I've beta tested the second release candidate for SP2, and the firewall can easily be disabled, though you'll get a balloon in the corner when you boot up reminding you it is disabled. You can probably disable that too, but it doesn't really bother me, so I haven't tried.
I guess the acid finally wore off. Spend millions to extract THOUSANDS!!!!!! in licensing fees. I am trully in awe of your threeleet business skillz, Darlzor.
You say that you don't really care whether the chemical companies are get patents on their processes because those are expensive to implement anyway, but think about it. They aren't protecting the implementation (in this case lab and/or factory equipment) they are protecting an idea, just like someone could protect an idea in the software world. The issue with your progress bar example is that the patent should never have been granted (it is in violation of currently existing requirements for patents). My argument was that if we actually stuck to the rules on patents, it wouldn't be an issue. As far as the RSA algorithm, it looks trivial now, because the actual steps of the algorithm are so simple. However, the standard for the triviality clause of patent requirements is that if an idea is obvious to an expert in the field, it is trivial. RSA was not trivial to any mathematicians when it was invented. In fact, people had been searching for a long time for a good solution to the problem RSA solves (an encryption routine that allows the key to be known without the encrypted message being immediately obvious). I agree with you that the core of mathematics should not be patentible, however, it has already been made unpatentible. Also, just about every design involves some mathematics-- where do we draw the line? Designs for a building? Unpatentible (they contain measurements, and they are designed based on calculations of structural integrity). Designs for a computer part? Unpatentible under your system, because they are merely an expression of a mathematical process (take these bits here, turn them into these bits here, maybe do some output). You can continue forever almost.
A patent wouldn't protect against a similar method or another method for doing the same thing-- if the patent office kept patents to the right scope. However, if I add a couple of lines of code here and there, that has no effect on the operation of the algorithm, it is already outside of the scope of the copyright. It is pretty much like you said about the "a way to extract gold from ore", etc. That shouldn't be allowed (there are certain requirements for getting granted a patent, obviously. The problem is that these requirements are not beiing enforced to stop stupid patents), but it happens everyday, for whatever reason.
Unlike auto insurance though, if one of their customers is liable, all of their customers are probably liable, and it is only a question of where in line they are for litigation. Imagine if car companies had to potentially pay out to every customer if one got in a wreck. That would be a very unprofitible business plan.
I know this happens. I don't doubt that. You see it everyday. I was looking for some statistical evidence supporting the meme that this is nearly universal.
The problem is that a patent is really better for an algorithm. Why? One way to think about it is that patents cover ideas and designs, whereas copyrights cover expressions of these ideas. The problem isn't that some ideas related to software are being patented, it is that the patent office is granting patents for obvious or trivial algorithms and ideas, as well as ones with substantial prior art. Without a significant overhaul of the way copyright works, however, patents are still the most appropriate ip protection for a lot of software related stuff. copyright protection for a concept, process or algorithm would easily be avoided by simply "rewriting" it differently (rearranging some code, or adding some minor steps to the process). and if you think patenting a process is crazy, think about chemical companies and manufacturers that have been patenting important innovations to their production processes for years.
I seriously doubt any of the CPL players were using bots, considering a) aimbots are notoriously easy to detect b) point a is even more true when there is a judge standing right behind you.
So, you've looked at enough published works to say that the majority of copyrights are owned by publishers? As in, you've looked at a large enough sample to tell that over 50% of creative works covered by copyright have those copyrights assigned to publishers? I was looking for a link to some stats, preferribly from some kind of academic survey.
Under the statues of many states, if there is gross negligence or significant disregard for human life (usually meaning the act could reasonibly be expected to kill someone), then it is murder. If slight carelessness combines with bad luck, in order words, that's manslaughter. Doing something that your average adult with functioning common sense could tell is dangerous to others and then killing someone falls under murder. IMHO, it is realistic expectation that driving down the road while watching a DVD will lead to harm.
If what you say is the truth, then in theory, during his fair trial, the jury declares that he is not guilty of murder. They can charge you with whatever they want-- it is the fair trial that decides whether you actually committed the crime or not.
