Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
Well, if that were the legislation being pushed, us pro-choice folks would be less likely to see it as an underhanded way of removing our rights.
Since that isn't the legislation being pushed, it's clear that it's just a ploy by people that want to stop abortion in as many situations as possible.
Sure. Carter failed. Grandparent poster was asking about honest politicians, and despite his failures, Carter was honest. I was just trying to say that he didn't do things simply to improve appearances.
And I *do* believe that's why he couldn't get reelected. Politicians have been reelected with worse problems than those three. If he could talk 'till he was pretty again, it would have been fine.
I'm sorry. I didn't fully express... Carter did all kinds of things wrong. It was never dishonest, though. If he did something, it was because he thought it was the right thing to do. And I felt like that was what grandparent poster was asking about.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
I've got about an equal number of complaints with the Greens, the Dems, and the Republicans.
If only there were a founding-father oriented constitutionalist party that wasn't full of reactionaries... I guess that's kindof impossible.
Nur.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
Yeah. As Alex De Tocqueville pointed out, our system doesn't have enough checks against a tyrrany of the majority. It's too bad.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
I feel that the consequences of a "fed $$ can't go to abortions" policy are fantastically heinous. It's not just that federal programs can't give abortions, but it's also that organizations that perform abortions cannot receive any federal funding.
So we have American women in foreign countries where their only health care provider is a federally funded hospital... and she wouldn't be allowed to get an abortion there, no matter how much she was willing to pay. She'd have to fly to the US.
This sort of policy is duplicitous and wrong. The media hasn't *begun* to decry it enough. And this is exactly why unchecked Republican power is more scary than unchecked Democratic power, imho. Sorry, you just hit a sore spot.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
How about a flat tax break? Everyone pays %2 less. Or, better yet, everyone pays $1000 less. If you're already paying nothing... you get nothing. Liberals would have shut up, I guarantee you.
Ask an economist... the capital is there already. We're just worried that the consumer doesn't have the money to buy. Right now we need trickle *up* economics. Capital gains/high end income tax breaks aren't going to make people invest when those investments can't make money anyway.
The socialized welfare garbage is stupid... it's just also inneffective. The best example was the Democrats arguing over unionization of the homeland security agency. Who cares?
Jimmy Carter. Whether or not you agreed with him on issues, he never did anything slimy in his life. The man was a saint. It lost him his second election. He had a lack of vision, and he wasn't willing to smooth things over. So the picture he painted was too bleak, and the people decided they would prefer an actor that told them what they wanted to hear. Reagan had vision... and was slimy as all Hell.
Anyway. Is there anyone I didn't just offend? That wasn't the point...
I've started thinking the same way. But Canada isn't perfect either. The worst of our laws tend to get exported.
There's no nation on Earth that has a legal system I'd be perfectly comfortable with. Does anybody feel perfectly represented by their nation's government?
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Right, but now we've got one party in power. So whomever that is will be the greivous offender for the next two years. Much more so than when the power is divided.
I'm a conservative. But I find unchecked Republican power much more frightening than unchecked Democratic power. The Democrats are just inept...
Well, Jobs has said in interviews that Apple isn't getting into tablets until it's a proven game. He doesn't see the value in the product and isn't sure it's something that consumers want.
I can't show that the US is better in regards to freedom of speech, because parts of the patriot act seem to violate it, and it hasn't been repealed.
But in theory, yes, our system is better at guaranteeing freedom of speech. We do have limitations, but those limitations are clearly enumerated in our constitution. So they are very hard to change. Treason, copyright, etc.
It seems that right now, no individual in a position of power is serious about fighting for our freedoms. No major political party cares about them either. As Alex de Toqueville (sp?) noted, we may not have enough checks preventing a tyrrany of the majority. Maybe someday we'll get rid of the patriot act. Are there any nations that could be argued to have a perfect political system? I remember the Libertarians were going nuts about Chile several years back. Does anyone know how that turned out?
Huh. That's upsetting. Would the patent cover all implementations that the inventor/lawyer though of, or would it also cover implementations that were really novel? Sounds like it'd cover everything.
I guess we'd need considerable changes in legislation for patent law to be a boon to innovation.
I'm not sure I read further than you, and I'm sure I don't have a great grasp of patent law, but...
I couldn't figure out where they drew the line between their patent, and an example of a specific use of their patent (I always thought patents were only for specific implementations, but whatever). It seemed as if their patent covers programs embedded in a web page. One use is a program embedded in a web page that communicates with another server.
So it seems like they're really just talking about quicktime/flash sorts of plugins. So a C++ application that speaks SOAP would be in the clear, but more importantly, so would many activex webapps. Microsoft might be able to claim that Apple/Macromedia/ActiveX developers are the ones infringing on the patent. Go hunt them down.
