According to Wired, this bill "create[s] the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
So let's play a game: choose a patent you don't like, any patent....
Ok, the Amazon 1-Click. What is the "analog-world" equivalent of one click? Is there is one...
How about Priceline? Is there an "analog-world" equivalent? Not really...
I'm pleased and surprised that this bill is sponsored by two Democrats. Conventional wisdom says that the Dems tend to be somewhat beholden to the pro-litigation lobby (i.e., trial lawyers and their ilk), which usually opposes patent reform. Still, I wonder if there's more to this bill that Wired isn't telling us yet...
There's a Princeton astrophysicist, Richard Gott III, who predicts civilization will last somewhere between 5100 and 7.8 million more years. His argument is based on the idea that there's nothing "special" about our location in time. That is, he assumes that it's pretty unlikely we're either at the dawn or end of our existence, but more likely somewhere in between. From this assumption, he arrives at fuzzy timeframes for the age of our civilization. I'm not sure the initial assumption holds water, but then again, I'm no Princeton astrophysics professor.
There's been quite few things written about him and his theory, but at the moment, the only one I can find is this article, which summarizes most of his arguments.
Wow, what a mismatch. If I were someone of Valenti's intellectual, um, stature, I'd make it a point not to debate any law professors. Not that I agree with Valenti's position, but his arguments can be much better stated by someone who understands them.
Competition works well in a free market because the metric by which competitors are measured is both well-defined and easily agreed upon by all. Whoever makes the most money is the best competitor.
Space programs, on the other hand, are not entirely profit-motivated enterprises. While a lot of NASA is commercially motivated in some way, there's a significant chunk that is better classified as a science organization. Private companies will do science to the extent that they can make money on it, but typically this leaves a lot of work undone. Here's a hypothetical: Would a private company have built and deployed the Hubble telescope? I think not. Hubble was (and is) very expensive, but fundamentally unprofitable, in an accounting sense. Yet I'd argue it's worth every penny and more for the scientific work that it's done.
I think it's a great idea to privatise as much of the space agency as is commercially viable, but there's still a huge role for NASA to do work that is in the nation's interest, but may not be entirely profitable.
Maybe the real issue is that a lot of people paid for the first one, thought the quality wasn't worth the price but downloaded the second "just to see how it came out".
These non-payers are no less dishonest than those who flagrantly refuse to pay. We pay a fee to King for his story, it's not a tip.
One can argue that a tipping model might work better for intellectual property like stories, music, etc., but that's not how King set up his project. At no point does he ask us to pay only what we think it's worth. The story is yours for a flat fee. The options are pay for it or steal it.
...and file your own complaint with the postal inspectors.
This suggestion moves the role of "hacker-activist" in the direction of self-parody. I mean, come on! You want us to start a campaign of complaints about an unlabeled package that allegedly violates some dubious postal regulation!? Am I the only one who can imagine this as a skit on Saturday Night Live...?
Well, I think you're mistaken that the European Union supercedes the FCC, where each have distinct yet seperate duties.
No, I'm not saying that the EU supercedes the FCC. My point is that there's a whole slew of agencies, in many countries, that must approve this deal for it to be successful. If one group of regulators decides the deal should not go through, then in all likelihood, it won't. Even if the FCC does approve the merger, the merger won't happen if the EU blocks it. (and vice-versa.)
If you have to hook a propane tank to a fuel cell, you're probably NOT going to get electricity cheaper than it's sold "on the grid." You'll be more independent, but you won't want to burn an extra tank to turn natural gas into cash.
Yeah, you're probably right. Still, there may be times of high demand (think: San Diego last August), when electricity rates skyrocket and make a network of micro-producers profitable...
Why get off the grid? Why not stay on the grid and sell surplus electricity back to the power companies? With deregulation occurring in much of the US, this may be a real possibility...
We've seen distributed computing, is it time for distributed power generation?
Way to avoid the question, asshole. I read the article (did you?) and nowhere does it describe a non-trivial privacy violation. How is anyone going to use this track you?
Let me put it in the form of a question: How does someone use this feature to implement a non-trivial violation of privacy? (I'll even let you define "non-trivial".) Can a third-party web site get any useful information by from this feature...?
This kind of thing would have never happened if IE had been open sourced. This is also why Mozilla will take the market from IE.
Mozilla will never take the market from IE, unless someone starts paying folks to use it. Most people don't give a rat's ass about features/loopholes/etc. like the one described in the story. What percentage of web users browse without using cookies? I don't know the answer to this, but I'd put money on it being a relatively small minority.
If your goal is to learn how to code or make $$$, then skip college. You can teach yourself and/or learn on the job, it's not hard.
If, however, you're motivated to learn how to think, then pack your bags for campus. Take classes in fields other than your specialty, enjoy the company of people with different interests, and work to expand your own horizons. It's not always easy, and it's not lucrative, but college will be fun, and worth it in the long run. There's more to life than hacking or working in the industry.
