones". The ask.com bar is a good example of this, and also the.NET framework. 2. Kill-switches
So you see, as described above, the installation of such applications is far more dangerous than the kill-switch. Also since this kill-switch can be turned off. If you don't think MS did anything wrong, then let me ask you this: why are so many people angry with this installation? For those of you who installed IE7 or IE8 on XP through Windows update, do you remember the EULA that popped up after the download and before the installation? Wouldn't it had been completely acceptable if such a screen would have showed for this as well? Since ultimately this was something new for Windows update, never before had it tampered with Firefox, so people -- don't fucking pretend it was a harmless and innocent move.
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
That's what politicians and senior managers do when asked awkward questions that they can't (or don't want to) answer. I hate that trait, if you can't answer my question don't tell me it's the wrong question tell me that you don't know the answer. If you do that I'll respect you for being honest, if you say "that's not the right question" I'll distrust you for being a slimy git.
Then let me ask you this, do you consider your intelligence to be above average?
If your answer is no, then fair enough. If your answer is yes then try to be less egocentric and move the question away from yourself. Those surrounding you, which may be very nice people, but not so smart people, do they happen to ask questions based on already incorrect assumptions? Questions that may for that very reason be irrelevant to the subject at hand. A subject which you probably understand much more thorough thus you may, from a question based on incorrect assumptions, present the relative question without such incorrect assumptions. I'll give you a very silly and basic example to show what I mean.
-Who painted the wall? -You mean: who painted the ceiling? Nobody.
You could have answered "nobody" to the first question, and it would have been honest and true, but even if the person asking the question thinks he would get what he was looking for, he obviously would not. He actually wanted to know who painted the ceiling, but he asked the question incorrectly. Now apply this example to any complex scenario you want, the fundamental mechanics are the same.
Also, 'do you think' is a pretty good prompt for making an assumption, you didn't ask what I knew for a fact, you asked what I thought.
Sorry I won't endulge in semantics, you perfectly knew I was looking for something else than assumptions as I clearly stated it in my reply above. But again you failed to comply -- providing yet another assumption. Look I wasn't in it for the argument, I don't really care to change your mind as there is absolutely no gain in it for me. As I said I was hoping you had some insight which I could learn from, and it seems you didn't. Now you're going to disagree with me but that's ok. Thanks for your time.
My point was to see if you could teach me something I didn't know. Unfortunately this turned out to be merely your assumptions. It should be noted that I don't care if you were proven right or wrong, I failed however to learn anything of substance from you, which was my original intention.
I think I have to agree with that one. I really hope that there is a option (aka a "kill-switch") for that "kill-switch" in the Firefox settings dialog. Otherwise I would be very disappointed of those Nazi methods.:/
about:config -> extensions.blocklist.enabled
Amazing how people still haven't figured out google.
Again you're only assuming that it's unlikely. Don't say that it is unlikely unless you're ready to prove it. We all make assumptions, and this is not my point. My point is that you need to understand the difference between when you know something and when you assume something. Especially when presenting this to others. That the vaccine is profitable for the medical companies is a fact. That the medical companies want you to get vaccined for their profit is a fact. These are motives that lead to action. I'm not saying either way, but if you ignore these facts in favor of assumptions, then your logic is flawed, thus you become an untrustworthy source. This is fact, not assumption.
I'm relatively certain because for the most part, people are honest, and someone (on the inside) would be screaming bloody murder if things were really a big scam.
Again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming that people are for the most part honest. If you ask me then this is extremely naive. People bend the truth and lie constantly. They do so to protect themselves, and these are very basic features of ours as the biological beings we are. I know this because I do this, and I know this because I have seen this behaviour in my friends and let alone strangers.
Also you're making another assumption. You're assuming that this couldn't be flawed unless everybody knew about it. You're assuming that either it's completely honest, or it's a scam known by everybody. What if the people in WHO and CDC were themselves manipulated? What if data was bent or falsified together with some rhetorics to present something in a much more dramatic way than reality? What if the WHO and CDC are completely honest and still made a mistake? Tell me -- do you think these are completely impossible scenarios?
