First, inventions are what can be patented. If you invent an algorithm, why should you not be allowed to patent it?
It stretches the definition of 'invention' to claim that algorithms are inventions.
Second, we don't need any argument to extend patents to algorithms. They already are. If you want to abolish software patents, however, you should make a good case for that move.
They aren't patentable in most of the world, nor were they even here for the period of most explosive growth of software. Software patents are a bit of an anomaly, and their presence still needs justification.
Why should they be allowed? Not allowing patents is the default position. There are a lot of ideas that can't be patented. I've written a book; I can't patent it, even though there are original ideas within.
Before arguing that patents shouldn't cover software, there should first be some reasonable argument to extend them there in the first place.
Always? Is my 250 or 500 GB hard drives a power of 2? Would it be a power of 2 for either definition of "giga"? How 'bout a 1.44 "MB" floppy. There's a fun one.
No, obviously. But their purpose is to hold the contents of computer memory, which is innately based around the power of two. If you are making a box to hold 1m cubes, you don't measure the box in feet.
Insightful? Good grief. Some people treat moderation like a football game: This comment is on "my side", so must be modded up, no matter how poor... or the inverse, it's on "the other side", so must be modded down, regardless of well it may be written.
I logged in so I could mod you funny, but my mod points are gone. So... anyway, don't take it as a personal insult. It's just the nature of the beast. There's no REASON states need to be efficient or competitive in most fields, so they aren't.
Many of us prefer a self-confident moron with cowboy boots
I see this a lot... somebody makes an intelligent, well-written comment, and then will throw in a comment about 'rednecks' or 'southerners' or 'cowboy boots', which makes them seem like an ignorant bigoted hack themselves. Why did you do that? It's as if you couldn't resist making the jab, even though it's completely out of place in an otherwise smart and civilized post. Remember, there is somebody smarter than you who is wearing cowboy boots right now, and you know that.
(Not me, by the way. I'm not a southerner, not a redneck, and have never worn cowboy boots.)
I just requested one. Logged onto Netflix.com, went to "Instantly to your TV", click on "Wii - coming soon". They have a link to ask them for a free disk, and they said it would arrive tomorrow.
* Levy taxes for road construction. (Even on people who don't drive, or will never drive on the roads the taxes pay for)
Theft.
* Seize the fruits of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.
Not theft, since the 'fruits' were stolen.
* Levy taxes to pay for a judicial system you may never use.
Theft.
* Seize enemy property during wartime.
Theft.
* The list goes on...
If it's taking somebody's property against their will, it's theft. Moral wrongness is a judgment that one places one that theft, and it may not always be called for. Seizing an enemies' property during wartime is theft, but not wrong; just like killing in self-defense is still killing, but not wrong... or like censoring communications during wartime is still censoring, but may not be wrong.
No, what I want is for my MRI to be covered even if I already had back problems before I signed up for insurance. It isn't charity. I pay for a service, and I expect to get it.
That's fine, and maybe even reasonable; but it's not insurance. Words have meanings, and covering a pre-existing condition is the exact opposite of insurance. It is impossible to be insured against something that has already occurred.
Bollocks. People typically vote for the party that offers what is good for them personally.
Perhaps. That has often been the reason democracies have been argued to be an unstable form of government. I think you underestimate the number of people that vote based on moral principles, though. I often vote against measures that would benefit me, because it would involve taking from or penalizing other people, or restricting their freedom... and that is wrong.
When I have discussions about political issues, it resolves into issues of right and wrong far more often than over a question of how it benefits a particular individual. People aren't all that small-minded.
They can't be insured against it. It's logically impossible.
Perhaps some form of program or welfare should be created to pay for their treatment. That could be debated. But SOMEBODY would still have to pay for the luxury of that person's health care. The only question is who; whether it should be the individual, or whether the costs should be distributed across a wider group.
Imagine several schizophrenic paranoid white men, who are afraid of gays, Mexicans, muslims, the poor (that's code for minorities), hate equality, love war, and instead of using a values system as a starting point for their worldview, they start out with a worldview and then selectively apply their values system in nonsensical rants.
It amazes me that people seriously write stuff like this. You're obviously wrong, and obviously exaggerating so much that any point you're trying to make is lost in the insane ranting hyperbole. The truth is, they are a bunch of people (some white, some not) (some men, some not), who are most likely not paranoid or schizophrenic, who are probably not afraid of gays, Mexicans, Muslims, etc... but who simply have differing political opinions than you.
Why the over-the-top tirade? It makes you seem like an angry juvenile. Address the issue. Don't do an angry, idiotic rant about how other people are angry idiots.
It's fun and pleasing to think that everybody that agrees with you is smart and handsome, and everybody that disagrees with you is foolish and unworthy, isn't it?
