1. The concept of making child pornography illegal has nothing to do with whether or not someone was 'sexually titillated'. It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.
2. The argument that his prior conviction is grounds for a 'severe response to cartoon images' is ridiculous. As the cartoon images never required an illegal act to create them in the first place, the only thing making them illegal is the ludicrous ruling by the supreme court judge that made 'cartoon child porn' the equivalent of real porn.
It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
True, there is no clear contract as part of the sale of this 'work of art' so it is unlikely to be enforceable legally.
However, I don't think that matters, as legal enforcement is not part of the intention with this black cube. The idea is that the perception of value of this 'work of art' includes not just the physical manifestation, but also the concepts contained within the terms. This implies that if someone were to break these terms, then the 'work of art' loses value as a work of art.
Unfortunately, this creates a problem for the buyer next in the chain. The better way of collecting the percentage would be to have the new owner pay the fee back to the creator as part of these terms. That way you can only destroy the value of the 'work of art' for yourself, not for the person next in the chain.
Think of secured loans where you 'buy' the car, but it's not actually owned by you until the conditions of the contract are fully satisfied. In a lease arrangement, the ownership may never be transferred.
So you can go around calling it your car, but as long as outstanding contractual conditions still apply, then it isn't really yours and you didn't really 'buy' it.
What the parent was saying is that in most cases 17 or 18 out of those 20 claims are invalid anyway.
If patents were worded properly, it wouldn't be 20 claims. Instead it would be maybe 17 or 18 statements of art, followed by 2 or 3 actual claims.
It's ridiculous reading a patent when it clearly 'claims' obvious prior art, just so subsequent 'claims' can be made that do contain something that is actually novel.
all the good people already left for the western economies where they get paid more
I heard they're returning, though, due to the slump. They earn less over at home, but their cost of living is lower and they would stand a decent shot at being a manager instead of a production employee.
And thus they are no longer in a position to write good code.
Probably because they have been shown enormous injustices that are regularly committed around the world - and then convinced that the 'right thing to do' is die for the cause to heroically stand against this 'evil'.
At that point, the 'evil' is whoever they are most convinced it is.
It is much harder to rally people to a cause, when the underlying premise is weak or unemotional.
1. Apple is not a monopoly, so you have a choice to buy another phone and not be hindered by market forces pushing you in Apple's direction.
2. Microsoft spent much effort back in the DOS and early Windows days making life hard for companies that competed with their office products. eg. Lotus, Word Perfect for Windows, etc. It used to be a running joke that DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run.
However, Microsoft's real abuse was when they started pressuring hardware vendors to include only their products or pay the penalty. You can only do that if your market share is so great that simply denying your product to a vendor will guarantee they can no longer viably sell their own product.
More like the Mac OSX / Linux argument. There are no* viruses for either, even though there have been a few in the past.
Whereas windows is like living in a war zone. Yes, there are a few viruses, but a huge number more trojans that are all still trying to own your system.
The concept of 'war on terror' is purely a rallying point to allow the government to get away with increasing its power and/or let politicians cover there asses. The TSA is security theatre, no more, no less. The most effective counter to 'terrorism' is to stop pissing people off, but that requires real cajones.
Really, if people talk about the wasted money of "security theater" why do they never talk about the wasted money of "fire fighting show". Go and count, how many exthinguishers and such do you come across in a typical day, all of them unused. Why bother? Especially since in a real fire they are rarely used?
Go ahead, board an aircraft without oxygen masks or seatbelts or emergency doors. None of them saved anyone ever. (well not enough to be worth the costs) So why bother?
I agree with most of what you said, but these two points are not quite accurate.
Fire extinguishes are rarely used once a fire takes hold, but numerous building fires are prevented because an extinguisher was available to stop a small fire from growing into a bigger one (think stove fires, equipment fires, etc).
Also, seat belts in planes are there to keep people in their seats during severe turbulence - ie. prevent injuries to themselves and others. They also help during aborted takeoffs and harsh landings. If the plane 'falls out of the sky', there's not much anything can do to help you.
Reason is that too many products existed as prior art (walkie-talkies, etc). They do have some detailed internal antenna patents, but these were mainly superseded by better methods (that are also patented by companies such as Sierra Wireless which did some work for Apple in this area).
An even more accurate analogy: You shot yourself. You came over to my Canadian property across the border and I told you where in the US you could buy the gun and ammo so that you could kill yourself.
But your argument is really a push for MORE benefits; not less. You would be unmotivated to contribute to innovation under the current system. The absence of that system would not provide MORE innovation from you.
I think the OPs argument is that Copyright is sufficient and that Patents have gone way too far (primarily in the software world - but IMO they have gone too far in all areas).
The thing that holds many people back is the fear of litigation. For example, if I patent something and the patent goes through, then I am giving a potential litigator an insight into how my product works. Chances are there are a whole bunch of other patents that may be construed as being infringed upon. So even if my team of 10 guys did nothing but read patents all day and discuss the subtleties of claims that I might be infringing, chances are we would either never release a product, although we would surely be prepared to go to court with a prepared defence. Subsequently, if for some reason our defence doesn't pan out, we may end up being smacked with triple damages for intentional infringement. And even if it does pan out, well we're still out all our legal and investigative fees.
