Not all speech is created equal. See, in order for people to hear what you're saying, you have to put it in some kind of medium. And media are private, for-profit entities, which means more money=more message
If this were true, then I might be able to tell you what was on CBS last night. I can't. I chose not to watch it because I liked what was on another channel better. If CBS had absolute freedom of speech, they might have aired porn last night; but so would have all the other networks. It's not the money. It's who has the best stuff. If money really mattered that much, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot would have become president. They didn't. The voters, as stupid as they can be some times, are still smart enough to change the channel. When the candidates are roughly equal, the money helps, but then the fact that the candidates were roughly equal negates any injustice caused by the money in the first place, doesn't it? Whatever injustice there may be in the money speaking louder, it's small and not worth trashing the first ammendment in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others too that I know--as long as they are allowed to express that opinion!
They're called the Internet Protocols. Anything else is damage and will have to be routed around. In other words, this is just my way of saying what most other people here are saying: Government, go away. You can only screw things up.
On the patent/IP side the corporations own the government and the patents. Effectively, software becomes a massive state industry controlled by vast beurocracies. Very socialist.
On the OSS side, everything goes into the public commons. People working under the auspices of corporations and government sponsored research are some of the biggest contributions to OSS. Very socialist.
A pox on both their houses. The garage and VC-funded software startups, unencumbered by patent trolls. That was capitalism in the software industry. We had it for a while it seemed. Keep us there. That's where real innovation and money, on a level playing field, are made.
How about if you just keep the file's purpose and use as... a config file
I'd like to meet the programmer that can do that under pressure from managers, customers, the community, various other time constraints, and his own desire to "bang something out" quickly. I'd like to meet the programmer that can actually convince people it's worth while to pause development for a few weeks and integrate something new because it'll be better in the long run. I'd really like to meet this person.
Every file format becomes a programming language in the long run.
OK, maybe not *every* file format, but most of them. Think about that, and design accordingly from the start. Parse into a VM from the start and write a verifier from the start.
And no, there isn't a magic bullet. Even the XML advocate who posted before me admitted that wouldn't be an appropriate solution for something like MPEG due to performance concerns. I'm even willing to admit that what I'm suggesting is no magic bullet either; but have some control. Don't wake up one day and realize that somebody can program a 4-function calculator, or something more malicious, in your config file format that started out as... just a config file. Plan for it.
What if it were the other way around? It will be interesting to see what happens when they try to use this as precedent when "one guy" is doing the same thing to a corporation. Even with this case as precedent, I've gotten to the point where I'm inclined to think the corporation has a better chance of winning than "one guy". This will be especially true if Alito is on the court. I'd say more, but I've got to file my incorporation papers. I figure it's the only way to guarantee full constitutional rights (and then some!) these days. Note, I'm not defending this "one guy". Sometimes Goliath is right and David is wrong, and this is one of those times.
The whole idea of just one standard for TV is obsolete anyway. Just about every cable system offers broadband, and many offer "digital cable". The general-purpose PC, and specialized computers like TiVo are becoming more common. So instead of having just one standard for TV, it seems pretty reasonable to push codecs out to viewers once in a while.
OTOH, as far as broadcast over the air is concerned, digitial is all too often a joke. When analog goes sour, you get a little "static" or "fuzz". It's not too bad usually. When digital goes bad, the sudden cut-outs of sound, frozen images, and blocks appearing on the screen are much more annoying. We had a little analog TV for a while with a digital tuner. It responded to signal weakness by dropping out EVERYTHING and turning the screen blue, then flashing back to the picture when the signal was stronger. Oh please, bring back my snowy picture!
What would really be cool is a standard for specifying variable quality of analog signals, and a tuner that could adjust (or report that it isn't capable) of handling high-quality analog. That would be the best of both worlds.
Maybe some sort of sliding scale based on gross income from each patent is in order
Sounds great in concept. This is what they call "means testing". Google for that and you'll see a number of credible reports that the administrative costs of means testing outweigh the benefits. I looked into this one time because I wanted to be informed about the whole health care issue. The argument that "Bill Gates shouldn't get Medicare" sounds reasonable enough, but then you end up with a whole other set of regulations (and regulators) to figure out who qualifies. Oh yes, it would be nice if we just had a standard way of evaluating people's incomes and assets, and then we could simply refer to that when deciding who was eligible for various government services and discounts; but this is government. The paperwork produced by the "blue ribbon commission" to decide what kind of agency would be set up to establish the criteria would be costly enough as it is.
