I suspect there's a "Whoosh" floating around your post.
GP is, I believe, referring to how the patent system fails to allow for innovations that are simultaneously developed independently, whether by complete strangers or by peers known to each other in their field.
go back 30 years
We can go back much further than that. Examples of concurrent independent development abound. To paraphrase an excerpt from this article: Calculus - Newton and Leibniz. Evolution - Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Oxygen - Carl Wilhelm and Joseph Priestley. Colour photos - Charles Cros and Louis du Hauron. Logarithms - John Napier, Henry Briggs, Joost Burgi. Sunspots - Fabricius, Galileo, Harriott, Scheiner. Piston engine plane - the Wright brothers and Santos Dumont. And so and so on.
It is a very strange belief that a bureaucracy enforcing the exclusive profit of singular entities within a society of billions of creative individuals will somehow ultimately encourage innovation to flourish, rather than stifle it.
Patents dictate that the fruits of your labors are not yours to trade as you wish, if any stranger you never met and never knew "invented" those fruits "first".
The only true benefit of patents is that they document the specifics of innovation, and this aspect does not actually require any grant of exclusivity.
This is anticompetitive, it ensures no one else can use these patents as an advantage against intel
"These patents" don't exist yet. Intel is simply saying, "You can either have our money now (via funding) or you can have it later (via licensing), but not both. Your choice."
Works out well for all of us, but it prevents someone using Intel's money to find something out, patent it, and then bend intel over for the patented tech.
Fixed that for you.:)
They've extinguished POTENTIAL competition before it actually existed.
Potential parasites, you mean?
What I find interesting is that this is a return to the old system of patronage, which the supposedly-superior patent system was intended to replace.
#1 doesn't matter because #2 is orders of magnitude more important, though it should more accurately read "the US currently plays nice".
Everyone knows a bunch of unarmed civilians (e.g. wikileaks) would get very dead, very fast, taking on the world's more evil nations. You pick battles you have a chance of winning. So if all you can do is try to keep the good guys from becoming evil, then that's what you do.
If you have a hammer, you have an apparatus to bash someone's brains in. We don't ban hammers, we prosecute people who use or try to use them to bash someone's brains in.
Trouble is, when you're undercover you're both hammer and user.
I've occasionally wondered if legalising personal use but criminalising commercial use would be more effective (in terms of net benefit to society) than anything else. You want to make your own, share it with friends? Fine. You bought person? Only person at risk from the cops is the dealer. You want to make money off it? Felony crime, hard labor, etc.
Whether the rooms are connected via 802.11b pringle cans or 10gigE optic fibre, the bottleneck is still probably going to be the 100 Mbps internet link as I'd expect most hotel traffic would go over that link rather than stay internal.
The owners might think (rightly or wrongly) that in their situation the ROI of "hey free wifi" isn't worth rewiring the hotel. Offices with mission-critical IT needs are a different ballgame, and yes I'd start with CAT6 and GigE too.
Noted. Were I in that situation, and someone had to be told, it would not be the BSA that was notified. If you're doing the right thing for the reward, you're not doing the right thing.
When you turned around an bit your employer you lost credibility, because they hired you to give them your professional expertise.
Please re-read OP's original post. The part that caught my attention:
and said that they didnt care about my liability in the matter being the only IT person in the company.
Maybe the reward the BSA offered tempted him to tell them rather than the police or some other organisation. But the facts remain that (a) they were doing something illegal, (b) they planned to let him shoulder the blame for their illegal actions.
Regardless of what you may think about copyright laws, planning on having someone else nailed for it makes it anything but a "victimless crime".
Since people today can start bakeries and make cookies yet not go out of business, even though other people already have bigger bakeries and make more cookies, your counter-example is hardly ironclad.
And the counter-counter-example is John invents cookies, does patent them, and starts up a bakery. Barry has a big bakery franchise and a war chest of bakery-related patents, so buries John in lawyers. Broken by court costs, John agrees to lease Barry the patent for a pittance. Later that week Zeke has a revolutionary idea - but seeing John passing by in rags, decides to release the idea into the public domain and let society as a whole benefit rather than risk attempting to profit directly and get eaten by much bigger fish.
Yes, not *everything* about patents is bad. But between the costs of today's legal system (not just to individuals but also to society), patent war chests, patent thickets and now patent trolls, patents have outlived their net usefulness.
Explaining patent insanity is easy. What's hard is getting those in charge to fix it.