No matter how good the lobbyists for the vaccine companies are, they aren't good enough to get the government to step in and bear the liability without some government agency agreeing that there is actually something there to address.
I have to ask you: how come you are so certain of this? Is this solely based on your assumption that the systems behind WHO and CDC are flawless or not flawed enough to be able to do the contrary? I'm a sceptic to the H1N1 vaccine in particular, with two doctors and one pharmaceut very close in the family I feel like I have some insight in the field. I'm always prepared to change my mind and I always want to look for the truth with the outmost critical thinking. So I really have to ask you: why? Why is this so obvious? Why can't there be any such flaws in the WHO or CDC? These are organizations run by humans. Humans make mistakes constantly. I fail to see why the WHO or the CDC should be any exceptions. But please -- help me understand your line of thinking.
Somebody makes a claim without supporting documentation and people ask them for it. You're unfamiliar with that convention?
If you're asking me, which you are, then only if I consider the task of finding this information difficult. Usually because the person at hand is presenting ideas in a field which they have far more experience in. You see when I want to know something, I want to know it -- I don't necessarily want someone to show it to me to prove either to them. My interest lies solely with what I learn and know. This case however was merely about you being a douche. The amount of work that it takes to post a reply on/. saying "Prove it" is in terms of relevancy equal to the work that it takes to do the search on google. The difference would however be that you'd have to spend less time afterwards if you'd done the search yourself -- since the search would give you the results straight away. You can pretend all you want but you know that google would give you the results quickly, you're not that stupid. So this was -- as stated -- you being a douche -- and me calling you out on it. Let's move on -- shall we?
That said, there is a simple solution. I call it growing a backbone! Tried, tested and true.
Step 1, Grow a backbone.
Step 2, Walk up to Bully and look them square in the eye.
Step 3, Break Bully's freaking nose!
Step 4, Profit.
You left out a few steps:
Step 5, As you're walking away, hear a bullet whistle past your ear.
Step 6, Break into a trot while suddenly realizing that the Bully is a sociopath who's willing to escalate things as far as necessary in order to win, including killing you, your family, and anyone you're close to.
Step 7, After the second bullet misses you by a whisker, also realize that many Bullies have a hell of a lot less to lose than you do; a lot more experience with fighting dirty; and no scruples about using any possible tactic, fair or foul, to win.
Step 8, In the course of these revelations, find yourself questioning the wisdom of assuming that people will always back down when confronted with a show of force.
Step 9, Turn around and attempt to plug the Bully with the weapon of your choice, knowing that either you're about to die (if the Bully shoots you first) or spend the next couple years of your life dealing with the legal, psychological, and financial aftermath of having killed someone: something that will bother you since -- unlike many Bullies -- you have a conscience, inconveniently enough.
Agreed. I just brought it up in a firefox install on XP SP3. The disable and uninstall options are both available. Don't know if this is just poor reporting or if perhaps ANOTHER ms patch "fixed" the uninstall and disable options. Anyone know?
Either way, it's retarded that they pushed it out in the first place.
The disable button has always been working for me on XP SP3, the uninstall however had not. I remember it wasn't working even months after it was installed on my work PC. Since then I've dumped a clone image and made sure to pick that update out so I wouldn't know the current status.
Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.
It's not paranoid, and yes they do. Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics, why would it be different in business?
You chose to ignore my entire post and only respond to "cloud computing"? Either my post really fucking sucked, or you agreed with me so much that you neither wished to add nor argue about the rest. Anyway, no I'm not referring to shell accounts. I'm referring to huge environments run towards a centralised system through thin clients. Shell accounts was fun and all, especially during IRC war times, but you're comparing a seed to a full fledged flower.
Anyway I don't see why someone can be against strong copyleft licenses. You don't like the terms? Well -- don't use it. I don't use any proprietary software in my home equipment for example because I don't like the terms. I don't see why it should be any different, or more difficult, to apply this principle to any type of licensing methods.
I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine, and the protection it gives is pretty essential. Without it someone could take the code, improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back.
Right. Just as every GPL author has allowed you to do over the years.
