they finally got to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to establish that the cited prior art has to explicitly establish a "motivation" that would lead one to "combine the teachings of two (or more) references together"
So what you're saying is that patents are, in effect, the right to solve a given problem? The first person to notice that a problem exists, the motivation you note, is the only person with a legal right to solve that problem? That regardless of the obviousness of the solution, the fact that noone noticed the problem before makes the obvious solution patentable?
Very good info, that does sound to me like the core of the broken obviousness standard.
This is nice, but the real problem with patents today is not novelty, it is obviousness. The article implies that the obviousness problem is not being addressed. The worst patents in recent memory have been bad because they were obvious, not because they had been done before. One-click was novel (as proven when the prior art challenge failed). One-click was not non-obvious. Obviousness cannot be tested by patent examiners; they are not skilled in the art.
I recently read what seems like a good solution; when a patent is submitted it must be tested for obviousness. Submit the problem that the patent solves to a panel of experts. If they come up with a sufficiently similar solution, the patent is void. Funding? Submitters who get their patents voided for obviousness pay the expense of the panel - calculate the cost at the end of the year and divvy it among the applicants. That has the added bonus of penalizing patent flooders, and since there will still be rivers of patents coming from IBM and MS, the individual patent submitter will only risk a tiny fraction of the cost of the board.
Updates don't imply increased vulnerability. I removed all but one distro (Debian, the one I use). That gets it down to 737 versus 668.
That's without removing competing software like MySQL/PostgreSQL and KDE/Gnome, without removing platform specific software that isn't listed by OS, without accounting for the higher disclosure rate of *nix, and without considering time-to-patch and severity. 737 versus 668 is still a meaningless comparison without looking at those factors, but at least the blatant stupidity of multiple counting is largely mitigated.
Here's one simple example: MySQL and PostgreSQL account for 26 different listings under UNIX/Linux, but they are alternative products, not complementary. Why do they list both? What percentage of non-experimental Linux machines have both PostgreSQL and MySQL installed?
Here's another: Notice that a big chunk of the vulnerabilities listed have a platform by their name; Debian, OpenServer, Solaris, Apple. Why do those get counted multiple times as "*nix" but a vulnerability on Windows XP Home, Windows XP Office, and Windows 2003 only gets counted once?
Here's another: Notice the number of apps like SpamAssassin, Sylpheed, and Squid that are counted for *nix. I haven't done the numbers, but I'll bet there are a ton more freaky little apps like that listed for *nix than for Windows. Why? Because there's a lot more freaky little applications like that available for *nix. Does that mean *nix is less secure? Of course not.
And that isn't even delving into the questions of severity and windows of vulnerability.
Compile a list of the vulnerabilities related to the core operating system, compare them on severity and time to patch, then maybe there's something to talk about. Attempting to infer something by blindly counting this hodge-podge is stupid.
My sources tell me that the discs get scratched when people decide to change the orientation of their XBOX 360 while this disc is spinning.
What do "your sources" say about the fact that MS is repairing or replacing the units in question? Do you see the internal logic problem there? Isn't it a tiny bit more likely that, much like the early PS2's before, there is in fact a manufacturing defect? Wouldn't that jibe well with the production problems MS was having when trying to make the Christmas deadline? Doesn't that seem a bit more credible given that MS is repairing or replacing the units in question? If it was just about reorienting, wouldn't the MS tech simply say, "Please don't move the unit while it is in use."? How stupid would MS have to be to RMA units that were in fact not defective? Wouldn't that be implying guilt where none existed? Beyond the expense involved in RMAing a product (certainly well into the tens of dollars per unit), wouldn't it also be increasing their potential exposure to disc replacement requests? What color is the sky on your planet?
The people who are so insistent that the moon landings were a hoax simply re-interpret and filter what facts will fit their cospiracy theory; anything that disagrees with their conclusions are simply ignored or swept under the rug.
in this country it is perfectly legal to say Jews are evil
While that may be true, according to the complaint Juniper thinks it is not legal to say, "Juniper is unethical." If that is the case it would not surprise me, since our government and legal system are more about protecting the interests of corporations than those of individuals.
Al Capone was big on financing community development in Chicago. I guess as long as you spend 10% of your money doing good deeds, it doesn't matter where the money comes from.
could we trust him to do the right thing even if his Republican masters disagreed?
