I think the real point to look at on these tests is the fact that they were compiled with the intel optimizing compiler. As I understand it this optimizer is written by intel with all the fastest optimizations and tweaks. I have a feeling that some of these are specifically designed around the intel pipeline and branch prediction and other pieces of knowledge of the architecture.
That could very well give the chip the edge especially if the optimizations are screwing with the branch prediction and out of order execution in the AMD chip by going against the chips better judgement. It would be nice to get some info on the state of the pipeline while the test executes. I am betting you would see lots of wasted time as various tweaks that kick butt on intels hardware confuse the AMD's optimizations and require it to flush the pipe again and again.
Another great feature of Exchange 2000 is the awesome web based e-mail built in. I was super skeptical of this feature until I had a chance to use it. It actually works well over a 28.8k modem connection.
Exchange 2000 also has a "web store" which allows you to host web pages in exchange with a larger degree of control over secutity and metadata associated with the pages than you can easily get in the filesystem.
Also Exchange 2000 is now quite easy to administer because you do it from the same place you administer user accounts in win2k, Active Directory.
The performance of Exchange 2000 is also very good now. I won't even try to compare it with other e-mail products on the market, but its not nearly the beast it used to be.
All this said, I must say that if you have a system in place that has no problems, don't spend time and money to change it. Migrating mailboxes is a pain (even though Exchange gives you alot of help in doing so) and learning a new system is always difficult.
I do recommend Exchange for people just starting up an e-mail solution because its easy to set up initially. It scales well over time. Most of all if you get used to using the extra features of exchange from the start you get alot of benefit with little pain.
A big argument that game (and other software genre's) have against abandon ware is that if you can get an old peice of software for free that you enjoy or use to do your job then you will not buy new software thats designed to fit the same niche. They don't want to open up the competition against themselves.
I'm not going to say I like it but the argument does have some merit.
I agree, the way to solve this problem is to GET YOUR OWN ACCOUNT AND ACCESS IT FROM HOME. Geeze, how many brains does that take. I think that its perfectly resonable for your boss to monitor what you do with your computer the same way you are monitored on a cash register or the fry machine or whatever. At work you are in a different world, you have in alot of ways sold yourself for the wages you get.
If you don't like it, find another way to get that money you so love to have in your pockets. I am more for rights, privacy and personal responsability than anyone I know but there are certain places where what you do is just public, on the work computer is one of them. So quit whining and start writing those juicy e-mails at home from your own computer in your bedroom, but make sure you encrypt those suckers because you wouldn't want someone to read them. Yikes.
But is it a public broadcast? Since the internet works by sending the data from 1 storage source to 1 user. I think someone needs to press for clarification of points like these. I think the consumers are losing alot by being so limited in where and how they can listen to the music the bought the rights to listen to. I can honestly see this whole case spinning off into a future "one cd one device" type of law where you have to buy a new copy of the cd for each device you want to listen to the music on.
I also fail to buy the argument that the RIAA deserves money from a service that they do not, and do not want to provide. LET ME LISTEN TO MY MUSIC HOW I WANT, WHEN I WANT, WHERE I WANT so long as I have payed for the rights to listen to it. If I don't want to spend the time to copy the music myself, or upload the music to my own private server myself, so long as I am able to show ownership of the right to listen to the music let me listen to it!
I will delve a bit into deep opinion here, but I think the big reason that the record industry is after MP3.com is NOT because of the copyright issue of beam-it and my.mp3.com. The big problem they have is that they know they are no longer necessary. MP3.com is able to provide a huge promotion coverage for a band. They provide cd distribution for a band. They provide this for anyone, and at NO CHARGE. Talk about the end of the nasty record industry tradition of pouring your blood sweat and tears into a demo, running it around to a million agents to get it listened to, and hoping for a deal where you get even 1% of sales from the music you record. Beat the record industry, buy only music distributed by companies that believe in new distribution methods that give increased value to the artist and to the consumer.
What pisses me off about the whole thing is that the record industry stood to lose NOTHING. In fact in giving people another way to listen to the music they buy they increase the value of the product to the consumer without anyone having to spend any great deal of money. They benifit, the record companies should benifit and consumers benifit alot. Why do our laws stop what I can only see as good? WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS!
I want the record industry to give me a breakdown of allocations of the $18 I pay for an average CD. I want them to PROVE that they can't sell it for cheaper. I still won't buy the cds but it would be nice.
