No, patents which create monopolies on ideas, like business patents, are evil. Creating and holding them is evil. The mere existence of such a patent, especially owned by a rich, aggressive corporation like Google, inhibits others from using the idea. That's evil.
The alternative, documenting one's prior art in conducting such processes, prevents a patent from stopping one's use of the idea, and is not evil.
You could infer that, but it would be a faulty inference. You could also infer, if you RTFA, from TFA's statement "Google, however, noted its patent applications". Or you could have actually looked up the patents, and seen that Google is assigned the patents by its filers, its ex/employees.
Try to Read The Friendly Article before presuming so much in public.
Instead of injecting themselves with poison, they could tell some reporters the other guy is competing unfairly by doing it.
Instead of patenting a business practice, Google could document their use of it as prior art, protecting themselves from a later patent.
"Everybody's doing it" is bad logic that most successful people outgrow when we become adults. That maturity might take longer for jocks, nerds and lawyers, but it's available to practically everyone.
Documenting their existing business practice should protect them from later patent claims. Patenting it themselves props up the evil "idea monopoly" patent system.
"The Guide itself explains that generating finite levels of improbability using an electronic brain and a strong Brownian motion producer (say, a cup of hot tea) was very well understood"
It's obvious that Dyson and Montgomery's "chance meeting over tea" was at one of Princeton/IAS' finite improbability machines.
And the "cup of tea" is really a universe of Time.
Once you've read the H2G2, da Nerd Code is revealed.
Or we can just eat bacon and tofu or fish, maybe in separate dishes the same day or week. That way we'll get the O3FA along with other nutrients, but without the genomic pollution roulette game.
Is anyone working on quiet jet (or other fast) engines? If we want "flyign sportscars", their quiet features are more important than any other except safety. Who wants to get caught up in the "sidestream noise pollution" wars of the mid-21st Century?
You're right. Essentially, the story's only connection between the busted credit fraudster and the terror propagandist is that when they busted the former, the latter stopped acting. The possibility that the fraud merely funded the propaganda, or some other causal connection other than identity, or some other correlation, is never mentioned outside the author's certitude.
That logic is just like the Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld procedure to "link" the 2001 Qaeda bombings with Iraq, without just chanting "Saddam is Osama". Merely so they can deny it later, after years of rational denial of the link accumulate strength and threaten to discredit anything the cabal says. This kind of "imputation" is the way the "intelligence industry" steals everything we value, while failing to produce any security.
"Looking further, they found that the cards were used to pay American Internet providers on whose servers he had posted jihadi propaganda. Only then did investigators come to believe that they had netted the infamous hacker. And that element of luck is a problem. The Internet has presented investigators with an extraordinary challenge. But our future security is going to depend increasingly on identifying and catching the shadowy figures who exist primarily in the elusive online world."
The "investigators" didn't trace the well-known propagandist's Internet packets from his well-known websites to his terminal, to his person. No mention of a labyrinth of anonymizing proxies, or ever-changing public login terminals. They busted a credit fraudster and discovered his other, more dangerous gigs.
Meanwhile, the NSA, Echelon and other global "security" agencies are snooping on hundreds of millions of people's traffic. Supposedly to protect us from people like this Qaeda asshole. But they don't do even the basic network forensics a corporate IT department would immediately do when trying to find a bad guy.
Maybe if they caught the few, highly destructive bad guys like this Qaeda asshole, their "security" budgets would dry up. Maybe they've got their own reasons not to hit too hard against online credit fraudsters - collusion with international mobs, spooking the insurers, stumbling across covert finance networks for national "intelligence" agencies.
They're getting $HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, invading our privacy, imprisoning people without evidence they're suspect, invading unrelated countries, breaking laws to spy on us at home. Meanwhile, Scotland Yard's traditionally tight nets of reasonable evidence and human intelligence have caught a terrorist operative. Who actually spreads terror, publishing the propaganda about terrorist attacks widely.
The demonstrated answer to these terrorists is our well understood police techniques. The justice system we've developed over hundreds of years, that is based on evidence and logic. Not only does it prove who did what when, but it avoids the damage caused by destroying liberty in the name of protecting it. Now we'll watch the mass media pump this arrest for more money and power for secret government operations that don't actually work.
Your points are worth debating - they're debatable. But who are you? You anonymously post a long, formatted screed, in the first post, including a link to the law. Replying in the first post to an article published by ScuttleMonkey, but without the usual submitter's credit introducing the story.
Who are you, and where do you get off assuring us that anything isn't part of another "conservative/Republican plot", when our lives are so full of them already, and they always come with the same kind of denial? Like your comment that if we're suspicious of the government, then we probably won't agree with you, whoever you are.
