However, based on what I'd heard, I (tentatively)recommended SO to a client of mine. After a month or two of dealing with a buggy, crashy, poorly documented, (no, screw that--effectively undocumented, and I can't get any of the 3rd party books locally) and SLOW program that stores all of its config and data files in binary formats, I'm beginning to regret my decision.
It pains me greatly to say it, but StarOffice 5.1a is a big, bloated, nonstandard, immature program. God knows I WANT to like it--I really want to be able to do all of my work on Solaris/Linux, and want a package that my clients can use to integrate mail, browsing, and word processing. Unfortunately, this ain't it yet, and based on some of the fundamental design decisions (mail stored locally is in WHAT format??!?!), I don't think it ever will be.
*sigh*
If 5.2 is actually stable and faster (as it's rumoured to be), then maybe I'll be able to overlook the other faults. Maybe I'll be able to ignore the ugly interface and the stupid file formats, but I'm still not sure it's going to be a _good_ product--merely the best (?) one out there, in an almost nonexistent market.
Agreed, although hstorically, it was Betas that required surrendering the most information. Of course, that was when 'beta' meant 'beta test product' (and having trackable testers was important) as opposed to 'buggy unfinished pre-release' (where bug reports are not required and occasionally read)
Too many of these "censored stories" are nothing more than badly slanted opinions, looking for journalism.
"Drug companies put profits before health." Oh no! The companies are making a killing on a successful drug that doesn't save lives! Well I've got news for 'em--Viagra is a (relatively) simple drug to have created. It deals with blood vessels and muscle. TB, malaria, and other diseases are _complex_. Look at how much money has gone into AIDS research, and how far they have (not) got with it. Diseases are tough tough TOUGH to battle with drugs. Furthermore, where does the money to research this stuff come from? Could it be from sales of Viagra and others? Nah...
"Turkey uses US weapons to wipe out Kurds!" Could it be that, in the telling of the slaughter (which _has_ been a significant news item) the manufacture of the specific weapons used wasn't particularly relevant?
"Nato defends..." Oh hell, they even admit that this one is unprintable as anything more than unsubstantiated rumour. Why bother putting it here, though?
"US media reduces foreign coverage." Well, maybe this has only been patently obvious for decades to those of us outside the US.
"US plans to put weapons into space." Someone else has debunked this one already.
"Louisiana promotes toxic racism." Now where is the racism here? The companies are looking for cheap land and downtrodden people who won't bitch. The state is looking for rich tenants. The fact that those areas are populated by 'communities of color' points to more significant problems in the US, which are reported on quite often.
That's 6/10 for a start, which really makes me wonder about the accuracy of the other four.
"In general, anything which really needs to be kept should be printed out and archived in duplicate..."
No offense, but this is a bad idea.
I have worked in the biotech industry for a number of years. Now for starters, any data supporting a publication, invention, or patent, has to be kept for seven years. (In Canada--I think it's the same in the US) The difference between seven years and 'permanent' isn't much when the average lifetime of achival media is less than that. In other words, if you're looking for a way of storing data for more than three or four years, your looking for essentially 'permanent' archives.
Secondly, the 'printing out in duplicate' idea implies that all data worth archiving is textual or visual. In one lab, we generated four-dimensional data sets, and did data interpretation on processed slices of extracted cubes. There's no WAY we could print out the data set, and even if we could, it would only be the processed data, using somewhat subjective processing parameters. The original data would be lost.
You do make a good point, though, that much of user 'data' is utter junk. Thing is, if you told people that it would be destroyed at the end of the month, we'd decimate an entire rainforest, printing out 'mouse balls.' One of the nice things about archiving computer data is that it's (relatively) cheap, resource-friendly, and easy. Makes it tempting to archive stuff that you never cared about keeping before.
Ultimately, every JonKatz article and the ensuing discussion tends to be more about him than whatever he was writing about, so I propose adding a new icon to the/. repository: The Katz Icon.
My idea is a scrolled piece of paper (something like this. ) containing the text "blah blah blah" writting on it.:-)
"If he had pretended that there was a _real_ "internet cleaning day", many gullible sysadmins would have fallen for it and they would have gotten very angry."
<p>Speaking as a sysadmin...
<p>If there are any so-called 'sysadmins' out there who fall for this, they deserve what they get.:-)
Hey, I can get together the fee in zorkmids! Can I come?
Re:Excerpt from my Comments to patent office
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 5
Your "blind reader" comment got me thinking of another analogy.