But it's gonna take so long that by the time they finish a decent clone compatible with, say Win98 or Win2000, Microsoft will be a couple versions ahead. That is, even if they succeed in creating software compatible with Windows, Microsft can easily make it uncompatible by releasing a version with new "features".
Read the article. the request went through the provost's office, before FASCS. True, it probably didn't go through Rudenstine, but it was at a higher level than the guy at the help desk.
Slashdot Mirror
Why pay for internet access, when you can get it free? Ok, it's not exactly a T3, but still...
So let's play a game: choose a patent you don't like, any patent....
Ok, the Amazon 1-Click. What is the "analog-world" equivalent of one click? Is there is one...
How about Priceline? Is there an "analog-world" equivalent? Not really...
I'm pleased and surprised that this bill is sponsored by two Democrats. Conventional wisdom says that the Dems tend to be somewhat beholden to the pro-litigation lobby (i.e., trial lawyers and their ilk), which usually opposes patent reform. Still, I wonder if there's more to this bill that Wired isn't telling us yet...
There's been quite few things written about him and his theory, but at the moment, the only one I can find is this article, which summarizes most of his arguments.
Wow, what a mismatch. If I were someone of Valenti's intellectual, um, stature, I'd make it a point not to debate any law professors. Not that I agree with Valenti's position, but his arguments can be much better stated by someone who understands them.
Um, no. The Soviets went to the moon.
Actally, that's today's date... in the Netherlands.
Space programs, on the other hand, are not entirely profit-motivated enterprises. While a lot of NASA is commercially motivated in some way, there's a significant chunk that is better classified as a science organization. Private companies will do science to the extent that they can make money on it, but typically this leaves a lot of work undone. Here's a hypothetical: Would a private company have built and deployed the Hubble telescope? I think not. Hubble was (and is) very expensive, but fundamentally unprofitable, in an accounting sense. Yet I'd argue it's worth every penny and more for the scientific work that it's done.
I think it's a great idea to privatise as much of the space agency as is commercially viable, but there's still a huge role for NASA to do work that is in the nation's interest, but may not be entirely profitable.
These non-payers are no less dishonest than those who flagrantly refuse to pay. We pay a fee to King for his story, it's not a tip.
One can argue that a tipping model might work better for intellectual property like stories, music, etc., but that's not how King set up his project. At no point does he ask us to pay only what we think it's worth. The story is yours for a flat fee. The options are pay for it or steal it.
There are a lot of college rankings out there, but are there any that rank schools by bandwidth/student? This would be a really interesting report...
That's *exactly* what they want you to think!
Another article in the Daily Princtonian says that Pricneton University refuses to ban Napster as well.
This suggestion moves the role of "hacker-activist" in the direction of self-parody. I mean, come on! You want us to start a campaign of complaints about an unlabeled package that allegedly violates some dubious postal regulation!? Am I the only one who can imagine this as a skit on Saturday Night Live...?
No, I'm not saying that the EU supercedes the FCC. My point is that there's a whole slew of agencies, in many countries, that must approve this deal for it to be successful. If one group of regulators decides the deal should not go through, then in all likelihood, it won't. Even if the FCC does approve the merger, the merger won't happen if the EU blocks it. (and vice-versa.)
Warner Brothers is a member of the RIAA as well as the MPAA.
Man, you got to feel sorry for these multi-billion dollar, global corporations. They have to hire lobbyists in *so* many countries...
Yeah, you're probably right. Still, there may be times of high demand (think: San Diego last August), when electricity rates skyrocket and make a network of micro-producers profitable...
We've seen distributed computing, is it time for distributed power generation?
Way to avoid the question, asshole. I read the article (did you?) and nowhere does it describe a non-trivial privacy violation. How is anyone going to use this track you?
Mozilla will never take the market from IE, unless someone starts paying folks to use it. Most people don't give a rat's ass about features/loopholes/etc. like the one described in the story. What percentage of web users browse without using cookies? I don't know the answer to this, but I'd put money on it being a relatively small minority.
If, however, you're motivated to learn how to think, then pack your bags for campus. Take classes in fields other than your specialty, enjoy the company of people with different interests, and work to expand your own horizons. It's not always easy, and it's not lucrative, but college will be fun, and worth it in the long run. There's more to life than hacking or working in the industry.
But it's gonna take so long that by the time they finish a decent clone compatible with, say Win98 or Win2000, Microsoft will be a couple versions ahead. That is, even if they succeed in creating software compatible with Windows, Microsft can easily make it uncompatible by releasing a version with new "features".
Read the article. the request went through the provost's office, before FASCS. True, it probably didn't go through Rudenstine, but it was at a higher level than the guy at the help desk.