FWIW, I think the ultimate resolution to the patent issue will be legislative. When Senator Huffenpuff's teenage daughter gets sued for telling a patented joke, maybe they'll finally realize reform is in order.
p.s., "Senator Huffenpuff" is trademarked istartedi. Patent pending on storylines involving senator's daughters.
A couple problems with that. First, if you have any hope at all that Patents can be good, it spoils the system for the legitimate small inventor. Second, large corporations would simply be more careful about obtaining broader patents, and choosing their applications more strategicly. Third, those in charge of examining a particular patent would become more powerful. There would be a greater opportunity for corruption and influence. Finally, the office would need less staff, reducing its costs.
How much we have to lower the fees to make the office unprofitable is a simple matter of looking at the books, examiner to application ratios, etc. How much we would have to raise the fees can't be calculated like that, since we don't really know the demand curve for patents.
The USPTO would accept those patents, most certainly. Why? Because the USPTO is an anomaly: a government agency (other than the IRS) that makes money. So in effect what you are suggesting is a lot like voluntary taxation. I don't know how big a tax increase we would need to offset the revenue from USPTO. Probably not that big, but as strange as it might sound it's not just about the money--it's also about downsizing an agency. Ironicly, the first step towards ending patent abuse might be to *reduce* filing fees. Then, the agency would become less profitable, or maybe even become a money-loser, and more likely to fall victim to the budget axe. Trouble is, even money-losing agencies are very hard to eliminate.
...fall asleep for twenty years, and when I wake up there has been a revolution in America, and everything is different. Wait... that sounds like some kind of prior art or something. Oh well, you don't need me to point out what a, cough.. ahem... umm... Rip-off this is.
An act in Congress to defend free speech? Hear that? No. It's not your new fan-like subwoofer. It's the Founders spinning in their graves. Either that or our government just sounded another brown note. There is absolutely no need for this. It's covered by the first ammendment. And, if the SCOTUS doesn't back us up on that, then the court of last resort has failed. Then, when the court of last resort fails, it's time for the formation of a new government, just as the Founders formed a new government. I just hope we can keep the bloodshed to a minimum.
gAIM works "OK". It's useable. Same deal with Ethereal. These apps would be a lot better if they used the native Windows APIs, or if they used a wrapper that was abstract enough to give them more the feel of a "real" Windows application. Not getting the Windows common dialog savebox when I want to save something is annoying. I understand why they did that--it was probably a lot easier to port. If I were looking to write GUI apps cross-platform though, I'd make sure the wrapper I was using came as close as possible to the look and feel of the native GUI on all the platforms I was trying to support. GTK ports are just crappy on Windows in too many ways to ever be the method I'd chose. It's been a while but I've heard wxWindows is pretty good in this regard. If so, more people should probably use it.
The stack argument never made any sense. Over the years I've seen too many projects that claim to have Windows versions, and then when you download the source they don't include any kind of Windows build files (NMAKEs, project files, etc) or they say it has source for Windows when it really just has source for Cygwin, which isn't native Windows. Worse than that, I have even seen projects that just give you headers and libs with the Windows "developer" distribution. Or, if you offer to provide better Windows development files, they say they don't want them. This will often happen with project files for MSVC. Yes, I know they are subject to the format whims of MS's next release, but for cryin' out loud the format doesn't change that often, and there is nothing that says you can't provide NMAKEs and other, more stable build scripts too. Regardles, those MS files are part of the preferred method for modifying the program and I have even seen projects where the developers obviously used MSVC but wouldn't tar up those files. That's just cruel, because then I have to go through the hassle of re-creating them.
Anyway, the stack argument is being invalidated every day by apps like Firefox and Open Office. It might not have taken so long if so many people hadn't been snobbish. People are more likely to replace their kernel when they can keep familiar apps then they are to replace familiar apps for the sake of a kernel.
Duh. Only a fool represents himself. It's 3 am. I just got back from a Halloween celebration that involved alcohol, and I still realize that. So what's your point? Idjits!