In short, yes. He has pissed the Repub party off many times. Even to the extent that they have on occasion disowned him.
That said, he's not a moderate. He's a traditional conservative in most respects - small government, hawkish, fiscal restraint, even ID in schools. But since small gov't and fiscal restraint are not part of the Repub platform any more, he is often at odds. And since he was a POW, there is no question where he stands on POW treatment.
Now, when it comes to Kerry v. Bush, he's going to come out on Bush's side, because he has more in common with Bush than Kerry, but that's like saying I have more in common with Kerry than Bush - neither is in the same ballpark.
Few text editors don't support select forward with keyboard. Hold down shift, then arrow for character or line. Ctrl-shift-arrow left or right for word. Shift-page up/down. Then, since you're already pressing shift, shift-delete is cut to clipboard. No mouse.
Ahh, a good point. I should have been more clear: Without moving my hands from the home row keys (asdfjkl;).
while it is somewhat long to learn, you do just everything without needing to move your hands from the keyboard, and without needing to watch the screen. I can't stress this point enough;
provides specialized modes for basically every language out there;
Those are the two killer features for me. Any other editor that doesn't start there is, IMO, quite ridiculous in its inception.
Starting with the latter, do other editors really expect me to fire up separate programs for XML, SQL (including connecting to the database), Perl, Java, and shell scripts? WTF? I use those languages on a daily basis. Why would I waste system resources with separate programs? And how am I supposed to memorize all the slightly different sets of keyboard shortcuts?
As for the former, my first check whenever I try a new editor is kill forward word to clipboard, a test none has yet passed. I can grab chunks of code - lines, words, or characters - from one place and stick them elsewhere without touching the mouse, and that is just a fleck of snow from the iceberg. Say what you will about the lacking GUI of Emacs, I am faster for not needing the mouse than I could be with richer mouse support.
Sure the learning curve is steep, but I figure to be using Emacs for the next 4 - 5 years at least, and quite possibly the next 40 - 50. It seems a reasonable investment.
why is he anti-creationist rather than pro-evolutionist?
Those who are pro-evolution are not necessarily anti-creationist. I favor evolution because I believe it is what we currently have the best emprical evidence for, and I am a scientist. My Mom is a creationist. I think it's fine that she believes in creation (and she thinks it's fine that I am a scientist). ie: I am not anti-creationist.
His letter (as I understand it) was pretty anti-creationist. The dogmatics on both sides suck and give both sides a bad name. And they are the only ones that get any press time (despite the fact that they are the minority of their sects).
Which is to say, perhaps he was labelled anti-creationist because we scientists (or at least this one) don't really want a bigot like him to be called an evolutionist.
In order for these applications to get access to data, they have to "logon" to the systems and applications that store the data, and since the credentials to logon are in the application, they are embedded in the code. Now since it is clearly impractical to rewrite applications on a regular basis, just to change the user ID and password, the result is that the user ID and password never changes.
Really? OK, here's a simple solution to the problem: When someone hard codes a password that controls access to sensitive data such that the application has to be recompiled to change the password, fire them. Problem solved. There's no excuse for hard coding passwords, and I can't think of anyone I have worked with in the past five years that has suggested doing such an idiotic thing on a sensitive application. I've seen plenty of system accounts, but the credentials are always loaded at runtime (either from a file or the command line).
Is this really common? I'm pretty sure I've worked with my fair share of chimps over the years, but not anyone that stupid. Have I been dodging dumb bullets?
Lots of comments about, "iPod did it first." Umm, forget about the trees for a second folks. Look at the forest. Creative labs got a patent for hierarchical traversal of a structured content repository. Have any of you used a file browser? iPod didn't do it first and this isn't about iPod versus Creative. This is about the USPTO granting fiat monopolies (patents) to anybody who adds a new word to existing public domain technical innovation; in this case "directory browser + MP3 player". The problem isn't who should have rights to the idea, but that the idea should not have been patentable.
What interested me was how they treat "knowledge workers".
Their principles can be summed up like this:
I agree wholeheartedly except on one minor point. These are not Google's principles - they are Peter Druckers. See "Managing in The Next Society." Google credits him with their management style, and rightly so - he came up with it. Brilliant book, and he is well respected by MBAs, so you might be able to get your company's C-officers to read it.
is the message "Google is a doubleplusgood working environment" really _news_, or just a clever press hit and recruiting tool
More the former really. It's not saying "Google is good." It is saying "Peter Drucker was right." The article is about Peter Drucker's seminal work in knowledge worker management theory, and that Google, being the first large scale test, is working. See; "Managing in the Next Society."
