I don't know what the law is in Great Britain, but in the United States, you do not need probable cause for a dog to sniff a bag (at least for drugs--I'm not aware of any court that has tested DVD sniffs). Also, this is not a government search. At best, this is a private tort, and presumably FedEx gets your permission to search your packages when you sign that little shipping form full of small print.
Sorry, still not convinced. The medical devices don't even claim to be real time, and the controllers just say you can buy third party software to make a real-time OS out of Windows. I don't know why you would want to do either. There is time-tested, proven software that handles these tasks quite capably. And that is not just a Microsoft-bashing one-liner. Some of those companies are just as dodgy about licensing and lock-in as Microsoft is. But they know how to do real time. Use the right tool for the job. If you want pretty widgets, go with Microsoft or Apple. If you want rock-solid real time, go with something like VxWorks.
Troll? Come on people. No Windows is anything like an RTOS. You don't go to the trouble and expense of writing a real-time OS so you can run sol.exe and some mobile version of Outlook. You use a real-time OS when you've got time-critical control systems and things absolutely must happen within a certain time. You won't see one on a $300 PDA.
Man, you totally missed the point. He's complaining about them using REAL numbers for this study.
The actual report--The MPAA reports on a startling new study indicating that over 63e12 + 42j gigawatts of elephants are being harvested annually as a result of DVD piracy . . . providing the first clear evidence of a connection between movie downloads and the number -7 * exp(j*pi).
We love music and will gladly pay a fair price for it, but we are outraged by the RIAA's tactics in suing ordinary Americans for filesharing....
Is it possible that the irony in this statement escapes you? In short, "We will gladly pay for music, but we consider it abusive when we don't and are held accountable."
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but "sharing" music (as the term is used in the mainstream) is copyright violation and is illegal. I seem to remember a few years ago, when Lars was trying to crush Napster, the cry on Slashdot was, "Don't try to legislate our rights. If your copyright has been violated, enforce your rights against the violators." I'm still okay with that tactic. What I am not okay with is filing "intimidation" suits in bad faith to try to force a settlement. But your petition does not mention that. It merely complains that the RIAA has sued people who have used "file sharing" technology to "share" music illegally (with vague references to privacy, due process and fair application of the law).
To me, that just sounds like people who want to get stuff for free, and then complain when they can't. People like that bother me, because they lend credibility to those who want to pass revenue-protection laws at the expense of fair use in copyright.
Before we all get too upset, remember that this is not law yet, and probably never will be. Most bills die in committee and are introduced as a bone to throw to your favorite lobbyists. Diane Feinstein is from California and the Entertainment industry is one of her top contributors. If you don't like this law, write to your Senator and encourage him/her to vote against this law. Also, you should probably vote him/her out for good measure, because incumbancy is pretty much the single largest foe of Democracy in America. So while you're at it, push for mandatory term limits by Constitutional amendment if necessary (one term would be good--that way, the special interests can spend all they want electing candidates they think will be beneficial, but have basically no power over them after the election). That would put an end to a lot of this pandering.
>> if you set your price point correctly; you make up in volume what you lack in single sales profit.
Yes, it's almost as if you could draw two intersecting lines. One line would represent the number of units people would demand as the price increases. The other would represent the number that manufacturers would be willing to supply as the price decreases. I wonder what it would mean when those two lines intersected.
Re:The problem of nerve impulse conduction
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wait a minute, are you questioning the scientific authority of an article in Forbes, the leading peer-reviewed, highly-respected scientific journal with a proven and unblemished history of unimpeachable accuracy?
Who was it that called Forbes something like a sort of corporate porn for middle management?
I know you're engaging in a little hyperbole, but just to be fair, there are countries that make our politicians look like amateurs when it comes to corruption. Hopeful amateurs, sure, but amateurs nonetheless. One of the best examples can be found just south of our borders.
Yeah, and then back in the real world, you invent something truly remarkable, like a quantum computer, you send your application into the patent office and two years later, your first office action is a rejection like every other first office action the USPTO sends out. If your "invention" was a vacuum cleaner, then you have no hope of overcoming that rejection. If you have something that nobody has actually patented before, you tell the examiner what's wrong with his reasoning, and THEN he issues your patent (yes, often even if it's obvious or stupid). So your plan is cute and fully approved by the Slashdot Collective Opinion which holds that the patent office simply turns out an allowance notice two weeks after getting an application and not reading it, but it wouldn't work. Now, if you patented a vacuum cleaner that also used SMTP over wireless while you clean the floor, then your patent would be granted. And yes, it would infringe NTP's patent, and no that wouldn't matter.