The truth is though, as long as demand stays at its current rate, the price won't change. When you are a monopoly you don't care about your cost when setting the price to sell your product as long as the selling price is higher than cost. For you non econ type people out there, this means that until a significant number of people don't buy cds (without there being a convient scapegoat like napster to blame) the prices will not fall.
Of course patent law encourages monopolies. In fact it enforces monopoly rights on a product that you patent for a period of (I think) 18 years. It is hoped that this period of time will allow the creator to recoup his costs of creating the product and put a little lining in his pocket so he will want to make the next product. I won't mention my opinion of patents in the digital world though.
Thank god for the x-box? At least Microsoft doesn't have any plans to end peoples ability to use computers for what they want, they just want to make sure you buy all the MS software while you are at it.
So you mean that if I write an easy to use ftp client with good search capabilities I can get the use of ftp shut down? What fun.
Seriously though, its really cruddy that a big corporation can shut down a protocol because of illegal use of it. If they win I can see them going after MS on the basis that IE is used to listen to illegal music on the net. Wait, corporations have alread flooded the web with ads so that I can't find what I'm looking for so they have effectively nullified that threat. *sigh* what is this world coming to. I just want a place to find the music I want to listen to, and unfortunately that is not the record stores these days.
Hmmm what will I listen to today, Brittney Spears or Ricki Martin
Honestly I don't care about napster surviving other than I hate the fact that they can kill a service because it CAN be (in napsters case is being) used for an illegal activity. This is the intellectual equivalent to stopping people from driving because people kill other people doing it. But enough rant.
I wouldn't care about napsters service if the record companies would make a GIANT database of all the music they sold in the past so I can search for out of date songs, and new songs as well, in one central place. Have this database charge for download of the mp3 files. Encrypt them so that only my signature can activate the file for playing. Keep a record of my purchase so that if for some reason I lose my signature or the rile I can download it again uncharged.
Add to this company owned shoutcast (or other streaming media) stations that play songs in all the genre's the companies sell records in, fill up the channel with adds between the songs (just like radio).
Basically sell me the services that I am looking for. If you provided this for me I wouldn't ever use napster, it would no longer have a place.
You have to admit that napster was the biggest database for different songs you will probably run into for a while. It had all the remixes and live concert stuff you could think of. It was a source of music that I had trouble getting access to in my low population state.
BTW lend me your hand in supporting companies that have gotten on the new wave of internet distribution like mp3.com. They have done a great job of providing music (with the authors consent) in a well organized manner. I really hope that alternate distribution kills big record companies so that places like mp3.com can thrive and provide music in a way that I like to find it.
You gave them money for YOU to use is as much and however you want. This right DOESN'T extend to another person (are we allowed to share a cd between a family anymore?) because that other person needs to pay for thier right to use the product.
I think a major thing you are failing to understand in your post is the fact that by giving away a copy of the cd to someone that would normally have to buy it, you are actually stealing the cost of that cd from the parent company. I like that part of copyright law.
What really irks me (and I'm saying this again I know) is that we are not limited in our own use of the product. We are not allowed to listen to music we have paid for "fair use" of from sources other than ones sanctioned by the company we purchased the rights from. The law is technically on thier side, but I think the law needs to be stretched for this instance. When I listen to a song that I own the cd to on mp3.com it doesn't steal one cent of revenue from the record company, other than the money they have managed to sucker mp3.com into paying, and that is money thats being stolen in my opinion.
But the question in my mind is what MP3.com did redistribution? This same argument can carried out of cyberspace in this way:
I buy a cd but don't have a cd-player in my car, nor do I have a way to copy cd to tape available to me. Is it then illegal for me to have a friend copy the same album from his cd onto tape and me to use it? Or is it required by law for me to go to his house with my cd and copy the content myself? It really is the same argument, mp3 is just another medium of recording.
What I am more scared of than audio is this same type of argument being carried over to paper media. If this holds it may well be that we see magazines dissappear from public places, because it would be within the rights of the magazine company to decide that you are only allowed to read the particular copy of the paper media that you purchased.
Ultimately laws like this will fail because people won't buy into the stupidness of it, but until that time I don't like the idea one bit.
