I've noticed quite a bit recently that the media outlets keep talking and talking and talking, but they aren't saying anything anymore. So few reports actually convey real, decent information that can useful. Like George W. and most websites, there is a general lack of content, so they repeat the same thing over and over again thinking that if they change the graphic at the bottom of the screen or the reporter wears a different outfit, that that somehow makes the "news" new and important.
I've seen several stories in the past year where on the first day the story breaks, the media outlets make sure to report to us that they aren't going to report on the story because it's not news or just doesn't matter to the general public (see the GWB daughter's stories). The outlets then go on to report on what they've just told us they weren't going to simply because they don't want to be "scooped" by other outlets and risk not being uninsightful, unimaginative, and uninformative.
How many stories did we see about that Condit guy? how many of them did we need to see? The answer to the second questions is probably zero or very close to zero. While the media is blasting out all these stories and talking about the same things over and over again, how many stories of real merit are slipping by uncovered? The "mainstream" news media should no longer be considered sources of real information and should be thrown in the pile along with all the other "entertainment" programs since they seem to be more concerned with ratings than with conveying real information on subject that are important to the public. How many stories have we seen in the mainstream all the convoluted ties to the power and oil industry that our current administration has? Is there a discussion going on in the mainstream media about how so many children are going hungry in the Appalachian back country since their family's can't even afford food everyday? Why is it that so many things like the SSSCA, DMCA, ATA, etc go unnoticed and unquestioned by the general public? We know that the government doesn't want the public to really know about these issues because it would mean they would have to stop bickering about stupid crap and passing bad laws that only make it look like they are doing something worthwhile with their time in DC and have to start answering tough questions and dealing with real issues that deal with real problems. Instead of misguided proposals like a missle defense shield (thank goodness we're wasting money on one of the least likely threats instead of putting that money towards combating the real terrorist threats), our "leaders" should be more concerned about making sure they are informed about more important issues so they can make intelligent decisions instead of ones that seem to have been made by throwing a dart at a big board that says "yes" and "no".
When our government starts being more responsible, I think our media will follow suit and stop pandering to government and corporate interests in their reporting.
Of course computer-generated art is art. Here's just one definition that I've seen:
a.The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
When I was at Kansas State University ('91-'95), there were at least three showings of computer-generated art done by students. I remember being amazed at some of the forms that were created in this medium. You should consider where you are pursuing your discipline: the south. I don't remember the south ever being considered a hotbed of exploration of new forms of contemporary art. If you are really wanting to pursue computer-generated art, you should do some research; you might want to consider moving to somewhere that isn't quite so backwards and check out the art schools California, New York, Kansas City, Chicago, etc etc.
Also, you should ignore the critics, since critics are typically those that can not produce such works themselves, which led to them becoming bitter and is why they became critics. As long as there are people that enjoy your art....it's art. Hell, even if people hate it....it's probably still art as long as you consider it to be. Art comes in many many forms and many people are slow to accept things they don't understand. There are several houses in the town I live in that I consider art due to their unique designs and I've seen bongs...er "water pipes" at various music shops that qualify as art. If a bong can be art, computer-generated art can be art.
The law requires that a patent be granted for an invention unless USPTO can establish, typically based on prior art references, that the invention
is not new or that it is obvious when viewed in the context of what is already known in the technology.
Ok..so here we have one of the big problems: who gets to define what the above bolded phrase means?
They are looking for prior art sources for business method patents with the above stipulations; however, things that those of us here on/., as well as academicians and others, might consider _painfully_ "obvious when viewed in the context of what is already known in the technology" might not be considered obvious by either the Patent Monkey(tm) that decides on whether the patent should be granted or the politicians that draft the song for the hurly burly that the PM dances to.
Additionally, the invention must have a concrete, tangible and useful result, and how to make and use the invention must be disclosed.
This is pretty much along the same lines. I'm not sure how a PM can make a determination about the usefulness of a "one-click"-like "invention" (BTW, I've come up with a one-fart online shopping system where controlled percussive explosions from the rectum are used to activate an onscreen goods transaction service....where's my patent? This is perfect for shoppers who just can't let all that bathroom time go to waste). It's hard enough for the marketplace to do make those evaluations with the speed of change these days. What about all the crap the failed plopcoms may have patented that turned out to be unviable? Does that mean that the patent office was in error in granting patents for those "inventions"? And we've all seen how "clear" some of these companies make the section in the applications about "how to make and use the invention" which pretty much gives them a King Kong-sized (sorry about all the monkey references) umbrella under which to sue others for infringement.
Wouldn't some sort of distributed peer review process be a much more sane way for "software-implemented business method patents" to be scrutinized, rather than a database entry and a PM with a typewriter?
Luckily, the inevitable Technology Assessment Committee(tm) (read: lobbyist super-party-disco-fun-time(also tm)) that the politicians will put together to decide on these issues will straighten eveything out for us.
On the website it mentions that you can get free rings if 40 people click-through from a banner ad placed on your website. It goes on to say that for 300 clicks you get the "Super 21,000 gauss Neodymium Eternal Life Rings as reward".
