But it's not having something "at stake" that matters! It's being able to do something to protect that stake, i.e. wielding the legal power of the patent.
That's why I said it's not the "interest" that counts, it's the patent's legal effect!
Your argument is that a patent holder's interest or stake is the significant factor. It's not! The significant factor is that the patent holder can do something about transgressions, with weight of law.
As for the rest of your post:
The public domain is a great legal principle, but the economics fail to protect the public - "tragedy of the commons".
What has this issue got to do with this? I don't see any connection. Explain what you mean by "the economics fail to protect the public". You simply throw this into your post with no supporting argument, as if it were to be taken for granted.
You carry on in a starry-eyed, rambling manner full of "probably"s, "might"s, "possibly"s and wild speculation. Then you finish by proclaiming that buying in to the patent system en masse is a "a real libertarian method for fighting private IP hoarders"!!
I agree with your apparent aims (protecting the pool, and process, of freely shared knowledge) and it's great that you are passionate about them. But your post is simply not coherent.
How does a person go from being a disinterested contributor to the public domain to being an interested party with a patent? The interest has to come first. Motivation leads to action. So would-be patent holders are already interested parties. Just because you protest that this "isn't a theoretical legal or political discussion" doesn't mean that you can just post any old crap without thinking and claim it's right.
The legal effect of the patent is the "bonus" of obtaining a patent. The interest of the "interested party" is what might lead a patent to be applied for in the first place.
It's also indistinguishable from "public domain" in operation, but has the valuable bonus of an interested party which can actively fight others who try to privatize the patented IP.
How is an "interested party" the bonus? Why can't the public domain have interested parties?
Surely the bonus is simply that if someone else comes along and tries to get a patent, or does in fact get a patent, you can challenge their act with a straightforward legal force (without having to build a prior art case), because you already have a patent. It takes more than having an "interested party" to create legal force. (It takes more than a patent too, I'm sure money helps.)
This guy isn't seeing the opportunity battering ram that's beating down his door. He could be SET FOR LIFE if he played his cards right
The guy DOES see the opportunity you idiot. That's why he's holding out for the best offer! If he just turned up and said "take my blood" then he's not going to get the best price for it. What the BBC article neglected to say is that he has publicly announced he DOES want to help, he just hasn't agreed yet. This from the Metro (a free newspaper, unfortunately the article is not on their web page.
Ever heard of Buy It Now? You don't have to wait. Also, if you have special interests (crafts and hobbies, exotic computer equipment) eBay is sometimes the only place you can find certain items. So maybe you have no use for eBay but other people do, and they don't need to be cash poor or time rich to make it so.
If someone exceeds my amount - well that's more than I would have paid anyways
eBay publish the current winning bid for the duration of the auction. There is a temptation on bidders to bid more than the current winning bid. This can drive up item price.
Sniping is about reducing this effect to the benefit of the best sniper (who bids the maximum they are willing to pay as close the end of the auction as possible). It's not about paying more than your maximum It's about controlling market information to the benefit of the buyers. All buyers should snipe. May the best sniper win!
This is silly. All you really need to do is take slashdot, have a topic for whatever it is you are interested in and open up the submit queue (no more "Rejected" blues). Then sit back and watch tens of thousands of bored geeks sift the relevant information from the internet and post it.
You might be on to something there. It would not be the first time that people do exactly what they are told to do even though they know it's stupid in order to highlight that stupidity. Frequently, trying to explain to those in power that they are wielding their power wrongly just does not work; they need to see the consequences of their actions before they realise they have made a mistake.
And most that buy them don't really know what to do with them beyond surfing the web and getting/sending email.
Yes they do. There are free CDs everywhere, at supermarket checkouts, inside Sunday newspapers, on magazine covers. They offer dial-up internet, trialware, older versions of software, software that didn't make it to the shelves. They are all for Windows and they are in the faces of normal people.
Also, your elitist attitude goes right against the spirit of Free Software, which is about empowering people, not restricting them; however I'm sure your new regime will have a place at the top for a man like you.
Explain how the scroll wheel is so special. I have a Rio Karma. It has a scroll wheel. It's not a touch-sensitive circle on the front panel, it's an actual wheel, but it performs the same function, scrolling. So how is the scroll wheel so critical to the iPod's success? Or maybe it's not the scroll wheel you mean.
Explain what is so specific and granular about a mechanism that lets you build playlists based on play count and rating. My Karma lets me choose individual tracks from individual albums! I don't see how it could get any more specific and granular. Or maybe it's not the specificity and the granularity that you mean.
What do you mean?
I don't have an iPod; I've played with other peoples'. I'm no expert on these smart playlists, but the Rio Digital DJ will,make playlists based on 'popularity', genre, era, etc. I also know the Karma is for all intents dead, I know it's ugly compared to the iPod, and I know it's not got a cool name. But that's not the point.