I think this comes down to a case of "a few bad apples" spoiling the public opinion of a group. Ask anyone that is not up on technical issues about a hacker and they automatically assume its someone thats out to destroy them.
Something we can do to fight against this is to actively fight all the script kiddies and other "destroyers" that are out there in the world today. I think from this article I got the feeling that 2600 is trying to do this.
The best thing I think that can be done is to promote your rights of free speech and "fair use" while fighting piracy and destructive "hacking" with all of your might.
Thank god someone has a brain in thier head. I honestly look down upon slashdot for posting this. Of course any admin worth his salt will change all the default passwords.
I must admit that I know nearly nothing about database adiminstration and the first day I started work with SQL Server I was informed to change the password. Its not a vunerablity in the software its a well known fact about it.
With coding I find that if I ever get "block" its because I didn't write my plan well enough. When I create a good design I never have a problem finishing the project. This is where I agree with the quote, a very professional programmer will have a good design to work off and won't end up being blocked because he will always know what happens next.
I totally agree that "stealing" the music by downloading it is wrong. What pisses me off is that when you buy a cd very little of the money goes to the artist, who in my opinion is the person that deserves all the money. I have never gotten a clear answer anywhere in my reading but I have heard that artists only get like 1% or 2% of the price. The highest I think I've ever heard those numbers go is like 10%. That means that out of a $15 cd the most the artist gets is $1.50, I'd gladly pay that to the artist and more I just don't feel like stuffing the pockets of the record companies with money when they don't care about the music or the people providing or listening to it.
I think the artists should show some kind of opposition to this, they have the audience as is proven by the popularity of thier music on the online trading venue's. They just need to take initiative to offer the music they preform in alternate venues for resonable prices.
Artists, give me a place to pay you your $1.50! Throw off the yoke of oppression and use alternate distrivution venues.
I mark the escape up to the fact that the dredge prison cell was designed to imprison dredge. In the past the dredge have always killed humans, why should they know how to keep them? Do you think humans know how to trap and keep dredge? The thing that didn't make alot of sense was in the next scene where he flies off the dredge ship? Why is it that in all Sci Fi flics that everyone can interface with everyones technology. Classic star trek syndrom there.
The other side of this coin is that it costs A LOT of money for a company to port software. Combine that with the fact that the market for non windows apps is next to nothing and you see the big problem. No the problem isn't that microsoft is evil. The problem is seated in basic economics. Its way more efficient to have one operating system and one set of software that everyone can use (from an economic standpoint) than to have lots of applictations that are all different. I don't know how to solve this, or if its even worth solving. The only thing that would be nice is having a good way to force the "status quo" company to fix its mistakes. Basically the economy of software sux to try and be different in even when the different products are better. Fix that and you will rule the world.
I think the artists that see the internet distribution methods as a threat are missing something big. In a previous post it was mentioned how little of the cost of a CD actually goes to the artist. If the artist were to distribute over the net and really work it they would increase profits. The consumer would also be happy because single songs could be purchased and the price would go down significantly.
I think the big reason that mp3.com is being sued by the RIAA is that the RIAA sees them as a threat. Not by stealing music as the court case said but by stealing artists. Each artist that distrubutes over mp3.com is one less that will be railroaded into the rip off contracts that are offered by record companies.
We need to encourage artists to use alternate publishing forms. We must encourage the destruction of the restrictive monopoly on music that the record companies have. There is no excuse for theft but mp3.com did everything in thier power NOT to steal. We need to protest this death of our rights and authors rights to distribute thier art in the forms they want.
I think if the people of the world initiated a complete boycott of music, don't buy any cd's and don't buy products advertised on radio. I know the more the record industry shows that they don't really care about the people that buy thier music and only want thier money the less I am inclined to shell out $15 for what they sell.
ENCOURAGE ARTISTS, DISCOURAGE THE RESTRICTIVE RECORD INDUSTRY
Well the speed limit in montana is back. You know why? Its because #1 people don't know how to drive anymore, #2 cars aren't built as well anymore, #3 people complained that having people going fast was scarey. People these days yeesh! Wait wasn't this thread supposed to be about this cute copper foil you can glue to your ram so you can be l33t? I think there might be some benifit from dissipating heat if there is a heat problem and if there is and EMI problem it might be possible that it shields that but in the end it seems this dude just had some killer ram chips that he was able to overclock really well.
