The citation acted as if letters patent, covering all manner of publicly documented things in various legal jurisdictions, are inherently equivalent to the modern institution known as patents. That's absurd, and the example given was over land being legally treated like land in public documents.
He asks the right question (It is to be believed that everyone who has hitherto spoken about “intellectual property” has been under a profound misimpression?), but assumes the wrong answer. Patents are not property, and even if you support patents, you don't have to believe they are property. The only reason to conflate such differing legal institutions is to moralize a system that is constitutionally mandated to be utilitarian for benefit of society.
Your court versus administrative technicality is interesting, and I would agree that it could be a more legally sound setup (although I fear it might end up resembling the CAFC in it's patent-friendliness). However, i see no reason why something the nominal branch of government could not be part of the process. You make comparisons to civil forfeiture, but it'd be more like the government getting back money issued incorrectly or under fraudulent terms. If the PTAB invalidates a patent, then it means the USPTO screwed up, and should have never issued the patent.
Yes. Technically, they are hackers, as all phishing would be. What I'm saying is that they are projecting the sophistication of someone like Mitnick onto attacks that are, at least as this stage, closer to Nigerian prince scammers. We've seen one of these emails thanks to the Podesta leaks, and it's only a little more sophisticated.
The reason I'm concerned is because it's furthering the repeating narrative of "RUSSIAN HACKERZ OMG" to shut down discussion about anything else, inflate the threat, and turn the argument away from more relevant concerns, like how bad these military contractors are at basic OpSec. We had too much of that kind of distraction bullshit in the Bush era.
Yeah, I get the problem. If some sysadmin installs Gentoo on their corporate setup and a problem needs to fixed, then they're fucked because nobody can help, and more importantly, there's nobody to point fingers at. But for all practical purposes, there are two and only two options. If you are dealing with the caliber of PHBs who always chose IBM because nobody was fired for choosing IBM, then you'd want RHEL. If you are Munich, and having domestic support that is creating jobs is one of your selling points, then you'd probably fork Ubuntu, mostly with presets, language packs, and whatever is needed to meet government requirements, but otherwise, probably pretty vanilla. And that's what they did, and it saved them money, while experiencing about the same amount of problems expected for an institute of their size.
They keep calling them hackers, but the mention of clicking on links seems to suggest that this was a phishing campaign, which tend to make things more embarrassing than scary.
You just ignored the point again. There are only two remotely viable bases for an enterprise setting, so "There are way too many distributions for them too" is bullshit. Ubuntu and Red Hat derivatives.
The more correct version would be: "Figure out whether you need Ubuntu (and the broader community support) or Red Hat (and the broader corporate support), and just use which one works best for you, you dumb twat." But that's far less pithy, and Ubuntu has been where new projects tend to be based (like LiMux).
There are not "too many distributions." For all practical purposes, there are two, and which one you need is going to be apparent when you review your organization's requirements. The existence of Hannah Montana Linux, Gentoo, and Slackware only cause a paradox of choice if you know nothing. If you have a basic understand of the roles and usage patterns of the different distros, what you need is pretty clear.
No, both are constitutionally restricted to "limited times." That patent terms have not been abused does not change that constitutional limitation.
The Constitution says the government can't take property.
The Constitution says that patents MUST expire, and be taken from patent holders.
Therefore, patents are not property.
Except the original justification for patents is so that the people who own the factories and printing presses have to pay the people who do the inventing or writing.
Patents predated industrialization, and were never to protect small entities from large competitors.
Get rid of IP and you end up with a dystopia where no one invents anything, you've got no idea if the device you buy is genuine and the only people making money are the people who own the factories in China making the hardware.
Nope, non-superstar authors actually wrote more and were better compensated WITHOUT copyright (they were paid up-front for the manuscripts, instead of getting a pittance with the false hope of future royalties). Innovation happens faster without patents.
