I don't believe that I made any mention of wealth, did I? There are people who are crazy in the opposite direction. The harder you lean on them, the more you abuse them, the harder they fight.
Had Swartz been a little more - savvy is the term I guess - he would have foreseen that Corporate America would pull out their biggest guns to deal with him. Then, he could have intelligently decided whether the fight was worth it.
Jamie Thomason wasn't especially savvy, but she did fight the good fight. Single Mom takes on Corporate America. She lost, but at least she had fight in her.
A guy I work with has a saying, with which he mocks some of our coworkers: "Kieth sure has a lot of quit in him!" It applies to Mr. Swartz, I'm afraid. It doesn't apply to Ms. Thomason.
AC has a point. Whether it be Swartz, or some lackwit from Outback, Nowhere - if you're going to challenge authority, you'd best be prepared for any consequences.
Swartz freely engaged in questionable activities, of his own free will. No matter what he believed to be right, he declared war on the status quo. He didn't just challenge Mommy's decision over to much television - he challenged an entrenched system, armed with legions of lawyers, tons of money, and buttloads of unscrupulous business people.
Swartz became a casualty because A: he couldn't imagine the forces that would brought to bear against him, and B: he was incapable of standing up to those forces.
MIT may be somewhat culpable, but only Swartz decided to kill himself.
I kinda like the guy. He was actually doing some good, I think. But - if a weak person decides to go one on two with a sumo wrestler and a professional boxer tag team, don't expect me to feel overly sorry for him when he gets pounded into a mudhole.
I agree, the system is sick, but Swartz isn't what I would call a hero or a martyr.
Uhhhmmm, the "privileged" bit, I can understand. The "white boys" just shows that you have some kind of problem with your prejudices. The "pretty" reveals your sexual preferences, I think. You wanted to be locked up with them, I take it? Balogna ponies aren't just for white chicks? You'd like your opportunity to charm a one eyed snow snake? ROFLMAO!!!
At least they put a bar up. The bar is low, but it's there. $1000 worth of copyrighted material in a 180 day period. Joe Schmuck who downloads a movie or two is safe, but if his wife ALSO downloads a couple hundred songs, then they might be in trouble.
How did things change when Obama took over from Bush? Herr Bush had his own cult. It was a multi-teired cult, with military industrial people on the inner circle, oil industry in the second circle, bankers in the third circle, and the fourth circle was composed of any rich idiot who cared to worship Bush and his war machinery. And, the whole republican party invited every imbecile who was frightened of the terr'ists to sit on the outer fringes to worship Bush.
If we're going to compare the cults, I can forgive the black folk who are in love with the half-black president a whole lot easier than I can forgive everyone who worshipped Bush.
That seems proper, and fitting, to me. Also, increasing the number of examiners would help. I'm half way sure that the examiners are pretty smart people. If an examiner simply could spend TIME on an application, he could probably kick out a lot of the bogus patents.
Face it - if the average slashdotter can take a casual look at a patent, think for less than ten minutes, then provide a half dozen examples of prior art, then a decent examiner could do the same. The examiner's biggest problem is probably time. The paperwork flows onto his desk at a breakneck pace, and he needs to get it off of his desk somehow. Skim it, rubber stamp it, and pass it on to the next person who rubber stamps it seems to be the most common method.
Of course, there is the possibility that half the examiners are actually idiots. I'm not in a position to address that possibility.
I really have little idea - I've allowed for that possibility. But, if you've read TFA, then Mr. Cheng indicates otherwise. You can take your pick - believe Mr. Cheng's statements, or assume that Newegg has settled quietly with other patent trolls. It's possible that Newegg simply believed this case was winnable, while other cases may not have been.
What I am very sure of, is that the patent office needs more funds, more personnel, and orders from congress to weed out all these submarine patents, get rid of obvious patents, and search for prior art patents. Before any of that, though, the patent system itself needs to be overhauled.
It's been noted often enough here, that companies don't WANT an "inventor" to be aware of prior art, etc. They WANT their "inventors" to submit ideas, so that the company can file the patent. They get it filed, if it gets approved, then it's valid on it's face. Better to wait for a civil suit, to have it's validity tested, when everyone can innocently claim, "Well, we did this all independently, and we had no idea that anyone else may have done it. It wasn't all that obvious, from where we were sitting, at the time!" Those, and similar arguments, might convince a jury, or they may not.
Basically, it's all a huge gamble, largely determined by the size of your legal staff - and it's so very wrong.
