According to Title 35 (Patents) of the US Code, not just anything is patentable. In fact, only inventions and processes defined here are patentable. Further, there are specific instances when an invention or process is notpatentable.
For a general overview of what constitutes patentability, see Part II of Title 35.
I hereby revoke CmdrTaco's previous statement, "You can patent anything!"
Oh, I agree completely. I love coffee. But it seems to be an acquired taste. I don't think people would like it nearly as much without the caffeine, but since it's always had caffeine, it's impossible to know that.
I can understand this in some schools, but why a high school full of teenagers who are old enough to know better should be denied the freedom to make the right (or wrong) choice is beyond me. They are at the age where they should be given the chance to taste freedom with such inconsequential tasks as surfing the Internet. Let their transgressions on a school computer set the example for what happens when/if they choose to break the rules later in life.
Children must understand what happens when they break the rules! If you deny them this freedom, then they will instead grow up seeking ways not to break the rules, but to change them altogether and perhaps even to overthrow the system.
I'm not paranoid or anything, it's just that I was once one of those kids, and luckily I was smart enough to find ways to change the rules without working behind the backs of the supposed authorities. Those with fewer opportunities and poorer guides, however, need to be shown the difference between right and wrong -- not shielded from wrong.
Shielding them from the atrocities of life, no matter how light they may be, only makes them incapable of handling it when they inevitably confront it at some later time.
Showing copyright material to somewhat is perfectly legitimate. That is, for instance, showing or reading to someone a passage of an article or book, or inviting a couple of friends over to watch a movie. It's making a transmittable copy of something and sharing it that is criminal according to copyright law.
Copyright law only applies to what goes public. Anything used for private (meaning you and only you ever see it) is not copyright violation. In other words, using (for instance) SmartRipper to copy a DVD to your hard drive and, well, do whatever you want with it is perfectly legitimate as long as you do not try to sell, rent, lease, distribute, or otherwise try to display it to the public. This goes for all copyright material in the United States. See Lanham Act of 1976, aka the Copyright Act, aka Title 17.
This tells us two things: (1) attempts to restrict our fair use of [fill in the blank] is evidence that some very powerful people don't understand copyright law; (2) some very powerful people are willing to sacrifice the freedom of those who don't break the law (legitimate gun owners, legitimate users of CD/DVD-copying software, etc.) in order to dissuade criminals.
That's called taking the easy way out. Com'on, guys, we elect you to cushy jobs where you get paid $130,000+ (tax-free) so you can be creative and actually get stuff done for us!
...that this is eventually going to boil down to who Russia and the US helps first/most? I hope this doesn't kick off some kind of renewed cold war / paranoia epidemic.
Does anyone have any preference about which billion-plus nation gets their first? I tend to favor India, if for no better reason than their human rights record... Hmm.
To this point, it seems as though the only crime the RIAA has gone after is sharing copyrighted information. Those who take advantage of the available products aren't in the wrong, according to this logic. I think this could be a step in the right direction, since in the old days you could be thrown in jail for unknowingly purchasing stolen equipment. It makes a lot more sense to go after those making the product available versus those using it, at least if you want to contain the issue.
There is a problem, though, in that people do not realize that the digital format that makes sharing music so easy is exactly what makes it protected material, and that's what makes anyone who downloads it potentially vulnerable to being charged for criminal conduct. It isn't likely to get you or me simply because there is no money in going after individual downloaders. However, there can be loads of money in going after kids running even small warez servers... Where one CD can cost as much as $600 (and more, depending on the product), allowing multiple downloads of multiple files could quickly result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal copies.
Of couse, if one CD didn't cost $600 in the first place, it wouldn't be such a problem. College professors assume that everyone on the planet uses Microsoft Office, but they fail to consider how many of us use a pirated copy. Even better, how many of us use pirated software specifically because we must have it for school or work and can not afford to buy it? The problem, in this case, is that some schools literally will not tolerate other software, and some inane professors actually require students to use particular software.