Patents and copyrights are legal monopolies, pretty much the least effective tool. If you want the government to protect the little guy, anti-trust will do far more. If you want to make sure inventors and authors get paid, grants and direct subsidies are better.
The legal monopolies of patents and copyright were undeniably evil tools. Patent monopolies, prior to the Statute of Monopolies, were a way for the King to help his friends, or to collect taxes without obviously collecting taxes. Copyright was a means of censorship and disseminating state-backed propaganda. They were both reformed to be less evil, but they are poor economic tools that no longer have any reason to exist.
If you want competition, you should be fighting AGAINST legal monopolies like patents and copyright, which give an enormous competitive advantage to powerful, established businesses.
The entire reason we have any protections against trolls is completely because the big companies get sued by trolls. That's why patent apologists are always making the BS claim that patent reform is just to allow the big guys to rip off the little guys. These reforms are enough to hinder trolls, but not enough to make their massive warchests useless.
And in that same clause, the government is legally required to take eventually take them away (that's what "for limited times" means), clearly meaning that they are not property in the terms of the fifth amendment protections they are citing here.
I'll accept that logic as soon as they also acknowledge that "a government agency is not empowered to create real property," meaning all patents are invalid, and we can shut down the PATB due to it no longer being needed.
Nice job ignoring the primary point about how your whining was idiotic because Ubuntu and Red Hat have all the compatibility, meaning thatyour "too many distros" argument is bullshit. Your stupid argument was why I was flippant, you dumb twat.
Actually, I've worked in multiple business environments that used Ubuntu. More to the point, the only popular distros are Ubuntu and various versions of Red Hat, and that's where the compatibility and support are. Your whining about the total number of distros is irrelevant because the options you need for compatibility are pretty simple in the overwhelming majority of desktop use cases.
You should try reading your own source, dipshit. "In the way described" is voter impersonation, and your own source puts that at a whopping 13 cases, mostly impersonating family members.
Okay, I think I could vaguely agree with you. But you haven't explained what that has to do with voter ID. If I control the polling place, voter ID will not stop me from committing electoral fraud.
But voter rolls, properly administered and checked for duplicates (in an intelligent way, like with a hash of SSN+Name), could prevent voters from voting in multiple districts, which is the only type of meatbag fraud that has occurred in any significant fashion.
Voter ID, btw, does nothing to prevent this. If John Doe votes 3 times in 3 districts he is registered to vote in, his ID will say he's John Doe in all of them.
Voter impersonation is not a problem. Multiple votes could possibly be (although still inefficient), but Voter ID does nothing to combat them.
Yes, there should be efforts on making IDs more accessible. But until that happens, Voter ID laws are light racist intimidation. And just for the record, Hillary Clinton should be shot into the sun, along with most of her cronies.
Hey dumb shit, what you are wanting is VOTER ROLLS, not voter ID. If you want, i can explain the math, or you can keep your/. card by understanding that the chances of getting caught increases exponentially as more and more fraudulent votes are cast.
And by long time, you mean one example that would be incredibly easy to spot and stop, had anyone in SF been sober/competent at the time? This plan would be thwarted by voter rolls long before voter ID would have been needed.
1. "Stop breaking the law, asshole!"
2. Instant Runoff Voting
3. Blockchains
4. Purging instead of promoting the worst people within a party
5. Hiring security professionals based on qualification, not on their connections to your bribery machines.
But I suspect that none of these will be implemented because they aren't interested in secure elections, just holding power.
Voter fraud doesn't exist and has never existed in the way described. Stuffing meatbags into polling booths is the least effective, most costly and the most easily detected form of electoral fraud. Might as well be defending democracy from unicorns.
No, because stuffing meatbags into polling booths is the least effective, most costly and the most easily detected form of electoral fraud. Might as well be defending democracy from unicorns.
What he's saying is that Linux was used as a scapegoat for broader organization problems. Statistically speaking, idiot management is going to be one of the biggest problems, and be an actual concern way more than the same tired bullet lists MS trolls trot out.