I think that the school should just have these students wire in network connections to the upstairs room as "punishment" for the "crime". The school would feel like it was "paid back" and the students would be happy to have solved the problem. The only problem with this is it seems most colleges can only hire union labor that charges ungodly rates and thats why nothing can get done. Not to mention that it takes at least 3 tries for these union employees to get the damned thing right, but I digress.
Actually economially competition is far more efficient than a single cooperation. Moreover the point of competition being good has been proven in major government experiments (communism in the USSR). We need competition between firms. The problem is that the DCMA seeks to stop this. It is trying to give the cooperations the ability not only to control who has the right to use a product but also in what manner they are allowed to use it. THIS IS BAD! It truely does strive to make innovation illegal. We cannot let this happen if we expect growth and prosperity to continue in this nation.
Slashdot Mirror
That could very well give the chip the edge especially if the optimizations are screwing with the branch prediction and out of order execution in the AMD chip by going against the chips better judgement. It would be nice to get some info on the state of the pipeline while the test executes. I am betting you would see lots of wasted time as various tweaks that kick butt on intels hardware confuse the AMD's optimizations and require it to flush the pipe again and again.
Another great feature of Exchange 2000 is the awesome web based e-mail built in. I was super skeptical of this feature until I had a chance to use it. It actually works well over a 28.8k modem connection.
Exchange 2000 also has a "web store" which allows you to host web pages in exchange with a larger degree of control over secutity and metadata associated with the pages than you can easily get in the filesystem.
Also Exchange 2000 is now quite easy to administer because you do it from the same place you administer user accounts in win2k, Active Directory.
The performance of Exchange 2000 is also very good now. I won't even try to compare it with other e-mail products on the market, but its not nearly the beast it used to be.
All this said, I must say that if you have a system in place that has no problems, don't spend time and money to change it. Migrating mailboxes is a pain (even though Exchange gives you alot of help in doing so) and learning a new system is always difficult.
I do recommend Exchange for people just starting up an e-mail solution because its easy to set up initially. It scales well over time. Most of all if you get used to using the extra features of exchange from the start you get alot of benefit with little pain.
I'm not going to say I like it but the argument does have some merit.
I agree, the way to solve this problem is to GET YOUR OWN ACCOUNT AND ACCESS IT FROM HOME. Geeze, how many brains does that take. I think that its perfectly resonable for your boss to monitor what you do with your computer the same way you are monitored on a cash register or the fry machine or whatever. At work you are in a different world, you have in alot of ways sold yourself for the wages you get.
If you don't like it, find another way to get that money you so love to have in your pockets. I am more for rights, privacy and personal responsability than anyone I know but there are certain places where what you do is just public, on the work computer is one of them. So quit whining and start writing those juicy e-mails at home from your own computer in your bedroom, but make sure you encrypt those suckers because you wouldn't want someone to read them. Yikes.
I also fail to buy the argument that the RIAA deserves money from a service that they do not, and do not want to provide. LET ME LISTEN TO MY MUSIC HOW I WANT, WHEN I WANT, WHERE I WANT so long as I have payed for the rights to listen to it. If I don't want to spend the time to copy the music myself, or upload the music to my own private server myself, so long as I am able to show ownership of the right to listen to the music let me listen to it!
I will delve a bit into deep opinion here, but I think the big reason that the record industry is after MP3.com is NOT because of the copyright issue of beam-it and my.mp3.com. The big problem they have is that they know they are no longer necessary. MP3.com is able to provide a huge promotion coverage for a band. They provide cd distribution for a band. They provide this for anyone, and at NO CHARGE. Talk about the end of the nasty record industry tradition of pouring your blood sweat and tears into a demo, running it around to a million agents to get it listened to, and hoping for a deal where you get even 1% of sales from the music you record. Beat the record industry, buy only music distributed by companies that believe in new distribution methods that give increased value to the artist and to the consumer.
What pisses me off about the whole thing is that the record industry stood to lose NOTHING. In fact in giving people another way to listen to the music they buy they increase the value of the product to the consumer without anyone having to spend any great deal of money. They benifit, the record companies should benifit and consumers benifit alot. Why do our laws stop what I can only see as good? WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS!
The truth is though, as long as demand stays at its current rate, the price won't change. When you are a monopoly you don't care about your cost when setting the price to sell your product as long as the selling price is higher than cost. For you non econ type people out there, this means that until a significant number of people don't buy cds (without there being a convient scapegoat like napster to blame) the prices will not fall.