If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.
None of your upstream distributors have ever put such a restriction on you. You're referring to your strategy game, right? To run it, you'd have to install Linux (or another OS), Apache (or a similar webserver), PHP, MySQL, GD, FreeType, and a mailserver. So given that entire multi-MLOC stack, your 32KLOC running on top of it all are the only ones that can't be locally modified without releasing the changes.
You ask me if your terms are fair. You're damn straight, I don't. Let me turn it around: what makes your code so special that you feel you can restrict the conditions under which I install and run it?
Fundamentally your argument can be applied to any stronger vs. weaker copyleft license, and frankly this has been a century old nag (metaphorically speaking). BSD vs. GPL is a classic, and it's up to the creator to decide. Also by your logic we should never change anything because:
None of your upstream distributors have ever put such a restriction on you.
The licenses aren't perfect and they never was nor will they ever be. I have perfect example why your logic fails: cloud computing. What happens when cloud computing gets cheaper and bigger? So cheap and big that most of the worlds computing is done in the cloud, while being used by everybody. This environment wasn't relative when the GPLv2 was released, and wasn't as relative as it is today when GPLv3, and in five or ten years time we will have new areas which the GPLv3 doesn't cover, not to mention GPLv2. So APGLv3 isn't for everything. If the GNU foundation, or the even FSF thought there could be only one license then there would be only one FSF approved copyleft license, and there would be only one GPL.
I'm sure he doesn't welcome his new robotic eyeball's overlords.
What about when you can dump raw data passing through the optical nerve? Shouldn't be too long, if we can mimic the feed passing through it, we should already be able to read it. The question is: when will the quality of the dump is eye-def? Interesting stuff indeed.
Not everyone, but a high proportion of the professional population are.
Look -- I don't want to be rude and I know I won't be able to hinder myself when you pull these kinds of things out of your ass. This is my last post since there is obviously no point in continuing this. All I can say is that nobody I know is an inventor, and as far as I know of those I know know no inventor. And your word isn't good enough for anybody with half a brain and a handfull of source criticism.
Untrue. If you're inventing a kitchen appliance, you need to research other kitchen appliances, then you need to research all the technologies that go into your kitchen appliance. This could include patents on electronics, patents on various mechanical designs used within the appliance, etc. You may not consider the tiny low-level implementation details to be especially novel but that doesn't mean that someone else didn't, and if they did you open yourself up to getting sued.
By kitchen appliance I of course also meant the parts of kitchen appliances, such as e.g. electric motors etc., as these are also a part of the patent. Look either you're trolling and desperate to win this nonsensical argument or you're not very clever. Either way I have no gain in continuing this.
Also patents expire, while laws don't unless changed.
This is one of the reasons why it isn't reasonable to expect people to know what patents may apply - laws are relatively unchanging whereas there are many thousands of patents being filed and expiring every year.
As an inventor you would generally only need to keep yourself updated about the still valid patents. I really don't see why this is so unreasonable to you.
So you are going to do a full check across the many thousands of patent records covering your subject area, every time you come up with an idea, no matter how trivial? Yeah, coz that's going to really help your development cycle...
First of all: people? So all of a sudden everybody is an inventor? You're making silly assumptions, inventor is an occupation -- and yes you can be a hobby inventor and you can be a hobby electrician, for the latter you still need to have a license to make installations without voiding your insurance. My point is that this is not for anybody, and just like you need to have certain understandings in any occupation, understandings of patents within your line of inventions (let's not forget that if you're inventing a kitchen appliance, you only need to research about existing kitchen appliances, you can skip anything else) is not at all an unreasonable amount of information to learn.
It seems to me that you're just making mountains out of molehills.
What's the point of saying anything as the CEO of a company when everyone who listens is thinking "yes, this is just him talking as the company, so well biased"?
Those who would slavishly follow what the COMPANY wants anyway will listen but there was no need to say something in that case. And everyone else will consider the source and ignore it.
So if what the CEO says is always and necessarily expected to be not his personal opinion but what the current incumbent of the CEO post of that company would say to make that company profits, there's no point talking at all.