Software piracy is a problem... Piracy is a result of expensive alternatives, and the alternatives' prices increase because of piracy. What do we do? Well, we can only move in one of two directions:
Toward freer information, expanding the definition of fair use and reducing the weight of copyrights.
Toward more restricted information, narrowing the definition of fair use and strengthening copyrights.
As technology becomes more advanced, I can hardly imagine restricting information any more without morphing the United States into a sort of prison-state where no move can be made without Big Brother's watchful eye carefully monitoring your every move. Is that what we want? Or would we rather have the freedom to trust each other?
I mean, seriously, do you really think Senator Hatch knows anything about HTML or JavaScript? Do you really think he expected whoever he paid to do his web site would use someone else's code? Do you really think Hatch is the "criminal" here? Last I checked, intent is a huge part of criminality. Where there isn't any criminal intent, one can rarely be any worse than liable for minor damages. Then again, the RIAA is trying to tell us that copyright infringement is criminal, not civil...
...the average pay for an ump is well over $100k...
Compared to the $2+ million average pay for a player. Last I knew, the minimum salary for a player on a major league roster for the full season is $200,000. I'm pretty sure it's gone up since I last read that, possibly to $300,000.
Who's making a killing now? And don't say Michael Jordan or Bill Gates. We know.:-)
I have written on this subject at least once previously, in that case in response to Curt Schilling's destruction of one of the QuesTec cameras. I disagreed with Curt Schilling and the umpires, though. Here's why:
The Strike Zone is that area over home plate, the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
The rule is constructed to allow hitters to adjust their stance according to their distance from the plate. A hitter who likes pitches closer to him can stand closer to the plate; a hitter who likes to extend to hit the ball can stand further from the plate. The point, though, is that the strike zone is over the plate, not a particular distance from the hitter.
The problem with umpires is that they often will call an outside pitch a strike if a player is standing close to the plate, or an inside pitch a strike if a player is standing in the back of the batter's box. This is essentially trashing the intent of the rule.
Umpires need to call strikes when the ball is over the plate. Better yet, umpires should be kept off the field and used only to remove unruly players and to make judgment calls (using instant replay and such) on very close plays. Otherwise, take advantage of technology and get umpires out of the way.
Of course, I like umpires there. So maybe there is a happy medium here. If umpires start calling strikes as they should be called, they can stay.:-)
By OS's, I mean Operating Systems and Office Software/Suites. Microsoft may not be everyone's favorite, but it can not be denied that they are among the best, or at least they used to be.
Like this week's PC World magazine (I'm pretty sure it was PC World) says, when your name becomes a verb, something has gone very right. Google has had things going very right for a long time, and they're not trying to take over the entire world, which gives them cool points to boot!
But seriously, as a result of this, all of their products are incredibly useful and tolerable. You won't find much anti-Google sentiment out there because the services they offer are simply useful:
Google News is arguably the best news portal on the Internet. While the automatic headline generation may not beat Drudge to the punch, you can search for news items on any topic under the sun, and the service is only getting better.
Google Groups is easily the best newsgroup search service on the Internet. If there is anything remotely close, I would love to know about it. Nothing more to say.
Google Directory is Yahoo to the third power... If you want to search the web via topical hierarchy, this is the way to go.
Google Image Search can find almost any image on the web. I don't search for images often, but I'd imagine this is pretty useful.
And even the Google Toolbar is useful! I hate anything and everything that adds clutter to my desktop, browser, or anything else. I want nothing but the basics to allow for the maximum viewable area for useful work. The Google Toolbar, however, is a perfect fit in my browser window. Now that I have it, I'm certain that I can't get along without it!
And, of course, the default Google search is customizable in particular ways. A search for link:slashdot.org tells me that nearly 31,000 web sites link to Slashdot. A search for site:microsoft.com netscape tells me that "netscape" is mentioned on at least 7,800 pages at Microsoft.com.
Sorry, but I don't think Microsoft can catch up to that. And even if Microsoft could, how would such a successful web venture as Google be hurt by it? If nothing else, a little competition might *slightly* reduce Google's load, allowing for even greater expansion of services...
I wrote far too much, but I'm in class, so I had a good excuse.
