You give an interesting question. Certainly chess players have been developing "new and innovative" strategies for years. With the USPTO's history, I can certainly see them granting a patent such as this.
But this is a purely theoretical discussion. Chess players have too much respect for the game (sport) to pull something silly like this. And if they did, they would be ridiculed by their peers.
Something that won't happen:
A: Ha! You can't defend against me! I patented the key defense to this new attack!
B: Oh no, you're right, and I don't feel like paying your licensing fees. I resign.
Please, don't count your problems with the i740 video card as a problem with Linux. Intel has been anal about not releasing the specs for this chipset, so no drivers can be GPLed! Everybody who reads this, send Intel an email about why they should release the specs. The backspace key? In an xterm... "stty erase " does the trick. Or you can muck with xmodmap. As another/.er pointed out, copy is automatic, paste is middle button on mouse. Nice!
Funny, I was just about to post a comment similar to this one. He must be very naive about the environment that free software lives in. Does he have any idea what a "package maintainer" is? Apparently not. All the software in Linux distributions have a maintainer, usually the author, who distribute official cuts. Gah.
I'd say Bill Gates is spreading FUDS - FUD + Stupidity.:-)
>When the Linux name is mentioned, a lot can be >assumed about the system, including GNU Hmm... a lot can be assumed about the system if you're one of the people who KNOW a fair bit about the system. When I first started using Linux, I had no idea GNU even existed. I figured that the same entity created all the stuff I was using. I imagine the same would hold with people in the computer world who don't know much about Linux; they might not have any idea where GNU comes into play.
Some people have mentioned that it is silly saying GNU/Linux whenever it's mentioned. It's just Richard's way of going about things. From my experience with him, he's proved to be socially immature. The tactfulness may not be there. It's hard living in a social world.:-)
From what I see, Richard is asking for credit for the tremendous amount of work that many developers have put into the GNU project, often with little or no reward. All they ask for is recognition! Is this so hard to give?
Richard's job is writing GNU code, with proceeds from talking. He gave a presentation on the GNU project a short while at my school (University of Waterloo) and he did come across as a very driven man. Driven by GNU? Driven by his ideals? Driven by his war against proprietary software? Driven insane? I'll not make that judgement. But I respect his views.
Personally, I view the name "Linux" as a short form for GNU/Linux. It means GNU software running under a Linux kernel. The name "Linux" is also easy to throw around verbally. Short and quick.
As to the opinion that many people in the {Linux,FSF,etc} community,/.'ers are arrogant, isn't that just the case of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, often those reviewers aren't worth a grain of salt.
I wouldn't say arrogant. I'd say looking for recognition. After all, who would want to get recognition for writing that Windows crap?:-)
You say: "Many people would argue that because junk mail (the normal kind) is accepted by most, so should junk fax and email be."
But you're forgetting one of the main differences between junk snail mail(UCM), junk email(UCE) and faxes(UCF). The cost for sending UCM resides solely on the sender, while the cost of sending UCE resides on the recipient. In the case of a UCF, the cost on the recipient is much more direct ("Hey, that's my ink and paper they're using!"). You can't compare UCM and UCE/UCF. They're two different bags of shit.
You don't need one firewall per printer inside your network, the purpose of a firewall is to block/allow ALL types of traffic to a network, with exceptions. And exceptions to those exceptions, and so on.:-) Again, with host-based control (using IPv6 hopefully) it'll have some degree of authentication, and with secure certificates it'll add that extra degree of security.
I personally find that there is a need for an intermediary between the sender and the printer anyway. If I have a printer on the net, I'll make sure that I review all print requests before they're printed. This will be fine for a small scale (personal), but for corporations and such I can see a scheme where there are trusted invididuals who are allowed to print directly, and everybody else either is disallowed or goes through a screener.
<quote> Rob posts it here so that 10,000 teenaged idiots can bring the site to its knees during its already existent instability. </quote>
Internic probably didn't even notice. With the servers handling the load that they are, a mere slashdot effect isn't likely to have much effect. On that note - it might be interesting to ask them if they did notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out screen. It'll do copying and pasting between its terminals without the mouse. Pretty snazzy in lots of other ways too!