You're making the fatal mistake of assuming that people are clever and source critical. You can easily manipulate people into doing whatever by saying the right thing at the right time. All you need to do is to play on their pride and ignorance.
By that logic I shouldn't be able to get sentenced for a crime I didn't know was unlawful. The bullet you're presenting can easily be dodged by saying that it's every inventors responsibility to look for existing inventions before setting sail, just like it is every citizens responsibility to check for laws before committing a crime.
Your argument is ridiculous - criminal law and patents are there for different purposes and can't be compared as you have attempted to do. Criminal law is there to protect society and giving people incentive to know the legalities of their actions is good for society. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of social good to come out of forcing people to spend vast amounts of time and money checking to see if they are allowed to use what they have invented and throwing it in the bin if they aren't.
Also, criminal law changes very slowly compared to the huge database of patents, so it is much more reasonable to expect someone to know the laws than the patents.
It seems you misunderstood me. I'm not comparing law and patenting per se, I'm merely presenting the idea of why it can be reasonable to expect inventors to be aware of their environment by presenting other aspects of society where this occurs -- e.g. in law. After all it is a business oriented occupation, and just as any business oriented occupation you need to understand the business you're in. Your allies, your competitors, your investors etc.
Also patents expire, while laws don't unless changed. As an inventor you would generally only need to keep yourself updated about the still valid patents. I really don't see why this is so unreasonable to you.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't believe in creation, mutations occuring in 40,000 generations (one mutation every 63 generations) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.
Well I understand your point. But then what would you suggest is more likely?
god did it
Haha I thought it was funny.
Thanks, Mozilla team, for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner."
Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted on /. if Microsoft or Apple hit the kill-switch on a vulnerable version of Firefox.
That all said...I thought we were against kill-switches, and certainly wasn't aware that there were any built into Firefox...
Well, since you asked I'll describe the order of priorities of what we are against:
.NET framework.
1. Installing software without our consent, that includes sneaking in software in methods that classify as "gray zones". The ask.com bar is a good example of this, and also the
2. Kill-switches
So you see, as described above, the installation of such applications is far more dangerous than the kill-switch. Also since this kill-switch can be turned off. If you don't think MS did anything wrong, then let me ask you this: why are so many people angry with this installation? For those of you who installed IE7 or IE8 on XP through Windows update, do you remember the EULA that popped up after the download and before the installation? Wouldn't it had been completely acceptable if such a screen would have showed for this as well? Since ultimately this was something new for Windows update, never before had it tampered with Firefox, so people -- don't fucking pretend it was a harmless and innocent move.
AHAHA...
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
That's what politicians and senior managers do when asked awkward questions that they can't (or don't want to) answer. I hate that trait, if you can't answer my question don't tell me it's the wrong question tell me that you don't know the answer. If you do that I'll respect you for being honest, if you say "that's not the right question" I'll distrust you for being a slimy git.
Then let me ask you this, do you consider your intelligence to be above average?
If your answer is no, then fair enough. If your answer is yes then try to be less egocentric and move the question away from yourself. Those surrounding you, which may be very nice people, but not so smart people, do they happen to ask questions based on already incorrect assumptions? Questions that may for that very reason be irrelevant to the subject at hand. A subject which you probably understand much more thorough thus you may, from a question based on incorrect assumptions, present the relative question without such incorrect assumptions. I'll give you a very silly and basic example to show what I mean.
-Who painted the wall?
-You mean: who painted the ceiling? Nobody.
You could have answered "nobody" to the first question, and it would have been honest and true, but even if the person asking the question thinks he would get what he was looking for, he obviously would not. He actually wanted to know who painted the ceiling, but he asked the question incorrectly. Now apply this example to any complex scenario you want, the fundamental mechanics are the same.
Also, 'do you think' is a pretty good prompt for making an assumption, you didn't ask what I knew for a fact, you asked what I thought.