Consider a device that scans a book and outputs braille, either on paper or electronically. If these things are expensive, our clever blind hacker might decide to make his own.
If this worked the same was as the deCSS case, then that person would be legally prevented by the publisher from using his home-made device to translate into braille the books he's bought!
In one case, the translation is decryption. In the other case, it's a 'known' translation method. It doesn't matter! Fundamentally, you are translating the contents from an unreadable form to a readable one. That's it!
Is This The End of The Internet As We Know It? Again???
My first thought is, 'no of course not--don't be stupid!' My second though is a bit more uncertain.
I've always figured that as new aspects of the internet come about, they'll be more and more regulated. The web is already far more regulated than the more basic, primitive, and older aspects. (IRC, usenet, etc.) Usenet, for instance, is so fundamentally unregulable that it's pretty much free of danger as long as it sticks around.
But then I look at the things that _have_ fallen by the wayside over the years, anon.penet.fi being a big one. The idea that an ISP is fundamentally not responsible for user content is another (especially with most service moving from academic to commercial providers) The lack of international laws to deal with abuse, and as a result, the 'vigilante justice' that's been working fairly well up until now.
Things are changing. Things are changing RIGHT NOW more than I would have expected possible four years ago. Companies, lawmakers, and meddlers won't rest until they get control over things again, to their satisfaction. I don't know how it's going to happen but already control that seemed impossible is starting to appear (and freedom that seemed inevitable is starting to falter).
Death of the internet? Never. It's already so entrenched that in one form or another, it's going to be as ubiquitous as electricity and running water is today. (and yes, neither of those are universal) However, death of the internet as an informal, loosely regulated, anarchistic world may be starting to come about.
Pity. The worst thing is, aside from keeping 'talk' and IRC clients alive, I can't see any way of stopping it.
Damn! Today I agree with JonKatz (alias JonKatz). For once, he's not shouting, 'the sky is falling' but has brought up a very scary and real issue.
One thing I wasn't clear on: Jon calls WAVE for-profit. Are they making money, or is it just that Pinkerton's is for profit? If it's the latter, I can't get too upset, assuming there's an arms-length relationship between them. (which I would presume) However, if WAVE itself is making a profit, then it's (as Jon said) even more revolting.
In the meantime, here are some well known social deviants:
Issac Newton Albert Einstein Ludwig von Beethoven Wolfgang Mozart (not that bad) Vincent Van Gogh Hector Berlioz etc.
Well, you didn't get moderated down as a troll--you got moderated up as funny! Don't know what's worse.:-)
The thing to keep in mind is this: The rich don't have all the power. The rich have enough default power that it's seldom worth trying to muster the forces or make the sacrifices required to beat the large companies when they're in the wrong. (Not to mention the time involved!)
But it can be done, given enough determination and time. The trick is to pick your fights carefully, and prepare for the worst. Who among us is really willing to go through that?
Every article by Jon Katz (alias JonKatz!) seems to be about how the 'net (i.e. the web) is bringing a 'new age of interactivity and open-source' which is 'destined to destroy the arrogant behemoths of the old, closed-source media.' I mean, every article! Invariably he describes the media as arrogant, dinosaurs, and so forth.
Why so angry Jon? Has the media hurt you so badly that you can't simply ignore it like many (most?) of us do? Whatever the reason for your venom, it's pretty clear that you're impossibly biased as a reporter. (and pretty short on content as an editorialist, but that's another issue)
As someone else pointed out, if Jon's articles were posted 'in thread' instead, they'd get moderated down as trolls or flaimbait.
Truth be known, it was probably just a little offshoot of some more serious research. She probably was asked to come up with a little bit of 'human interest' stuff for National Science Week, and decided to go with the cold pizza/cold curry theme. You'll notice that her results weren't published anywhere--probably not worth it.
But it's Fun! Science can be fun! Food can be fun! Cold Pizza can taste good!
OK, I'll be quiet now. I didn't have any cold pizza this morning.:-(
How would the average person respond if you replaced their entire music collection with rap music?
<p>Probably about the same way they would respond if you fdisked their hard drive and installed linux."</i>
<p>Speaking as someone who lives and breathes music FAR more than computers (and as a full time Unix admin, that's saying a lot), I would respond with the following:
2) fdisk my hard drive and install linux, I'll ask for the backup tapes.{*}
1) Replace my music collection with rap, I'll bludgeon you with a tire iron.