While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.
I think the point of the article is more to correlate Google's stated business practices with Peter Drucker's seminal work on the shifting information economy and the management of knowledge workers. Google is the first large scale corporation to closely follow Drucker's advice, and it seems to be working well. See "Managing in The Next Society" by Drucker for an excellent and comprehensive rethinking of the management of knowledge workers (among which are us geeks).
That is, if the article were about self-congratulation by Google, I would agree with you. But based on the opening mention of Drucker and the fact that Drucker came up with the management ideas Google uses, I think it is more about Google telling the world that Drucker is right.
It's OK labels. Don't cry now. There there. Yes, stop sniffling. It's OK. I know your customers and your vendors hate you, but it's OK. The politicians, lobbyists, and, well, you still love you.
Good comments can be very helpful. It is a great pleasure at the beginning of a complex section of code to see a comment that says, "This section computes the operating cost based on our first-in-first-out financial policy. It was written in haste, and perhaps could be more simple, as long as it does FIFO." That makes it clear to me what the business needs the software to do, and I am free to refactor to match the intended outcome. Without a comment like that, it is hard to tell what portions of the code are bizarre because they have to be, and which sections are bizarre because there was a time constraint.
In short, commenting why you did something, and what it is supposed to do are very valuable. Commenting how it does it is generally redundant and often grows inaccurate over time.
Would I use an OS that was ad supported? Maybe, if it was better at helping me do the things I want to do.
Windows? Ummm, are the ads going to somehow give it a real command line and proper filesystem? Are the ads going to allow me to turn off the CPU and memory hogging windowing system when I need more juice for a big program? Are the ads going to make it easy to turn off all the autoloading system tray and background bullshit that turns my thorobred machine into a third hand cart mule? Are the ads going to enable it to install any of many thousands of applications with a single command? And handle all the dependencies? And ensure they're not full of spyware?
No, I don't see ad support making Windows any more appealing.
In short, it's not the price tag that leaves me flat (though it certainly doesn't help). It's the poor functionality. I switched to Linux for a while because a former job required it. I stay with Linux because, once you get past its (admittedly significant) quirks, it is more user friendly.
Killing during war is not the same as criminal homicide.
I agree in most cases (though criminal homicide can and does occur during war - the Holocaust comes to mind). That is why I said, "homicide" (a neutral term meaning one person killing another) instead of "criminal homicide" or "murder."
if people find something to be useful, no amount of government or corporate intervention or regulation will dissuade those people from doing what they want.
Read some history books. Apartheid, Slavery, The War of The Northern Aggression (and its aftermath), Native Americans, The Strikebreakers (the early 1900s ones), The East India Trading Company, The Aborigines. Heck, I don't even know much history and I can rattle off that list of corporate backed and long-lived oppression. Those things lasted decades, centuries. Heck, Native Americans and The Aborigines are still unresolved and festering issues of connected money co-opting government to screw those with less influence. The repurcussions from every one of those issues still rumble deeply through the global economy. This great self-righting machine we all believe in may work in the extremely long run, from a macro perspective, but massive catastrophic periods of regression are almost as common as periods of advancement.
I'd even say that the "almost" in that last sentence may only be there because we seem to be in the midst of an up trend at the moment. If a few untimely terrorist nukes take out any 2 or 3 of LA, NYC, Paris, Berlin, London, and Tokyo, we would be on the fast track to a new dark age - not just from the ensuing panic, but from the carte blanche we would give the military industrial complex. Halliburton has wet dreams about it.
All that is not to say there is no hope, but that freedom isn't free. Speaking from the US perspective, it is our duty to defend our nation against all aggressors, foreign and domestic. At the moment there are domestic aggressors that are, IMO, more dangerous to our economy and technological advancement than the foreign aggressors with whom we are openly engaged. If we act now, it doesn't have to reach the level where a revolution is necessary. If we just believe it will all come out OK and do nothing, a revolution will happen, and nobody wants that.
