Why don't you just check at CNN yourself and then get back to me?
Accusing me of making things up is pretty damn low. Are you really so ignorant that you would say anything in order to protect your Gore-said-he-invented-the-Internet fantasy?
And when did this become a Gore v. Bush debate? You don't know what I think about Gore and you don't know what I think about Bush. Their political views have nothing to do with the simple fact that Gore never said he invented the Internet.
No go find someone else to accuse of "making things up."
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
So I would think that Al Gore's quote was pretty much on the mark.
These references serve only to debunk a false interpretation of Al Gore's statement. Al Gore meant that his work in Congress led to the creation of the public Internet, not ARPAnet.
Microsoft Bookshelf 96 has this to say on the subject:
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
Clearly, Microsoft thinks Al Gore had a lot to do with the creation of the public Internet, hmm?
And thanks, but I don't need a history lesson. I'm not arguing that Al Gore had anything to do with the development of ARPAnet, I'm arguing that Al Gore helped push legislation that led to the creation of the public Internet.
Since you're memory is escaping you, I'll help you out. Here is the exact CNN quote:
===== CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
AL GORE: Well, I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. ===
Notice he doesn't say "I invented the Internet" and notice that Wolf Blitzer's question is not a followup about some supposed "debate" statement.
And since I bet you're still not convinced, here's what Microsoft's Bookshelf 96 has to say about the public Internet:
=== "In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation." ===
Face it, Al Gore helped make the public Internet possible, and Microsoft and others agree. This is exactly what Al Gore meant when he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
This is NOT a false statement, no matter how much you desire it to be so.
The imaginary Al Gore quote "I invented the Internet." exists only in the heads of stubbornly biased, narrowminded conservatives.
Wrong. He did not say "I invented the Internet" (as the original poster stated). Nor did Gore's words infer "that he was a reason the internet got started so quickly" as you put it.
He said, in referring to his very vocal support for the passage of the bill that led to the PUBLIC Internet:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. "
He does it by not trying to bullshit people into believing things that just aren't true.
Purposely spreading unsubstantiated rumors and lies is "not trying to bullshit people into believing things that just aren't true?"
Here's just ONE example of the numerous false statements he has made in print and on the air:
----- In Chapter 16 of "The Way Things Ought To Be" Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the "Dukakis furlough program" and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.
What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis' biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it. But you would never hear Rush mention this. He doesn't want you to hear the whole truth. -----
I don't think Rush is an idiot, so he must know that he's lying to all of you.
What the chances going out in the work force and working with a mac? very slim, it's stupid.
Maybe it's stupid for someone who only has enough room in their brain to use one OS (that's not what you're saying, right?), but guess what? Most kids I know can figure out how to get around any OS in no time. A window is a window, a menu is a menu, a X is an X (where X is radio button, check box, push button, etc.).
Do you really think that using software like Word/IE/Photoshop/etc. on a Mac is that different from using it on a PC? C'mon!
Lindows didn't name their product to "deliberately trick consumers into buying their product" -- they did it to challenge Microsoft's claim of trademark -- and thus force Microsoft to sue and defend the "Windows" trademark, betting that Microsoft will fail.
The point was not to come up with a good name. The point was to goad Microsoft into defending its shaky trademark -- a plan that worked, and is now proving to be a pain for Microsoft.
Now, making Microsoft lose its trademark may not be good for the Linux community either, but that's another topic.
Not really. If the trademark can be challenged sucessfully (i.e. if "Windows" is found to be generic and hence not protected by trademark), then it doesn't matter that "Lindows" obviously tried to "cash in" or anything else.
In other words, the product was named "Lindows" precisely to challenge Microsoft's claim of trademark -- betting that Microsoft would cry foul and thus be force to defend it's (tenuous, IMHO) "Windows" trademark.
Why should the trademark name 'Apple' have been approved? Because it was a unique and non-descriptive name of a computer company.
Why should any non-proper noun be allowed to be a trademark?? First, Apple is not a proper noun -- it's just a noun. Second, see answer to above. The key is that a trademark needs to be unique and non-descriptive.
The problem here is that Windows may be descriptive (that's what the Lindows case is trying to resolve), an idea that may be bolestered my Microsoft's own papers filed in the Apple case (arguing that "Windows" were generic UI elements, and hence that Apple had no claim on their "look and feel.").
Want to name your new cell phone product Peach? Congrats, you'll probably be able to register and protect that trademark. Want to name that same product "Cellphone"? Guess what? Even if you get a trademark (doubtful), you'll have a hell of time arguing that when "Lellphone" comes out. That's what this case is about.