{*} If no backup tape, then see #1.
Re:Hip Hop/L:inux Challenge Convention
on
Linux And Hip Hop
·
· Score: 1
"Hey man puff daddy might be crap but he's got a great girlfriend with excellent tits and the ass of a champion."
Hey, perfect description of the current state of Rap/hip-hop!:-)
"For the sake of **humanity** Jennifer Lopez's body must be displayed naked on the Internet."
OK, since you're obviously young and your point about rap was dead on, I'll go easy on you.
BUT, punk died with the Ramones. Anything since them that's been called punk has been (gasp!!!) backed by major labels. Anything labelled punk in the last ten years (especially the last four or so) is EXACTLY as 'major label' as the Beastie Boys, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, 'N Sync, and Brittny fuck(me)ing Spears.
Here's some major label crock from the '80s for you: the Eurythmics. Annie Lennox, like her music or not, has the finest voice since the likes of Ella and Nina.
I'm a "folk" fan, in all senses. I like what is (currently) called "folk music," but you must recognise this: You and I can't reasonably discuss what music most accurately encompases the spirit of open source, because open source music is, by its very definition, LOCAL. In fact, the only reason that different linux distros aren't geographically local is because the computing community isn't geographically segregated.
Kind of a roundabout way of saying forget about punk vs. 'major label,' vs. metal, vs. ska, vs. polka, vs. big vs. small. Saying "fuck the majors" is pointless and counterproductive, if they're willing to help you. Saying "stick to the majors" if they're NOT willing to help you is just as pointless (just ask Ani DiFranco). DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO. Any field, any genre, any time. Period.
Re:Injustice to Linux and open-source !
on
Linux And Hip Hop
·
· Score: 1
You WILL spend $100-500 dollars extra on these things. Why? Because that's all that will be around. There will not be any option, once they take off, because taking the older (cheaper) items off the market is one way that companies make money.
The other option is to rebuild the compressor in your old fashioned fridge every ten years or so.
Maybe Sun doesn't want to "get it" yet, because they're still making lots of money with their _increasing_ market share! (besides which, Linux is terribly immature compared to Solaris, HP-UX, and so help me, AIX)
Seriously, is there anyone who gives a rat's ass about this stuff, except for the companies who (will) make it? I don't want a 'web-enabled' fridge, I don't want a 'web-enabled' toaster, and I sure as hell don't want a 'web-enabled' coffee maker!
And yet, make no mistake--in five years, whether we want it or not, we'll not be able to buy a non-net appliance. Utility doesn't matter. Customer wants don't matter. Safety doesn't matter, as long as the government doesn't complain. Profit matters, and these things will make tons of profit for Sunbeam et al, on the backs of the consumer, at the expense of utility, desire, and safety.
It's stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid; and I won't have any part in promoting it. I hope most other people won't either, but that's not how the world tends to go.
To be fair, I spend most of my day living and breathing computers, and thoroughly enjoy getting _away_ from them in the kitchen. Maybe it just feels like an invasion of my 'low-tech' space, amongst the knives and pots and pans.
"The path of advancement in computer hardware has been so simple that it can be stated in one sentence -- Add more of the same."
Absolutely. Problem is, what other options do we have? I mean, I'd like to see something <b>fundamentally</b> different, but with a binary system I'm not sure if it's possible. After all, everything binary can be broken down to NAND gates (if I remember my logic functions)
On the other hand, this idea of "add more of the same" makes development stunningly easy. (compared to other fields)
In fact, that's the first quote that came to mind when I thought about Bezos being our mascot.
But here's the rub: Jeff Bezos is not fighting for the same thing 'we' are, and in fact, it's not clear that he's fighting for anything that would help really reform patent law.
What bugs me is that the lawyers (i.e., "them") are putting him up on "our" pedestal, when we're fighting with him. We haven't chosen our bedfellows--the patent office defenders have!
Well, colour me quite impressed. The article in lawnewsnetwork was surprisingly well written and balanced. I have a few objections to it, though.
1) They didn't really _explain_ why those of us opposed to the current state of patent laws feel the way we do.
2) Somehow Jeff Bezos, the man behind some of the most grievous patents in existence, has become our mascot for patent reform. Does anyone else find this ironic and disturbing?
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I have not looked StarOffice5.2 yet.