Slashdot Mirror
The citation acted as if letters patent, covering all manner of publicly documented things in various legal jurisdictions, are inherently equivalent to the modern institution known as patents. That's absurd, and the example given was over land being legally treated like land in public documents.
He asks the right question (It is to be believed that everyone who has hitherto spoken about “intellectual property” has been under a profound misimpression?), but assumes the wrong answer. Patents are not property, and even if you support patents, you don't have to believe they are property. The only reason to conflate such differing legal institutions is to moralize a system that is constitutionally mandated to be utilitarian for benefit of society.
Your court versus administrative technicality is interesting, and I would agree that it could be a more legally sound setup (although I fear it might end up resembling the CAFC in it's patent-friendliness). However, i see no reason why something the nominal branch of government could not be part of the process. You make comparisons to civil forfeiture, but it'd be more like the government getting back money issued incorrectly or under fraudulent terms. If the PTAB invalidates a patent, then it means the USPTO screwed up, and should have never issued the patent.
Yes. Technically, they are hackers, as all phishing would be. What I'm saying is that they are projecting the sophistication of someone like Mitnick onto attacks that are, at least as this stage, closer to Nigerian prince scammers. We've seen one of these emails thanks to the Podesta leaks, and it's only a little more sophisticated.
The reason I'm concerned is because it's furthering the repeating narrative of "RUSSIAN HACKERZ OMG" to shut down discussion about anything else, inflate the threat, and turn the argument away from more relevant concerns, like how bad these military contractors are at basic OpSec. We had too much of that kind of distraction bullshit in the Bush era.
Yeah, I get the problem. If some sysadmin installs Gentoo on their corporate setup and a problem needs to fixed, then they're fucked because nobody can help, and more importantly, there's nobody to point fingers at. But for all practical purposes, there are two and only two options. If you are dealing with the caliber of PHBs who always chose IBM because nobody was fired for choosing IBM, then you'd want RHEL. If you are Munich, and having domestic support that is creating jobs is one of your selling points, then you'd probably fork Ubuntu, mostly with presets, language packs, and whatever is needed to meet government requirements, but otherwise, probably pretty vanilla. And that's what they did, and it saved them money, while experiencing about the same amount of problems expected for an institute of their size.
They keep calling them hackers, but the mention of clicking on links seems to suggest that this was a phishing campaign, which tend to make things more embarrassing than scary.
You just ignored the point again. There are only two remotely viable bases for an enterprise setting, so "There are way too many distributions for them too" is bullshit. Ubuntu and Red Hat derivatives.
The more correct version would be: "Figure out whether you need Ubuntu (and the broader community support) or Red Hat (and the broader corporate support), and just use which one works best for you, you dumb twat." But that's far less pithy, and Ubuntu has been where new projects tend to be based (like LiMux).
There are not "too many distributions." For all practical purposes, there are two, and which one you need is going to be apparent when you review your organization's requirements. The existence of Hannah Montana Linux, Gentoo, and Slackware only cause a paradox of choice if you know nothing. If you have a basic understand of the roles and usage patterns of the different distros, what you need is pretty clear.
No, both are constitutionally restricted to "limited times." That patent terms have not been abused does not change that constitutional limitation.
The Constitution says the government can't take property.
The Constitution says that patents MUST expire, and be taken from patent holders.
Therefore, patents are not property.
Patents predated industrialization, and were never to protect small entities from large competitors.
Nope, non-superstar authors actually wrote more and were better compensated WITHOUT copyright (they were paid up-front for the manuscripts, instead of getting a pittance with the false hope of future royalties). Innovation happens faster without patents.
Patents and copyrights are legal monopolies, pretty much the least effective tool. If you want the government to protect the little guy, anti-trust will do far more. If you want to make sure inventors and authors get paid, grants and direct subsidies are better.