If there were any justice in the justice system, the patent trolls would be paying Newegg. Not just paying for Newegg's legal fees, etc, but actually paying Newegg.
Those bogus patents pulled from their "portfolio", and given to Newegg, along with a few dozen more patents. They might actually own a valid patent that could prove valuable to Newegg.
I suspect that Newegg stood their ground because of their policy:
"For Newegg's chief legal officer Lee Cheng, it's a huge validation of the strategy the company decided to pursue back in 2007: not to settle with patent trolls. Ever."
Or, that policy could be so much bluster, and Newegg has actually settled with other patent trolls, quietly, behind the scenes.
At a very rough guess, for every valid patent awarded in the past thirty years, there are about five or six bullshit, worthless patents that never should have been awarded, based on prior art or obviousness.
Using those bullshit patents to shake down legitimate businesses makes one a patent troll.
It's really pretty simple. In some cases an individual patent's merits may not be simple at all - but the distinction between a patent troll and other patent holders is really very simple. Patent trolls, for the most part, have never contributed one damned thing to the technology world, to the arts, or to the crafts. The give absolutely NOTHING to society - they are parasites.
From TFA "And now, nobody has to pay Soverain jack squat for these patents."
I love it. I hope the sumbitches all choke to death on their false indignation!
You may rationalize child labor and slave labor all you like.
I don't need to know how these children may survive outside the factory. I know for certain that unethical SOB's will take advantage of the kids, given the chance.
I know for certain that Apple has taken full advantage of Chinese practices. They have taken the fruits of these children's labors, given the items produced a thousand percent markup, and sold them on American and European markets.
Now, today, they are doing damage control, trying to distance themselves from a practice that most of the world knew was going on.
You, the consumer, are just as responsible for little kids slaving away. You're the ones who clamor for cheap, cheap, cheap. That stupid iDevice might actually be worth $800 if it were produced in a North American or a European market. In which case, Apple would mark it up to at least $1200. But, you want your thousand dollars plus worth of technology for less than a thousand dollars, thereby encouraging companies like Apple to subsidize slave labor and child labor.
Christ on a crutch man! Here is the post you originally replied to:
"The "good cop, bad cop" routine does not require the use of torture. It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring. The routine is very effective, of course, in certain situations."
How in the FUCK do you deduce, from that post, that I approve of torture?
Let's try this: "The formation of ice does not require subzero or even subfreezing temperatures, it only requires a low temperature near freezing, and enough wind to encourage evaporation."
From THAT sentence, can you deduce my preferences in weather?
Internal combustion engines do not require an external electrical spark. They only require that fuel be compressed enough, in the presence of oxygen, that pressure causes combustion."
From THAT sentence, can you deduce whether I prefer a gasoline engine, or a diesel engine?
I could go on for days, but the fact that you fail at reading comprehension suggest that I'll be wasting all that time.
Go, get that education. And, maybe get a life while you're at it.
"This server is suited for submarine and tacked vehicle racks"
Tacked vehicles? Tacked? Forgive me - I'm really not a grammar nazi or spelling nazi, but FFS, you would think that a corporate web page might get things right. WTF is a tacked vehicle? A sailboat? Possibly - but it's pretty certain that they mean TRACKED vehicles, like tanks and command vehicles.
If I'm trying to appeal to medical professionals, I'd like to get my terminology straight, at the least, so that I might actually make some sales. Ditto for the military community. Or any community. Any grunt who looks at that page is going to ask the same, "WTF is a tacked vehicle?"
As an aside - why does Firefox spell checker tell me that nazi is misspelled? WTF is with that? For that matter, WTF is also misspelled, and FFS - jeez!
2.x had a lot of bugs - literally and figuratively. The only one of the version two series that was worth anything, was 2.68. The version 5.x girlfriends are the bestest ever!
Go back to school, chump. You are unequipped to engage in a battle of the wits. There's a community college near you that can help with your own personal set of disadvantages.
There are times when I've failed to convey my thoughts properly, and a couple of times slashdotters have called me on it. When that happens, I am man enough to give them some kind of salute, and acknowledge that I have screwed up - whether I made a simple typo, or I typed to damned fast and allowed my fingers to get ahead of my brains. In a few cases, I simply didn't have all the facts, and even changed my perspective on an issue after another person presented me with links to more information.
But, you, Sir, will have to learn to read before you earn a salute for catching me up. Maybe you could use Google, and enter my user name along with the word "torture". I've commented often, in many places. Go ahead, hit the WWW to find all the places where I've defended the Bush administration's use of torture.
Hit that community college too - you'll be amazed what you can learn.