Personally I don't know why corporations can override your rights anyway; the government can't take away your right to bear arms, but an apartment building owner can?
Your state government sure can. The 2nd Amendment has never been applied to States -- only to the federal government. And you can contract away that right in consideration for a place to live. Just like you can sign an NDA and contract away part of your free speech in consideration for a job.
By the way, the Framers of the Constitution were not trying to legislate. They were creating a structure for government. That's why they included a means for passing legislation. They did not think it prudent to deal with every little detail in the Constitution.
who then pay taxes on their capital gains that will go to support these very programs
You sound like a socialist or at least somewhat radical sort (judging by your.sig), so I hate to fuel your fire, but here goes...
The capital gains taxes these guys pay on their fat dividends do not pay for Social Security and Medicaid. There is a separate flat-rate SSM tax that everybody pays without deductions, exemptions or exclusions. It accounts for something like 2/3 of our annual federal budget. But that tax is paid only on wages. It does not apply to capital gains, which are taxed at a fairly reasonable 15%. This is why Google pays top executives $1 annual salaries. That means these guys contribute about 7.5 cents to the SSM program every year, and then pay 15% on their dividends. If they were paid large salaries, they would be in the highest tax bracket, and thus would pay something close to 40% plus the 7.5% SSM tax. Don't get me wrong, they're still paying more in taxes every year than you'll probably make in your lifetime, but they are not paying for Social Security and Medicaid. That burden is borne squarely by the working middle class. The SSM tax on salaries only is not new, but the 15% capital gains tax was, of course, one of the tax reforms passed by your good friend George W. Bush.
1) It should be easier to get a patent revoked on the grounds of prior art or not being novel or innovative. Third parties should be able to do this, by say, petitioning the Patent Office with evidence of prior art.
As much as this article speaks of Rep. Smith as though he were a wholly owned subsidiary of whatever evil company you hate, his H.R. 2795 actually addresses this. I don't agree with everything in his patent reform bill -- in fact, I don't think anybody likes all of it -- but I think it's a genuine effort to do something about a broken system (of course, it is also heavily influenced by monied lobbies, but every once in a while, their interests may align with your own).
The problem you speak of is a real one. Most patentable improvements are not earth-shattering new discoveries. They are incremental improvements over the existing technology that make life a little bit better. If you look at a good patent application, the first thing you will see is a long list of prior art references that tell you everything other people did to get you to the point where you could invent your improvement. And however trivial it seems in hindsight, you have to ask, "If it's so great, and it was so obvious, why wasn't anybody doing it before?" (Note: I'm not commenting on this specific patent, just the problem you spoke of in general). If they were doing it before, then you have section 102 anticipation, and you don't even have to talk about section 103 obviousness.
We also have to remember that there are circumstances where somebody will come up with a valid, patentable invention, and (perhaps while he is waiting for his patent to issue), somebody else will come along and "practice" that patent more successfully and make more money off of it. That doesn't make the original patent invalid. Even if a certain improvement is ultimately inevitable, our constitutional patent system incentivizes he who would conceive and disclose it first. The whole purpose is to get it out into the public realm at the first opportunity.
So, I can make a trademark out of common language use?
I don't know, ask Apple (R) computers who own the trademark Macintosh (R) (a kind of apple, if you weren't aware). Maybe the next time you eat at Burger King (R), you should unleash your fury on the 17-year-old making $6.50/hr., which he used to buy his Nike (R) (a Greek goddess) shoes.
It's true that the best trademarks are made up words (like Microsoft (R) or Unix (R)). Then there is no crossover with regular usage -- your mark ONLY identifies your brand to anybody in any context. But that does not mean that a real English word cannot be a trademark. It depends on your market segment. Apple would not be allowable as a trademark for a brand of shiny red fruit, but it is perfectly workable as a trademark for a brand of computer. The operative question is whether it is identifiable to a specific brand by the consumer. The cross-licensing between DC and Marvel would appear to defeat that in this specific case. If it's that important to somebody, let him tell a jury and see what they think.
If you want to prevent that, encourage your congress critter to vote against the Patent Reform Act of 2005. If that Act passes, then we go to a first to file system, which means it's a race to the PTO. Right now we are a First to Invent system (one of only a few in the world).