This is why the patent system is broken. If patents were forced to only include extremely specific claims, then this wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, in the real world, patents are all written to maximise vagueness and broadness of application.
I see too many patents in my field where the patent is clearly an obvious derivation of an existing concept. These are hard and expensive to invalidate as one man's 'obvious' is another man's 'genius'.
The BBC produces some of the best TV shows around. The intellectual difference between the average show produced by the BBC and those produced by other commercial entities is staggering.
BTW I don't live in the UK and so haven't had the experience of a BBC tax collector knocking at my door.
Outsourcing customer service to another country is a bad idea. Language and cultural barriers make communication much more difficult, even when the help desk person is knowledgeable.
This applies in both directions. Trying to help someone when there is even a marginal cultural/language barrier can make both people feel like idiots. Fair enough when it's necessary (like tech to tech knowledge transfers), but if keeping customers is part of your business plan, it's probably a bad idea to implement it this way for the general help desk.
Actually, it's more along the lines of fraud; akin to mailing out an invoice to a company for a service (or item) that was never provided.
What the RIAA is doing is similar to a fraudster sending out invoices to everyone in the local business directory knowing that only a small number of those businesses were ever provided with his/her service.
Unfortunately increasing your muscle mass is more likely to make your problem worse. What you're after is something that can rebuild the connective/cushioning tissues, tendons and ligaments.
Don't forget defamation and harassment. Exposing something with malicious intent qualifies (even if it's true).
Unfortunately, I assume a lot of original 'cyber bully' posts happen anonymously. And are then linked by/to everyone in the victim's peer group. The damage has been done, but who do you go after?
The concept of a whitelist is what application digital signatures are all about. Unfortunately, the process of getting an application signed is onerous enough that many small developers (and beta releases) simply don't bother. How many times have you clicked 'Yes' to a dialog box that said something to the effect of 'Application is untrusted. Continue anyway?'
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he plea bargained to the lesser offence of "possessing images of child exploitation".
WTF? Two things:
1. The concept of making child pornography illegal has nothing to do with whether or not someone was 'sexually titillated'. It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.
2. The argument that his prior conviction is grounds for a 'severe response to cartoon images' is ridiculous. As the cartoon images never required an illegal act to create them in the first place, the only thing making them illegal is the ludicrous ruling by the supreme court judge that made 'cartoon child porn' the equivalent of real porn.
It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
True, there is no clear contract as part of the sale of this 'work of art' so it is unlikely to be enforceable legally.
However, I don't think that matters, as legal enforcement is not part of the intention with this black cube. The idea is that the perception of value of this 'work of art' includes not just the physical manifestation, but also the concepts contained within the terms. This implies that if someone were to break these terms, then the 'work of art' loses value as a work of art.
Unfortunately, this creates a problem for the buyer next in the chain. The better way of collecting the percentage would be to have the new owner pay the fee back to the creator as part of these terms. That way you can only destroy the value of the 'work of art' for yourself, not for the person next in the chain.
Think of secured loans where you 'buy' the car, but it's not actually owned by you until the conditions of the contract are fully satisfied. In a lease arrangement, the ownership may never be transferred.
So you can go around calling it your car, but as long as outstanding contractual conditions still apply, then it isn't really yours and you didn't really 'buy' it.
What the parent was saying is that in most cases 17 or 18 out of those 20 claims are invalid anyway.
If patents were worded properly, it wouldn't be 20 claims. Instead it would be maybe 17 or 18 statements of art, followed by 2 or 3 actual claims.
It's ridiculous reading a patent when it clearly 'claims' obvious prior art, just so subsequent 'claims' can be made that do contain something that is actually novel.
all the good people already left for the western economies where they get paid more
I heard they're returning, though, due to the slump. They earn less over at home, but their cost of living is lower and they would stand a decent shot at being a manager instead of a production employee.
And thus they are no longer in a position to write good code.
Probably because they have been shown enormous injustices that are regularly committed around the world - and then convinced that the 'right thing to do' is die for the cause to heroically stand against this 'evil'.
At that point, the 'evil' is whoever they are most convinced it is.
It is much harder to rally people to a cause, when the underlying premise is weak or unemotional.
1. Apple is not a monopoly, so you have a choice to buy another phone and not be hindered by market forces pushing you in Apple's direction.
2. Microsoft spent much effort back in the DOS and early Windows days making life hard for companies that competed with their office products. eg. Lotus, Word Perfect for Windows, etc. It used to be a running joke that DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run.
However, Microsoft's real abuse was when they started pressuring hardware vendors to include only their products or pay the penalty. You can only do that if your market share is so great that simply denying your product to a vendor will guarantee they can no longer viably sell their own product.