Sorry I won't endulge in semantics, you perfectly knew I was looking for something else than assumptions as I clearly stated it in my reply above. But again you failed to comply -- providing yet another assumption. Look I wasn't in it for the argument, I don't really care to change your mind as there is absolutely no gain in it for me. As I said I was hoping you had some insight which I could learn from, and it seems you didn't. Now you're going to disagree with me but that's ok. Thanks for your time.
My point was to see if you could teach me something I didn't know. Unfortunately this turned out to be merely your assumptions. It should be noted that I don't care if you were proven right or wrong, I failed however to learn anything of substance from you, which was my original intention.
I think I have to agree with that one. I really hope that there is a option (aka a "kill-switch") for that "kill-switch" in the Firefox settings dialog. Otherwise I would be very disappointed of those Nazi methods. :/
about:config -> extensions.blocklist.enabled
Amazing how people still haven't figured out google.
Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.
I'm perfectly comfortable making assumptions.
Again you're only assuming that it's unlikely. Don't say that it is unlikely unless you're ready to prove it. We all make assumptions, and this is not my point. My point is that you need to understand the difference between when you know something and when you assume something. Especially when presenting this to others. That the vaccine is profitable for the medical companies is a fact. That the medical companies want you to get vaccined for their profit is a fact. These are motives that lead to action. I'm not saying either way, but if you ignore these facts in favor of assumptions, then your logic is flawed, thus you become an untrustworthy source. This is fact, not assumption.
I'm relatively certain because for the most part, people are honest, and someone (on the inside) would be screaming bloody murder if things were really a big scam.
Again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming that people are for the most part honest. If you ask me then this is extremely naive. People bend the truth and lie constantly. They do so to protect themselves, and these are very basic features of ours as the biological beings we are. I know this because I do this, and I know this because I have seen this behaviour in my friends and let alone strangers.
Also you're making another assumption. You're assuming that this couldn't be flawed unless everybody knew about it. You're assuming that either it's completely honest, or it's a scam known by everybody. What if the people in WHO and CDC were themselves manipulated? What if data was bent or falsified together with some rhetorics to present something in a much more dramatic way than reality? What if the WHO and CDC are completely honest and still made a mistake? Tell me -- do you think these are completely impossible scenarios?
No matter how good the lobbyists for the vaccine companies are, they aren't good enough to get the government to step in and bear the liability without some government agency agreeing that there is actually something there to address.
I have to ask you: how come you are so certain of this? Is this solely based on your assumption that the systems behind WHO and CDC are flawless or not flawed enough to be able to do the contrary? I'm a sceptic to the H1N1 vaccine in particular, with two doctors and one pharmaceut very close in the family I feel like I have some insight in the field. I'm always prepared to change my mind and I always want to look for the truth with the outmost critical thinking. So I really have to ask you: why? Why is this so obvious? Why can't there be any such flaws in the WHO or CDC? These are organizations run by humans. Humans make mistakes constantly. I fail to see why the WHO or the CDC should be any exceptions. But please -- help me understand your line of thinking.
Somebody makes a claim without supporting documentation and people ask them for it. You're unfamiliar with that convention?
If you're asking me, which you are, then only if I consider the task of finding this information difficult. Usually because the person at hand is presenting ideas in a field which they have far more experience in. You see when I want to know something, I want to know it -- I don't necessarily want someone to show it to me to prove either to them. My interest lies solely with what I learn and know. This case however was merely about you being a douche. The amount of work that it takes to post a reply on /. saying "Prove it" is in terms of relevancy equal to the work that it takes to do the search on google. The difference would however be that you'd have to spend less time afterwards if you'd done the search yourself -- since the search would give you the results straight away. You can pretend all you want but you know that google would give you the results quickly, you're not that stupid. So this was -- as stated -- you being a douche -- and me calling you out on it. Let's move on -- shall we?
I'm not in the habit of doing other people's research for them.
Other people's research? Hmm that's odd, I scroll upp and see you asking:
For example?
That said, there is a simple solution. I call it growing a backbone! Tried, tested and true.
Step 1, Grow a backbone.
Step 2, Walk up to Bully and look them square in the eye.
Step 3, Break Bully's freaking nose!
Step 4, Profit.
You left out a few steps:
Step 5, As you're walking away, hear a bullet whistle past your ear.