Of course patent law encourages monopolies. In fact it enforces monopoly rights on a product that you patent for a period of (I think) 18 years. It is hoped that this period of time will allow the creator to recoup his costs of creating the product and put a little lining in his pocket so he will want to make the next product. I won't mention my opinion of patents in the digital world though.
Thank god for the x-box? At least Microsoft doesn't have any plans to end peoples ability to use computers for what they want, they just want to make sure you buy all the MS software while you are at it.
Seriously though, its really cruddy that a big corporation can shut down a protocol because of illegal use of it. If they win I can see them going after MS on the basis that IE is used to listen to illegal music on the net. Wait, corporations have alread flooded the web with ads so that I can't find what I'm looking for so they have effectively nullified that threat. *sigh* what is this world coming to. I just want a place to find the music I want to listen to, and unfortunately that is not the record stores these days.
Hmmm what will I listen to today, Brittney Spears or Ricki Martin
I can see it now, little stickers labeled "Do not remove under penalty of law." stuck over all the screws on my next pc's case. What fun.
I wouldn't care about napsters service if the record companies would make a GIANT database of all the music they sold in the past so I can search for out of date songs, and new songs as well, in one central place. Have this database charge for download of the mp3 files. Encrypt them so that only my signature can activate the file for playing. Keep a record of my purchase so that if for some reason I lose my signature or the rile I can download it again uncharged.
Add to this company owned shoutcast (or other streaming media) stations that play songs in all the genre's the companies sell records in, fill up the channel with adds between the songs (just like radio).
Basically sell me the services that I am looking for. If you provided this for me I wouldn't ever use napster, it would no longer have a place.
You have to admit that napster was the biggest database for different songs you will probably run into for a while. It had all the remixes and live concert stuff you could think of. It was a source of music that I had trouble getting access to in my low population state.
BTW lend me your hand in supporting companies that have gotten on the new wave of internet distribution like mp3.com. They have done a great job of providing music (with the authors consent) in a well organized manner. I really hope that alternate distribution kills big record companies so that places like mp3.com can thrive and provide music in a way that I like to find it.
I think a major thing you are failing to understand in your post is the fact that by giving away a copy of the cd to someone that would normally have to buy it, you are actually stealing the cost of that cd from the parent company. I like that part of copyright law.
What really irks me (and I'm saying this again I know) is that we are not limited in our own use of the product. We are not allowed to listen to music we have paid for "fair use" of from sources other than ones sanctioned by the company we purchased the rights from. The law is technically on thier side, but I think the law needs to be stretched for this instance. When I listen to a song that I own the cd to on mp3.com it doesn't steal one cent of revenue from the record company, other than the money they have managed to sucker mp3.com into paying, and that is money thats being stolen in my opinion.
But the question in my mind is what MP3.com did redistribution? This same argument can carried out of cyberspace in this way:
I buy a cd but don't have a cd-player in my car, nor do I have a way to copy cd to tape available to me. Is it then illegal for me to have a friend copy the same album from his cd onto tape and me to use it? Or is it required by law for me to go to his house with my cd and copy the content myself? It really is the same argument, mp3 is just another medium of recording.
What I am more scared of than audio is this same type of argument being carried over to paper media. If this holds it may well be that we see magazines dissappear from public places, because it would be within the rights of the magazine company to decide that you are only allowed to read the particular copy of the paper media that you purchased.
Ultimately laws like this will fail because people won't buy into the stupidness of it, but until that time I don't like the idea one bit.
Something we can do to fight against this is to actively fight all the script kiddies and other "destroyers" that are out there in the world today. I think from this article I got the feeling that 2600 is trying to do this.
The best thing I think that can be done is to promote your rights of free speech and "fair use" while fighting piracy and destructive "hacking" with all of your might.
I must admit that I know nearly nothing about database adiminstration and the first day I started work with SQL Server I was informed to change the password. Its not a vunerablity in the software its a well known fact about it.
Think a little before you shout wolf. Geeze.
With coding I find that if I ever get "block" its because I didn't write my plan well enough. When I create a good design I never have a problem finishing the project. This is where I agree with the quote, a very professional programmer will have a good design to work off and won't end up being blocked because he will always know what happens next.