Now...since the basic rings give you eternal life, are you tellin' me that if you get the "Super" rings you'll live longer than eternity? Or maybe you'll just have better quality during your eternal life.
Looks like New Hampshire has done something similar to what Michigan is working on.
See the following story over at NWFusion:
http://www.nwfusion.com/research/2001/0212feat2.ht ml
You could always proposition the FBI to rent out a Carnivore, or whatever they're calling it this week, box to stick on the wire. This would allow you "selectively" monitor content.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought innovative ideas were outlawed by the DMCA.
I've noticed quite a bit recently that the media outlets keep talking and talking and talking, but they aren't saying anything anymore. So few reports actually convey real, decent information that can useful. Like George W. and most websites, there is a general lack of content, so they repeat the same thing over and over again thinking that if they change the graphic at the bottom of the screen or the reporter wears a different outfit, that that somehow makes the "news" new and important.
I've seen several stories in the past year where on the first day the story breaks, the media outlets make sure to report to us that they aren't going to report on the story because it's not news or just doesn't matter to the general public (see the GWB daughter's stories). The outlets then go on to report on what they've just told us they weren't going to simply because they don't want to be "scooped" by other outlets and risk not being uninsightful, unimaginative, and uninformative.
How many stories did we see about that Condit guy? how many of them did we need to see? The answer to the second questions is probably zero or very close to zero. While the media is blasting out all these stories and talking about the same things over and over again, how many stories of real merit are slipping by uncovered? The "mainstream" news media should no longer be considered sources of real information and should be thrown in the pile along with all the other "entertainment" programs since they seem to be more concerned with ratings than with conveying real information on subject that are important to the public. How many stories have we seen in the mainstream all the convoluted ties to the power and oil industry that our current administration has? Is there a discussion going on in the mainstream media about how so many children are going hungry in the Appalachian back country since their family's can't even afford food everyday? Why is it that so many things like the SSSCA, DMCA, ATA, etc go unnoticed and unquestioned by the general public? We know that the government doesn't want the public to really know about these issues because it would mean they would have to stop bickering about stupid crap and passing bad laws that only make it look like they are doing something worthwhile with their time in DC and have to start answering tough questions and dealing with real issues that deal with real problems. Instead of misguided proposals like a missle defense shield (thank goodness we're wasting money on one of the least likely threats instead of putting that money towards combating the real terrorist threats), our "leaders" should be more concerned about making sure they are informed about more important issues so they can make intelligent decisions instead of ones that seem to have been made by throwing a dart at a big board that says "yes" and "no".
When our government starts being more responsible, I think our media will follow suit and stop pandering to government and corporate interests in their reporting.
Also, you should ignore the critics, since critics are typically those that can not produce such works themselves, which led to them becoming bitter and is why they became critics. As long as there are people that enjoy your art....it's art. Hell, even if people hate it....it's probably still art as long as you consider it to be. Art comes in many many forms and many people are slow to accept things they don't understand. There are several houses in the town I live in that I consider art due to their unique designs and I've seen bongs...er "water pipes" at various music shops that qualify as art. If a bong can be art, computer-generated art can be art.
Ok..so here we have one of the big problems: who gets to define what the above bolded phrase means?
They are looking for prior art sources for business method patents with the above stipulations; however, things that those of us here on
This is pretty much along the same lines. I'm not sure how a PM can make a determination about the usefulness of a "one-click"-like "invention" (BTW, I've come up with a one-fart online shopping system where controlled percussive explosions from the rectum are used to activate an onscreen goods transaction service....where's my patent? This is perfect for shoppers who just can't let all that bathroom time go to waste). It's hard enough for the marketplace to do make those evaluations with the speed of change these days. What about all the crap the failed plopcoms may have patented that turned out to be unviable? Does that mean that the patent office was in error in granting patents for those "inventions"? And we've all seen how "clear" some of these companies make the section in the applications about "how to make and use the invention" which pretty much gives them a King Kong-sized (sorry about all the monkey references) umbrella under which to sue others for infringement.
Wouldn't some sort of distributed peer review process be a much more sane way for "software-implemented business method patents" to be scrutinized, rather than a database entry and a PM with a typewriter?
Luckily, the inevitable Technology Assessment Committee(tm) (read: lobbyist super-party-disco-fun-time(also tm)) that the politicians will put together to decide on these issues will straighten eveything out for us.
On the website it mentions that you can get free rings if 40 people click-through from a banner ad placed on your website. It goes on to say that for 300 clicks you get the "Super 21,000 gauss Neodymium Eternal Life Rings as reward".
Now...since the basic rings give you eternal life, are you tellin' me that if you get the "Super" rings you'll live longer than eternity? Or maybe you'll just have better quality during your eternal life.
You know, if everyone on /. chips in, we could time-share this thing.
I ran this article through spam mimic, but it couldn't decode it. Are you sure you posted the whole article?
Looks like New Hampshire has done something similar to what Michigan is working on.t ml
See the following story over at NWFusion:
http://www.nwfusion.com/research/2001/0212feat2.h
You could always proposition the FBI to rent out a Carnivore, or whatever they're calling it this week, box to stick on the wire. This would allow you "selectively" monitor content.