Last I checked, most people who drink coffee drink it for the caffeine, not the taste. Those who drink decaffeinated coffee, it seems, drink it in social situations when it is simply superficially a socially acceptable thing to do. Notice the usage of the word "seems"; appearances could be deceiving.
...hijacking a truck full of the chips, selling them on the black market, and delivering the money to the Koreans as they rightfully deserve it. Tariffs? What tariffs? That's only your imagination... Just don't go around advertising the fact that you've got the one Hynix in your area code.
Democrats want to take my money, and Republicans want to take my privacy. I'm no fan of 95% of the party's candidates, but the ideas espoused by Liberarians are growing more attractive by the day...
GameCube sales will jump.
GameCube game sales will plummet.
An odd combination, sure, but piracy is to technology what marijuana is to medicine -- there are good arguments for and against legality, and it's fun for anyone that doesn't get caught...
Utilize various algorithms and advanced logic to scan every line of code of every Microsoft product in order to rid them of all loopholes, bugs, and general imperfections.
Man, I wouldn't mind having just one of their workstations, let alone a 2000-processor cluster for rendering a battle for Middle-Earth. Is it too late to place my bets for Gandalf and the boys?
Fred Savage became my childhood hero when I learned that he was playing an advance copy of Super Mario Bros 3 in The Wizard. I wonder if Nintendo paid for advertising or if Fred's sneak peek at the best NES game ever was enough?
p.s.-- I'm hesitant to admit that I've never seen this movie. Moderators, do your worst...:-/
I wouldn't call Henley washed up just yet. Then again, I've heard the new song, and if this is what the Eagles have become, then I'd rather have a "Hell Thaws Out" tour so they can play all their good stuff again.
But the point is this: not only does Henley's hypocrisy have him fighting corporations, but remember a couple of years ago when his legal team sent threatening letters to one Donald Henley for registering a domain name in his own name? You see, despite the latter Mr. Henley firmly expressing that he is in no way affiliated with any particular rock group, the former Mr. Henley proceeded to threaten legal action for what has become to be known as "cybersquatting". The "defendant" has kept good records of the dispute, which has as of yet amounted to little more than threats.
Funny how trademark law works, though. You see, if Mr. Donald Henley hadn't clearly acknowledged on his web site that he was in no way affiliated with the singer, then the Eagles front man might actually have a case. The fact that the "defendant" was even aware of his namesake's celebrity would be enough to have the domain name effectively stolen.
Ah, the perks of fame... I suppose they go nicely with the inability to do normal things like normal people in normal places without being mobbed.
I think that was the longest Slashdot user comment I have ever entirely read. Very good read. Interesting, insightful, informative... The only thing missing are links to the documentation! Got any of those?
You make an excellent point, but who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Morality is entirely subjective. Thus when making decisions with any regard to morality, there are two ways it can be done. The first is the way all political decisions are made: the powerful decide and have their opinion thrust upon the less powerful.
The second is the way I believe decisions should be made: the powerful are tolerant of others's views, and the others' are tolerant of everyone else's views -- in other words, decisions are made in such a way that the freedom to choose is ultimately respected. But the problem is that too much freedom is chaos, hence why those in power are forced to make decisions that tolerate some things and do not tolerate others.
You and I do not get to make our politicians' decisions for them. We elect them to make their decisions count. If we want OUR decisions to count, then we need to get off our asses and participate in the pathetic circus that is American politics. At least then we get to put our stamp on it.
At least I'm man enough to take responsibility for my own words, whereas you must hide from your baseless inanities via slashdot's anonymous coward button. But, admitting the problem is the first step, and at least you've admitted to yourself that you're a coward.
p.s.-- You know nothing of my politics, so don't assume that you do. I wouldn't make this comment, except that your presumptions about me were entirely wrong.
Inexperienced, Immature, but...
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
The popular belief is that the younger mind is more perceptive and objective -- that is, easier to train (and/or teach). One reason is that the younger mind is not yet as firmly set into its own (cynical?) interpretation of reality as the more experienced mind. Another reason, which is more of a subjective claim, is that the younger mind simply works more efficiently.