If I kill you to prevent you from killing me, killing you is self defense and not a crime. Seems reasonable that if I kill Sony's process to prevent it from stealing my ID that it's self defense and not a crime. The DMCA is one of those laws that is so out of whack, nevermind the US Constitution. It probably violates Brittish common law, the Magna Carta, and if you look hard enough it probably violates the code of Hammurabai and the social order of primitive hunter-gatherer cultures too.
...companies to pull off one of the few FS/OSS business models that's sound, simply because of Google's size. The model?
1. Release FS/OSS.
2. Short stock of Proprietary competition. Or, drive dollars away from them towards you; since shorting is an unpopular tactic that might cause PR or even legal problems.
3. Profit. Oh yeah, big time!
Hate to burst the bubbles of people who still have them when it comes to the big G, but human attempts to create large, idealistic organizations have a nasty tendancy to end in failure. Exactly what is "not doing evil" when your only choice is the Google office suite?
If China blocks Google, how will that impact their students, researchers, etc.? They are shooting themselves in the foot, like all totalitarian states do in the long run.
Wasn't the BASIC on the C64 interpreted? I was thinking the same thing. Some OSs come with compilers, some don't. Yes, I think the OS *ought* to come with a compiler and source. And it wouldn't kill MS to put the source on the box. It could still be copyrighted MS, and it would make the machine fantasticly more useable. No, every user doesn't need it in the default install. Those of us who know we want it ought to be able to choose it as an option under the custom install. It's MS's job to make sure nobody really needs it unless they're a developer. Of course, then MS developers would be tempted to release patches that require recompiling part of the OS instead of just doing binary patching. Then of course, they'd have to deal with all the support issues caused by unauthorized patches. 3rd parties would be more likely to release mods as source, requireing users to install development tools to get the mods, etc. Then of course, exploits could modify the *source* on your box, laying dormant until the next time you recompile. This is not such a big problem in *NIX because of the security model, but when everybody is running as admin...oh... watchout what you ask for people, you might get it!
I'm so anxious to work for a compnay that has to get all its cash from revenue right away, then folds in 4 months. Will the next "visionary" please step forward? No, the stick is perfectly harmless. Step closer, it's OK...
I can see how you could say that about VS, but I think it applies to a lot of things. If you don't know (or want to know) anything about how computers work, then you could get lulled into just clicking the pretty widgets and filling in the blanks on all the things the wizard does for you. Myself, I use VS but almost always start with a blank project and build from there. When I was first learning in the mid 90s, I got roped into using MFC because of it, but experience has taught me to avoid proprietary stuff like that--and by "proprietary" I mean "specific to a particular system". You could make the same argument against using shell scripts with calls to commands found only on your favorite distro of Linux. If you aren't aware of the existance of a "Linux standards base" or "C99" you are going to get suckered into writing something "trendy" when you didn't mean to. Then you'll find yourself re-writing it 2 years later when the "release often" cycle has made your efforts irrelevant; but I don't hear anybody saying Open Source rots your brain. You have to learn to defend your brain. Defend it against tools that hide too much, defend it against trendiness, defend it against outdated designs touted as the latest thing, defend against marketing, and hold on to what stands the test of time. If you have a good brain, a bad tool might keep you down for a while, but you'll learn, and you can actually "un-rot" your brain.
It looks like the Onion is just mirroring White House content (I didn't actually listen to the audio streams though). Assuming they are just mirroring the audio, this begs the question of whether or not more "serious" news sites are allowed to use the seal on their pages that mirror the content. If they are, then the Onion is being singled out and that's plainly unfair. The placement of GWB's radio show on the Onion is, in and of itself, a criticism of the administration since such placement implies that the President's addresses belong on a humor site. Now, if the Onion is being singled out in their use of the seal then this is chilling indeed: they are being singled out for criticizing the administration. However, if the White House has a policy of not allowing news sites to use the seal directly on their sites, and they enforce that policy uniformly, then it's rather benign in my opinion since such use might imply endorsement and/or affiliation with the White House. It's fairly standard for any organization, government or otherwise, not to allow use of their trademark without endorsement or affiliation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all speech is created equal. See, in order for people to hear what you're saying, you have to put it in some kind of medium. And media are private, for-profit entities, which means more money=more message
If this were true, then I might be able to tell you what was on CBS last night. I can't. I chose not to watch it because I liked what was on another channel better. If CBS had absolute freedom of speech, they might have aired porn last night; but so would have all the other networks. It's not the money. It's who has the best stuff. If money really mattered that much, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot would have become president. They didn't. The voters, as stupid as they can be some times, are still smart enough to change the channel. When the candidates are roughly equal, the money helps, but then the fact that the candidates were roughly equal negates any injustice caused by the money in the first place, doesn't it? Whatever injustice there may be in the money speaking louder, it's small and not worth trashing the first ammendment in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others too that I know--as long as they are allowed to express that opinion!