Well - were you planning anything else for next month? Think of it, 28 days devoted to researching something you never really gave a damn about anyway. You'll only have to average ~143 letters per day, then you can go on about the business of your life in March.
One result of Wallace's early travels has been a modern controversy about his nationality. Since Wallace was born in Monmouthshire, some sources have considered him to be Welsh.[7] However some historians have questioned this because neither of his parents was Welsh, his family only briefly lived in Monmouthshire, the Welsh people Wallace knew in his childhood considered him to be English, and because Wallace himself consistently referred to himself as English rather than Welsh (even when writing about his time in Wales). One Wallace scholar has stated that because of these facts the most reasonable interpretation was that he was an Englishman born in Wales.[8]
Go back, read it again. In fact, I copy pasted my original statement to respond to your post.
"It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"
Must I draw a picture, color it, and label it for you? I'm opposed to torture. I'm opposed to "enhanced interrogation". I'm even opposed to the "good cop - bad cop" routine.
Read my posts in this thread four or five times, or four or five hundred times if necessary. Nowhere can you find that I've rationalized, justified, approved of torture. I don't even attempt to redefine what torture consists of, to provide a loophole for the assholes to jump through.
I despise the Bush administration based on two issues, more than all others combined. 1: the invasion of Iraq, based on lies 2: the use of torture
I could provide you with a longer list, but those two issues will be on top.
You will never find anyplace where I have approved of the use of torture, or the threat of torture.
That is quite clearly understood by most of us. However, I said, "It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"
In the good cop, bad cop scenario, the bad cop states that you're facing about twelve lifetimes in prison for your crimes, then the good cop comes in, offers you a coke and a cigarette, and offers to help you get your list of crimes reduced to only three lifetimes in prison.
The bad cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely stretched the truth. That is the "some other unpleasant things". The good cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely validated that truth stretching, and offered to help you.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderately stupid. I need to remember that one, it could be precious one day. "You Sir, are only moderately stupid! Why can't you see reason?"
I don't believe that I made any mention of wealth, did I? There are people who are crazy in the opposite direction. The harder you lean on them, the more you abuse them, the harder they fight.
Had Swartz been a little more - savvy is the term I guess - he would have foreseen that Corporate America would pull out their biggest guns to deal with him. Then, he could have intelligently decided whether the fight was worth it.
Jamie Thomason wasn't especially savvy, but she did fight the good fight. Single Mom takes on Corporate America. She lost, but at least she had fight in her.
A guy I work with has a saying, with which he mocks some of our coworkers: "Kieth sure has a lot of quit in him!" It applies to Mr. Swartz, I'm afraid. It doesn't apply to Ms. Thomason.
"They both belonged in jail. Too bad they were both too privileged, pretty white boys to serve even a day."
No, get your eyeglass prescription renewed, moron:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretty
So - the title is up for grabs? I need to check into getting it for myself! I'm sure that Aunt Sophie would approve!
AC has a point. Whether it be Swartz, or some lackwit from Outback, Nowhere - if you're going to challenge authority, you'd best be prepared for any consequences.
Swartz freely engaged in questionable activities, of his own free will. No matter what he believed to be right, he declared war on the status quo. He didn't just challenge Mommy's decision over to much television - he challenged an entrenched system, armed with legions of lawyers, tons of money, and buttloads of unscrupulous business people.
Swartz became a casualty because A: he couldn't imagine the forces that would brought to bear against him, and B: he was incapable of standing up to those forces.
MIT may be somewhat culpable, but only Swartz decided to kill himself.
I kinda like the guy. He was actually doing some good, I think. But - if a weak person decides to go one on two with a sumo wrestler and a professional boxer tag team, don't expect me to feel overly sorry for him when he gets pounded into a mudhole.
I agree, the system is sick, but Swartz isn't what I would call a hero or a martyr.
Uhhhmmm, the "privileged" bit, I can understand. The "white boys" just shows that you have some kind of problem with your prejudices. The "pretty" reveals your sexual preferences, I think. You wanted to be locked up with them, I take it? Balogna ponies aren't just for white chicks? You'd like your opportunity to charm a one eyed snow snake? ROFLMAO!!!
At least they put a bar up. The bar is low, but it's there. $1000 worth of copyrighted material in a 180 day period. Joe Schmuck who downloads a movie or two is safe, but if his wife ALSO downloads a couple hundred songs, then they might be in trouble.
Remind me not to try yoga - I'll be safer feeding Yogi from a picnic basket.