And it's not that far off. The sabre rattling is deafening; the Internet governance battle, severe rifts in NATO, US pundits calling for the UN to be dismantled, US refusal to join the Hague. If we continue to flip the world the bird, they are going to gang up on us. Now look here at home; talk of "the nuclear option" in congress, the no-quarter battle over ID, laws blatantly purchased by corporations, and equally blatantly ignored by huge swaths of the populace. If the world gangs up on us, a big chunk of "us" is going to side with "them."
How about the 2.1 million burglaries and 2.2 million assaults?
What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public (roughly the heart of the burglary market, I would guess) engages in burglary?
What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public engages in copyright infringement?
At least an order of magnitude difference there, right?
If murder were at the same rate as copyright infringement, would you argue that both were bad laws, neither were bad laws, or only one?
Both. I'll avoid the straw man you've set up by mixing the moral issue of murder with the legal matter of homicide. Ask yourself this - in societies where the percentage of the population that engages in homicide reaches double digits, isn't it obvious that the laws are broken? South Africa, Tombstone, Yugoslavia, Boston in the 1770's, Nicaragua, South Central LA, The Gangs of New York, Paris before The Revolution - in every case homicide became commonplace because the laws were enforced inconsistently and/or prejudicially. What is more wrong in those cases; fighting for your way of life or letting the injustice stand? We celebrate the people who committed homicide in the name of The American Revolution. So yes, when homicide becomes as commonplace as copyright infringement is today, it loses it's objective, absolute "wrong"-ness.
Like an ocean-going supertanker, slowly, slowly, slowly it comes about on a new heading.
the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.
OK, that's the first 3 degrees of the turn. You've grasped the basic concept of me being the customer and you selling me what I want (as opposed to me being the product and you selling me to the advertisers). Now you need to get the rest - I want it the way I want it, not the way that gives you a 6 million dollar kicback and a 1 million dollar bonus for the stuffed shirt that came up with the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinating stuff - you've provided some great food for thought. Thanks for your time!
they finally got to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to establish that the cited prior art has to explicitly establish a "motivation" that would lead one to "combine the teachings of two (or more) references together"
So what you're saying is that patents are, in effect, the right to solve a given problem? The first person to notice that a problem exists, the motivation you note, is the only person with a legal right to solve that problem? That regardless of the obviousness of the solution, the fact that noone noticed the problem before makes the obvious solution patentable?
Very good info, that does sound to me like the core of the broken obviousness standard.
This is nice, but the real problem with patents today is not novelty, it is obviousness. The article implies that the obviousness problem is not being addressed. The worst patents in recent memory have been bad because they were obvious, not because they had been done before. One-click was novel (as proven when the prior art challenge failed). One-click was not non-obvious. Obviousness cannot be tested by patent examiners; they are not skilled in the art.
I recently read what seems like a good solution; when a patent is submitted it must be tested for obviousness. Submit the problem that the patent solves to a panel of experts. If they come up with a sufficiently similar solution, the patent is void. Funding? Submitters who get their patents voided for obviousness pay the expense of the panel - calculate the cost at the end of the year and divvy it among the applicants. That has the added bonus of penalizing patent flooders, and since there will still be rivers of patents coming from IBM and MS, the individual patent submitter will only risk a tiny fraction of the cost of the board.
bob@media:~/projects/ryu/software/build$ cat ~/nixvuln.txt | egrep -vi 'Updated|Apple|FreeBSD|Gentoo|HP-UX|IBM AIX|OpenBSD|Red ?Hat|SCO |SGI IRIX|Solaris|SuSE' | wc
737 5484 41307
bob@media:~/projects/ryu/software/build$ cat ~/winvuln.txt | egrep -vi 'Updated|Apple|FreeBSD|Gentoo|HP-UX|IBM AIX|OpenBSD|Red ?Hat|SCO |SGI IRIX|Solaris|SuSE' | wc
668 4985 39090
Updates don't imply increased vulnerability. I removed all but one distro (Debian, the one I use). That gets it down to 737 versus 668.
That's without removing competing software like MySQL/PostgreSQL and KDE/Gnome, without removing platform specific software that isn't listed by OS, without accounting for the higher disclosure rate of *nix, and without considering time-to-patch and severity. 737 versus 668 is still a meaningless comparison without looking at those factors, but at least the blatant stupidity of multiple counting is largely mitigated.