//gack.
if (456==x)
{
printf("I will not accidently assign x\n");
}
They're called the Internet Protocols. Anything else is damage and will have to be routed around. In other words, this is just my way of saying what most other people here are saying: Government, go away. You can only screw things up.
On the patent/IP side the corporations own the government and the patents. Effectively, software becomes a massive state industry controlled by vast beurocracies. Very socialist.
On the OSS side, everything goes into the public commons. People working under the auspices of corporations and government sponsored research are some of the biggest contributions to OSS. Very socialist.
A pox on both their houses. The garage and VC-funded software startups, unencumbered by patent trolls. That was capitalism in the software industry. We had it for a while it seemed. Keep us there. That's where real innovation and money, on a level playing field, are made.
I've been going around in circles trying to answer that question.
Where can I download it? 'nuff said.
How about if you just keep the file's purpose and use as... a config file
I'd like to meet the programmer that can do that under pressure from managers, customers, the community, various other time constraints, and his own desire to "bang something out" quickly. I'd like to meet the programmer that can actually convince people it's worth while to pause development for a few weeks and integrate something new because it'll be better in the long run. I'd really like to meet this person.
Every file format becomes a programming language in the long run.
OK, maybe not *every* file format, but most of them. Think about that, and design accordingly from the start. Parse into a VM from the start and write a verifier from the start.
And no, there isn't a magic bullet. Even the XML advocate who posted before me admitted that wouldn't be an appropriate solution for something like MPEG due to performance concerns. I'm even willing to admit that what I'm suggesting is no magic bullet either; but have some control. Don't wake up one day and realize that somebody can program a 4-function calculator, or something more malicious, in your config file format that started out as... just a config file. Plan for it.
What if it were the other way around? It will be interesting to see what happens when they try to use this as precedent when "one guy" is doing the same thing to a corporation. Even with this case as precedent, I've gotten to the point where I'm inclined to think the corporation has a better chance of winning than "one guy". This will be especially true if Alito is on the court. I'd say more, but I've got to file my incorporation papers. I figure it's the only way to guarantee full constitutional rights (and then some!) these days. Note, I'm not defending this "one guy". Sometimes Goliath is right and David is wrong, and this is one of those times.
The whole idea of just one standard for TV is obsolete anyway. Just about every cable system offers broadband, and many offer "digital cable". The general-purpose PC, and specialized computers like TiVo are becoming more common. So instead of having just one standard for TV, it seems pretty reasonable to push codecs out to viewers once in a while.
OTOH, as far as broadcast over the air is concerned, digitial is all too often a joke. When analog goes sour, you get a little "static" or "fuzz". It's not too bad usually. When digital goes bad, the sudden cut-outs of sound, frozen images, and blocks appearing on the screen are much more annoying. We had a little analog TV for a while with a digital tuner. It responded to signal weakness by dropping out EVERYTHING and turning the screen blue, then flashing back to the picture when the signal was stronger. Oh please, bring back my snowy picture!
What would really be cool is a standard for specifying variable quality of analog signals, and a tuner that could adjust (or report that it isn't capable) of handling high-quality analog. That would be the best of both worlds.
Maybe some sort of sliding scale based on gross income from each patent is in order
Sounds great in concept. This is what they call "means testing". Google for that and you'll see a number of credible reports that the administrative costs of means testing outweigh the benefits. I looked into this one time because I wanted to be informed about the whole health care issue. The argument that "Bill Gates shouldn't get Medicare" sounds reasonable enough, but then you end up with a whole other set of regulations (and regulators) to figure out who qualifies. Oh yes, it would be nice if we just had a standard way of evaluating people's incomes and assets, and then we could simply refer to that when deciding who was eligible for various government services and discounts; but this is government. The paperwork produced by the "blue ribbon commission" to decide what kind of agency would be set up to establish the criteria would be costly enough as it is.