How did things change when Obama took over from Bush? Herr Bush had his own cult. It was a multi-teired cult, with military industrial people on the inner circle, oil industry in the second circle, bankers in the third circle, and the fourth circle was composed of any rich idiot who cared to worship Bush and his war machinery. And, the whole republican party invited every imbecile who was frightened of the terr'ists to sit on the outer fringes to worship Bush.
If we're going to compare the cults, I can forgive the black folk who are in love with the half-black president a whole lot easier than I can forgive everyone who worshipped Bush.
Which cult do you happen to belong to, anyway?
That seems proper, and fitting, to me. Also, increasing the number of examiners would help. I'm half way sure that the examiners are pretty smart people. If an examiner simply could spend TIME on an application, he could probably kick out a lot of the bogus patents.
Face it - if the average slashdotter can take a casual look at a patent, think for less than ten minutes, then provide a half dozen examples of prior art, then a decent examiner could do the same. The examiner's biggest problem is probably time. The paperwork flows onto his desk at a breakneck pace, and he needs to get it off of his desk somehow. Skim it, rubber stamp it, and pass it on to the next person who rubber stamps it seems to be the most common method.
Of course, there is the possibility that half the examiners are actually idiots. I'm not in a position to address that possibility.
I really have little idea - I've allowed for that possibility. But, if you've read TFA, then Mr. Cheng indicates otherwise. You can take your pick - believe Mr. Cheng's statements, or assume that Newegg has settled quietly with other patent trolls. It's possible that Newegg simply believed this case was winnable, while other cases may not have been.
What I am very sure of, is that the patent office needs more funds, more personnel, and orders from congress to weed out all these submarine patents, get rid of obvious patents, and search for prior art patents. Before any of that, though, the patent system itself needs to be overhauled.
It's been noted often enough here, that companies don't WANT an "inventor" to be aware of prior art, etc. They WANT their "inventors" to submit ideas, so that the company can file the patent. They get it filed, if it gets approved, then it's valid on it's face. Better to wait for a civil suit, to have it's validity tested, when everyone can innocently claim, "Well, we did this all independently, and we had no idea that anyone else may have done it. It wasn't all that obvious, from where we were sitting, at the time!" Those, and similar arguments, might convince a jury, or they may not.
Basically, it's all a huge gamble, largely determined by the size of your legal staff - and it's so very wrong.
If there were any justice in the justice system, the patent trolls would be paying Newegg. Not just paying for Newegg's legal fees, etc, but actually paying Newegg.
Those bogus patents pulled from their "portfolio", and given to Newegg, along with a few dozen more patents. They might actually own a valid patent that could prove valuable to Newegg.
I suspect that Newegg stood their ground because of their policy:
"For Newegg's chief legal officer Lee Cheng, it's a huge validation of the strategy the company decided to pursue back in 2007: not to settle with patent trolls. Ever."
Or, that policy could be so much bluster, and Newegg has actually settled with other patent trolls, quietly, behind the scenes.
At a very rough guess, for every valid patent awarded in the past thirty years, there are about five or six bullshit, worthless patents that never should have been awarded, based on prior art or obviousness.
Using those bullshit patents to shake down legitimate businesses makes one a patent troll.
It's really pretty simple. In some cases an individual patent's merits may not be simple at all - but the distinction between a patent troll and other patent holders is really very simple. Patent trolls, for the most part, have never contributed one damned thing to the technology world, to the arts, or to the crafts. The give absolutely NOTHING to society - they are parasites.
From TFA "And now, nobody has to pay Soverain jack squat for these patents."
I love it. I hope the sumbitches all choke to death on their false indignation!
You may rationalize child labor and slave labor all you like.
I don't need to know how these children may survive outside the factory. I know for certain that unethical SOB's will take advantage of the kids, given the chance.
I know for certain that Apple has taken full advantage of Chinese practices. They have taken the fruits of these children's labors, given the items produced a thousand percent markup, and sold them on American and European markets.
Now, today, they are doing damage control, trying to distance themselves from a practice that most of the world knew was going on.
You, the consumer, are just as responsible for little kids slaving away. You're the ones who clamor for cheap, cheap, cheap. That stupid iDevice might actually be worth $800 if it were produced in a North American or a European market. In which case, Apple would mark it up to at least $1200. But, you want your thousand dollars plus worth of technology for less than a thousand dollars, thereby encouraging companies like Apple to subsidize slave labor and child labor.
.68 would do you, and let you owe her. .69 insisted on full equality. I guess it's a matter of opinion which was better.
