You've made some interesting points. And in an ideal world, it would be great if we could devote all of our preoccupation with religion to figuring out these important truths. The preoccupation, though, is a form of vigilence. Yes, it is a waste of resources, but the greatest discovery in mankind's history won't mean much if conditions are such that religious persecution is a real threat.
Why do you think identity theft is so rampant and easy? It's because the use of Social Security Number became re-purposed and expanded, even after the initial intent was stated to apply ONLY to Social Security. Now we have a huge and growing mess to deal with, a mess that was engineered by our own government. The national ID card, at least in my view, is just another monstrous mess waiting to happen.
Posessing the data is a good part of the problem. Companies are allowed to callect and aggregate information about us, without our knowledge or permission, and then use that data in promoting their interests, which, as we've seen, can easily compromise our interests. When I say compromise, I'm not talking about a minor inconvenience- I'm talking about a life-chenging event that can take years to resolve, with no guarantee that it will be resolved.
The I question think we should be asking is this: why are others being allowed to put us at risk like this?
...without doing anything stupid. So far, I've retained some respect for Google, because from the very start, they didn't try to pollute your experience with obstacles at every turn. You did a search, related ads showed up- but they were completely unobtrusive. I've even paid visits to a few of the advertisers (intentionally).
I will say this, however...if using Google means that I'm being tracked or profiled, and my "habits" become a source of revenue, there are other search services just a mouseclick or two away. Google would do well to remember this...the internet makes service vendors very interchangeable.
That's the key..."do their project". As an OSS programmer, you do what interests you. If someone want's to divert that interest to a project of their own, so be it...at which point the expectation of payment is not unreasonable.
To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims
It seems more likely that the scope of victimization extends far beyond just the companies involved. A patentholder could exercise any and or all of its claims at any point, and at any terms, leaving those on the other side in a somewhat tenuous state. I see this as a way to raise the barrier of entry quite substantially. Once, all it took was a good idea and some programming skill, Now, almost certainly, one will need adequate legal counsel as well, which for many, simply isn't an option.
The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue.
That's about all it's generating. This madness certainly isn't helping is stated purpose, which is to foster innovation.
Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers
Don't forget the lawyers. They're masters at the art of bottom-feeding and scavenging off others' misfortune.
Christianity is a religion. A religion is a belief. In other words, what you do doesn't mean shit, it's what you believe.
If this is your position, it seems to me that you'll have a very difficult time reconciling the vast difference, that often exists between what people say, and what they actually do. I can accept the notion that anyone can say that they believe something, but it's not quite the same when it comes to being Christian. Merely calling myself a Christian, or implying that I'm Christian by virtue of what I say I believe, doesn't make me a Chrstian any more than calling myself the President makes me the President.
They will be primarily preaching to the choir as far as users go, so I guess their role is to convince people that they need to upgrade. This ought could be an interesting experiment, if not a humorous one.
A person who says he is a Christian is a Christian.
Remember the old saying, "actions speak louder than words"? Anyone can say they're Christian. Far fewer can put those words into action. Fewer still can do it with any degree of consistency. In fact, I'd question the motives of anyone who feels like they have to make a public spectacle of it.
Do you continue to support this madness by purchasing goods produced by the companies that represent the *AA? Americans are notorious for buying the rope that will hang them.
Troll? Do we have a bunch of Apple fanbois here? Do you know what it's like to fork out $500 for an ipod, only to discover that you can only upload to it ONCE PER DISK FORMAT using the USB port, and THEN find out that it will cost you $49.99 to talk to someone who *might* be able to fix your problem?
I was making a very serious comment here, in that I hope their QA with launchd is better than it is with some of their other products.
The main questions are: 1) Is it legal to show how to decipher a public transmission of the government to gain more data than intended (no matter how stupid the cypher is).
That depends on what kind of government you're talking about. If you're talking about a dictatorship or a police state, then it's easy to accept the notion that something like this might be illegal.
Who holds the patent for "viewing alpha sequences comprised of the letters G, A, T, and C, superimposed on a dual helix-shaped structure...on the internet"?
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this approach won't degenerate down the road into the extortive tactics used by IP boutiques like Eolas and Forgent.
I am sure this will happen more and more frequently- companies with large patent portfolios threatening anyone who they think *might* be infringing, can usually extend the pain- even if it is discovered that the initial patents may not have been infringed, they can always threaten to find some that are...or just accept some money and go away. I'd liken this to a form of fiscal terrorism.
Interesting quote from Bill...the implication is even more interesting. He acknowledges that if patents had been available before, the market would be at a complete standstill. He goes on to suggest that they patent all they can...and if one logically extrapolates, it's presumably so that they can help bring the market to a standstill. I guess market stagnation is fine, as long as you're an entrenched player.
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what in HELL they where thinking when they decided to approve software patents.
Myhrvold: Well, this is even stranger. We actually did a study on this. The overall number of lawsuits for patents is growing, but so is the overall number of patents. So explain that to me.
Ok, I will. You see, when something is so deplorable that it practically mandates a "screw or get screwed" m.o., guess what people will do? DUH. Does he really believe his audience is that stupid?
Slashdot Mirror
You've made some interesting points. And in an ideal world, it would be great if we could devote all of our preoccupation with religion to figuring out these important truths. The preoccupation, though, is a form of vigilence. Yes, it is a waste of resources, but the greatest discovery in mankind's history won't mean much if conditions are such that religious persecution is a real threat.