Imagine a primitive world without cookies. Two people from different towns, John and Barry, independently invent cookies at the same time. Each starts a cookie-making business, but John pays the government for a patent.
When they meet, John tells Barry that he has to either pay John a percentage or stop making cookies. Barry refuses, since John didn't have anything to do with Barry inventing cookies, but the government forces him to comply. Barry starts paying John the money rather than go out of business.
Boiled down, the current system is legalised extortion, with the government willing to threaten your kneecaps for anyone who's paid the fee.
Part of it is that while materials science has advanced and we have powered versions of the hammer, saw, drill, crane, etcetera, the fundamentals of actually building a house haven't changed: it is still people with tools assembling and joining pieces manually.
Large-scale 3D printing will change that.
(of course, people being people, many will probably just use the new technology to build the same old designs)
So it'll go like this: Suspect turns on the borgification; police zap the suspect; borgification stops working permanently. There's no record of anything except that which the police provide, and the status quo is maintained. As for the costs of the damaged implants, well, you were obviously "resisting arrest" (aren't we all?) and consequently you get to bear them.
Three "problems" I see with this (problems for the bad guys, anyway): first is that soon enough the "borgification" will be on 24/7, second is the zapping won't necessarily destroy the internal storage used by the victim even if it stops the recording device, third is that live streaming of video to remote repositories is already practical and becoming more common.
I also have an iPhone 3G (3GS if we're being pedantic). So could you tell me how to *change* my SMS tone to one of my own choosing without jailbreaking the phone? Because all mine lets me do is *select* from the six tones that Apple put on the phone.
If you read the full post, it is referring to the fact that you cannot *change* the iphone's SMS tones. You can *select* between the six tones Apple provides, but you cannot *change* any of those tones to one of your own choosing without first jailbreaking the phone.
Is each human life of unique and infinite value? Sure. But don't mistake a reluctance to take life with an inability to do so. Math with infinities is hard, anyway; try to kill me or mine and "subtract 1" suddenly looks real attractive.
A genuinely moral person won't have any problem with deaths inflicted in self-defense.
If someone killed in self-defense and didn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't be thinking "there goes a genuinely moral person". I'd be thinking "there's something genuinely wrong with that person".
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect there's a "Whoosh" floating around your post.
GP is, I believe, referring to how the patent system fails to allow for innovations that are simultaneously developed independently, whether by complete strangers or by peers known to each other in their field.
We can go back much further than that. Examples of concurrent independent development abound. To paraphrase an excerpt from this article: Calculus - Newton and Leibniz. Evolution - Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Oxygen - Carl Wilhelm and Joseph Priestley. Colour photos - Charles Cros and Louis du Hauron. Logarithms - John Napier, Henry Briggs, Joost Burgi. Sunspots - Fabricius, Galileo, Harriott, Scheiner. Piston engine plane - the Wright brothers and Santos Dumont. And so and so on.
It is a very strange belief that a bureaucracy enforcing the exclusive profit of singular entities within a society of billions of creative individuals will somehow ultimately encourage innovation to flourish, rather than stifle it.
Patents dictate that the fruits of your labors are not yours to trade as you wish, if any stranger you never met and never knew "invented" those fruits "first".
The only true benefit of patents is that they document the specifics of innovation, and this aspect does not actually require any grant of exclusivity.
"These patents" don't exist yet. Intel is simply saying, "You can either have our money now (via funding) or you can have it later (via licensing), but not both. Your choice."
Fixed that for you. :)
Potential parasites, you mean?
What I find interesting is that this is a return to the old system of patronage, which the supposedly-superior patent system was intended to replace.
Is that "except" or "except also"? If the primary dies whilst being mirrored... may I suggest two spares with an alternating schedule? :)
Mod parent up. For those without modpoints and/or wondering what a PLB is: Personal Locator Beacon.
#1 doesn't matter because #2 is orders of magnitude more important, though it should more accurately read "the US currently plays nice".
Everyone knows a bunch of unarmed civilians (e.g. wikileaks) would get very dead, very fast, taking on the world's more evil nations. You pick battles you have a chance of winning. So if all you can do is try to keep the good guys from becoming evil, then that's what you do.
Trouble is, when you're undercover you're both hammer and user.
I've occasionally wondered if legalising personal use but criminalising commercial use would be more effective (in terms of net benefit to society) than anything else. You want to make your own, share it with friends? Fine. You bought person? Only person at risk from the cops is the dealer. You want to make money off it? Felony crime, hard labor, etc.