However, based on what I'd heard, I (tentatively)recommended SO to a client of mine. After a month or two of dealing with a buggy, crashy, poorly documented, (no, screw that--effectively undocumented, and I can't get any of the 3rd party books locally) and SLOW program that stores all of its config and data files in binary formats, I'm beginning to regret my decision.
It pains me greatly to say it, but StarOffice 5.1a is a big, bloated, nonstandard, immature program. God knows I WANT to like it--I really want to be able to do all of my work on Solaris/Linux, and want a package that my clients can use to integrate mail, browsing, and word processing. Unfortunately, this ain't it yet, and based on some of the fundamental design decisions (mail stored locally is in WHAT format??!?!), I don't think it ever will be.
*sigh*
If 5.2 is actually stable and faster (as it's rumoured to be), then maybe I'll be able to overlook the other faults. Maybe I'll be able to ignore the ugly interface and the stupid file formats, but I'm still not sure it's going to be a _good_ product--merely the best (?) one out there, in an almost nonexistent market.
Agreed, although hstorically, it was Betas that required surrendering the most information. Of course, that was when 'beta' meant 'beta test product' (and having trackable testers was important) as opposed to 'buggy unfinished pre-release' (where bug reports are not required and occasionally read)
Too many of these "censored stories" are nothing more than badly slanted opinions, looking for journalism.
"Drug companies put profits before health." Oh no! The companies are making a killing on a successful drug that doesn't save lives! Well I've got news for 'em--Viagra is a (relatively) simple drug to have created. It deals with blood vessels and muscle. TB, malaria, and other diseases are _complex_. Look at how much money has gone into AIDS research, and how far they have (not) got with it. Diseases are tough tough TOUGH to battle with drugs. Furthermore, where does the money to research this stuff come from? Could it be from sales of Viagra and others? Nah...
"Turkey uses US weapons to wipe out Kurds!" Could it be that, in the telling of the slaughter (which _has_ been a significant news item) the manufacture of the specific weapons used wasn't particularly relevant?
"Nato defends..." Oh hell, they even admit that this one is unprintable as anything more than unsubstantiated rumour. Why bother putting it here, though?
"US media reduces foreign coverage." Well, maybe this has only been patently obvious for decades to those of us outside the US.
"US plans to put weapons into space." Someone else has debunked this one already.
"Louisiana promotes toxic racism." Now where is the racism here? The companies are looking for cheap land and downtrodden people who won't bitch. The state is looking for rich tenants. The fact that those areas are populated by 'communities of color' points to more significant problems in the US, which are reported on quite often.
That's 6/10 for a start, which really makes me wonder about the accuracy of the other four.
"In general, anything which really needs to be kept should be printed out and archived in duplicate..."
No offense, but this is a bad idea.
I have worked in the biotech industry for a number of years. Now for starters, any data supporting a publication, invention, or patent, has to be kept for seven years. (In Canada--I think it's the same in the US) The difference between seven years and 'permanent' isn't much when the average lifetime of achival media is less than that. In other words, if you're looking for a way of storing data for more than three or four years, your looking for essentially 'permanent' archives.
Secondly, the 'printing out in duplicate' idea implies that all data worth archiving is textual or visual. In one lab, we generated four-dimensional data sets, and did data interpretation on processed slices of extracted cubes. There's no WAY we could print out the data set, and even if we could, it would only be the processed data, using somewhat subjective processing parameters. The original data would be lost.
You do make a good point, though, that much of user 'data' is utter junk. Thing is, if you told people that it would be destroyed at the end of the month, we'd decimate an entire rainforest, printing out 'mouse balls.' One of the nice things about archiving computer data is that it's (relatively) cheap, resource-friendly, and easy. Makes it tempting to archive stuff that you never cared about keeping before.
Ultimately, every JonKatz article and the ensuing discussion tends to be more about him than whatever he was writing about, so I propose adding a new icon to the /. repository: The Katz Icon.
My idea is a scrolled piece of paper (something like this. ) containing the text "blah blah blah" writting on it. :-)
Any other suggestions?
Very nice. Wish I had a setup like that.
Of course, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with realtime computing.
"If he had pretended that there was a _real_ "internet cleaning day", many gullible sysadmins would have fallen for it and they would have gotten very angry."
:-)
<p>Speaking as a sysadmin...
<p>If there are any so-called 'sysadmins' out there who fall for this, they deserve what they get.
And thus we have the REAL purpose of internet cleaning day.
Hey, I can get together the fee in zorkmids! Can I come?