Wow, you were a model and a prop maker? At the same time? That's amazing. It's like every geek's fantasy! (If you want to seriously increase your fanbase now, claim to be female. It's even credible since you painted your tools hot pink).
It's likely that if one file that you own showed up on Kazaa somehow, the RIAA Goons would leave you alone. If, on the other hand, hundreds of files that you own showed up on Kazaa, the Goons would have a good prima facie case that you are the one who put them there. It's really not that unfair.
The only thing I've ever managed to do with "Run As" is install a program. If there is any capability to do anything else, it's managed to hide itself from me. Which is why I blame Microsoft for basically forcing every user who sometimes must perform administrative tasks to be root all the time.
I agree that legacy software is not an outright excuse for bad code. That's why I say I wouldn't totally absolve Microsoft of responsibility. I'm just saying they're the ones who built their legacy. I think that along with the other issue means they need to share responsibility for this continuing problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what the law is in Great Britain, but in the United States, you do not need probable cause for a dog to sniff a bag (at least for drugs--I'm not aware of any court that has tested DVD sniffs). Also, this is not a government search. At best, this is a private tort, and presumably FedEx gets your permission to search your packages when you sign that little shipping form full of small print.
Sorry, still not convinced. The medical devices don't even claim to be real time, and the controllers just say you can buy third party software to make a real-time OS out of Windows. I don't know why you would want to do either. There is time-tested, proven software that handles these tasks quite capably. And that is not just a Microsoft-bashing one-liner. Some of those companies are just as dodgy about licensing and lock-in as Microsoft is. But they know how to do real time. Use the right tool for the job. If you want pretty widgets, go with Microsoft or Apple. If you want rock-solid real time, go with something like VxWorks.
Troll? Come on people. No Windows is anything like an RTOS. You don't go to the trouble and expense of writing a real-time OS so you can run sol.exe and some mobile version of Outlook. You use a real-time OS when you've got time-critical control systems and things absolutely must happen within a certain time. You won't see one on a $300 PDA.
The actual report--The MPAA reports on a startling new study indicating that over 63e12 + 42j gigawatts of elephants are being harvested annually as a result of DVD piracy . . . providing the first clear evidence of a connection between movie downloads and the number -7 * exp(j*pi).
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but "sharing" music (as the term is used in the mainstream) is copyright violation and is illegal. I seem to remember a few years ago, when Lars was trying to crush Napster, the cry on Slashdot was, "Don't try to legislate our rights. If your copyright has been violated, enforce your rights against the violators." I'm still okay with that tactic. What I am not okay with is filing "intimidation" suits in bad faith to try to force a settlement. But your petition does not mention that. It merely complains that the RIAA has sued people who have used "file sharing" technology to "share" music illegally (with vague references to privacy, due process and fair application of the law).
To me, that just sounds like people who want to get stuff for free, and then complain when they can't. People like that bother me, because they lend credibility to those who want to pass revenue-protection laws at the expense of fair use in copyright.
Before we all get too upset, remember that this is not law yet, and probably never will be. Most bills die in committee and are introduced as a bone to throw to your favorite lobbyists. Diane Feinstein is from California and the Entertainment industry is one of her top contributors. If you don't like this law, write to your Senator and encourage him/her to vote against this law. Also, you should probably vote him/her out for good measure, because incumbancy is pretty much the single largest foe of Democracy in America. So while you're at it, push for mandatory term limits by Constitutional amendment if necessary (one term would be good--that way, the special interests can spend all they want electing candidates they think will be beneficial, but have basically no power over them after the election). That would put an end to a lot of this pandering.
Yes, it's almost as if you could draw two intersecting lines. One line would represent the number of units people would demand as the price increases. The other would represent the number that manufacturers would be willing to supply as the price decreases. I wonder what it would mean when those two lines intersected.
Who was it that called Forbes something like a sort of corporate porn for middle management?
Doesn't matter. Karma is all imaginary anyway.
I know you're engaging in a little hyperbole, but just to be fair, there are countries that make our politicians look like amateurs when it comes to corruption. Hopeful amateurs, sure, but amateurs nonetheless. One of the best examples can be found just south of our borders.
You grow up, get a real job, and then undertip your former tormentors.