FWIW, I think the ultimate resolution to the patent issue will be legislative. When Senator Huffenpuff's teenage daughter gets sued for telling a patented joke, maybe they'll finally realize reform is in order.
p.s., "Senator Huffenpuff" is trademarked istartedi. Patent pending on storylines involving senator's daughters.
A couple problems with that. First, if you have any hope at all that Patents can be good, it spoils the system for the legitimate small inventor. Second, large corporations would simply be more careful about obtaining broader patents, and choosing their applications more strategicly. Third, those in charge of examining a particular patent would become more powerful. There would be a greater opportunity for corruption and influence. Finally, the office would need less staff, reducing its costs.
How much we have to lower the fees to make the office unprofitable is a simple matter of looking at the books, examiner to application ratios, etc. How much we would have to raise the fees can't be calculated like that, since we don't really know the demand curve for patents.
The USPTO would accept those patents, most certainly. Why? Because the USPTO is an anomaly: a government agency (other than the IRS) that makes money. So in effect what you are suggesting is a lot like voluntary taxation. I don't know how big a tax increase we would need to offset the revenue from USPTO. Probably not that big, but as strange as it might sound it's not just about the money--it's also about downsizing an agency. Ironicly, the first step towards ending patent abuse might be to *reduce* filing fees. Then, the agency would become less profitable, or maybe even become a money-loser, and more likely to fall victim to the budget axe. Trouble is, even money-losing agencies are very hard to eliminate.
...fall asleep for twenty years, and when I wake up there has been a revolution in America, and everything is different. Wait... that sounds like some kind of prior art or something. Oh well, you don't need me to point out what a, cough.. ahem... umm... Rip-off this is.
An act in Congress to defend free speech? Hear that? No. It's not your new fan-like subwoofer. It's the Founders spinning in their graves. Either that or our government just sounded another brown note. There is absolutely no need for this. It's covered by the first ammendment. And, if the SCOTUS doesn't back us up on that, then the court of last resort has failed. Then, when the court of last resort fails, it's time for the formation of a new government, just as the Founders formed a new government. I just hope we can keep the bloodshed to a minimum.
gAIM works "OK". It's useable. Same deal with Ethereal. These apps would be a lot better if they used the native Windows APIs, or if they used a wrapper that was abstract enough to give them more the feel of a "real" Windows application. Not getting the Windows common dialog savebox when I want to save something is annoying. I understand why they did that--it was probably a lot easier to port. If I were looking to write GUI apps cross-platform though, I'd make sure the wrapper I was using came as close as possible to the look and feel of the native GUI on all the platforms I was trying to support. GTK ports are just crappy on Windows in too many ways to ever be the method I'd chose. It's been a while but I've heard wxWindows is pretty good in this regard. If so, more people should probably use it.
The stack argument never made any sense. Over the years I've seen too many projects that claim to have Windows versions, and then when you download the source they don't include any kind of Windows build files (NMAKEs, project files, etc) or they say it has source for Windows when it really just has source for Cygwin, which isn't native Windows. Worse than that, I have even seen projects that just give you headers and libs with the Windows "developer" distribution. Or, if you offer to provide better Windows development files, they say they don't want them. This will often happen with project files for MSVC. Yes, I know they are subject to the format whims of MS's next release, but for cryin' out loud the format doesn't change that often, and there is nothing that says you can't provide NMAKEs and other, more stable build scripts too. Regardles, those MS files are part of the preferred method for modifying the program and I have even seen projects where the developers obviously used MSVC but wouldn't tar up those files. That's just cruel, because then I have to go through the hassle of re-creating them.
Anyway, the stack argument is being invalidated every day by apps like Firefox and Open Office. It might not have taken so long if so many people hadn't been snobbish. People are more likely to replace their kernel when they can keep familiar apps then they are to replace familiar apps for the sake of a kernel.