A&R "scouts" have been doing this forever, using their ears to find and sign bands that have songs that may be hits. Using an algorithm to accomplish this task will likely lead to much of the same recycled top 40 trash we've always heard.
I think you're a bit confused. Patents aren't supposed to stop others from "thinking" about an idea or "sharing" an idea. Patents are supposed to protect your particular implementation of an idea from being copied. Algorithms are patentable (see GIF compression, MP3 en/decoding, etc.) and Google is simply protecting theirs. Think about Google's algorithm all you want -- share it with anyone you want, but don't use the exact same algorithm when you decide to create your own search engine. That's all.
Whatever happened to the morals of Google "don't be evil"?
Since when did filing for and receving a patent become "evil?"
I hope they aren't planning on trying to enforce this patent.
But that's exactly what patents are for: protecting your implementation of an idea from being copied and used by someone else for profit. You don't want them to sue some "JerkSearch.com" when they just ripoff Google's algorithm and then try to make some money from it?
As for the trademark, they actually expect to be able to restrict how people speak?
The previous/. article involved asking for their trademark to be respected -- that's all. How do you get "restrict how people speak" from this?
Jeez people, is it possible to get away from the pervasive "all IP is bad" groupthink around here?
No, but IMHO this is an example of a valid software patent. The fact is, a "decent developer" didn't come up with this idea and methodology -- or at least, didn't come up with it and patent it before Google's Krishna Bharat did.
Nope. Following in the one-word tradition of almost all UNIX apps, the original executable's name was simply "hack" which can be easily typed into a shell (as opposed to escaping the whitespace in a multi-word executable).
nothing prevents any smartass in that universe to claim that it is impossible for anything to cause creation of it, since the time began when the universe was created.
Exactly. And that is why the argument is metaphysical.
In your example, for those inside that universe, it is impossible to prove causation. For all intents and purposes, in that universe, the question of its cause is one for the philosophers of that universe to argue.
Slashdot Mirror
You made that whole quote block up
Why don't you just check at CNN yourself and then get back to me?
Accusing me of making things up is pretty damn low. Are you really so ignorant that you would say anything in order to protect your Gore-said-he-invented-the-Internet fantasy?
And when did this become a Gore v. Bush debate? You don't know what I think about Gore and you don't know what I think about Bush. Their political views have nothing to do with the simple fact that Gore never said he invented the Internet.
No go find someone else to accuse of "making things up."
Ass.
According to Microsoft's Bookshelf 96:
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
So I would think that Al Gore's quote was pretty much on the mark.
These references serve only to debunk a false interpretation of Al Gore's statement. Al Gore meant that his work in Congress led to the creation of the public Internet, not ARPAnet.
Microsoft Bookshelf 96 has this to say on the subject:
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
Clearly, Microsoft thinks Al Gore had a lot to do with the creation of the public Internet, hmm?
For the last time, Al Gore DID NOT say this.
And thanks, but I don't need a history lesson. I'm not arguing that Al Gore had anything to do with the development of ARPAnet, I'm arguing that Al Gore helped push legislation that led to the creation of the public Internet.
Since you're memory is escaping you, I'll help you out. Here is the exact CNN quote:
=====
CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
AL GORE: Well, I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
===
Notice he doesn't say "I invented the Internet" and notice that Wolf Blitzer's question is not a followup about some supposed "debate" statement.
And since I bet you're still not convinced, here's what Microsoft's Bookshelf 96 has to say about the public Internet:
===
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
===
Face it, Al Gore helped make the public Internet possible, and Microsoft and others agree. This is exactly what Al Gore meant when he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
This is NOT a false statement, no matter how much you desire it to be so.
The imaginary Al Gore quote "I invented the Internet." exists only in the heads of stubbornly biased, narrowminded conservatives.
Wrong. He did not say "I invented the Internet" (as the original poster stated). Nor did Gore's words infer "that he was a reason the internet got started so quickly" as you put it.
He said, in referring to his very vocal support for the passage of the bill that led to the PUBLIC Internet:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. "
How does Rush do it?
He does it by not trying to bullshit people into believing things that just aren't true.
Purposely spreading unsubstantiated rumors and lies is "not trying to bullshit people into believing things that just aren't true?"
Here's just ONE example of the numerous false statements he has made in print and on the air:
-----
In Chapter 16 of "The Way Things Ought To Be" Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the "Dukakis furlough program" and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.