Step 6, Break into a trot while suddenly realizing that the Bully is a sociopath who's willing to escalate things as far as necessary in order to win, including killing you, your family, and anyone you're close to.
Step 7, After the second bullet misses you by a whisker, also realize that many Bullies have a hell of a lot less to lose than you do; a lot more experience with fighting dirty; and no scruples about using any possible tactic, fair or foul, to win.
Step 8, In the course of these revelations, find yourself questioning the wisdom of assuming that people will always back down when confronted with a show of force.
Step 9, Turn around and attempt to plug the Bully with the weapon of your choice, knowing that either you're about to die (if the Bully shoots you first) or spend the next couple years of your life dealing with the legal, psychological, and financial aftermath of having killed someone: something that will bother you since -- unlike many Bullies -- you have a conscience, inconveniently enough.
Step 10, pro... fit... (?)
I though they only have to provide the source to those they provided the binary? Do they already sell the phone?
That's right, and the second they release the source to the first person it's going to hit the net -- hard.
Here
And now I'll teach you can use google for this purpose. You see -- that's what the vast majority uses when you ask such a question. Watch closely at the third result
Wake me up when the iPhone has the same.
Wake me up when the iPhone has one of the above.
Agreed. I just brought it up in a firefox install on XP SP3. The disable and uninstall options are both available. Don't know if this is just poor reporting or if perhaps ANOTHER ms patch "fixed" the uninstall and disable options. Anyone know?
Either way, it's retarded that they pushed it out in the first place.
The disable button has always been working for me on XP SP3, the uninstall however had not. I remember it wasn't working even months after it was installed on my work PC. Since then I've dumped a clone image and made sure to pick that update out so I wouldn't know the current status.
Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.
It's not paranoid, and yes they do. Making the competitor look bad is the key to success in modern politics, why would it be different in business?
You chose to ignore my entire post and only respond to "cloud computing"? Either my post really fucking sucked, or you agreed with me so much that you neither wished to add nor argue about the rest. Anyway, no I'm not referring to shell accounts. I'm referring to huge environments run towards a centralised system through thin clients. Shell accounts was fun and all, especially during IRC war times, but you're comparing a seed to a full fledged flower.
Anyway I don't see why someone can be against strong copyleft licenses. You don't like the terms? Well -- don't use it. I don't use any proprietary software in my home equipment for example because I don't like the terms. I don't see why it should be any different, or more difficult, to apply this principle to any type of licensing methods.
I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine, and the protection it gives is pretty essential. Without it someone could take the code, improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back.
Right. Just as every GPL author has allowed you to do over the years.
If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.
None of your upstream distributors have ever put such a restriction on you. You're referring to your strategy game, right? To run it, you'd have to install Linux (or another OS), Apache (or a similar webserver), PHP, MySQL, GD, FreeType, and a mailserver. So given that entire multi-MLOC stack, your 32KLOC running on top of it all are the only ones that can't be locally modified without releasing the changes.
You ask me if your terms are fair. You're damn straight, I don't. Let me turn it around: what makes your code so special that you feel you can restrict the conditions under which I install and run it?
Fundamentally your argument can be applied to any stronger vs. weaker copyleft license, and frankly this has been a century old nag (metaphorically speaking). BSD vs. GPL is a classic, and it's up to the creator to decide. Also by your logic we should never change anything because:
None of your upstream distributors have ever put such a restriction on you.
The licenses aren't perfect and they never was nor will they ever be. I have perfect example why your logic fails: cloud computing. What happens when cloud computing gets cheaper and bigger? So cheap and big that most of the worlds computing is done in the cloud, while being used by everybody. This environment wasn't relative when the GPLv2 was released, and wasn't as relative as it is today when GPLv3, and in five or ten years time we will have new areas which the GPLv3 doesn't cover, not to mention GPLv2.
So APGLv3 isn't for everything. If the GNU foundation, or the even FSF thought there could be only one license then there would be only one FSF approved copyleft license, and there would be only one GPL.
I can't wait until they try to ban the man with the camera in his eye.