Here's one simple example: MySQL and PostgreSQL account for 26 different listings under UNIX/Linux, but they are alternative products, not complementary. Why do they list both? What percentage of non-experimental Linux machines have both PostgreSQL and MySQL installed?
Here's another: Notice that a big chunk of the vulnerabilities listed have a platform by their name; Debian, OpenServer, Solaris, Apple. Why do those get counted multiple times as "*nix" but a vulnerability on Windows XP Home, Windows XP Office, and Windows 2003 only gets counted once?
Here's another: Notice the number of apps like SpamAssassin, Sylpheed, and Squid that are counted for *nix. I haven't done the numbers, but I'll bet there are a ton more freaky little apps like that listed for *nix than for Windows. Why? Because there's a lot more freaky little applications like that available for *nix. Does that mean *nix is less secure? Of course not.
And that isn't even delving into the questions of severity and windows of vulnerability.
Compile a list of the vulnerabilities related to the core operating system, compare them on severity and time to patch, then maybe there's something to talk about. Attempting to infer something by blindly counting this hodge-podge is stupid.
My sources tell me that the discs get scratched when people decide to change the orientation of their XBOX 360 while this disc is spinning.
What do "your sources" say about the fact that MS is repairing or replacing the units in question? Do you see the internal logic problem there? Isn't it a tiny bit more likely that, much like the early PS2's before, there is in fact a manufacturing defect? Wouldn't that jibe well with the production problems MS was having when trying to make the Christmas deadline? Doesn't that seem a bit more credible given that MS is repairing or replacing the units in question? If it was just about reorienting, wouldn't the MS tech simply say, "Please don't move the unit while it is in use."? How stupid would MS have to be to RMA units that were in fact not defective? Wouldn't that be implying guilt where none existed? Beyond the expense involved in RMAing a product (certainly well into the tens of dollars per unit), wouldn't it also be increasing their potential exposure to disc replacement requests? What color is the sky on your planet?
The people who are so insistent that the moon landings were a hoax simply re-interpret and filter what facts will fit their cospiracy theory; anything that disagrees with their conclusions are simply ignored or swept under the rug.
I think you mean "intelligent design advocates."
in this country it is perfectly legal to say Jews are evil
While that may be true, according to the complaint Juniper thinks it is not legal to say, "Juniper is unethical." If that is the case it would not surprise me, since our government and legal system are more about protecting the interests of corporations than those of individuals.
Al Capone was big on financing community development in Chicago. I guess as long as you spend 10% of your money doing good deeds, it doesn't matter where the money comes from.
could we trust him to do the right thing even if his Republican masters disagreed?
In short, yes. He has pissed the Repub party off many times. Even to the extent that they have on occasion disowned him.
That said, he's not a moderate. He's a traditional conservative in most respects - small government, hawkish, fiscal restraint, even ID in schools. But since small gov't and fiscal restraint are not part of the Repub platform any more, he is often at odds. And since he was a POW, there is no question where he stands on POW treatment.
Now, when it comes to Kerry v. Bush, he's going to come out on Bush's side, because he has more in common with Bush than Kerry, but that's like saying I have more in common with Kerry than Bush - neither is in the same ballpark.
Few text editors don't support select forward with keyboard. Hold down shift, then arrow for character or line. Ctrl-shift-arrow left or right for word. Shift-page up/down. Then, since you're already pressing shift, shift-delete is cut to clipboard. No mouse.
Ahh, a good point. I should have been more clear: Without moving my hands from the home row keys (asdfjkl;).
while it is somewhat long to learn, you do just everything without needing to move your hands from the keyboard, and without needing to watch the screen. I can't stress this point enough;
provides specialized modes for basically every language out there;
Those are the two killer features for me. Any other editor that doesn't start there is, IMO, quite ridiculous in its inception.
Starting with the latter, do other editors really expect me to fire up separate programs for XML, SQL (including connecting to the database), Perl, Java, and shell scripts? WTF? I use those languages on a daily basis. Why would I waste system resources with separate programs? And how am I supposed to memorize all the slightly different sets of keyboard shortcuts?
As for the former, my first check whenever I try a new editor is kill forward word to clipboard, a test none has yet passed. I can grab chunks of code - lines, words, or characters - from one place and stick them elsewhere without touching the mouse, and that is just a fleck of snow from the iceberg. Say what you will about the lacking GUI of Emacs, I am faster for not needing the mouse than I could be with richer mouse support.