This country is founded on distrusting the government, for exactly the reasons we produced the 1972 law, which made them rare exceptions, not the standard procedure.
Rockets explode on launch. OS'es are cracked and crash upon release. But CPUs and other logic chips rarely make headlines with such spectacular failures once tested and distributed in products. Are logic design tools that much better than other engineering? Are their operating conditions that much simpler and more predictable? Or are their failures just so much more boring that we never hear about them in the media?
What can other engineering learn from the apparently more stable designs?
My post has facts, logic, and citations supporting a serious argument that the story's premise is happening in the US as well as the UK. TrollMods have nothing but anonymous suppression to stop people from talking about it, though many did - perfectly reasonably, with the usual Slashdot exceptions - in the subsequent thread.
I'd love to see a "passport" app that reads one VR avatar's properties, then converts and registers it in a different VR, mapping properties across. Of course earned experience, wealth and status have to be earned anew. But one's "basic persona" could be available in the new game.
The major problem is probably the avatar's name. Each VR has its own namespace, and sometimes naming prohibitions. There's no guarantee that one's name will be registrable in the new VR. But an interesting case can be made for trademark, where "Kim WoW Lee" might be protected by the World of Warcraft trademark even in an Ultima game. Or maybe something like "Kim 632355239 Lee, call me Kim" is in store for most of us.
Software developer might beat the pirate in a Russian boxing ring. Same in a GoogleFight with the same matchup. But in "software developer" vs pirate, without the whole software and development gang for tag teaming, the pirate wins.
It's also about even in the digital production arena. Maybe there really isn't any difference, like light is both a particle and a wave?
I said "subverting the Constitution itself, treason". In reference to a scheme to force an unconstitutional bill signing to produce force of law behind meaningless signing statements.
Congratulations, you've written one of the most preposterous things you've ever read on Slashdot. In one of its most familiar idioms: the strawman.
The fact is that Bush signed a bill that didn't pass both houses of Congress, adding a signing statement to make the law according to his definition.
That's not Constitutional, that's a ploy to create legal force to signing statements. As I detailed in my original posts, in the articles to which I linked, in the articles to which they linked. Which, incidentally, also specify the exact text, nature and status of the "law" Bush has created.
Why don't you lift a finger to actually examine the issue itself, among the caried and detailed material I keep producing to educate you? Instead you insist on arguing, without facts or the will (or perhaps skill) to obtain them.
FWIW: "\." is pronounced "backslashdot" - this site was originally called "/." And Troll means many things, but "like to breate people without justification" is your own definition. In fact, since you're arguing obnoxiously without reference to the facts or any useful logic, you fit the definition of "a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post". So I will now take your final request, not to bother replying, now that I've done all that I can to school you without compensation.
How long before CBS can transmit to disposable, flexible displays in produce shrinkwrapping? Or even to displays inkjetted directly onto produce, then engineered into the produce itself?
We're already close with radio networks and organic displays. What about tapping the energy in the produce itself to drive displays before it all wilts?
In the hearing to which you referred, Clinton denied that he had mutual genital intercourse (as defined by the examining lawyer) with Monica Lewinsky. The truth, both in fact and (notably only because of what happened next in Congress) in the opinion of the court.
Clinton lied only on camera, saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Surely a bad move, but not perjury, or even significant in any way (except of the extreme political persecution brought on him by the Republican media).
Congress impeached him because their Republican Party pursues power by any means available. Even when they fail to convict Clinton, at great cost to the country in money and integrity, because he wasn't guilty.
At the time, I was very concerned whether he would actually perjure. Because unaccountability for blowjob perjury can indicate willingness to perjure on other matters of actual consequence. But he did not perjure, as found as many times as it could be tested.
There's lots more to be said on this subject regarding the totally useless Whitewater witch hunt that produced only that travesty of justice. And regarding the endless lies of George Bush and his Republican Party that impeached Clinton for blowjob lies, which have amounted to treason in many cases. But they're being discussed elsewhere, including the US Congress. That's why it's being made "redundant".
The TPMCafe article to which I linked offers more detailed analysis focused on exactly the US version of the UK issue that we're talking about in this subthread. The first sentence of that article links to even more detailed analysis of the bicameral screwup Bush is leveraging into legal authority for his worthless signing statements.
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what I'm talking about. You don't know what they're talking about. Why do you keep posting?
It's so exciting when a company like Google can be such the object of obsession that when it rolls out a "New Document" feature, that's front page (pun intended) news.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as your relatives aren't stuffing, your Thanksgiving isn't totally evil.
No, patents which create monopolies on ideas, like business patents, are evil. Creating and holding them is evil. The mere existence of such a patent, especially owned by a rich, aggressive corporation like Google, inhibits others from using the idea. That's evil.