More like the Mac OSX / Linux argument. There are no* viruses for either, even though there have been a few in the past.
Whereas windows is like living in a war zone. Yes, there are a few viruses, but a huge number more trojans that are all still trying to own your system.
The concept of 'war on terror' is purely a rallying point to allow the government to get away with increasing its power and/or let politicians cover there asses. The TSA is security theatre, no more, no less. The most effective counter to 'terrorism' is to stop pissing people off, but that requires real cajones.
*Ok, almost zero.
Really, if people talk about the wasted money of "security theater" why do they never talk about the wasted money of "fire fighting show". Go and count, how many exthinguishers and such do you come across in a typical day, all of them unused. Why bother? Especially since in a real fire they are rarely used?
Go ahead, board an aircraft without oxygen masks or seatbelts or emergency doors. None of them saved anyone ever. (well not enough to be worth the costs) So why bother?
I agree with most of what you said, but these two points are not quite accurate.
Fire extinguishes are rarely used once a fire takes hold, but numerous building fires are prevented because an extinguisher was available to stop a small fire from growing into a bigger one (think stove fires, equipment fires, etc).
Also, seat belts in planes are there to keep people in their seats during severe turbulence - ie. prevent injuries to themselves and others. They also help during aborted takeoffs and harsh landings. If the plane 'falls out of the sky', there's not much anything can do to help you.
Mod parent up / grandparent down.
Reason is that too many products existed as prior art (walkie-talkies, etc). They do have some detailed internal antenna patents, but these were mainly superseded by better methods (that are also patented by companies such as Sierra Wireless which did some work for Apple in this area).
An even more accurate analogy: You shot yourself. You came over to my Canadian property across the border and I told you where in the US you could buy the gun and ammo so that you could kill yourself.
But your argument is really a push for MORE benefits; not less. You would be unmotivated to contribute to innovation under the current system. The absence of that system would not provide MORE innovation from you.
I think the OPs argument is that Copyright is sufficient and that Patents have gone way too far (primarily in the software world - but IMO they have gone too far in all areas).
The thing that holds many people back is the fear of litigation. For example, if I patent something and the patent goes through, then I am giving a potential litigator an insight into how my product works. Chances are there are a whole bunch of other patents that may be construed as being infringed upon. So even if my team of 10 guys did nothing but read patents all day and discuss the subtleties of claims that I might be infringing, chances are we would either never release a product, although we would surely be prepared to go to court with a prepared defence. Subsequently, if for some reason our defence doesn't pan out, we may end up being smacked with triple damages for intentional infringement. And even if it does pan out, well we're still out all our legal and investigative fees.
This is why the patent system is broken. If patents were forced to only include extremely specific claims, then this wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, in the real world, patents are all written to maximise vagueness and broadness of application.
I see too many patents in my field where the patent is clearly an obvious derivation of an existing concept. These are hard and expensive to invalidate as one man's 'obvious' is another man's 'genius'.
He got modded up for calling bullshit on your natural selection comment, and for providing some actual data to the discussion.
The BBC produces some of the best TV shows around. The intellectual difference between the average show produced by the BBC and those produced by other commercial entities is staggering.
BTW I don't live in the UK and so haven't had the experience of a BBC tax collector knocking at my door.
Mod parent up. +1 Insightful.
Outsourcing customer service to another country is a bad idea. Language and cultural barriers make communication much more difficult, even when the help desk person is knowledgeable.
This applies in both directions. Trying to help someone when there is even a marginal cultural/language barrier can make both people feel like idiots. Fair enough when it's necessary (like tech to tech knowledge transfers), but if keeping customers is part of your business plan, it's probably a bad idea to implement it this way for the general help desk.
Testing software is certainly monotonus but if it's predictable then why do it at all?
The test itself is predictable, but the result isn't.
Actually, it's more along the lines of fraud; akin to mailing out an invoice to a company for a service (or item) that was never provided.
What the RIAA is doing is similar to a fraudster sending out invoices to everyone in the local business directory knowing that only a small number of those businesses were ever provided with his/her service.
Unfortunately increasing your muscle mass is more likely to make your problem worse. What you're after is something that can rebuild the connective/cushioning tissues, tendons and ligaments.
Woosh...
Don't forget defamation and harassment. Exposing something with malicious intent qualifies (even if it's true).
Unfortunately, I assume a lot of original 'cyber bully' posts happen anonymously. And are then linked by/to everyone in the victim's peer group. The damage has been done, but who do you go after?
Looks like they won.
As mentioned in many previous posts, we now also have the ability to freeze raw foods to avoid spoilage in the first place.
What, 50 apps chosen by Microsoft?
The concept of a whitelist is what application digital signatures are all about. Unfortunately, the process of getting an application signed is onerous enough that many small developers (and beta releases) simply don't bother. How many times have you clicked 'Yes' to a dialog box that said something to the effect of 'Application is untrusted. Continue anyway?'
That's why you instead see the phrase "purchase a license" or "buy a license".