M.
You give an interesting question. Certainly chess players have been developing "new and innovative" strategies for years. With the USPTO's history, I can certainly see them granting a patent such as this.
But this is a purely theoretical discussion. Chess players have too much respect for the game (sport) to pull something silly like this. And if they did, they would be ridiculed by their peers.
Something that won't happen:
It's just too silly.Please, don't count your problems with the i740 video card as a problem with Linux. Intel has been anal about not releasing the specs for this chipset, so no drivers can be GPLed! Everybody who reads this, send Intel an email about why they should release the specs. /.er pointed out, copy is automatic, paste is middle button on mouse. Nice!
The backspace key? In an xterm... "stty erase " does the trick. Or you can muck with xmodmap.
As another
Have fun...
Funny, I was just about to post a comment similar to this one. He must be very naive about the environment that free software lives in. Does he have any idea what a "package maintainer" is? Apparently not. All the software in Linux distributions have a maintainer, usually the author, who distribute official cuts. Gah.
:-)
I'd say Bill Gates is spreading FUDS - FUD + Stupidity.
>When the Linux name is mentioned, a lot can be >assumed about the system, including GNU
:-)
Hmm... a lot can be assumed about the system if you're one of the people who KNOW a fair bit about the system. When I first started using Linux, I had no idea GNU even existed. I figured that the same entity created all the stuff I was using. I imagine the same would hold with people in the computer world who don't know much about Linux; they might not have any idea where GNU comes into play.
Some people have mentioned that it is silly saying GNU/Linux whenever it's mentioned. It's just Richard's way of going about things. From my experience with him, he's proved to be socially immature. The tactfulness may not be there. It's hard living in a social world.
From what I see, Richard is asking for credit for the tremendous amount of work that many developers have put into the GNU project, often with little or no reward. All they ask for is recognition! Is this so hard to give?
/.'ers are arrogant, isn't that just the case of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, often those reviewers aren't worth a grain of salt.
:-)
Richard's job is writing GNU code, with proceeds from talking. He gave a presentation on the GNU project a short while at my school (University of Waterloo) and he did come across as a very driven man. Driven by GNU? Driven by his ideals? Driven by his war against proprietary software? Driven insane? I'll not make that judgement. But I respect his views.
Personally, I view the name "Linux" as a short form for GNU/Linux. It means GNU software running under a Linux kernel. The name "Linux" is also easy to throw around verbally. Short and quick.
As to the opinion that many people in the {Linux,FSF,etc} community,
I wouldn't say arrogant. I'd say looking for recognition. After all, who would want to get recognition for writing that Windows crap?
You say: "Many people would argue that because junk mail (the normal kind) is accepted by most, so should junk fax and email be."
:-) Again, with host-based control (using IPv6 hopefully) it'll have some degree of authentication, and with secure certificates it'll add that extra degree of security.
But you're forgetting one of the main differences between junk snail mail(UCM), junk email(UCE) and faxes(UCF). The cost for sending UCM resides solely on the sender, while the cost of sending UCE resides on the recipient. In the case of a UCF, the cost on the recipient is much more direct ("Hey, that's my ink and paper they're using!"). You can't compare UCM and UCE/UCF. They're two different bags of shit.
You don't need one firewall per printer inside your network, the purpose of a firewall is to block/allow ALL types of traffic to a network, with exceptions. And exceptions to those exceptions, and so on.
I personally find that there is a need for an intermediary between the sender and the printer anyway. If I have a printer on the net, I'll make sure that I review all print requests before they're printed. This will be fine for a small scale (personal), but for corporations and such I can see a scheme where there are trusted invididuals who are allowed to print directly, and everybody else either is disallowed or goes through a screener.
M.
<quote>
Rob posts it here so that 10,000 teenaged idiots can bring the site to its knees during its already existent instability. </quote>
Internic probably didn't even notice. With the servers handling the load that they are, a mere slashdot effect isn't likely to have much effect. On that note - it might be interesting to ask them if they did notice.
Now there's a guy with his priorities straight!
Just the Star Wars trailer.