The alternative, documenting one's prior art in conducting such processes, prevents a patent from stopping one's use of the idea, and is not evil.
You could infer that, but it would be a faulty inference. You could also infer, if you RTFA, from TFA's statement "Google, however, noted its patent applications ". Or you could have actually looked up the patents, and seen that Google is assigned the patents by its filers, its ex/employees.
Try to Read The Friendly Article before presuming so much in public.
Prior art is proof against later patents, and a lot cheaper - and less evil than even the threat to monopolize an idea.
Instead of injecting themselves with poison, they could tell some reporters the other guy is competing unfairly by doing it.
Instead of patenting a business practice, Google could document their use of it as prior art, protecting themselves from a later patent.
"Everybody's doing it" is bad logic that most successful people outgrow when we become adults. That maturity might take longer for jocks, nerds and lawyers, but it's available to practically everyone.
Documenting their existing business practice should protect them from later patent claims. Patenting it themselves props up the evil "idea monopoly" patent system.
Patents on business model ideas, not working machines, are evil.
"satellite tobacco mosaic virus"
That sounds like the greatest hits of American products, all in one convenient album.
"The Guide itself explains that generating finite levels of improbability using an electronic brain and a strong Brownian motion producer (say, a cup of hot tea) was very well understood"
It's obvious that Dyson and Montgomery's "chance meeting over tea" was at one of Princeton/IAS' finite improbability machines.
And the "cup of tea" is really a universe of Time.
Once you've read the H2G2, da Nerd Code is revealed.
Or we can just eat bacon and tofu or fish, maybe in separate dishes the same day or week. That way we'll get the O3FA along with other nutrients, but without the genomic pollution roulette game.
What does bacon fried in fish oil taste like?
Is anyone working on quiet jet (or other fast) engines? If we want "flyign sportscars", their quiet features are more important than any other except safety. Who wants to get caught up in the "sidestream noise pollution" wars of the mid-21st Century?
You're right. Essentially, the story's only connection between the busted credit fraudster and the terror propagandist is that when they busted the former, the latter stopped acting. The possibility that the fraud merely funded the propaganda, or some other causal connection other than identity, or some other correlation, is never mentioned outside the author's certitude.
That logic is just like the Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld procedure to "link" the 2001 Qaeda bombings with Iraq, without just chanting "Saddam is Osama". Merely so they can deny it later, after years of rational denial of the link accumulate strength and threaten to discredit anything the cabal says. This kind of "imputation" is the way the "intelligence industry" steals everything we value, while failing to produce any security.
"Looking further, they found that the cards were used to pay American Internet providers on whose servers he had posted jihadi propaganda. Only then did investigators come to believe that they had netted the infamous hacker. And that element of luck is a problem. The Internet has presented investigators with an extraordinary challenge. But our future security is going to depend increasingly on identifying and catching the shadowy figures who exist primarily in the elusive online world."
The "investigators" didn't trace the well-known propagandist's Internet packets from his well-known websites to his terminal, to his person. No mention of a labyrinth of anonymizing proxies, or ever-changing public login terminals. They busted a credit fraudster and discovered his other, more dangerous gigs.
Meanwhile, the NSA, Echelon and other global "security" agencies are snooping on hundreds of millions of people's traffic. Supposedly to protect us from people like this Qaeda asshole. But they don't do even the basic network forensics a corporate IT department would immediately do when trying to find a bad guy.
Maybe if they caught the few, highly destructive bad guys like this Qaeda asshole, their "security" budgets would dry up. Maybe they've got their own reasons not to hit too hard against online credit fraudsters - collusion with international mobs, spooking the insurers, stumbling across covert finance networks for national "intelligence" agencies.
They're getting $HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, invading our privacy, imprisoning people without evidence they're suspect, invading unrelated countries, breaking laws to spy on us at home. Meanwhile, Scotland Yard's traditionally tight nets of reasonable evidence and human intelligence have caught a terrorist operative. Who actually spreads terror, publishing the propaganda about terrorist attacks widely.
The demonstrated answer to these terrorists is our well understood police techniques. The justice system we've developed over hundreds of years, that is based on evidence and logic. Not only does it prove who did what when, but it avoids the damage caused by destroying liberty in the name of protecting it. Now we'll watch the mass media pump this arrest for more money and power for secret government operations that don't actually work.
Your points are worth debating - they're debatable. But who are you? You anonymously post a long, formatted screed, in the first post, including a link to the law. Replying in the first post to an article published by ScuttleMonkey, but without the usual submitter's credit introducing the story.
Who are you, and where do you get off assuring us that anything isn't part of another "conservative/Republican plot", when our lives are so full of them already, and they always come with the same kind of denial? Like your comment that if we're suspicious of the government, then we probably won't agree with you, whoever you are.