Re:*BSD as a Four Letter Word
on
BSD Hacks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, browsing at the civilized levels, I've noticed far more people complaining about BSD being insulted than actual anti-BSD sentiment. Either you guys take the trolls more seriously than I do, or you have a minority complex.:P
I know a guy who used to work for dell. From his description, you have it pretty much right. They have a binder that works kind of like one of those 'choose your own adventure' books you read as a kid. No matter what you say when they pick up, they start from page one with a question. If yes, go to 2. If no, go to 3. This continues until they reach the page where they tell you that you need to use the recovery disk to erase all your files. And believe me, no matter how you answer, you'll get to that page.
I used to work at a place that was also an apple certified service center. We shipped in all our hardware problems (it was a university thing w/ student labor, so there were liability issues with hardware repairs). Typically, we got machines back in 2-3 days and only had one or two major issues in the year I was there (even though we shipped them an unusually high number of laptops due to the fact that most of the iBooks we worked on came from the run with the logic board defect [and that they were deployed to education majors]).
I was under the impression that military hardware was tested before it was used. Also, it is obvious that proprietary software is protected from errors (either accidental or intentional). After all, if I wanted to sabotage a defense contractor's software, I couldn't pay off one of the programmers. Also, I've noticed that security critical open source projects tend to accept patches from random, unreputable sources.
And $30 billion dollars is a lot more money than the average american gives to charity. And in the case of windows, the value provided by the users _is_ negliable. When was the last time a windows users patched a vulnerability? What's so evil about having a company, writing a product, and getting protection for that work? Now, if you were talking about his illegal abuse of a monopoly, that would be a different story, but every programmer, author, musician, painter, etc depends on copyrights to help them put food on the table.
That said, R&D costs are still expensed before profit is calculated. This means Apple can do R&D and turn a profit, which is apaprently something the n-parent poster has a hard time understanding. They aren't even up to their necks in loans like certain other tech companies.
Slashdot Mirror
I've beta tested the second release candidate for SP2, and the firewall can easily be disabled, though you'll get a balloon in the corner when you boot up reminding you it is disabled. You can probably disable that too, but it doesn't really bother me, so I haven't tried.
I guess the acid finally wore off. Spend millions to extract THOUSANDS!!!!!! in licensing fees. I am trully in awe of your threeleet business skillz, Darlzor.
You know, I've never found artists not getting a very big cut as a good excuse to not pay them at all...
You say that you don't really care whether the chemical companies are get patents on their processes because those are expensive to implement anyway, but think about it. They aren't protecting the implementation (in this case lab and/or factory equipment) they are protecting an idea, just like someone could protect an idea in the software world. The issue with your progress bar example is that the patent should never have been granted (it is in violation of currently existing requirements for patents). My argument was that if we actually stuck to the rules on patents, it wouldn't be an issue. As far as the RSA algorithm, it looks trivial now, because the actual steps of the algorithm are so simple. However, the standard for the triviality clause of patent requirements is that if an idea is obvious to an expert in the field, it is trivial. RSA was not trivial to any mathematicians when it was invented. In fact, people had been searching for a long time for a good solution to the problem RSA solves (an encryption routine that allows the key to be known without the encrypted message being immediately obvious). I agree with you that the core of mathematics should not be patentible, however, it has already been made unpatentible. Also, just about every design involves some mathematics-- where do we draw the line? Designs for a building? Unpatentible (they contain measurements, and they are designed based on calculations of structural integrity). Designs for a computer part? Unpatentible under your system, because they are merely an expression of a mathematical process (take these bits here, turn them into these bits here, maybe do some output). You can continue forever almost.
A patent wouldn't protect against a similar method or another method for doing the same thing-- if the patent office kept patents to the right scope. However, if I add a couple of lines of code here and there, that has no effect on the operation of the algorithm, it is already outside of the scope of the copyright. It is pretty much like you said about the "a way to extract gold from ore", etc. That shouldn't be allowed (there are certain requirements for getting granted a patent, obviously. The problem is that these requirements are not beiing enforced to stop stupid patents), but it happens everyday, for whatever reason.
Unlike auto insurance though, if one of their customers is liable, all of their customers are probably liable, and it is only a question of where in line they are for litigation. Imagine if car companies had to potentially pay out to every customer if one got in a wreck. That would be a very unprofitible business plan.
