I don't disagree with your comments Gigs, but the point you were responding to meant "physiological" not "psychological".:-)
I think that the word "addiction" should be reserved for the physiological dependance of a herion addict or alcoholic. There is a psychological phenomenon that you are accurately describing, but calling it addiction is ridiculous. It's nowhere near the same level of compulsion as a physically addicting drug. There's a big difference between "I really feel good when I do this" and "I feel like I'm gonna die if I don't do this"--the only exception I can think of is for people who are clinically depressed, and that's simply a complication of factors--such people could be addicted to anything if it cleared their mood.
Did you bother reading the original post which I was responding to? Lawyers have a vested interest in a jury made up of people who are easily manipulated. Lawyers get to do most of the picking and choosing that goes on. Therefore juries are typically pretty easily manipulated. A jury of "intellectual eunuchs" to borrow your phrase. Given a choice between those with no logical facility and those with no emotional facility, it's clear that at least with the logical bunch, I'll have some chance of an argument based on the facts, rather than what I look like.
If you think that's arrogance, I can't fix you. Personally, it sounds to me like you have some really stupid stereotypes of logical people based on watching too much star trek. Logic can be tempered with emotion without you being an idiot. It's the fact that lawyers are looking for manipulable idiots that I'm railing against, not the populace at large.
The judge is at least *expected* by the system to be impartial. Lawyers are expected to be quite the opposite.
And if you want to be judged by people who can't use their brains to figure out anything, you get the "justice" you deserve. Personally, I'd rather have the impartial ones over the idiots any day, thanks.
Let's start with letting the judge decide who is and isn't biased before putting them in the box, rather than lawyers with a vested interest in trying to bias in one direction or another. I'm sure there are other obvious ideas out there, I'm just too braindead today to think of them.
Well I don't know that it would have been necessary to do a frame for frame comparison. It's pretty obvious from the screenshots that what happened was that they put a letterbox matting on the non-widescreen image. You'd think the reviewer might have noticed if you couldn't see the pink shoes, for example.
You have just violated my digital copyright on the word "millennium, established by the Digital Copyright 'Millennium' Act. And you misspelled it to boot. Shame on you.
If AOL had instant messaging in 1986, do you really expect me to believe it sprung full formed from their heads? You ain't proved jack until you show when AOL implemented IM, and when they started.
Of course, this is all pretty academic. In slashback someone showed a PLATO system that was essentially IM in 1973 or so. That is pretty incontravertable prior art.
Didn't MIT teach you to prove, not assume? That's my point. People ranting about how they believe that there MUST be prior art aren't a priori WRONG, they just aren't saying anything informative or useful. I'm trying to find someone who has the knowledge or the time to do the research and prove the prior art, not just another slashdork who can rave all he likes about what he thinks is likely but nevr proves anything.
And I need gigabit ethernet and firewire with individual busses WHY? I thought Mac was all about the user, and I can't think of any user outside of really specialized industries that might possibly need those features.
Because I don't see all the people I want to send things to in person to hand them cash? I can't email a check to someone. Does that mean I'm not putting as much effort into it? Probably, but the people I'd be emailing certificates to already understand email.
There was a time when no one had heard of Instant Messaging at which point they were not "obvious functionality". And I don't just mean idea in someone's head, I mean, as someone else pointed out, a documented spec for what it is and how to do it. Implementation is not necessary for a patent, though it helps. And since AOL was founded in 1986, they could have HAD an implementation in 1986! Not being an expert in the history of AOL, I can't say for certain.
I agree that the claims are probably as groundless the 1-click stuff, but simply asserting that something existed in 1988 that implemented the same functionality does not disprove that AOL may have had it prior to that.
AOL was founded in 1986. They have a reasonable possibility of being able to claim that they came up with the idea before 1988. Likely true? I doubt it. But Zephyr is not obviously prior art as you seem to think.
So where is the definitive website with the differences in the plot from the book? I've seen reference to Frodo & Sam in Gondor etc. but no one appears to have actually explained it in the reviews (none of the bloody reviews linked seemed to be anyone who gave a damn about reading the books) or here.