The legal monopolies of patents and copyright were undeniably evil tools. Patent monopolies, prior to the Statute of Monopolies, were a way for the King to help his friends, or to collect taxes without obviously collecting taxes. Copyright was a means of censorship and disseminating state-backed propaganda. They were both reformed to be less evil, but they are poor economic tools that no longer have any reason to exist.
If you want competition, you should be fighting AGAINST legal monopolies like patents and copyright, which give an enormous competitive advantage to powerful, established businesses.
The entire reason we have any protections against trolls is completely because the big companies get sued by trolls. That's why patent apologists are always making the BS claim that patent reform is just to allow the big guys to rip off the little guys. These reforms are enough to hinder trolls, but not enough to make their massive warchests useless.
And in that same clause, the government is legally required to take eventually take them away (that's what "for limited times" means), clearly meaning that they are not property in the terms of the fifth amendment protections they are citing here.
I'll accept that logic as soon as they also acknowledge that "a government agency is not empowered to create real property," meaning all patents are invalid, and we can shut down the PATB due to it no longer being needed.
Nice job ignoring the primary point about how your whining was idiotic because Ubuntu and Red Hat have all the compatibility, meaning thatyour "too many distros" argument is bullshit. Your stupid argument was why I was flippant, you dumb twat.
Actually, I've worked in multiple business environments that used Ubuntu. More to the point, the only popular distros are Ubuntu and various versions of Red Hat, and that's where the compatibility and support are. Your whining about the total number of distros is irrelevant because the options you need for compatibility are pretty simple in the overwhelming majority of desktop use cases.
Yeah, the Democrats as a party need to be shot into the sun. Same with the GOP.
You should try reading your own source, dipshit. "In the way described" is voter impersonation, and your own source puts that at a whopping 13 cases, mostly impersonating family members.
Okay, I think I could vaguely agree with you. But you haven't explained what that has to do with voter ID. If I control the polling place, voter ID will not stop me from committing electoral fraud.
But voter rolls, properly administered and checked for duplicates (in an intelligent way, like with a hash of SSN+Name), could prevent voters from voting in multiple districts, which is the only type of meatbag fraud that has occurred in any significant fashion.
Voter ID, btw, does nothing to prevent this. If John Doe votes 3 times in 3 districts he is registered to vote in, his ID will say he's John Doe in all of them. Voter impersonation is not a problem. Multiple votes could possibly be (although still inefficient), but Voter ID does nothing to combat them.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Do you care to clarify what you mean?
Yes, there should be efforts on making IDs more accessible. But until that happens, Voter ID laws are light racist intimidation. And just for the record, Hillary Clinton should be shot into the sun, along with most of her cronies.
Hey dumb shit, what you are wanting is VOTER ROLLS, not voter ID. If you want, i can explain the math, or you can keep your /. card by understanding that the chances of getting caught increases exponentially as more and more fraudulent votes are cast.
And by long time, you mean one example that would be incredibly easy to spot and stop, had anyone in SF been sober/competent at the time? This plan would be thwarted by voter rolls long before voter ID would have been needed.
1. "Stop breaking the law, asshole!"
2. Instant Runoff Voting
3. Blockchains
4. Purging instead of promoting the worst people within a party
5. Hiring security professionals based on qualification, not on their connections to your bribery machines.
But I suspect that none of these will be implemented because they aren't interested in secure elections, just holding power.
Voter fraud doesn't exist and has never existed in the way described. Stuffing meatbags into polling booths is the least effective, most costly and the most easily detected form of electoral fraud. Might as well be defending democracy from unicorns.
No, because stuffing meatbags into polling booths is the least effective, most costly and the most easily detected form of electoral fraud. Might as well be defending democracy from unicorns.
Just use Ubuntu, you dumb twat.
What he's saying is that Linux was used as a scapegoat for broader organization problems. Statistically speaking, idiot management is going to be one of the biggest problems, and be an actual concern way more than the same tired bullet lists MS trolls trot out.