That's irrelevant, since Mitnick's "hacking" barely relied on any technical skills or system exploits, but on social engineering. So yeah, in this day and age you can still "hack" using his methods, and end up pretty much the same way (behind bars).
I don't think those corporations would hand out those six-figure salaries for R&D if patents didn't enable them to make money out of it.
Those rights mainly matter to sustain an entirely different class of people: not the inventors, scientists and artists, but the managers and investors whose sole concern is maximizing returns.
Exactly.
If patents were abolished, they would suffer, but inventors would continue to invent at an increased pace.
Not so sure. What is certain is that we would go back to the days when trade secret was the only device available for innovators to ensure they profited from their innovations, being otherwise unable to compete with bigger companies with greater manufacturing capacities and streamlined production processes. And that isn't good for progress.
It's likely that the current US scheme of rewarding a patent for things well known in the industry isn't a corruption, but rather a return to the original use of patent law. It was designed to give a monopoly in exchange for paying whatever fee the local ruler(s) demanded.
Still a corruption, or at least the USPTO not doing its job properly, because the US is a signatory of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (aka TRIPS) agreement, which specifies patents are meant for new inventions, regardless of what the term historically meant.
No, the patent, as a concept, is not a bad thing, and is designed to prevent exactly what you complain about - large companies choking off competitors, especially when such competitors are those who developed the innovation.
If you just let everybody use everybody else's ideas, it will be major corporations with large factories and streamlined production processes that will benefit the most from those ideas, rather than the inventors and innovators.
That doesn't mean patent law, especially as implemented in US legislation, is perfect. Maybe 20 years is too much. And probably it should be mandatory to for patent holders to license their patents at reasonable and regulated prices. And definitely, patents on software and business process (Amazon 1-click, I am looking at you) are silly.
Political statements usually come not in the form of spam, but even worse, in chain emails (though of course they are designed and originated to harvest email addresses for spam purposes).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you need a credit card. Where I am from, you need to be at least 18 and with a steady income to get it.
Second, THAT'S ART?!
Have you walked into a "Comtemporary Art" museum over the last 20 years or so?
That's irrelevant, since Mitnick's "hacking" barely relied on any technical skills or system exploits, but on social engineering. So yeah, in this day and age you can still "hack" using his methods, and end up pretty much the same way (behind bars).
Yes, as long as you don't put enormous amounts of material into it; otherwise the tubes are filled and the internet is delayed.
I don't know if it is accidental or not, but I've witnessed blunders like that, and worse.
34% of iPhone Owners Think the 4 Is 4G
Well, they're just "Thinking Different".
I on the other hand, don't enjoy ironing... that's why I always wear T-shirts.
telnet telehack.com to your heart's content
A few months ago I installed Windows 3.1 in DosBox.
You don't have to take so much trouble. For a one-off fix, this will do.
Those rights mainly matter to sustain an entirely different class of people: not the inventors, scientists and artists, but the managers and investors whose sole concern is maximizing returns.
Exactly.
If patents were abolished, they would suffer, but inventors would continue to invent at an increased pace.
Not so sure. What is certain is that we would go back to the days when trade secret was the only device available for innovators to ensure they profited from their innovations, being otherwise unable to compete with bigger companies with greater manufacturing capacities and streamlined production processes. And that isn't good for progress.
It's likely that the current US scheme of rewarding a patent for things well known in the industry isn't a corruption, but rather a return to the original use of patent law. It was designed to give a monopoly in exchange for paying whatever fee the local ruler(s) demanded.
Still a corruption, or at least the USPTO not doing its job properly, because the US is a signatory of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (aka TRIPS) agreement, which specifies patents are meant for new inventions, regardless of what the term historically meant.
Yes. The other half never log in.
it could be worth approximately $2.25 billion
I wonder if they will suffer another new kind of malfunction - cash malfunction, value slipping down.
No, the patent, as a concept, is not a bad thing, and is designed to prevent exactly what you complain about - large companies choking off competitors, especially when such competitors are those who developed the innovation.
If you just let everybody use everybody else's ideas, it will be major corporations with large factories and streamlined production processes that will benefit the most from those ideas, rather than the inventors and innovators.
That doesn't mean patent law, especially as implemented in US legislation, is perfect. Maybe 20 years is too much. And probably it should be mandatory to for patent holders to license their patents at reasonable and regulated prices. And definitely, patents on software and business process (Amazon 1-click, I am looking at you) are silly.
Political statements usually come not in the form of spam, but even worse, in chain emails (though of course they are designed and originated to harvest email addresses for spam purposes).
They will definitely go public.
If LinkedIn did, I don't see why facebook cannot.
And if you step on one of them by accident, you might kill it but the result won't be nearly as gross.
Not that you can tell what it looks like - the moment you look at it, it disintegrates.