I'm sure he doesn't welcome his new robotic eyeball's overlords.
What about when you can dump raw data passing through the optical nerve? Shouldn't be too long, if we can mimic the feed passing through it, we should already be able to read it. The question is: when will the quality of the dump is eye-def? Interesting stuff indeed.
Not everyone, but a high proportion of the professional population are.
Look -- I don't want to be rude and I know I won't be able to hinder myself when you pull these kinds of things out of your ass. This is my last post since there is obviously no point in continuing this. All I can say is that nobody I know is an inventor, and as far as I know of those I know know no inventor. And your word isn't good enough for anybody with half a brain and a handfull of source criticism.
Untrue. If you're inventing a kitchen appliance, you need to research other kitchen appliances, then you need to research all the technologies that go into your kitchen appliance. This could include patents on electronics, patents on various mechanical designs used within the appliance, etc. You may not consider the tiny low-level implementation details to be especially novel but that doesn't mean that someone else didn't, and if they did you open yourself up to getting sued.
By kitchen appliance I of course also meant the parts of kitchen appliances, such as e.g. electric motors etc., as these are also a part of the patent. Look either you're trolling and desperate to win this nonsensical argument or you're not very clever. Either way I have no gain in continuing this.
Also patents expire, while laws don't unless changed.
This is one of the reasons why it isn't reasonable to expect people to know what patents may apply - laws are relatively unchanging whereas there are many thousands of patents being filed and expiring every year.
As an inventor you would generally only need to keep yourself updated about the still valid patents. I really don't see why this is so unreasonable to you.
So you are going to do a full check across the many thousands of patent records covering your subject area, every time you come up with an idea, no matter how trivial? Yeah, coz that's going to really help your development cycle...
First of all: people? So all of a sudden everybody is an inventor? You're making silly assumptions, inventor is an occupation -- and yes you can be a hobby inventor and you can be a hobby electrician, for the latter you still need to have a license to make installations without voiding your insurance. My point is that this is not for anybody, and just like you need to have certain understandings in any occupation, understandings of patents within your line of inventions (let's not forget that if you're inventing a kitchen appliance, you only need to research about existing kitchen appliances, you can skip anything else) is not at all an unreasonable amount of information to learn.
It seems to me that you're just making mountains out of molehills.
What's the point of saying anything as the CEO of a company when everyone who listens is thinking "yes, this is just him talking as the company, so well biased"?
Those who would slavishly follow what the COMPANY wants anyway will listen but there was no need to say something in that case. And everyone else will consider the source and ignore it.
So if what the CEO says is always and necessarily expected to be not his personal opinion but what the current incumbent of the CEO post of that company would say to make that company profits, there's no point talking at all.
You're making the fatal mistake of assuming that people are clever and source critical. You can easily manipulate people into doing whatever by saying the right thing at the right time. All you need to do is to play on their pride and ignorance.
By that logic I shouldn't be able to get sentenced for a crime I didn't know was unlawful. The bullet you're presenting can easily be dodged by saying that it's every inventors responsibility to look for existing inventions before setting sail, just like it is every citizens responsibility to check for laws before committing a crime.
Your argument is ridiculous - criminal law and patents are there for different purposes and can't be compared as you have attempted to do. Criminal law is there to protect society and giving people incentive to know the legalities of their actions is good for society. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of social good to come out of forcing people to spend vast amounts of time and money checking to see if they are allowed to use what they have invented and throwing it in the bin if they aren't.
Also, criminal law changes very slowly compared to the huge database of patents, so it is much more reasonable to expect someone to know the laws than the patents.
It seems you misunderstood me. I'm not comparing law and patenting per se, I'm merely presenting the idea of why it can be reasonable to expect inventors to be aware of their environment by presenting other aspects of society where this occurs -- e.g. in law. After all it is a business oriented occupation, and just as any business oriented occupation you need to understand the business you're in. Your allies, your competitors, your investors etc.
Also patents expire, while laws don't unless changed. As an inventor you would generally only need to keep yourself updated about the still valid patents. I really don't see why this is so unreasonable to you.