Sure the learning curve is steep, but I figure to be using Emacs for the next 4 - 5 years at least, and quite possibly the next 40 - 50. It seems a reasonable investment.
why is he anti-creationist rather than pro-evolutionist?
Those who are pro-evolution are not necessarily anti-creationist. I favor evolution because I believe it is what we currently have the best emprical evidence for, and I am a scientist. My Mom is a creationist. I think it's fine that she believes in creation (and she thinks it's fine that I am a scientist). ie: I am not anti-creationist.
His letter (as I understand it) was pretty anti-creationist. The dogmatics on both sides suck and give both sides a bad name. And they are the only ones that get any press time (despite the fact that they are the minority of their sects).
Which is to say, perhaps he was labelled anti-creationist because we scientists (or at least this one) don't really want a bigot like him to be called an evolutionist.
In order for these applications to get access to data, they have to "logon" to the systems and applications that store the data, and since the credentials to logon are in the application, they are embedded in the code. Now since it is clearly impractical to rewrite applications on a regular basis, just to change the user ID and password, the result is that the user ID and password never changes.
Really? OK, here's a simple solution to the problem: When someone hard codes a password that controls access to sensitive data such that the application has to be recompiled to change the password, fire them. Problem solved. There's no excuse for hard coding passwords, and I can't think of anyone I have worked with in the past five years that has suggested doing such an idiotic thing on a sensitive application. I've seen plenty of system accounts, but the credentials are always loaded at runtime (either from a file or the command line).
Is this really common? I'm pretty sure I've worked with my fair share of chimps over the years, but not anyone that stupid. Have I been dodging dumb bullets?
Lots of comments about, "iPod did it first." Umm, forget about the trees for a second folks. Look at the forest. Creative labs got a patent for hierarchical traversal of a structured content repository. Have any of you used a file browser? iPod didn't do it first and this isn't about iPod versus Creative. This is about the USPTO granting fiat monopolies (patents) to anybody who adds a new word to existing public domain technical innovation; in this case "directory browser + MP3 player". The problem isn't who should have rights to the idea, but that the idea should not have been patentable.
What interested me was how they treat "knowledge workers".
Their principles can be summed up like this:
I agree wholeheartedly except on one minor point. These are not Google's principles - they are Peter Druckers. See "Managing in The Next Society." Google credits him with their management style, and rightly so - he came up with it. Brilliant book, and he is well respected by MBAs, so you might be able to get your company's C-officers to read it.
is the message "Google is a doubleplusgood working environment" really _news_, or just a clever press hit and recruiting tool
More the former really. It's not saying "Google is good." It is saying "Peter Drucker was right." The article is about Peter Drucker's seminal work in knowledge worker management theory, and that Google, being the first large scale test, is working. See; "Managing in the Next Society."
While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.
I think the point of the article is more to correlate Google's stated business practices with Peter Drucker's seminal work on the shifting information economy and the management of knowledge workers. Google is the first large scale corporation to closely follow Drucker's advice, and it seems to be working well. See "Managing in The Next Society" by Drucker for an excellent and comprehensive rethinking of the management of knowledge workers (among which are us geeks).
That is, if the article were about self-congratulation by Google, I would agree with you. But based on the opening mention of Drucker and the fact that Drucker came up with the management ideas Google uses, I think it is more about Google telling the world that Drucker is right.
It's OK labels. Don't cry now. There there. Yes, stop sniffling. It's OK. I know your customers and your vendors hate you, but it's OK. The politicians, lobbyists, and, well, you still love you.
Good comments can be very helpful. It is a great pleasure at the beginning of a complex section of code to see a comment that says, "This section computes the operating cost based on our first-in-first-out financial policy. It was written in haste, and perhaps could be more simple, as long as it does FIFO." That makes it clear to me what the business needs the software to do, and I am free to refactor to match the intended outcome. Without a comment like that, it is hard to tell what portions of the code are bizarre because they have to be, and which sections are bizarre because there was a time constraint.
In short, commenting why you did something, and what it is supposed to do are very valuable. Commenting how it does it is generally redundant and often grows inaccurate over time.
Would I use an OS that was ad supported? Maybe, if it was better at helping me do the things I want to do.