This country is founded on distrusting the government, for exactly the reasons we produced the 1972 law, which made them rare exceptions, not the standard procedure.
Removing-accountability-is-always-fun dept indeed.
Rockets explode on launch. OS'es are cracked and crash upon release. But CPUs and other logic chips rarely make headlines with such spectacular failures once tested and distributed in products. Are logic design tools that much better than other engineering? Are their operating conditions that much simpler and more predictable? Or are their failures just so much more boring that we never hear about them in the media?
What can other engineering learn from the apparently more stable designs?
Moderation -1
30% Troll
30% Informative
10% Flamebait
My post has facts, logic, and citations supporting a serious argument that the story's premise is happening in the US as well as the UK. TrollMods have nothing but anonymous suppression to stop people from talking about it, though many did - perfectly reasonably, with the usual Slashdot exceptions - in the subsequent thread.
TrollMods hate America.
I'd love to see a "passport" app that reads one VR avatar's properties, then converts and registers it in a different VR, mapping properties across. Of course earned experience, wealth and status have to be earned anew. But one's "basic persona" could be available in the new game.
The major problem is probably the avatar's name. Each VR has its own namespace, and sometimes naming prohibitions. There's no guarantee that one's name will be registrable in the new VR. But an interesting case can be made for trademark, where "Kim WoW Lee" might be protected by the World of Warcraft trademark even in an Ultima game. Or maybe something like "Kim 632355239 Lee, call me Kim" is in store for most of us.
Software developer might beat the pirate in a Russian boxing ring. Same in a GoogleFight with the same matchup. But in "software developer" vs pirate, without the whole software and development gang for tag teaming, the pirate wins.
It's also about even in the digital production arena. Maybe there really isn't any difference, like light is both a particle and a wave?
No, you said that.
I said "subverting the Constitution itself, treason". In reference to a scheme to force an unconstitutional bill signing to produce force of law behind meaningless signing statements.
Congratulations, you've written one of the most preposterous things you've ever read on Slashdot. In one of its most familiar idioms: the strawman.
The fact is that Bush signed a bill that didn't pass both houses of Congress, adding a signing statement to make the law according to his definition.
That's not Constitutional, that's a ploy to create legal force to signing statements. As I detailed in my original posts, in the articles to which I linked, in the articles to which they linked. Which, incidentally, also specify the exact text, nature and status of the "law" Bush has created.
Why don't you lift a finger to actually examine the issue itself, among the caried and detailed material I keep producing to educate you? Instead you insist on arguing, without facts or the will (or perhaps skill) to obtain them.
FWIW:
"\." is pronounced "backslashdot" - this site was originally called "/."
And Troll means many things, but "like to breate people without justification" is your own definition. In fact, since you're arguing obnoxiously without reference to the facts or any useful logic, you fit the definition of "a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post". So I will now take your final request, not to bother replying, now that I've done all that I can to school you without compensation.
How long before CBS can transmit to disposable, flexible displays in produce shrinkwrapping? Or even to displays inkjetted directly onto produce, then engineered into the produce itself?
We're already close with radio networks and organic displays. What about tapping the energy in the produce itself to drive displays before it all wilts?
In the hearing to which you referred, Clinton denied that he had mutual genital intercourse (as defined by the examining lawyer) with Monica Lewinsky. The truth, both in fact and (notably only because of what happened next in Congress) in the opinion of the court.
Clinton lied only on camera, saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Surely a bad move, but not perjury, or even significant in any way (except of the extreme political persecution brought on him by the Republican media).
Congress impeached him because their Republican Party pursues power by any means available. Even when they fail to convict Clinton, at great cost to the country in money and integrity, because he wasn't guilty.
At the time, I was very concerned whether he would actually perjure. Because unaccountability for blowjob perjury can indicate willingness to perjure on other matters of actual consequence. But he did not perjure, as found as many times as it could be tested.
There's lots more to be said on this subject regarding the totally useless Whitewater witch hunt that produced only that travesty of justice. And regarding the endless lies of George Bush and his Republican Party that impeached Clinton for blowjob lies, which have amounted to treason in many cases. But they're being discussed elsewhere, including the US Congress. That's why it's being made "redundant".
The TPMCafe article to which I linked offers more detailed analysis focused on exactly the US version of the UK issue that we're talking about in this subthread. The first sentence of that article links to even more detailed analysis of the bicameral screwup Bush is leveraging into legal authority for his worthless signing statements.
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what I'm talking about. You don't know what they're talking about. Why do you keep posting?
It's so exciting when a company like Google can be such the object of obsession that when it rolls out a "New Document" feature, that's front page (pun intended) news.
"You sure of that? How can a bill get to the president's desk unless both chambers of Congress passed the same thing?"
RTFA before you act like you know what you're talking about.