Toddler 3.0 has upgraded itself to Motorcycle Racer 1.5 here . . . and Mother is horrified, LMAO!!
Christ on a crutch man! Here is the post you originally replied to:
"The "good cop, bad cop" routine does not require the use of torture. It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring. The routine is very effective, of course, in certain situations."
How in the FUCK do you deduce, from that post, that I approve of torture?
Let's try this: "The formation of ice does not require subzero or even subfreezing temperatures, it only requires a low temperature near freezing, and enough wind to encourage evaporation."
From THAT sentence, can you deduce my preferences in weather?
Internal combustion engines do not require an external electrical spark. They only require that fuel be compressed enough, in the presence of oxygen, that pressure causes combustion."
From THAT sentence, can you deduce whether I prefer a gasoline engine, or a diesel engine?
I could go on for days, but the fact that you fail at reading comprehension suggest that I'll be wasting all that time.
Go, get that education. And, maybe get a life while you're at it.
"This server is suited for submarine and tacked vehicle racks"
Tacked vehicles? Tacked? Forgive me - I'm really not a grammar nazi or spelling nazi, but FFS, you would think that a corporate web page might get things right. WTF is a tacked vehicle? A sailboat? Possibly - but it's pretty certain that they mean TRACKED vehicles, like tanks and command vehicles.
If I'm trying to appeal to medical professionals, I'd like to get my terminology straight, at the least, so that I might actually make some sales. Ditto for the military community. Or any community. Any grunt who looks at that page is going to ask the same, "WTF is a tacked vehicle?"
As an aside - why does Firefox spell checker tell me that nazi is misspelled? WTF is with that? For that matter, WTF is also misspelled, and FFS - jeez!
2.x had a lot of bugs - literally and figuratively. The only one of the version two series that was worth anything, was 2.68. The version 5.x girlfriends are the bestest ever!
Go back to school, chump. You are unequipped to engage in a battle of the wits. There's a community college near you that can help with your own personal set of disadvantages.
There are times when I've failed to convey my thoughts properly, and a couple of times slashdotters have called me on it. When that happens, I am man enough to give them some kind of salute, and acknowledge that I have screwed up - whether I made a simple typo, or I typed to damned fast and allowed my fingers to get ahead of my brains. In a few cases, I simply didn't have all the facts, and even changed my perspective on an issue after another person presented me with links to more information.
But, you, Sir, will have to learn to read before you earn a salute for catching me up. Maybe you could use Google, and enter my user name along with the word "torture". I've commented often, in many places. Go ahead, hit the WWW to find all the places where I've defended the Bush administration's use of torture.
Hit that community college too - you'll be amazed what you can learn.
Well - were you planning anything else for next month? Think of it, 28 days devoted to researching something you never really gave a damn about anyway. You'll only have to average ~143 letters per day, then you can go on about the business of your life in March.
One result of Wallace's early travels has been a modern controversy about his nationality. Since Wallace was born in Monmouthshire, some sources have considered him to be Welsh.[7] However some historians have questioned this because neither of his parents was Welsh, his family only briefly lived in Monmouthshire, the Welsh people Wallace knew in his childhood considered him to be English, and because Wallace himself consistently referred to himself as English rather than Welsh (even when writing about his time in Wales). One Wallace scholar has stated that because of these facts the most reasonable interpretation was that he was an Englishman born in Wales.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace
I guess the real question is, could he become king of England?
Reading comprehension, much?
Go back, read it again. In fact, I copy pasted my original statement to respond to your post.
"It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"
Must I draw a picture, color it, and label it for you? I'm opposed to torture. I'm opposed to "enhanced interrogation". I'm even opposed to the "good cop - bad cop" routine.
Read my posts in this thread four or five times, or four or five hundred times if necessary. Nowhere can you find that I've rationalized, justified, approved of torture. I don't even attempt to redefine what torture consists of, to provide a loophole for the assholes to jump through.
I despise the Bush administration based on two issues, more than all others combined.
1: the invasion of Iraq, based on lies
2: the use of torture
I could provide you with a longer list, but those two issues will be on top.
You will never find anyplace where I have approved of the use of torture, or the threat of torture.
That is quite clearly understood by most of us. However, I said, "It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"
In the good cop, bad cop scenario, the bad cop states that you're facing about twelve lifetimes in prison for your crimes, then the good cop comes in, offers you a coke and a cigarette, and offers to help you get your list of crimes reduced to only three lifetimes in prison.
The bad cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely stretched the truth. That is the "some other unpleasant things". The good cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely validated that truth stretching, and offered to help you.