Yeah, and then back in the real world, you invent something truly remarkable, like a quantum computer, you send your application into the patent office and two years later, your first office action is a rejection like every other first office action the USPTO sends out. If your "invention" was a vacuum cleaner, then you have no hope of overcoming that rejection. If you have something that nobody has actually patented before, you tell the examiner what's wrong with his reasoning, and THEN he issues your patent (yes, often even if it's obvious or stupid). So your plan is cute and fully approved by the Slashdot Collective Opinion which holds that the patent office simply turns out an allowance notice two weeks after getting an application and not reading it, but it wouldn't work. Now, if you patented a vacuum cleaner that also used SMTP over wireless while you clean the floor, then your patent would be granted. And yes, it would infringe NTP's patent, and no that wouldn't matter.
By the way, the Framers of the Constitution were not trying to legislate. They were creating a structure for government. That's why they included a means for passing legislation. They did not think it prudent to deal with every little detail in the Constitution.
The capital gains taxes these guys pay on their fat dividends do not pay for Social Security and Medicaid. There is a separate flat-rate SSM tax that everybody pays without deductions, exemptions or exclusions. It accounts for something like 2/3 of our annual federal budget. But that tax is paid only on wages. It does not apply to capital gains, which are taxed at a fairly reasonable 15%. This is why Google pays top executives $1 annual salaries. That means these guys contribute about 7.5 cents to the SSM program every year, and then pay 15% on their dividends. If they were paid large salaries, they would be in the highest tax bracket, and thus would pay something close to 40% plus the 7.5% SSM tax. Don't get me wrong, they're still paying more in taxes every year than you'll probably make in your lifetime, but they are not paying for Social Security and Medicaid. That burden is borne squarely by the working middle class. The SSM tax on salaries only is not new, but the 15% capital gains tax was, of course, one of the tax reforms passed by your good friend George W. Bush.
The problem you speak of is a real one. Most patentable improvements are not earth-shattering new discoveries. They are incremental improvements over the existing technology that make life a little bit better. If you look at a good patent application, the first thing you will see is a long list of prior art references that tell you everything other people did to get you to the point where you could invent your improvement. And however trivial it seems in hindsight, you have to ask, "If it's so great, and it was so obvious, why wasn't anybody doing it before?" (Note: I'm not commenting on this specific patent, just the problem you spoke of in general). If they were doing it before, then you have section 102 anticipation, and you don't even have to talk about section 103 obviousness.
We also have to remember that there are circumstances where somebody will come up with a valid, patentable invention, and (perhaps while he is waiting for his patent to issue), somebody else will come along and "practice" that patent more successfully and make more money off of it. That doesn't make the original patent invalid. Even if a certain improvement is ultimately inevitable, our constitutional patent system incentivizes he who would conceive and disclose it first. The whole purpose is to get it out into the public realm at the first opportunity.
I wonder if that's a patentable business model.
It's true that the best trademarks are made up words (like Microsoft (R) or Unix (R)). Then there is no crossover with regular usage -- your mark ONLY identifies your brand to anybody in any context. But that does not mean that a real English word cannot be a trademark. It depends on your market segment. Apple would not be allowable as a trademark for a brand of shiny red fruit, but it is perfectly workable as a trademark for a brand of computer. The operative question is whether it is identifiable to a specific brand by the consumer. The cross-licensing between DC and Marvel would appear to defeat that in this specific case. If it's that important to somebody, let him tell a jury and see what they think.
If you want to prevent that, encourage your congress critter to vote against the Patent Reform Act of 2005. If that Act passes, then we go to a first to file system, which means it's a race to the PTO. Right now we are a First to Invent system (one of only a few in the world).
They don't need to. That's what patents are for (assuming this car design is new, non-obvious and useful).
Wow, you were a model and a prop maker? At the same time? That's amazing. It's like every geek's fantasy! (If you want to seriously increase your fanbase now, claim to be female. It's even credible since you painted your tools hot pink).
It's likely that if one file that you own showed up on Kazaa somehow, the RIAA Goons would leave you alone. If, on the other hand, hundreds of files that you own showed up on Kazaa, the Goons would have a good prima facie case that you are the one who put them there. It's really not that unfair.
I agree that legacy software is not an outright excuse for bad code. That's why I say I wouldn't totally absolve Microsoft of responsibility. I'm just saying they're the ones who built their legacy. I think that along with the other issue means they need to share responsibility for this continuing problem.