Something tells me if MS tried to abolish software patents, all the other proprietary software companies would gang up on them on an unprecedented scale.
That's because it's their job. If they compete with MS, then they will attack MS in every way possible. What's your point?
The whole point of patents is that you get to choose who can use your patent. So Eolas can choose that NS is ok, and MS is not ok. This is the way patents have always worked, so I'm not really sure why you'd think that. Perhaps you confuse with trademark?
Patents are enough unlike copyright that a GPP doesn't make sense, and would not be necessary. Patents that relate to a previous patent are not automatically held by the original patents owner, like in copyrights.
So, if you want GPL folks to be the only ones that can use your patent, just write those folks licenses/don't sue them.
There are ten different places where your analogy breaks down. The most serious problem with software patents is that unlike mechanical patents, they do not cover an implementation, but rather a purpose. If someone else figures out a way to accomplish the same thing differently... it doesn't matter. The patent covers placing two scrolling peices of text in one window, no matter how you do it.
Another problem is that with something like the cotton gin, patenting it made it so that anyone could build one for themselves. Not only was the idea published, but so were plans for the implementation. If software patents meant that they had to publish their source code, and give up their control of it after the patent ran out, then we'd all quit complaining.
And the patent would not cover any implementation that used completely different source code.
Of course, it becomes readily apparent that copyright would protect them better than this proposed system, since it lasts for 90 years anyway. So. No patents on software/math/business methods.
There are other serious problem with the system. Most of them stem from the fact that they follow the beginning of your analogy from gears and pulleys to their electronic equivalent, and allow patents, but they do not follow the analogy to it's conclusion, and insist that software patents have all the same trade-offs that regular patents do.
Alright, this is a totally broken analogy, but I'm going to do it anyway:
How much good attention did Winston get for being the honest cigarette company? "No" additives? How come we can't get a Winston out of the top five labels? Someone that will put a "We support fair use" sticker on their CDs and sell them for $9? It seems like they'd get some press, and customers would go out looking for the labels. I know I would.
Hell, it could motivate me to buy a CD in a store, which I haven't done for... God. Four years now. Then I'd go home, rip the CD, and throw it in my closet.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if that were the legislation being pushed, us pro-choice folks would be less likely to see it as an underhanded way of removing our rights.
Since that isn't the legislation being pushed, it's clear that it's just a ploy by people that want to stop abortion in as many situations as possible.
Sure. Carter failed. Grandparent poster was asking about honest politicians, and despite his failures, Carter was honest. I was just trying to say that he didn't do things simply to improve appearances.
And I *do* believe that's why he couldn't get reelected. Politicians have been reelected with worse problems than those three. If he could talk 'till he was pretty again, it would have been fine.
Dole had similar problems.
I'm sorry. I didn't fully express... Carter did all kinds of things wrong. It was never dishonest, though. If he did something, it was because he thought it was the right thing to do. And I felt like that was what grandparent poster was asking about.
I've got about an equal number of complaints with the Greens, the Dems, and the Republicans.
If only there were a founding-father oriented constitutionalist party that wasn't full of reactionaries... I guess that's kindof impossible.
Nur.
Yeah. As Alex De Tocqueville pointed out, our system doesn't have enough checks against a tyrrany of the majority. It's too bad.
I feel that the consequences of a "fed $$ can't go to abortions" policy are fantastically heinous. It's not just that federal programs can't give abortions, but it's also that organizations that perform abortions cannot receive any federal funding.
So we have American women in foreign countries where their only health care provider is a federally funded hospital... and she wouldn't be allowed to get an abortion there, no matter how much she was willing to pay. She'd have to fly to the US.
This sort of policy is duplicitous and wrong. The media hasn't *begun* to decry it enough. And this is exactly why unchecked Republican power is more scary than unchecked Democratic power, imho. Sorry, you just hit a sore spot.
How about a flat tax break? Everyone pays %2 less. Or, better yet, everyone pays $1000 less. If you're already paying nothing... you get nothing. Liberals would have shut up, I guarantee you.
Ask an economist... the capital is there already. We're just worried that the consumer doesn't have the money to buy. Right now we need trickle *up* economics. Capital gains/high end income tax breaks aren't going to make people invest when those investments can't make money anyway.
The socialized welfare garbage is stupid... it's just also inneffective. The best example was the Democrats arguing over unionization of the homeland security agency. Who cares?
Jimmy Carter. Whether or not you agreed with him on issues, he never did anything slimy in his life. The man was a saint. It lost him his second election. He had a lack of vision, and he wasn't willing to smooth things over. So the picture he painted was too bleak, and the people decided they would prefer an actor that told them what they wanted to hear. Reagan had vision... and was slimy as all Hell.
Anyway. Is there anyone I didn't just offend? That wasn't the point...
I've started thinking the same way. But Canada isn't perfect either. The worst of our laws tend to get exported.