Duh. Only a fool represents himself. It's 3 am. I just got back from a Halloween celebration that involved alcohol, and I still realize that. So what's your point? Idjits!
If I kill you to prevent you from killing me, killing you is self defense and not a crime. Seems reasonable that if I kill Sony's process to prevent it from stealing my ID that it's self defense and not a crime. The DMCA is one of those laws that is so out of whack, nevermind the US Constitution. It probably violates Brittish common law, the Magna Carta, and if you look hard enough it probably violates the code of Hammurabai and the social order of primitive hunter-gatherer cultures too.
...companies to pull off one of the few FS/OSS business models that's sound, simply because of Google's size. The model?
1. Release FS/OSS.
2. Short stock of Proprietary competition. Or, drive dollars away from them towards you; since shorting is an unpopular tactic that might cause PR or even legal problems.
3. Profit. Oh yeah, big time!
Hate to burst the bubbles of people who still have them when it comes to the big G, but human attempts to create large, idealistic organizations have a nasty tendancy to end in failure. Exactly what is "not doing evil" when your only choice is the Google office suite?
If China blocks Google, how will that impact their students, researchers, etc.? They are shooting themselves in the foot, like all totalitarian states do in the long run.
Wasn't the BASIC on the C64 interpreted? I was thinking the same thing. Some OSs come with compilers, some don't. Yes, I think the OS *ought* to come with a compiler and source. And it wouldn't kill MS to put the source on the box. It could still be copyrighted MS, and it would make the machine fantasticly more useable. No, every user doesn't need it in the default install. Those of us who know we want it ought to be able to choose it as an option under the custom install. It's MS's job to make sure nobody really needs it unless they're a developer. Of course, then MS developers would be tempted to release patches that require recompiling part of the OS instead of just doing binary patching. Then of course, they'd have to deal with all the support issues caused by unauthorized patches. 3rd parties would be more likely to release mods as source, requireing users to install development tools to get the mods, etc. Then of course, exploits could modify the *source* on your box, laying dormant until the next time you recompile. This is not such a big problem in *NIX because of the security model, but when everybody is running as admin...oh... watchout what you ask for people, you might get it!
I'm so anxious to work for a compnay that has to get all its cash from revenue right away, then folds in 4 months. Will the next "visionary" please step forward? No, the stick is perfectly harmless. Step closer, it's OK...
I can see how you could say that about VS, but I think it applies to a lot of things. If you don't know (or want to know) anything about how computers work, then you could get lulled into just clicking the pretty widgets and filling in the blanks on all the things the wizard does for you. Myself, I use VS but almost always start with a blank project and build from there. When I was first learning in the mid 90s, I got roped into using MFC because of it, but experience has taught me to avoid proprietary stuff like that--and by "proprietary" I mean "specific to a particular system". You could make the same argument against using shell scripts with calls to commands found only on your favorite distro of Linux. If you aren't aware of the existance of a "Linux standards base" or "C99" you are going to get suckered into writing something "trendy" when you didn't mean to. Then you'll find yourself re-writing it 2 years later when the "release often" cycle has made your efforts irrelevant; but I don't hear anybody saying Open Source rots your brain. You have to learn to defend your brain. Defend it against tools that hide too much, defend it against trendiness, defend it against outdated designs touted as the latest thing, defend against marketing, and hold on to what stands the test of time. If you have a good brain, a bad tool might keep you down for a while, but you'll learn, and you can actually "un-rot" your brain.
It looks like the Onion is just mirroring White House content (I didn't actually listen to the audio streams though). Assuming they are just mirroring the audio, this begs the question of whether or not more "serious" news sites are allowed to use the seal on their pages that mirror the content. If they are, then the Onion is being singled out and that's plainly unfair. The placement of GWB's radio show on the Onion is, in and of itself, a criticism of the administration since such placement implies that the President's addresses belong on a humor site. Now, if the Onion is being singled out in their use of the seal then this is chilling indeed: they are being singled out for criticizing the administration. However, if the White House has a policy of not allowing news sites to use the seal directly on their sites, and they enforce that policy uniformly, then it's rather benign in my opinion since such use might imply endorsement and/or affiliation with the White House. It's fairly standard for any organization, government or otherwise, not to allow use of their trademark without endorsement or affiliation.