Slashdot Mirror
For a general overview of what constitutes patentability, see Part II of Title 35.
I hereby revoke CmdrTaco's previous statement, "You can patent anything!"
Any unauthorized public display is also copyright infringement.
Oh, I agree completely. I love coffee. But it seems to be an acquired taste. I don't think people would like it nearly as much without the caffeine, but since it's always had caffeine, it's impossible to know that.
Children must understand what happens when they break the rules! If you deny them this freedom, then they will instead grow up seeking ways not to break the rules, but to change them altogether and perhaps even to overthrow the system.
I'm not paranoid or anything, it's just that I was once one of those kids, and luckily I was smart enough to find ways to change the rules without working behind the backs of the supposed authorities. Those with fewer opportunities and poorer guides, however, need to be shown the difference between right and wrong -- not shielded from wrong.
Shielding them from the atrocities of life, no matter how light they may be, only makes them incapable of handling it when they inevitably confront it at some later time.
Showing copyright material to somewhat is perfectly legitimate. That is, for instance, showing or reading to someone a passage of an article or book, or inviting a couple of friends over to watch a movie. It's making a transmittable copy of something and sharing it that is criminal according to copyright law.
This tells us two things: (1) attempts to restrict our fair use of [fill in the blank] is evidence that some very powerful people don't understand copyright law; (2) some very powerful people are willing to sacrifice the freedom of those who don't break the law (legitimate gun owners, legitimate users of CD/DVD-copying software, etc.) in order to dissuade criminals.
That's called taking the easy way out. Com'on, guys, we elect you to cushy jobs where you get paid $130,000+ (tax-free) so you can be creative and actually get stuff done for us!
Does anyone have any preference about which billion-plus nation gets their first? I tend to favor India, if for no better reason than their human rights record... Hmm.
There is a problem, though, in that people do not realize that the digital format that makes sharing music so easy is exactly what makes it protected material, and that's what makes anyone who downloads it potentially vulnerable to being charged for criminal conduct. It isn't likely to get you or me simply because there is no money in going after individual downloaders. However, there can be loads of money in going after kids running even small warez servers... Where one CD can cost as much as $600 (and more, depending on the product), allowing multiple downloads of multiple files could quickly result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal copies.
Of couse, if one CD didn't cost $600 in the first place, it wouldn't be such a problem. College professors assume that everyone on the planet uses Microsoft Office, but they fail to consider how many of us use a pirated copy. Even better, how many of us use pirated software specifically because we must have it for school or work and can not afford to buy it? The problem, in this case, is that some schools literally will not tolerate other software, and some inane professors actually require students to use particular software.
Software piracy is a problem... Piracy is a result of expensive alternatives, and the alternatives' prices increase because of piracy. What do we do? Well, we can only move in one of two directions:
As technology becomes more advanced, I can hardly imagine restricting information any more without morphing the United States into a sort of prison-state where no move can be made without Big Brother's watchful eye carefully monitoring your every move. Is that what we want? Or would we rather have the freedom to trust each other?
I choose choice.
I mean, seriously, do you really think Senator Hatch knows anything about HTML or JavaScript? Do you really think he expected whoever he paid to do his web site would use someone else's code? Do you really think Hatch is the "criminal" here? Last I checked, intent is a huge part of criminality. Where there isn't any criminal intent, one can rarely be any worse than liable for minor damages. Then again, the RIAA is trying to tell us that copyright infringement is criminal, not civil...
Who's making a killing now? And don't say Michael Jordan or Bill Gates. We know. :-)
From definitions section the Official Rules of Major League Baseball:
The rule is constructed to allow hitters to adjust their stance according to their distance from the plate. A hitter who likes pitches closer to him can stand closer to the plate; a hitter who likes to extend to hit the ball can stand further from the plate. The point, though, is that the strike zone is over the plate, not a particular distance from the hitter.
The problem with umpires is that they often will call an outside pitch a strike if a player is standing close to the plate, or an inside pitch a strike if a player is standing in the back of the batter's box. This is essentially trashing the intent of the rule.
