To be more accurate, the US has operated in cycles. There have been vicious scumbags in office before- Roosevelt and McCarthy, for example. In fact, some of the legal restrictions that prevented information from passing between government agencies were a direct result of the abuse that took place during those periods. Quite obviously, the US is on a downward slide in one of those cycles. On the other hand, I don't believe there has ever been such wide-spread corruption among the "elected" representatives, so how well we ultimately recover from this is anyone's guess.
Unlike the government, I feel I have an actual duty to keep my behavior within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.
You know something's wrong when the president, sworn to uphold the constitution, refers to it as "just a damned piece of paper." It's rather comedic (in a very sad way) that people can make such a fuss about whether or not an individual citizen has the right to burn the American flag (as an expression of protest), but nary a word is said when the commander-in-chief openly demonstrates willful contempt for the very foundation of our government.
That is fine and dandy, but one has to wonder if this goes on all the time.
One doesn't have to wonder, because it has been quite obvious over the last six years that the Republican party has some interesting priorities. FEMA, TIA, The Delay corruption, secret prisons, torture, An unjustifiably elevated level of secrecy, laws that clearly favor big corporate interests over the public at large, and A president who feels he is above the law- this appointment appears to be along the same lines as what we've already seen.
I consider myself to be primarily digitally inclined, but I can still see how it would allow one more expressive freedom and greater efficiency using a sketch pad and pencils/charcoal/whatever. And, you always have the option to leave it as is, or use it as the basis for something of a more digital nature.
I see a big problem with a first-to-file method, since there seems to be some confusion between the terms "invention" and "patent". With first-to-file, you haven't necessarily invented anything...you've simply filed an idea with a government agency that can grant you a monopoly on that idea.
An invention (at least in my mind) carries with it a physical manifestation- something that has been built, a process that is in use, etc. First-to-file will only keep the patent mills going, churning out whatever garbage they can muster to "protect" even the most vague, and in many cases, most obvious means of accomplishing something.
One of them would surely get the patent - the "obviousness" would only be discovered after any of the others decided to fork out a large sum of money to have the patent tested for validity (a lawsuit).
Drawing on the computer is just as challenging and frustrating as drawing in any other fashion; more so because of the myriad of tools and effects that can be used in a single drawing
Having used Painter for some serious drawing, I agree. Part of issue here is the software one uses - compositing software like Photoshop is NOT drawing software, though I'm sure people use it as such. Neither are other "design"-oriented packages. Maybe these reduce the level interest in software like Painter, but when you're producing the real deal (real drawing), it can be very bit as challenging as drawing/painting with non-digital media.
I think the community-at-large should be very careful with this. Linux is open source, no doubt. But, what if, over time, Microsoft became *the* resource for open-source software, advice, etc., relegating much the current open source effort to a class of unimportant distinction? What better way to eventually rid yourself of a huge problem - support it out of existence.
I think denying our knowledge economy the ability to patent their work is a bad thing, but I think software patents currently allow a way too big a net to be cast.
I don't. Software is protected under copyright, and what patents do is offer companies an excuse to actually limit their innovation and drive for better products. Once they have product and a market, without competition, there is little reason to improve it. Competition drives innovation. In the end, consumers are the ones who pay- they are deprived of choices they might otherwise have from competing entities.
Hardly a fair comparison - if all you installed on the Fedora system was what was required to run a web server and skipped all the GUI stuff, it would probably come close in terms of the time requirement.
Rven so, I disagree with the premise. In light of the recent right-wing corruptian issues (Tom Delay), neutrality doesn't mean jack right now. It could easily be a step on the way to something more isidious.
You're assuming that there will be enough customers that a) understand the issue and why it's important to them, and b) that are motivated enough to do anything about it. Typically, neither is true. Just look at the whole RIAA mess...a problem that could have been handily resolved years ago.
I got tired of the large phone books I get each year cluttering up my shelf space. Rather than throw three of them away, I stacked them atop one another, interlocking the first/last half inch or so of pages between them. Voila...an instant stepper. It's really not hard to push your chair out of the way and step for 10-30 minutes at a time - and you can really get your pulse elevated doing it. Just be wary of the occasional misstep - it's not as sturdy as a manufactured step, but used with a bit of attention, it's still very effective.
This has been happening all along - there are still a variety of verions of Windows/other MS Software in use. Microsoft is trying to maximize its revenue by requiring that the OS be treated like a consumable commodity- much like electricity, gas, or water.
Someone needs to explain some economics to Bill et al. It just doesn't work that way.
I agree with you in theory, but here's something to consider: ten years ago when people were happily participating in usenet discussions, bearing it all in some cases, few if any ever anticipated the persistence that this online material now has. Few people anticipated that a telephone service provider would stoop so low as to entertain the idea of selling call-related information to third parties - or that a city government would be selling information pertaining to your drivers' license. What's to stop companies from including identities used on your various accounts along with other information they sell?
select and receive a certain number of movies at a time
Ah, there's the problem! Anyone can see the genius behind allowing a certain number of movies at a time. The obvious solution would be to have the customer select and receive an uncertain number of movies at a time. Oh wait...that already happens. Hurry! Patent this before Netflix gets that too!
Slashdot Mirror
Touche - interesting point.
Do you think identity thieves and other scammers are interested in people with bad credit?
I think they are looking for ways to increase/maximize their revenue - testing the waters, as it were.
Our ability to produce meaningful results, in most cases, is little more than a crapshoot.
No, they were fine thank you--- did you have a point you were trying to make?
Ok, but isn't it true that the "conservatives" are always trying to placate the Christian right in order to get their vote come election time?