Your "blind reader" comment got me thinking of another analogy.
Consider a device that scans a book and outputs braille, either on paper or electronically. If these things are expensive, our clever blind hacker might decide to make his own.
If this worked the same was as the deCSS case, then that person would be legally prevented by the publisher from using his home-made device to translate into braille the books he's bought!
In one case, the translation is decryption. In the other case, it's a 'known' translation method. It doesn't matter! Fundamentally, you are translating the contents from an unreadable form to a readable one. That's it!
Let's see that addressed by the RIAA and company.
Is This The End of The Internet As We Know It? Again???
My first thought is, 'no of course not--don't be stupid!' My second though is a bit more uncertain.
I've always figured that as new aspects of the internet come about, they'll be more and more regulated. The web is already far more regulated than the more basic, primitive, and older aspects. (IRC, usenet, etc.) Usenet, for instance, is so fundamentally unregulable that it's pretty much free of danger as long as it sticks around.
But then I look at the things that _have_ fallen by the wayside over the years, anon.penet.fi being a big one. The idea that an ISP is fundamentally not responsible for user content is another (especially with most service moving from academic to commercial providers) The lack of international laws to deal with abuse, and as a result, the 'vigilante justice' that's been working fairly well up until now.
Things are changing. Things are changing RIGHT NOW more than I would have expected possible four years ago. Companies, lawmakers, and meddlers won't rest until they get control over things again, to their satisfaction. I don't know how it's going to happen but already control that seemed impossible is starting to appear (and freedom that seemed inevitable is starting to falter).
Death of the internet? Never. It's already so entrenched that in one form or another, it's going to be as ubiquitous as electricity and running water is today. (and yes, neither of those are universal) However, death of the internet as an informal, loosely regulated, anarchistic world may be starting to come about.
Pity. The worst thing is, aside from keeping 'talk' and IRC clients alive, I can't see any way of stopping it.
Damn! Today I agree with JonKatz (alias JonKatz). For once, he's not shouting, 'the sky is falling' but has brought up a very scary and real issue.
One thing I wasn't clear on: Jon calls WAVE for-profit. Are they making money, or is it just that Pinkerton's is for profit? If it's the latter, I can't get too upset, assuming there's an arms-length relationship between them. (which I would presume) However, if WAVE itself is making a profit, then it's (as Jon said) even more revolting.
In the meantime, here are some well known social deviants:
Issac Newton
Albert Einstein
Ludwig von Beethoven
Wolfgang Mozart (not that bad)
Vincent Van Gogh
Hector Berlioz
etc.
Well, you didn't get moderated down as a troll--you got moderated up as funny! Don't know what's worse. :-)
The thing to keep in mind is this: The rich don't have all the power. The rich have enough default power that it's seldom worth trying to muster the forces or make the sacrifices required to beat the large companies when they're in the wrong. (Not to mention the time involved!)
But it can be done, given enough determination and time. The trick is to pick your fights carefully, and prepare for the worst. Who among us is really willing to go through that?
OK, honest question here.
Every article by Jon Katz (alias JonKatz!) seems to be about how the 'net (i.e. the web) is bringing a 'new age of interactivity and open-source' which is 'destined to destroy the arrogant behemoths of the old, closed-source media.' I mean, every article! Invariably he describes the media as arrogant, dinosaurs, and so forth.
Why so angry Jon? Has the media hurt you so badly that you can't simply ignore it like many (most?) of us do? Whatever the reason for your venom, it's pretty clear that you're impossibly biased as a reporter. (and pretty short on content as an editorialist, but that's another issue)
As someone else pointed out, if Jon's articles were posted 'in thread' instead, they'd get moderated down as trolls or flaimbait.
Truth be known, it was probably just a little offshoot of some more serious research. She probably was asked to come up with a little bit of 'human interest' stuff for National Science Week, and decided to go with the cold pizza/cold curry theme. You'll notice that her results weren't published anywhere--probably not worth it.
:-(
But it's Fun! Science can be fun! Food can be fun! Cold Pizza can taste good!
OK, I'll be quiet now. I didn't have any cold pizza this morning.
How would the average person respond if you replaced their entire music collection with rap music?
<p>Probably about the same way they would respond if you fdisked their hard drive and installed linux."</i>
<p>Speaking as someone who lives and breathes music FAR more than computers (and as a full time Unix admin, that's saying a lot), I would respond with the following:
2) fdisk my hard drive and install linux, I'll ask for the backup tapes.{*}
1) Replace my music collection with rap, I'll bludgeon you with a tire iron.