What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis' biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it. But you would never hear Rush mention this. He doesn't want you to hear the whole truth.
-----
I don't think Rush is an idiot, so he must know that he's lying to all of you.
No, and he never said he did either. This is a great example of media paraphrasing blunders.
If you are making information available to the public, what right do you have to be angry when someone, *gasp* uses that information?
What right do you have? Dude, ever heard of "copy" right?
the signals will be calls to American Idol.
Advance note to comic book guy:
Yeah, yeah, I do know they couldn't have received those TV signals from Earth yet.
sees when he has nightmares.
What the chances going out in the work force and working with a mac? very slim, it's stupid.
Maybe it's stupid for someone who only has enough room in their brain to use one OS (that's not what you're saying, right?), but guess what? Most kids I know can figure out how to get around any OS in no time. A window is a window, a menu is a menu, a X is an X (where X is radio button, check box, push button, etc.).
Do you really think that using software like Word/IE/Photoshop/etc. on a Mac is that different from using it on a PC? C'mon!
Lindows didn't name their product to "deliberately trick consumers into buying their product" -- they did it to challenge Microsoft's claim of trademark -- and thus force Microsoft to sue and defend the "Windows" trademark, betting that Microsoft will fail.
Now, that still may be sleazy...
Now, making Microsoft lose its trademark may not be good for the Linux community either, but that's another topic.
In other words, the product was named "Lindows" precisely to challenge Microsoft's claim of trademark -- betting that Microsoft would cry foul and thus be force to defend it's (tenuous, IMHO) "Windows" trademark.
Because it was a unique and non-descriptive name of a computer company.
Why should any non-proper noun be allowed to be a trademark??
First, Apple is not a proper noun -- it's just a noun. Second, see answer to above. The key is that a trademark needs to be unique and non-descriptive.
The problem here is that Windows may be descriptive (that's what the Lindows case is trying to resolve), an idea that may be bolestered my Microsoft's own papers filed in the Apple case (arguing that "Windows" were generic UI elements, and hence that Apple had no claim on their "look and feel.").
Want to name your new cell phone product Peach? Congrats, you'll probably be able to register and protect that trademark. Want to name that same product "Cellphone"? Guess what? Even if you get a trademark (doubtful), you'll have a hell of time arguing that when "Lellphone" comes out. That's what this case is about.
"Space:1999, The Return Of Moonbase Alpha"?
A&R "scouts" have been doing this forever, using their ears to find and sign bands that have songs that may be hits. Using an algorithm to accomplish this task will likely lead to much of the same recycled top 40 trash we've always heard.
I think you're a bit confused. Patents aren't supposed to stop others from "thinking" about an idea or "sharing" an idea. Patents are supposed to protect your particular implementation of an idea from being copied. Algorithms are patentable (see GIF compression, MP3 en/decoding, etc.) and Google is simply protecting theirs. Think about Google's algorithm all you want -- share it with anyone you want, but don't use the exact same algorithm when you decide to create your own search engine. That's all.
Since when did filing for and receving a patent become "evil?"
I hope they aren't planning on trying to enforce this patent.
But that's exactly what patents are for: protecting your implementation of an idea from being copied and used by someone else for profit. You don't want them to sue some "JerkSearch.com" when they just ripoff Google's algorithm and then try to make some money from it?
As for the trademark, they actually expect to be able to restrict how people speak?
The previous /. article involved asking for their trademark to be respected -- that's all. How do you get "restrict how people speak" from this?
Jeez people, is it possible to get away from the pervasive "all IP is bad" groupthink around here?
No, but IMHO this is an example of a valid software patent. The fact is, a "decent developer" didn't come up with this idea and methodology -- or at least, didn't come up with it and patent it before Google's Krishna Bharat did.
Nope. Following in the one-word tradition of almost all UNIX apps, the original executable's name was simply "hack" which can be easily typed into a shell (as opposed to escaping the whitespace in a multi-word executable).
like Apple employee Bo3b Johnson (author of the Sillyballs DTS sample code). It certainly gave his common name a geeky uniqueness.
...would have been much better if he hadn't also been playing Dark Castle at the time.
Exactly. And that is why the argument is metaphysical.
In your example, for those inside that universe, it is impossible to prove causation. For all intents and purposes, in that universe, the question of its cause is one for the philosophers of that universe to argue.
Why, you're right! That link perfectly explains why you think something did happen "before" the big bang! Thanks!