I totally agree that "stealing" the music by downloading it is wrong. What pisses me off is that when you buy a cd very little of the money goes to the artist, who in my opinion is the person that deserves all the money. I have never gotten a clear answer anywhere in my reading but I have heard that artists only get like 1% or 2% of the price. The highest I think I've ever heard those numbers go is like 10%. That means that out of a $15 cd the most the artist gets is $1.50, I'd gladly pay that to the artist and more I just don't feel like stuffing the pockets of the record companies with money when they don't care about the music or the people providing or listening to it.
I think the artists should show some kind of opposition to this, they have the audience as is proven by the popularity of thier music on the online trading venue's. They just need to take initiative to offer the music they preform in alternate venues for resonable prices.
Artists, give me a place to pay you your $1.50! Throw off the yoke of oppression and use alternate distrivution venues.
I mark the escape up to the fact that the dredge prison cell was designed to imprison dredge. In the past the dredge have always killed humans, why should they know how to keep them? Do you think humans know how to trap and keep dredge? The thing that didn't make alot of sense was in the next scene where he flies off the dredge ship? Why is it that in all Sci Fi flics that everyone can interface with everyones technology. Classic star trek syndrom there.
The other side of this coin is that it costs A LOT of money for a company to port software. Combine that with the fact that the market for non windows apps is next to nothing and you see the big problem. No the problem isn't that microsoft is evil. The problem is seated in basic economics. Its way more efficient to have one operating system and one set of software that everyone can use (from an economic standpoint) than to have lots of applictations that are all different. I don't know how to solve this, or if its even worth solving. The only thing that would be nice is having a good way to force the "status quo" company to fix its mistakes. Basically the economy of software sux to try and be different in even when the different products are better. Fix that and you will rule the world.
Whats next? Banning ftp, http? How much illegal activity happen through these channels all the time?
I agree with you, you can't kill a tool because people use it for evil.
I think the artists that see the internet distribution methods as a threat are missing something big. In a previous post it was mentioned how little of the cost of a CD actually goes to the artist. If the artist were to distribute over the net and really work it they would increase profits. The consumer would also be happy because single songs could be purchased and the price would go down significantly.
I think the big reason that mp3.com is being sued by the RIAA is that the RIAA sees them as a threat. Not by stealing music as the court case said but by stealing artists. Each artist that distrubutes over mp3.com is one less that will be railroaded into the rip off contracts that are offered by record companies.
We need to encourage artists to use alternate publishing forms. We must encourage the destruction of the restrictive monopoly on music that the record companies have. There is no excuse for theft but mp3.com did everything in thier power NOT to steal. We need to protest this death of our rights and authors rights to distribute thier art in the forms they want.
I think if the people of the world initiated a complete boycott of music, don't buy any cd's and don't buy products advertised on radio. I know the more the record industry shows that they don't really care about the people that buy thier music and only want thier money the less I am inclined to shell out $15 for what they sell.
ENCOURAGE ARTISTS, DISCOURAGE THE RESTRICTIVE RECORD INDUSTRY
Well the speed limit in montana is back. You know why? Its because
#1 people don't know how to drive anymore,
#2 cars aren't built as well anymore,
#3 people complained that having people going fast was scarey.
People these days yeesh! Wait wasn't this thread supposed to be about this cute copper foil you can glue to your ram so you can be l33t? I think there might be some benifit from dissipating heat if there is a heat problem and if there is and EMI problem it might be possible that it shields that but in the end it seems this dude just had some killer ram chips that he was able to overclock really well.
I think that the school should just have these students wire in network connections to the upstairs room as "punishment" for the "crime". The school would feel like it was "paid back" and the students would be happy to have solved the problem. The only problem with this is it seems most colleges can only hire union labor that charges ungodly rates and thats why nothing can get done. Not to mention that it takes at least 3 tries for these union employees to get the damned thing right, but I digress.
Actually economially competition is far more efficient than a single cooperation. Moreover the point of competition being good has been proven in major government experiments (communism in the USSR). We need competition between firms. The problem is that the DCMA seeks to stop this. It is trying to give the cooperations the ability not only to control who has the right to use a product but also in what manner they are allowed to use it. THIS IS BAD! It truely does strive to make innovation illegal. We cannot let this happen if we expect growth and prosperity to continue in this nation.