{*} If no backup tape, then see #1.
"Hey man puff daddy might be crap but he's got a great girlfriend with excellent tits and the ass of a champion."
Hey, perfect description of the current state of Rap/hip-hop! :-)
"For the sake of **humanity** Jennifer Lopez's body must be displayed naked on the Internet."
Um, I can't argue with this. Sorry.
OK, since you're obviously young and your point about rap was dead on, I'll go easy on you.
BUT, punk died with the Ramones. Anything since them that's been called punk has been (gasp!!!) backed by major labels. Anything labelled punk in the last ten years (especially the last four or so) is EXACTLY as 'major label' as the Beastie Boys, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, 'N Sync, and Brittny fuck(me)ing Spears.
Here's some major label crock from the '80s for you: the Eurythmics. Annie Lennox, like her music or not, has the finest voice since the likes of Ella and Nina.
I'm a "folk" fan, in all senses. I like what is (currently) called "folk music," but you must recognise this: You and I can't reasonably discuss what music most accurately encompases the spirit of open source, because open source music is, by its very definition, LOCAL. In fact, the only reason that different linux distros aren't geographically local is because the computing community isn't geographically segregated.
Kind of a roundabout way of saying forget about punk vs. 'major label,' vs. metal, vs. ska, vs. polka, vs. big vs. small. Saying "fuck the majors" is pointless and counterproductive, if they're willing to help you. Saying "stick to the majors" if they're NOT willing to help you is just as pointless (just ask Ani DiFranco). DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO. Any field, any genre, any time. Period.
Agreed.
Linux took talent to create.
You're missing (I think) one of my points.
You WILL spend $100-500 dollars extra on these things. Why? Because that's all that will be around. There will not be any option, once they take off, because taking the older (cheaper) items off the market is one way that companies make money.
The other option is to rebuild the compressor in your old fashioned fridge every ten years or so.
Ah, evangelism. It's so...evangelistic.
Maybe Sun doesn't want to "get it" yet, because they're still making lots of money with their _increasing_ market share! (besides which, Linux is terribly immature compared to Solaris, HP-UX, and so help me, AIX)
I don't like it. Not one little bit!
Seriously, is there anyone who gives a rat's ass about this stuff, except for the companies who (will) make it? I don't want a 'web-enabled' fridge, I don't want a 'web-enabled' toaster, and I sure as hell don't want a 'web-enabled' coffee maker!
And yet, make no mistake--in five years, whether we want it or not, we'll not be able to buy a non-net appliance. Utility doesn't matter. Customer wants don't matter. Safety doesn't matter, as long as the government doesn't complain. Profit matters, and these things will make tons of profit for Sunbeam et al, on the backs of the consumer, at the expense of utility, desire, and safety.
It's stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid; and I won't have any part in promoting it. I hope most other people won't either, but that's not how the world tends to go.
To be fair, I spend most of my day living and breathing computers, and thoroughly enjoy getting _away_ from them in the kitchen. Maybe it just feels like an invasion of my 'low-tech' space, amongst the knives and pots and pans.
"The path of advancement in computer hardware has been so simple that it can be stated in one sentence -- Add more of the same."
Absolutely. Problem is, what other options do we have? I mean, I'd like to see something <b>fundamentally</b> different, but with a binary system I'm not sure if it's possible. After all, everything binary can be broken down to NAND gates (if I remember my logic functions)
On the other hand, this idea of "add more of the same" makes development stunningly easy. (compared to other fields)
In fact, that's the first quote that came to mind when I thought about Bezos being our mascot.
But here's the rub: Jeff Bezos is not fighting for the same thing 'we' are, and in fact, it's not clear that he's fighting for anything that would help really reform patent law.
What bugs me is that the lawyers (i.e., "them") are putting him up on "our" pedestal, when we're fighting with him. We haven't chosen our bedfellows--the patent office defenders have!
Ugh. I'm not making a lot of sense. More coffee!
Well, colour me quite impressed. The article in lawnewsnetwork was surprisingly well written and balanced. I have a few objections to it, though.
1) They didn't really _explain_ why those of us opposed to the current state of patent laws feel the way we do.
2) Somehow Jeff Bezos, the man behind some of the most grievous patents in existence, has become our mascot for patent reform. Does anyone else find this ironic and disturbing?