To be more accurate, the US has operated in cycles. There have been vicious scumbags in office before- Roosevelt and McCarthy, for example. In fact, some of the legal restrictions that prevented information from passing between government agencies were a direct result of the abuse that took place during those periods. Quite obviously, the US is on a downward slide in one of those cycles. On the other hand, I don't believe there has ever been such wide-spread corruption among the "elected" representatives, so how well we ultimately recover from this is anyone's guess.
Unlike the government, I feel I have an actual duty to keep my behavior within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.
You know something's wrong when the president, sworn to uphold the constitution, refers to it as "just a damned piece of paper." It's rather comedic (in a very sad way) that people can make such a fuss about whether or not an individual citizen has the right to burn the American flag (as an expression of protest), but nary a word is said when the commander-in-chief openly demonstrates willful contempt for the very foundation of our government.
A lot of conservatives feel let down by Bush, for any number of reasons - ...Homeland Security, the Patriot Act...
The conservatives practically authored Patriot Act - at least the Christian right. Pat Robertson brags about this all the time.
That is fine and dandy, but one has to wonder if this goes on all the time.
One doesn't have to wonder, because it has been quite obvious over the last six years that the Republican party has some interesting priorities. FEMA, TIA, The Delay corruption, secret prisons, torture, An unjustifiably elevated level of secrecy, laws that clearly favor big corporate interests over the public at large, and A president who feels he is above the law- this appointment appears to be along the same lines as what we've already seen.
I think you have an interesting point.
I consider myself to be primarily digitally inclined, but I can still see how it would allow one more expressive freedom and greater efficiency using a sketch pad and pencils/charcoal/whatever. And, you always have the option to leave it as is, or use it as the basis for something of a more digital nature.
I see a big problem with a first-to-file method, since there seems to be some confusion between the terms "invention" and "patent". With first-to-file, you haven't necessarily invented anything...you've simply filed an idea with a government agency that can grant you a monopoly on that idea.
An invention (at least in my mind) carries with it a physical manifestation- something that has been built, a process that is in use, etc. First-to-file will only keep the patent mills going, churning out whatever garbage they can muster to "protect" even the most vague, and in many cases, most obvious means of accomplishing something.
One of them would surely get the patent - the "obviousness" would only be discovered after any of the others decided to fork out a large sum of money to have the patent tested for validity (a lawsuit).
It seems that any `software v. hardware' is not relevant to the topic, as the patent would cover either.
I was under the impression that it was the distinction of a hardware component that made software patentable in the first place.
No, we don't. Suspicion is good enough, especially in light of all of the other revelations that have come to light recently.
Drawing on the computer is just as challenging and frustrating as drawing in any other fashion; more so because of the myriad of tools and effects that can be used in a single drawing
Having used Painter for some serious drawing, I agree. Part of issue here is the software one uses - compositing software like Photoshop is NOT drawing software, though I'm sure people use it as such. Neither are other "design"-oriented packages. Maybe these reduce the level interest in software like Painter, but when you're producing the real deal (real drawing), it can be very bit as challenging as drawing/painting with non-digital media.
I think the community-at-large should be very careful with this. Linux is open source, no doubt. But, what if, over time, Microsoft became *the* resource for open-source software, advice, etc., relegating much the current open source effort to a class of unimportant distinction? What better way to eventually rid yourself of a huge problem - support it out of existence.
I think denying our knowledge economy the ability to patent their work is a bad thing, but I think software patents currently allow a way too big a net to be cast.
I don't. Software is protected under copyright, and what patents do is offer companies an excuse to actually limit their innovation and drive for better products. Once they have product and a market, without competition, there is little reason to improve it. Competition drives innovation. In the end, consumers are the ones who pay- they are deprived of choices they might otherwise have from competing entities.
Hardly a fair comparison - if all you installed on the Fedora system was what was required to run a web server and skipped all the GUI stuff, it would probably come close in terms of the time requirement.
I wish moderators would get a clue.
Rven so, I disagree with the premise. In light of the recent right-wing corruptian issues (Tom Delay), neutrality doesn't mean jack right now. It could easily be a step on the way to something more isidious.
You're assuming that there will be enough customers that a) understand the issue and why it's important to them, and b) that are motivated enough to do anything about it. Typically, neither is true. Just look at the whole RIAA mess...a problem that could have been handily resolved years ago.
I got tired of the large phone books I get each year cluttering up my shelf space. Rather than throw three of them away, I stacked them atop one another, interlocking the first/last half inch or so of pages between them. Voila...an instant stepper. It's really not hard to push your chair out of the way and step for 10-30 minutes at a time - and you can really get your pulse elevated doing it. Just be wary of the occasional misstep - it's not as sturdy as a manufactured step, but used with a bit of attention, it's still very effective.
This has been happening all along - there are still a variety of verions of Windows/other MS Software in use. Microsoft is trying to maximize its revenue by requiring that the OS be treated like a consumable commodity- much like electricity, gas, or water.
Someone needs to explain some economics to Bill et al. It just doesn't work that way.
I agree with you in theory, but here's something to consider: ten years ago when people were happily participating in usenet discussions, bearing it all in some cases, few if any ever anticipated the persistence that this online material now has. Few people anticipated that a telephone service provider would stoop so low as to entertain the idea of selling call-related information to third parties - or that a city government would be selling information pertaining to your drivers' license. What's to stop companies from including identities used on your various accounts along with other information they sell?
select and receive a certain number of movies at a time
Ah, there's the problem! Anyone can see the genius behind allowing a certain number of movies at a time. The obvious solution would be to have the customer select and receive an uncertain number of movies at a time. Oh wait...that already happens. Hurry! Patent this before Netflix gets that too!