Any country tried that? Did it work?
Whether the rooms are connected via 802.11b pringle cans or 10gigE optic fibre, the bottleneck is still probably going to be the 100 Mbps internet link as I'd expect most hotel traffic would go over that link rather than stay internal.
The owners might think (rightly or wrongly) that in their situation the ROI of "hey free wifi" isn't worth rewiring the hotel. Offices with mission-critical IT needs are a different ballgame, and yes I'd start with CAT6 and GigE too.
Catch being whether Apple would honour any warranty issues on iPads bought from a reseller not "authorised" by Apple.
I spotted only half the skimmers, and missed the cameras. Cunning little monsters. Glad I don't use ATMs often. Thanks for the link.
Ah, excellent. Thankyou!
Not sure where GP's 800c::6a leads to, but try http://2001:4860:8006::6a instead. If that doesn't work, you may not have an IPv6 route to google's IPv6 service. See also http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ and http://www.ipv6tools.org/
It's getting harder for the foreigners to tell the difference.
Noted. Were I in that situation, and someone had to be told, it would not be the BSA that was notified. If you're doing the right thing for the reward, you're not doing the right thing.
Please re-read OP's original post. The part that caught my attention:
Maybe the reward the BSA offered tempted him to tell them rather than the police or some other organisation. But the facts remain that (a) they were doing something illegal, (b) they planned to let him shoulder the blame for their illegal actions.
Regardless of what you may think about copyright laws, planning on having someone else nailed for it makes it anything but a "victimless crime".
Since people today can start bakeries and make cookies yet not go out of business, even though other people already have bigger bakeries and make more cookies, your counter-example is hardly ironclad.
And the counter-counter-example is John invents cookies, does patent them, and starts up a bakery. Barry has a big bakery franchise and a war chest of bakery-related patents, so buries John in lawyers. Broken by court costs, John agrees to lease Barry the patent for a pittance. Later that week Zeke has a revolutionary idea - but seeing John passing by in rags, decides to release the idea into the public domain and let society as a whole benefit rather than risk attempting to profit directly and get eaten by much bigger fish.
Yes, not *everything* about patents is bad. But between the costs of today's legal system (not just to individuals but also to society), patent war chests, patent thickets and now patent trolls, patents have outlived their net usefulness.
Explaining patent insanity is easy. What's hard is getting those in charge to fix it.
Imagine a primitive world without cookies. Two people from different towns, John and Barry, independently invent cookies at the same time. Each starts a cookie-making business, but John pays the government for a patent.
When they meet, John tells Barry that he has to either pay John a percentage or stop making cookies. Barry refuses, since John didn't have anything to do with Barry inventing cookies, but the government forces him to comply. Barry starts paying John the money rather than go out of business.
Boiled down, the current system is legalised extortion, with the government willing to threaten your kneecaps for anyone who's paid the fee.
Part of it is that while materials science has advanced and we have powered versions of the hammer, saw, drill, crane, etcetera, the fundamentals of actually building a house haven't changed: it is still people with tools assembling and joining pieces manually.
Large-scale 3D printing will change that.
(of course, people being people, many will probably just use the new technology to build the same old designs)
Three "problems" I see with this (problems for the bad guys, anyway): first is that soon enough the "borgification" will be on 24/7, second is the zapping won't necessarily destroy the internal storage used by the victim even if it stops the recording device, third is that live streaming of video to remote repositories is already practical and becoming more common.
Hmm. What's your opinion on ocean acidification?
I also have an iPhone 3G (3GS if we're being pedantic). So could you tell me how to *change* my SMS tone to one of my own choosing without jailbreaking the phone? Because all mine lets me do is *select* from the six tones that Apple put on the phone.
If you read the full post, it is referring to the fact that you cannot *change* the iphone's SMS tones. You can *select* between the six tones Apple provides, but you cannot *change* any of those tones to one of your own choosing without first jailbreaking the phone.
Is each human life of unique and infinite value? Sure. But don't mistake a reluctance to take life with an inability to do so. Math with infinities is hard, anyway; try to kill me or mine and "subtract 1" suddenly looks real attractive.
If someone killed in self-defense and didn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't be thinking "there goes a genuinely moral person". I'd be thinking "there's something genuinely wrong with that person".
Chance+opportunity-risk-empathy = criminal action
Further refinement?