The best thing about the iPod is the marketing: the iPod name, the clean looks, the slimness, iTunes, the adverts, the white earphones, the Apple name. I believe its called synergy, or "pulling the wool over the customer's eyes".
What are you talking about? It was not the most articulate of posts but I understood it and saw a logical progression from one sentence to the next. I think it is *you* who are stoned.
Re:The mainstream media says nothing of value.
on
Is Your Office Haunted?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
There is some value in it; it tells you what a significant portion of the population are believing. That's scarier than their profits. Wooooh! (Do ghosts go "Wooooh!" all over the world or just here in Little Britain?)
But TinyURL is equivalent to the instrumentation designer, while PHP is equivalent to the components from which the instrumentation is made. So the article is right.
Security is layered. PHP components can be secure, but in providing a general purpose language, anything can be built from those components, including insecure web applications.
To create a programming language or environment from which you cannot build an insecure application would require seriously compromising the flexibility which gives the language its usefulness.
Do I sound like a murderous ALF terrorist? I'm not, and I don't think that more killing is the answer to killing. I can understand their train of thought, but I don't agree with it. They do the animal rights cause harm by behaving no better than the people they seek to villify. People are animals too, after all.
a) the formula is overused, and b) it is an attempt to avoid the issue
I like to laugh as much as the next person. Humour is often used as a coping strategy for difficult situations; witness how disasters like the recent tsunami and hurricanes were accompanied by some quite dark jokes (at least they were in my social circle). That's fine because they are natural disasters outside our control; we can give to alleviate the suffering but we can't prevent it in the first place.
But when humour is used to excuse or paper over what is, quite frankly, evil behaviour such as factory farming animals for human consumption, I don't find it funny. That is something quite firmly within our control. People who eat meat are, by and large, simply putting their taste-buds and convenience before the life and feelings of another sentient being. I can't countenance that, joke or not. The fact that people joke about it tells me that they know deep down it is wrong but would rather avoid being conscious of that reality.
Put to one side my brother's Spaghetti Monster rantings and consider that people are also made from meat. Being made from meat does not make you food. Being eaten does. But someone has to choose to eat. I, like you, have free will. Where does God come into it?
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, the other way round!!!
Right.
Now mods, I may be redundant but my twin is Funny.
Right.
But it's not having something "at stake" that matters! It's being able to do something to protect that stake, i.e. wielding the legal power of the patent.
That's why I said it's not the "interest" that counts, it's the patent's legal effect!
Your argument is that a patent holder's interest or stake is the significant factor. It's not! The significant factor is that the patent holder can do something about transgressions, with weight of law.
As for the rest of your post:
The public domain is a great legal principle, but the economics fail to protect the public - "tragedy of the commons".
What has this issue got to do with this? I don't see any connection. Explain what you mean by "the economics fail to protect the public". You simply throw this into your post with no supporting argument, as if it were to be taken for granted.
You carry on in a starry-eyed, rambling manner full of "probably"s, "might"s, "possibly"s and wild speculation. Then you finish by proclaiming that buying in to the patent system en masse is a "a real libertarian method for fighting private IP hoarders"!!
I agree with your apparent aims (protecting the pool, and process, of freely shared knowledge) and it's great that you are passionate about them. But your post is simply not coherent.
How does a person go from being a disinterested contributor to the public domain to being an interested party with a patent? The interest has to come first. Motivation leads to action. So would-be patent holders are already interested parties. Just because you protest that this "isn't a theoretical legal or political discussion" doesn't mean that you can just post any old crap without thinking and claim it's right.
The legal effect of the patent is the "bonus" of obtaining a patent. The interest of the "interested party" is what might lead a patent to be applied for in the first place.
It's also indistinguishable from "public domain" in operation, but has the valuable bonus of an interested party which can actively fight others who try to privatize the patented IP.
How is an "interested party" the bonus? Why can't the public domain have interested parties?
Surely the bonus is simply that if someone else comes along and tries to get a patent, or does in fact get a patent, you can challenge their act with a straightforward legal force (without having to build a prior art case), because you already have a patent. It takes more than having an "interested party" to create legal force. (It takes more than a patent too, I'm sure money helps.)
This guy isn't seeing the opportunity battering ram that's beating down his door. He could be SET FOR LIFE if he played his cards right
The guy DOES see the opportunity you idiot. That's why he's holding out for the best offer! If he just turned up and said "take my blood" then he's not going to get the best price for it. What the BBC article neglected to say is that he has publicly announced he DOES want to help, he just hasn't agreed yet. This from the Metro (a free newspaper, unfortunately the article is not on their web page.
Ever heard of Buy It Now? You don't have to wait. Also, if you have special interests (crafts and hobbies, exotic computer equipment) eBay is sometimes the only place you can find certain items. So maybe you have no use for eBay but other people do, and they don't need to be cash poor or time rich to make it so.