Why do you think identity theft is so rampant and easy? It's because the use of Social Security Number became re-purposed and expanded, even after the initial intent was stated to apply ONLY to Social Security. Now we have a huge and growing mess to deal with, a mess that was engineered by our own government. The national ID card, at least in my view, is just another monstrous mess waiting to happen.
Think of how many thrive to turn their "beliefs" into empires of wealth and excess, and worse, how many actually support it.
Posessing the data is a good part of the problem. Companies are allowed to callect and aggregate information about us, without our knowledge or permission, and then use that data in promoting their interests, which, as we've seen, can easily compromise our interests. When I say compromise, I'm not talking about a minor inconvenience- I'm talking about a life-chenging event that can take years to resolve, with no guarantee that it will be resolved.
The I question think we should be asking is this: why are others being allowed to put us at risk like this?
I will say this, however...if using Google means that I'm being tracked or profiled, and my "habits" become a source of revenue, there are other search services just a mouseclick or two away. Google would do well to remember this...the internet makes service vendors very interchangeable.
That's the key..."do their project". As an OSS programmer, you do what interests you. If someone want's to divert that interest to a project of their own, so be it...at which point the expectation of payment is not unreasonable.
Didn't Mr. Bezos come forth after that wonderfully innovative "one-click" patent and so much as state that the patent process was in need of reform?
To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims
It seems more likely that the scope of victimization extends far beyond just the companies involved. A patentholder could exercise any and or all of its claims at any point, and at any terms, leaving those on the other side in a somewhat tenuous state. I see this as a way to raise the barrier of entry quite substantially. Once, all it took was a good idea and some programming skill, Now, almost certainly, one will need adequate legal counsel as well, which for many, simply isn't an option.
The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue.
That's about all it's generating. This madness certainly isn't helping is stated purpose, which is to foster innovation.
Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers
Don't forget the lawyers. They're masters at the art of bottom-feeding and scavenging off others' misfortune.
Before pushing for a car that can't crash, how about getting an OS that can't crash?
"I'm going to be late for dinner, dear...my car just bluescreened, and I'm doing 60 around this hair-pin curve here..."
I laughed when I saw that as well.
Christianity is a religion. A religion is a belief. In other words, what you do doesn't mean shit, it's what you believe.
If this is your position, it seems to me that you'll have a very difficult time reconciling the vast difference, that often exists between what people say, and what they actually do. I can accept the notion that anyone can say that they believe something, but it's not quite the same when it comes to being Christian. Merely calling myself a Christian, or implying that I'm Christian by virtue of what I say I believe, doesn't make me a Chrstian any more than calling myself the President makes me the President.
They will be primarily preaching to the choir as far as users go, so I guess their role is to convince people that they need to upgrade. This ought could be an interesting experiment, if not a humorous one.
The licensing terms would be so prohibitive as to render it useless.
A person who says he is a Christian is a Christian.
Remember the old saying, "actions speak louder than words"? Anyone can say they're Christian. Far fewer can put those words into action. Fewer still can do it with any degree of consistency. In fact, I'd question the motives of anyone who feels like they have to make a public spectacle of it.
Do you continue to support this madness by purchasing goods produced by the companies that represent the *AA? Americans are notorious for buying the rope that will hang them.
Troll? Do we have a bunch of Apple fanbois here? Do you know what it's like to fork out $500 for an ipod, only to discover that you can only upload to it ONCE PER DISK FORMAT using the USB port, and THEN find out that it will cost you $49.99 to talk to someone who *might* be able to fix your problem?
I was making a very serious comment here, in that I hope their QA with launchd is better than it is with some of their other products.
I hope it works better than the USB on their ipods.
The main questions are: 1) Is it legal to show how to decipher a public transmission of the government to gain more data than intended (no matter how stupid the cypher is).
That depends on what kind of government you're talking about. If you're talking about a dictatorship or a police state, then it's easy to accept the notion that something like this might be illegal.
Who holds the patent for "viewing alpha sequences comprised of the letters G, A, T, and C, superimposed on a dual helix-shaped structure...on the internet"?
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this approach won't degenerate down the road into the extortive tactics used by IP boutiques like Eolas and Forgent.
I am sure this will happen more and more frequently- companies with large patent portfolios threatening anyone who they think *might* be infringing, can usually extend the pain- even if it is discovered that the initial patents may not have been infringed, they can always threaten to find some that are...or just accept some money and go away. I'd liken this to a form of fiscal terrorism.
Interesting quote from Bill...the implication is even more interesting. He acknowledges that if patents had been available before, the market would be at a complete standstill. He goes on to suggest that they patent all they can...and if one logically extrapolates, it's presumably so that they can help bring the market to a standstill. I guess market stagnation is fine, as long as you're an entrenched player.
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what in HELL they where thinking when they decided to approve software patents.
Myhrvold: Well, this is even stranger. We actually did a study on this. The overall number of lawsuits for patents is growing, but so is the overall number of patents. So explain that to me.
Ok, I will. You see, when something is so deplorable that it practically mandates a "screw or get screwed" m.o., guess what people will do? DUH. Does he really believe his audience is that stupid?
Nice point.
Why is it that Microsoft is always on the 'innovate or die' line when they're making billions of dollars?
The irony in all of this is that neither death nor innovation seem to make their way into the picture.
But, margarine is not butter
Hm...a slogan for a new distro? "I can't believe it's not Unix!"