Umpires need to call strikes when the ball is over the plate. Better yet, umpires should be kept off the field and used only to remove unruly players and to make judgment calls (using instant replay and such) on very close plays. Otherwise, take advantage of technology and get umpires out of the way.
Of course, I like umpires there. So maybe there is a happy medium here. If umpires start calling strikes as they should be called, they can stay. :-)
Like this week's PC World magazine (I'm pretty sure it was PC World) says, when your name becomes a verb, something has gone very right. Google has had things going very right for a long time, and they're not trying to take over the entire world, which gives them cool points to boot!
But seriously, as a result of this, all of their products are incredibly useful and tolerable. You won't find much anti-Google sentiment out there because the services they offer are simply useful:
And, of course, the default Google search is customizable in particular ways. A search for link:slashdot.org tells me that nearly 31,000 web sites link to Slashdot. A search for site:microsoft.com netscape tells me that "netscape" is mentioned on at least 7,800 pages at Microsoft.com.
Sorry, but I don't think Microsoft can catch up to that. And even if Microsoft could, how would such a successful web venture as Google be hurt by it? If nothing else, a little competition might *slightly* reduce Google's load, allowing for even greater expansion of services...
I wrote far too much, but I'm in class, so I had a good excuse.
Great taste or less filling?
...hijacking a truck full of the chips, selling them on the black market, and delivering the money to the Koreans as they rightfully deserve it. Tariffs? What tariffs? That's only your imagination... Just don't go around advertising the fact that you've got the one Hynix in your area code.
Democrats want to take my money, and Republicans want to take my privacy. I'm no fan of 95% of the party's candidates, but the ideas espoused by Liberarians are growing more attractive by the day...
GameCube game sales will plummet.
An odd combination, sure, but piracy is to technology what marijuana is to medicine -- there are good arguments for and against legality, and it's fun for anyone that doesn't get caught...
Man, I wouldn't mind having just one of their workstations, let alone a 2000-processor cluster for rendering a battle for Middle-Earth. Is it too late to place my bets for Gandalf and the boys?
Having confidence (or faith) in someone's words is commonly known as "trust". You should try it.
p.s.-- I'm hesitant to admit that I've never seen this movie. Moderators, do your worst... :-/
PC parts and accessories manufacturers and sellers are going to lose money if we can plug our laptops into a standard power outlet...
But the point is this: not only does Henley's hypocrisy have him fighting corporations, but remember a couple of years ago when his legal team sent threatening letters to one Donald Henley for registering a domain name in his own name? You see, despite the latter Mr. Henley firmly expressing that he is in no way affiliated with any particular rock group, the former Mr. Henley proceeded to threaten legal action for what has become to be known as "cybersquatting". The "defendant" has kept good records of the dispute, which has as of yet amounted to little more than threats.
Funny how trademark law works, though. You see, if Mr. Donald Henley hadn't clearly acknowledged on his web site that he was in no way affiliated with the singer, then the Eagles front man might actually have a case. The fact that the "defendant" was even aware of his namesake's celebrity would be enough to have the domain name effectively stolen.
Ah, the perks of fame... I suppose they go nicely with the inability to do normal things like normal people in normal places without being mobbed.
I think that was the longest Slashdot user comment I have ever entirely read. Very good read. Interesting, insightful, informative... The only thing missing are links to the documentation! Got any of those?
The second is the way I believe decisions should be made: the powerful are tolerant of others's views, and the others' are tolerant of everyone else's views -- in other words, decisions are made in such a way that the freedom to choose is ultimately respected. But the problem is that too much freedom is chaos, hence why those in power are forced to make decisions that tolerate some things and do not tolerate others.
You and I do not get to make our politicians' decisions for them. We elect them to make their decisions count. If we want OUR decisions to count, then we need to get off our asses and participate in the pathetic circus that is American politics. At least then we get to put our stamp on it.
p.s.-- You know nothing of my politics, so don't assume that you do. I wouldn't make this comment, except that your presumptions about me were entirely wrong.
Here are a couple of interesting articles on the effects aging has on the brain.