Windows? Ummm, are the ads going to somehow give it a real command line and proper filesystem? Are the ads going to allow me to turn off the CPU and memory hogging windowing system when I need more juice for a big program? Are the ads going to make it easy to turn off all the autoloading system tray and background bullshit that turns my thorobred machine into a third hand cart mule? Are the ads going to enable it to install any of many thousands of applications with a single command? And handle all the dependencies? And ensure they're not full of spyware?
No, I don't see ad support making Windows any more appealing.
In short, it's not the price tag that leaves me flat (though it certainly doesn't help). It's the poor functionality. I switched to Linux for a while because a former job required it. I stay with Linux because, once you get past its (admittedly significant) quirks, it is more user friendly.
Killing during war is not the same as criminal homicide.
I agree in most cases (though criminal homicide can and does occur during war - the Holocaust comes to mind). That is why I said, "homicide" (a neutral term meaning one person killing another) instead of "criminal homicide" or "murder."
if people find something to be useful, no amount of government or corporate intervention or regulation will dissuade those people from doing what they want.
Read some history books. Apartheid, Slavery, The War of The Northern Aggression (and its aftermath), Native Americans, The Strikebreakers (the early 1900s ones), The East India Trading Company, The Aborigines. Heck, I don't even know much history and I can rattle off that list of corporate backed and long-lived oppression. Those things lasted decades, centuries. Heck, Native Americans and The Aborigines are still unresolved and festering issues of connected money co-opting government to screw those with less influence. The repurcussions from every one of those issues still rumble deeply through the global economy. This great self-righting machine we all believe in may work in the extremely long run, from a macro perspective, but massive catastrophic periods of regression are almost as common as periods of advancement.
I'd even say that the "almost" in that last sentence may only be there because we seem to be in the midst of an up trend at the moment. If a few untimely terrorist nukes take out any 2 or 3 of LA, NYC, Paris, Berlin, London, and Tokyo, we would be on the fast track to a new dark age - not just from the ensuing panic, but from the carte blanche we would give the military industrial complex. Halliburton has wet dreams about it.
All that is not to say there is no hope, but that freedom isn't free. Speaking from the US perspective, it is our duty to defend our nation against all aggressors, foreign and domestic. At the moment there are domestic aggressors that are, IMO, more dangerous to our economy and technological advancement than the foreign aggressors with whom we are openly engaged. If we act now, it doesn't have to reach the level where a revolution is necessary. If we just believe it will all come out OK and do nothing, a revolution will happen, and nobody wants that.
And it's not that far off. The sabre rattling is deafening; the Internet governance battle, severe rifts in NATO, US pundits calling for the UN to be dismantled, US refusal to join the Hague. If we continue to flip the world the bird, they are going to gang up on us. Now look here at home; talk of "the nuclear option" in congress, the no-quarter battle over ID, laws blatantly purchased by corporations, and equally blatantly ignored by huge swaths of the populace. If the world gangs up on us, a big chunk of "us" is going to side with "them."
How about the 2.1 million burglaries and 2.2 million assaults?
What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public (roughly the heart of the burglary market, I would guess) engages in burglary?
What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public engages in copyright infringement?
At least an order of magnitude difference there, right?
If murder were at the same rate as copyright infringement, would you argue that both were bad laws, neither were bad laws, or only one?
Both. I'll avoid the straw man you've set up by mixing the moral issue of murder with the legal matter of homicide. Ask yourself this - in societies where the percentage of the population that engages in homicide reaches double digits, isn't it obvious that the laws are broken? South Africa, Tombstone, Yugoslavia, Boston in the 1770's, Nicaragua, South Central LA, The Gangs of New York, Paris before The Revolution - in every case homicide became commonplace because the laws were enforced inconsistently and/or prejudicially. What is more wrong in those cases; fighting for your way of life or letting the injustice stand? We celebrate the people who committed homicide in the name of The American Revolution. So yes, when homicide becomes as commonplace as copyright infringement is today, it loses it's objective, absolute "wrong"-ness.
Like an ocean-going supertanker, slowly, slowly, slowly it comes about on a new heading.
the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.
OK, that's the first 3 degrees of the turn. You've grasped the basic concept of me being the customer and you selling me what I want (as opposed to me being the product and you selling me to the advertisers). Now you need to get the rest - I want it the way I want it, not the way that gives you a 6 million dollar kicback and a 1 million dollar bonus for the stuffed shirt that came up with the idea.