It allows you to avoid all that irritating critical thinking and possibility of self-doubt.
Socialism is simply regulation. Regulating an industry is controlling an industry. The only question is HOW regulated an industry, which is equivalent to HOW socialized an industry? It's not all or nothing, and there is almost no business that is completely free, or completely socialized. The early stages of internet e-commerce is an example of something nearer the free, unregulated, unsocialized end; banking is an example of something on the heavily regulated, socialized extreme.
Politics? They knew the Republicans wouldn't vote for it, but threw in some concessions anyway, to make it seem like the Republicans were being unreasonable? That would also give them some room to blame them later when the consequences of the bill are felt. The Democrats can claim the bill didn't go far enough because of those evil Republicans.
Certain zealots would eat up those talking points and regurgitate them all over the net.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Insurance against a pre-existing condition is an oxymoron. It's not possible. You want charity. Which is fine, but don't get it confused with insurance.
What is the rush? I mean, if this is going to affect roughly 1/6th of our economy, let's study and get it right.
Exactly. I have a rule to never purchase a 'deal' if the seller says I need to decide today. This bill is being rushed to an insane degree; obviously, they feel that the longer it is debated, the more familiar the public becomes with it, and the more legislators feel the opinion of the public, the less chance the bill has of being passed.
I can understand different opinions about the bill, and whether it would be good or bad; but I can't understand anybody who would say that the legislative process it is following is reasonable, or even ethical. If a bill is complicated, controversial, and greatly impactful, more debate is the proper response. Not rushing and parliamentary tricks.
Xkcd itself made a (slightly oblique) comment on this, when he criticized people who found amusement in quoting line after line, verbatim, from Monty Python. They're great, but it's a weakness in creativity to endlessly repeat the same funny lines. That type of rote mimicry is exactly NOT what made Monty Python great in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
First, inventions are what can be patented. If you invent an algorithm, why should you not be allowed to patent it?
It stretches the definition of 'invention' to claim that algorithms are inventions.
Second, we don't need any argument to extend patents to algorithms. They already are. If you want to abolish software patents, however, you should make a good case for that move.
They aren't patentable in most of the world, nor were they even here for the period of most explosive growth of software. Software patents are a bit of an anomaly, and their presence still needs justification.
Why should they be allowed? Not allowing patents is the default position. There are a lot of ideas that can't be patented. I've written a book; I can't patent it, even though there are original ideas within.
Before arguing that patents shouldn't cover software, there should first be some reasonable argument to extend them there in the first place.
You're amazingly stupid; but you probably know that, down deep.
Always? Is my 250 or 500 GB hard drives a power of 2? Would it be a power of 2 for either definition of "giga"? How 'bout a 1.44 "MB" floppy. There's a fun one.
No, obviously. But their purpose is to hold the contents of computer memory, which is innately based around the power of two. If you are making a box to hold 1m cubes, you don't measure the box in feet.
Do you realize the flaw with your cunning plan, yet?
Insightful? Good grief. Some people treat moderation like a football game: This comment is on "my side", so must be modded up, no matter how poor... or the inverse, it's on "the other side", so must be modded down, regardless of well it may be written.
Do better, slashdotters.
I logged in so I could mod you funny, but my mod points are gone. So... anyway, don't take it as a personal insult. It's just the nature of the beast. There's no REASON states need to be efficient or competitive in most fields, so they aren't.
Many of us prefer a self-confident moron with cowboy boots
I see this a lot... somebody makes an intelligent, well-written comment, and then will throw in a comment about 'rednecks' or 'southerners' or 'cowboy boots', which makes them seem like an ignorant bigoted hack themselves. Why did you do that? It's as if you couldn't resist making the jab, even though it's completely out of place in an otherwise smart and civilized post. Remember, there is somebody smarter than you who is wearing cowboy boots right now, and you know that.
(Not me, by the way. I'm not a southerner, not a redneck, and have never worn cowboy boots.)
I just requested one. Logged onto Netflix.com, went to "Instantly to your TV", click on "Wii - coming soon". They have a link to ask them for a free disk, and they said it would arrive tomorrow.
You realize that Netflix does a lot of business with something called "DVDs", right?
I think if they search harder, they may find that as a search engine, google indexed pages about piracy, hate speech, and terrorism. How evil is that?
Don't get me started about the PHONE COMPANY. They carry all sorts of damnable content. I've heard copyrighted music over a phone, before.
Ok.
* Levy taxes for road construction. (Even on people who don't drive, or will never drive on the roads the taxes pay for)
Theft.
* Seize the fruits of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.
Not theft, since the 'fruits' were stolen.
* Levy taxes to pay for a judicial system you may never use.
Theft.
* Seize enemy property during wartime.
Theft.
* The list goes on...