There's no nation on Earth that has a legal system I'd be perfectly comfortable with. Does anybody feel perfectly represented by their nation's government?
Right, but now we've got one party in power. So whomever that is will be the greivous offender for the next two years. Much more so than when the power is divided.
I'm a conservative. But I find unchecked Republican power much more frightening than unchecked Democratic power. The Democrats are just inept...
Well, Jobs has said in interviews that Apple isn't getting into tablets until it's a proven game. He doesn't see the value in the product and isn't sure it's something that consumers want.
So...
My library carries Playboy. What's your point?
Oh. Your only upmod was "Underrated." You got me. IHBT.
For some reason my FS's dirty bit gets set often when I do a regular shutdown.
Some day I'll reformat my drive, but 'till then, this is a great time saver for me.
I can't show that the US is better in regards to freedom of speech, because parts of the patriot act seem to violate it, and it hasn't been repealed.
But in theory, yes, our system is better at guaranteeing freedom of speech. We do have limitations, but those limitations are clearly enumerated in our constitution. So they are very hard to change. Treason, copyright, etc.
It seems that right now, no individual in a position of power is serious about fighting for our freedoms. No major political party cares about them either. As Alex de Toqueville (sp?) noted, we may not have enough checks preventing a tyrrany of the majority. Maybe someday we'll get rid of the patriot act. Are there any nations that could be argued to have a perfect political system? I remember the Libertarians were going nuts about Chile several years back. Does anyone know how that turned out?
Huh. That's upsetting. Would the patent cover all implementations that the inventor/lawyer though of, or would it also cover implementations that were really novel? Sounds like it'd cover everything.
I guess we'd need considerable changes in legislation for patent law to be a boon to innovation.
That would have been a joke.
I'm not sure I read further than you, and I'm sure I don't have a great grasp of patent law, but...
I couldn't figure out where they drew the line between their patent, and an example of a specific use of their patent (I always thought patents were only for specific implementations, but whatever). It seemed as if their patent covers programs embedded in a web page. One use is a program embedded in a web page that communicates with another server.
So it seems like they're really just talking about quicktime/flash sorts of plugins. So a C++ application that speaks SOAP would be in the clear, but more importantly, so would many activex webapps. Microsoft might be able to claim that Apple/Macromedia/ActiveX developers are the ones infringing on the patent. Go hunt them down.
So patents all suck when they're being used against you, but when it can hurt MS, all of a sudden there's a resounding cheer for these guys?
...perhaps you should focus less on attacking MS and more on improving your own side of the fence.
What resounding cheer?
Troll.
Something tells me if MS tried to abolish software patents, all the other proprietary software companies would gang up on them on an unprecedented scale.
That's because it's their job. If they compete with MS, then they will attack MS in every way possible. What's your point?
The whole point of patents is that you get to choose who can use your patent. So Eolas can choose that NS is ok, and MS is not ok. This is the way patents have always worked, so I'm not really sure why you'd think that. Perhaps you confuse with trademark?
Patents are enough unlike copyright that a GPP doesn't make sense, and would not be necessary. Patents that relate to a previous patent are not automatically held by the original patents owner, like in copyrights.
So, if you want GPL folks to be the only ones that can use your patent, just write those folks licenses/don't sue them.
You're thinking of Legolas.
There are ten different places where your analogy breaks down. The most serious problem with software patents is that unlike mechanical patents, they do not cover an implementation, but rather a purpose. If someone else figures out a way to accomplish the same thing differently... it doesn't matter. The patent covers placing two scrolling peices of text in one window, no matter how you do it.
Another problem is that with something like the cotton gin, patenting it made it so that anyone could build one for themselves. Not only was the idea published, but so were plans for the implementation. If software patents meant that they had to publish their source code, and give up their control of it after the patent ran out, then we'd all quit complaining.
And the patent would not cover any implementation that used completely different source code.
Of course, it becomes readily apparent that copyright would protect them better than this proposed system, since it lasts for 90 years anyway. So. No patents on software/math/business methods.
There are other serious problem with the system. Most of them stem from the fact that they follow the beginning of your analogy from gears and pulleys to their electronic equivalent, and allow patents, but they do not follow the analogy to it's conclusion, and insist that software patents have all the same trade-offs that regular patents do.
Alright, this is a totally broken analogy, but I'm going to do it anyway:
How much good attention did Winston get for being the honest cigarette company? "No" additives? How come we can't get a Winston out of the top five labels? Someone that will put a "We support fair use" sticker on their CDs and sell them for $9? It seems like they'd get some press, and customers would go out looking for the labels. I know I would.
Hell, it could motivate me to buy a CD in a store, which I haven't done for... God. Four years now. Then I'd go home, rip the CD, and throw it in my closet.
Buying unprotected CDs at concerts seems harmless, even though some of the money still might go to the label.