I know this happens. I don't doubt that. You see it everyday. I was looking for some statistical evidence supporting the meme that this is nearly universal.
The problem is that a patent is really better for an algorithm. Why? One way to think about it is that patents cover ideas and designs, whereas copyrights cover expressions of these ideas. The problem isn't that some ideas related to software are being patented, it is that the patent office is granting patents for obvious or trivial algorithms and ideas, as well as ones with substantial prior art. Without a significant overhaul of the way copyright works, however, patents are still the most appropriate ip protection for a lot of software related stuff. copyright protection for a concept, process or algorithm would easily be avoided by simply "rewriting" it differently (rearranging some code, or adding some minor steps to the process). and if you think patenting a process is crazy, think about chemical companies and manufacturers that have been patenting important innovations to their production processes for years.
I seriously doubt any of the CPL players were using bots, considering a) aimbots are notoriously easy to detect b) point a is even more true when there is a judge standing right behind you.
So, you've looked at enough published works to say that the majority of copyrights are owned by publishers? As in, you've looked at a large enough sample to tell that over 50% of creative works covered by copyright have those copyrights assigned to publishers? I was looking for a link to some stats, preferribly from some kind of academic survey.
When sunglasses are outlawed, only outlaws will have sunglasses...
Source?
It isn't like it would be that hard to find a dos emulator. Or to port an open source one to x86-64.
It's like if you had a choice between buying a flintlock pistol or a single-shot bullet operated colt
...
At least we know what nationality you are
Yeah, cowboy.
Under the statues of many states, if there is gross negligence or significant disregard for human life (usually meaning the act could reasonibly be expected to kill someone), then it is murder. If slight carelessness combines with bad luck, in order words, that's manslaughter. Doing something that your average adult with functioning common sense could tell is dangerous to others and then killing someone falls under murder. IMHO, it is realistic expectation that driving down the road while watching a DVD will lead to harm.
If what you say is the truth, then in theory, during his fair trial, the jury declares that he is not guilty of murder. They can charge you with whatever they want-- it is the fair trial that decides whether you actually committed the crime or not.
Actually, browsing at the civilized levels, I've noticed far more people complaining about BSD being insulted than actual anti-BSD sentiment. Either you guys take the trolls more seriously than I do, or you have a minority complex. :P
I know a guy who used to work for dell. From his description, you have it pretty much right. They have a binder that works kind of like one of those 'choose your own adventure' books you read as a kid. No matter what you say when they pick up, they start from page one with a question. If yes, go to 2. If no, go to 3. This continues until they reach the page where they tell you that you need to use the recovery disk to erase all your files. And believe me, no matter how you answer, you'll get to that page.
31 days-- ick.
I used to work at a place that was also an apple certified service center. We shipped in all our hardware problems (it was a university thing w/ student labor, so there were liability issues with hardware repairs). Typically, we got machines back in 2-3 days and only had one or two major issues in the year I was there (even though we shipped them an unusually high number of laptops due to the fact that most of the iBooks we worked on came from the run with the logic board defect [and that they were deployed to education majors]).
I was under the impression that military hardware was tested before it was used. Also, it is obvious that proprietary software is protected from errors (either accidental or intentional). After all, if I wanted to sabotage a defense contractor's software, I couldn't pay off one of the programmers. Also, I've noticed that security critical open source projects tend to accept patches from random, unreputable sources.
That's actually the best argument for X.org I've heard in a long time...
And $30 billion dollars is a lot more money than the average american gives to charity. And in the case of windows, the value provided by the users _is_ negliable. When was the last time a windows users patched a vulnerability? What's so evil about having a company, writing a product, and getting protection for that work? Now, if you were talking about his illegal abuse of a monopoly, that would be a different story, but every programmer, author, musician, painter, etc depends on copyrights to help them put food on the table.
You can have victory in a battle just like you can have victory in a war.
That said, R&D costs are still expensed before profit is calculated. This means Apple can do R&D and turn a profit, which is apaprently something the n-parent poster has a hard time understanding. They aren't even up to their necks in loans like certain other tech companies.