If someone exceeds my amount - well that's more than I would have paid anyways
eBay publish the current winning bid for the duration of the auction. There is a temptation on bidders to bid more than the current winning bid. This can drive up item price.
Sniping is about reducing this effect to the benefit of the best sniper (who bids the maximum they are willing to pay as close the end of the auction as possible). It's not about paying more than your maximum It's about controlling market information to the benefit of the buyers. All buyers should snipe. May the best sniper win!
This is silly. All you really need to do is take slashdot, have a topic for whatever it is you are interested in and open up the submit queue (no more "Rejected" blues). Then sit back and watch tens of thousands of bored geeks sift the relevant information from the internet and post it.
You need to learn to think like a manager. Not all the time, of course, just for the sake of role play.
You might be on to something there. It would not be the first time that people do exactly what they are told to do even though they know it's stupid in order to highlight that stupidity. Frequently, trying to explain to those in power that they are wielding their power wrongly just does not work; they need to see the consequences of their actions before they realise they have made a mistake.
Very insightful.
And most that buy them don't really know what to do with them beyond surfing the web and getting/sending email.
Yes they do. There are free CDs everywhere, at supermarket checkouts, inside Sunday newspapers, on magazine covers. They offer dial-up internet, trialware, older versions of software, software that didn't make it to the shelves. They are all for Windows and they are in the faces of normal people.
Also, your elitist attitude goes right against the spirit of Free Software, which is about empowering people, not restricting them; however I'm sure your new regime will have a place at the top for a man like you.
Explain how the scroll wheel is so special. I have a Rio Karma. It has a scroll wheel. It's not a touch-sensitive circle on the front panel, it's an actual wheel, but it performs the same function, scrolling. So how is the scroll wheel so critical to the iPod's success? Or maybe it's not the scroll wheel you mean.
,make playlists based on 'popularity', genre, era, etc. I also know the Karma is for all intents dead, I know it's ugly compared to the iPod, and I know it's not got a cool name. But that's not the point.
Explain what is so specific and granular about a mechanism that lets you build playlists based on play count and rating. My Karma lets me choose individual tracks from individual albums! I don't see how it could get any more specific and granular. Or maybe it's not the specificity and the granularity that you mean.
What do you mean?
I don't have an iPod; I've played with other peoples'. I'm no expert on these smart playlists, but the Rio Digital DJ will
The best thing about the iPod is the marketing: the iPod name, the clean looks, the slimness, iTunes, the adverts, the white earphones, the Apple name. I believe its called synergy, or "pulling the wool over the customer's eyes".
And Slashdot will tell you.
What are you talking about? It was not the most articulate of posts but I understood it and saw a logical progression from one sentence to the next. I think it is *you* who are stoned.
There is some value in it; it tells you what a significant portion of the population are believing. That's scarier than their profits. Wooooh! (Do ghosts go "Wooooh!" all over the world or just here in Little Britain?)
Informative? Show us a link, because their Current Security Configuration Guides list does not have one.
But TinyURL is equivalent to the instrumentation designer, while PHP is equivalent to the components from which the instrumentation is made. So the article is right.
Security is layered. PHP components can be secure, but in providing a general purpose language, anything can be built from those components, including insecure web applications.
To create a programming language or environment from which you cannot build an insecure application would require seriously compromising the flexibility which gives the language its usefulness.
Do I sound like a murderous ALF terrorist? I'm not, and I don't think that more killing is the answer to killing. I can understand their train of thought, but I don't agree with it. They do the animal rights cause harm by behaving no better than the people they seek to villify. People are animals too, after all.
I don't find it funny because:
a) the formula is overused, and
b) it is an attempt to avoid the issue
I like to laugh as much as the next person. Humour is often used as a coping strategy for difficult situations; witness how disasters like the recent tsunami and hurricanes were accompanied by some quite dark jokes (at least they were in my social circle). That's fine because they are natural disasters outside our control; we can give to alleviate the suffering but we can't prevent it in the first place.
But when humour is used to excuse or paper over what is, quite frankly, evil behaviour such as factory farming animals for human consumption, I don't find it funny. That is something quite firmly within our control. People who eat meat are, by and large, simply putting their taste-buds and convenience before the life and feelings of another sentient being. I can't countenance that, joke or not. The fact that people joke about it tells me that they know deep down it is wrong but would rather avoid being conscious of that reality.
Put to one side my brother's Spaghetti Monster rantings and consider that people are also made from meat. Being made from meat does not make you food. Being eaten does. But someone has to choose to eat. I, like you, have free will. Where does God come into it?
What's Quake? I'm still playing Wolfenstein 3D.
Go on, give me a real world example and I might be convinced. As it stands I'm not.
No, that's not what I'm saying.