If it's taking somebody's property against their will, it's theft. Moral wrongness is a judgment that one places one that theft, and it may not always be called for. Seizing an enemies' property during wartime is theft, but not wrong; just like killing in self-defense is still killing, but not wrong... or like censoring communications during wartime is still censoring, but may not be wrong.
No, what I want is for my MRI to be covered even if I already had back problems before I signed up for insurance. It isn't charity. I pay for a service, and I expect to get it.
That's fine, and maybe even reasonable; but it's not insurance. Words have meanings, and covering a pre-existing condition is the exact opposite of insurance. It is impossible to be insured against something that has already occurred.
This is the sort of comment that gets us nowhere. "Theft" implies moral wrongfulness.
"Theft" implies taking another's property. Moral wrongfulness is a CONSEQUENCE of that.
Bollocks. People typically vote for the party that offers what is good for them personally.
Perhaps. That has often been the reason democracies have been argued to be an unstable form of government. I think you underestimate the number of people that vote based on moral principles, though. I often vote against measures that would benefit me, because it would involve taking from or penalizing other people, or restricting their freedom... and that is wrong.
When I have discussions about political issues, it resolves into issues of right and wrong far more often than over a question of how it benefits a particular individual. People aren't all that small-minded.
They can't be insured against it. It's logically impossible.
Perhaps some form of program or welfare should be created to pay for their treatment. That could be debated. But SOMEBODY would still have to pay for the luxury of that person's health care. The only question is who; whether it should be the individual, or whether the costs should be distributed across a wider group.
Imagine several schizophrenic paranoid white men, who are afraid of gays, Mexicans, muslims, the poor (that's code for minorities), hate equality, love war, and instead of using a values system as a starting point for their worldview, they start out with a worldview and then selectively apply their values system in nonsensical rants.
It amazes me that people seriously write stuff like this. You're obviously wrong, and obviously exaggerating so much that any point you're trying to make is lost in the insane ranting hyperbole. The truth is, they are a bunch of people (some white, some not) (some men, some not), who are most likely not paranoid or schizophrenic, who are probably not afraid of gays, Mexicans, Muslims, etc... but who simply have differing political opinions than you.
Why the over-the-top tirade? It makes you seem like an angry juvenile. Address the issue. Don't do an angry, idiotic rant about how other people are angry idiots.
It's fun and pleasing to think that everybody that agrees with you is smart and handsome, and everybody that disagrees with you is foolish and unworthy, isn't it?
It allows you to avoid all that irritating critical thinking and possibility of self-doubt.
Socialism is simply regulation. Regulating an industry is controlling an industry. The only question is HOW regulated an industry, which is equivalent to HOW socialized an industry? It's not all or nothing, and there is almost no business that is completely free, or completely socialized. The early stages of internet e-commerce is an example of something nearer the free, unregulated, unsocialized end; banking is an example of something on the heavily regulated, socialized extreme.
Politics? They knew the Republicans wouldn't vote for it, but threw in some concessions anyway, to make it seem like the Republicans were being unreasonable? That would also give them some room to blame them later when the consequences of the bill are felt. The Democrats can claim the bill didn't go far enough because of those evil Republicans.
Certain zealots would eat up those talking points and regurgitate them all over the net.
Insurance against a pre-existing condition is an oxymoron. It's not possible. You want charity. Which is fine, but don't get it confused with insurance.
What is the rush? I mean, if this is going to affect roughly 1/6th of our economy, let's study and get it right.
Exactly. I have a rule to never purchase a 'deal' if the seller says I need to decide today. This bill is being rushed to an insane degree; obviously, they feel that the longer it is debated, the more familiar the public becomes with it, and the more legislators feel the opinion of the public, the less chance the bill has of being passed.
I can understand different opinions about the bill, and whether it would be good or bad; but I can't understand anybody who would say that the legislative process it is following is reasonable, or even ethical. If a bill is complicated, controversial, and greatly impactful, more debate is the proper response. Not rushing and parliamentary tricks.
Seriously? Whining about moderation?
Maybe I should cyberstalk you for a while with over-rated mods, and feast on the sweet, sweet tears from your tanturms.
Seriously? YOU'RE Whining about HIS tantrums? Childish.
Xkcd itself made a (slightly oblique) comment on this, when he criticized people who found amusement in quoting line after line, verbatim, from Monty Python. They're great, but it's a weakness in creativity to endlessly repeat the same funny lines. That type of rote mimicry is exactly NOT what made Monty Python great in the first place.
Douglas Adams receives the same treatment.
Xkcd is a pretty good and generally clever comic, and I suspect you hate it for non-rational reasons... but that's neither here nor there.
I agree that the GP's insult of Trig Palin gives him away as an idiot. It's a type of humor that only the insecure utilize.