The main problem is of course that those who don't deal responsibly with weapons form a huge menace. Such a great menace in fact that it is better to ban all use than to allow the minority to fuck it up.
You can say the same thing about having a dick, but I don't see you volunteering us all for castration.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the word "addiction" should be reserved for the physiological dependance of a herion addict or alcoholic. There is a psychological phenomenon that you are accurately describing, but calling it addiction is ridiculous. It's nowhere near the same level of compulsion as a physically addicting drug. There's a big difference between "I really feel good when I do this" and "I feel like I'm gonna die if I don't do this"--the only exception I can think of is for people who are clinically depressed, and that's simply a complication of factors--such people could be addicted to anything if it cleared their mood.
What precisely stops some enterprising person from reading the source, writing their own documentation, and publishing it for free?
If you think that's arrogance, I can't fix you. Personally, it sounds to me like you have some really stupid stereotypes of logical people based on watching too much star trek. Logic can be tempered with emotion without you being an idiot. It's the fact that lawyers are looking for manipulable idiots that I'm railing against, not the populace at large.
And if you want to be judged by people who can't use their brains to figure out anything, you get the "justice" you deserve. Personally, I'd rather have the impartial ones over the idiots any day, thanks.
Let's start with letting the judge decide who is and isn't biased before putting them in the box, rather than lawyers with a vested interest in trying to bias in one direction or another. I'm sure there are other obvious ideas out there, I'm just too braindead today to think of them.
Well I don't know that it would have been necessary to do a frame for frame comparison. It's pretty obvious from the screenshots that what happened was that they put a letterbox matting on the non-widescreen image. You'd think the reviewer might have noticed if you couldn't see the pink shoes, for example.
I thought we fought a war to NOT be England?
And before I get flamed for ignoring the title, the editors frequently rewrite titles. Nowhere in the fanboy review does he say "widescreen".
Or didn't watch the widescreen versions.
You have just violated my digital copyright on the word "millennium, established by the Digital Copyright 'Millennium' Act. And you misspelled it to boot. Shame on you.
Of course, this is all pretty academic. In slashback someone showed a PLATO system that was essentially IM in 1973 or so. That is pretty incontravertable prior art.
Well, duh. :-)
Didn't MIT teach you to prove, not assume? That's my point. People ranting about how they believe that there MUST be prior art aren't a priori WRONG, they just aren't saying anything informative or useful. I'm trying to find someone who has the knowledge or the time to do the research and prove the prior art, not just another slashdork who can rave all he likes about what he thinks is likely but nevr proves anything.
And I need gigabit ethernet and firewire with individual busses WHY? I thought Mac was all about the user, and I can't think of any user outside of really specialized industries that might possibly need those features.
Because I don't see all the people I want to send things to in person to hand them cash? I can't email a check to someone. Does that mean I'm not putting as much effort into it? Probably, but the people I'd be emailing certificates to already understand email.
I agree that the claims are probably as groundless the 1-click stuff, but simply asserting that something existed in 1988 that implemented the same functionality does not disprove that AOL may have had it prior to that.
AOL was founded in 1986. They have a reasonable possibility of being able to claim that they came up with the idea before 1988. Likely true? I doubt it. But Zephyr is not obviously prior art as you seem to think.
So where is the definitive website with the differences in the plot from the book? I've seen reference to Frodo & Sam in Gondor etc. but no one appears to have actually explained it in the reviews (none of the bloody reviews linked seemed to be anyone who gave a damn about reading the books) or here.
that doesn't mean AOL didn't originate it earlier. It doesn't mean they did either, BTW.
(just for reference, AOL was founded in 1985)
Sadly, I believe Mirabilis (ICQ) is owned by AOL at this point.
AOL definitely predates 1993. I knew AOL users in 1988. Try again.
That doesn't mean there isn't prior art, but you're going to have to be more specific.
Accountability should be to parents and communities, not politicians in Washington. :-)
You can say the same thing about having a dick, but I don't see you volunteering us all for castration.