You sound like a roman numeral accountant saying that anyone who thinks nothing can have value must be crazy.
Though it may have taken 300 years, the hindu arabic decimal system with its "nothing" holding a place value (zero) turned out to be so easy and powerful that teh adverage person could easily out do the roman numeral accountants.
The same it is with programming, there is a way to approach it that is easier and even boring. It's just a matter of approaching it in terms of abstraction physics. Some that we all use everyday and regardless of whether or not we use computers.
Richard Stallman believes in Free Software and I say software will never be genuinely free untill the creation of it is easy enough to do that most anyone will upon the need or inspiration to.
In law its often used in swearing in. "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" And of course the proceedings that follow based on this is the use of thruth in a manner of "A point" this of "A point" that which often results in a distortion of what is real and honest.
The word truth has been so distorted and manipulated that someone finally challenged it...
I don't use them myself as I don't like using the phone in general, but I hear enough of other peoples ring tones to know:
There is not enough of a tone sequence to pay a royality on. Only enough to play the game "what ring tone is that from?"
Seriously, it may just barely step over the copyright line by linke three notes of something BUT there is the fair use clause. And considering the most useful thing about ring tones is having a different one than everyone else around you, its not like they are of much valueto share.
Maybe you have collectors of ring tone (like you did with amiga mod files - but even then a mod file is at least a whole song) and perhaps The RIAA should push legistration for requiring collectors to register (get a collector license) or something.
Another thought is that ring tone users, should charge the RIAA for using their phone as an advertising media, like ads on your web site and getting paid for clicks...
But in no case should RIAA be able to use ring tones as an excuse to lower the royalities the artist get. If anythinhg they shoul increase them if they are not paying the phone users for advertising space.
Somebody really needs to lay it all out and really slap the RIAA down via exposure of their hyporacies.
To be clear, there is no reason with todays technology to subsidize new band promotional risks with the profits off the successful artist (one of the reason we having had enough real creativity on the air). What this means is that the profits/finances the record industry needed in the past to bring new artists to the public with hope the public will buy, doesn't need to be spent today as the internet is alot less expensive and artist can themselves get a following to prove themselves and have bargaining power with any contract they might sign with a label. The fact they did it themselves should show they are serious and business oriented. This path greatly reduces the need to subsidize and mean the successful artist should get more... not less (as they are not helping tro pay for other unknow artist to be market tested)
Maybe that is the problem here! Maybe the new technology is resulting in successful artist annual income to be raising and the RIAA figures it can take some of it but need an excuse (and we all know they do make use of excuses/lies to support their claims).
...Cyber space virtual reality where you never really die and someone else really does own all your base.
Intellectual property rights are man created and man enforced where they can reasonably be enforced.
However, the value of the intellectual property only goes as far as the ability to share it, via licensing or some other method of "regulation" of the value exchange flow.
You can have all the intellectual property in the world but to yourself it is value less, it is only upon sharing it that it becomes valuable or has value.
With this in mind the apex of debate is regarding at what time does the IP rights constraints become to constraining to others on the path to human advancement that it falsely limits human advancement even effecting the author/inventor life and living environment?
Maybe some see creative works of non-invention as something that doesn't apply to this but the fact is that such creative works being constrained of the past would have, for example, nearly eliminated all science fiction of today. Today all science fiction contains enough elements of works previously done that it would be virtuallyt impossible to write a decent story. The same applies to alot of music.
Intellectual property right are intended to benefit the creator of it, but not to give them a permanet monopoly on it.
As a human character, right and duty, we build upon and with the works of those before us. If we did not then we could not evolved our environment, society, technology, medicine, shelter, transportation etc.. We'd still be living in caves and hunting for food.
Now what if technology could reach the rate of advancement that itself would provide solutions fast enough that we could live much longer, healthier, etc. And this would certainly effect any living "creator"
This cannot happen with IP rights constraining such forward movement!
It's not like google is running his board or that he is paying google to debug his site.
I felt like making some silly comment about how lost the site is with out creationism and science. Without either the site couldn't exist, or at least there would be nothing to "talk" about.
Some paradoxs:
We have science and use it to do things, to create things. Someday we may have the know how to create a galaxy and care for it lie a farmer does his crop. To inject life and help mold it to a conscious life from. But what would hat life form believe? Creationism, that they can never be such creator we have become? Maybe they would rather develope science and learn how to.
One cannot exist without the other.
Right to life vs. freedome of choice is another paradox exposed by a starving child who doesn't seem to have the freedome of choice to eat some food and there for will lose his right to life. Imagin all teh children that could have been feed, clothed, taught, given shelter and medicine with all the resources that have been wasted in the arguement....
People who something for themselves can sometime take advantage of something symbotic by falsely splitting it to create a public arguement that sells their book or presence, wins them an election, etc.. .
It seems to me that ATM machines get a great deal more use and account for a great deal of money. They give a receipt and also have an internal paper log. It takes two people to open one up legally....
You'd think this was new technology in light of the voting machine problems. But ATMs have been in use for at least a quarter century.
actually it should never have been without a paper trail. It's not like we don't have enough prior experience with data losss not to know how useful a paper trail is. And the government with its sexdulpicates should have already know it.
If an article become controversal then it become alot less accurate. If and article isn't hearsay then it become deletable (a matter of wikipedia policy). If an article is generic and more or less common knowledge, then it is likely to be more accurate.
But there is one remaining fact:
Wikipedia holds no liability. so it really is like any profession, there are idiots in the bunch.
USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK, as there is no life guard.
How I know this from personal experience where an article was posted about myself (by another whom I was unaware of)in error and existed for over a year before I noticed and tried to correct it. The correction resulted in the article being removed as well as an article correcting and validating an entry existance in wikipedia on myself.
The sum result is libel. But do I have any recourse? No, because wikipedia is not an "official resource"
I mean if they can duplicate it then they should be able to take a prototype and put it into mass production for cost less then anywhere else. And since China is supposed to be a socialistic society then that means their society gets a big discount.
right?
Its the industrial age in china and lets fact it, they have more people then when we went thru that age.
Are we now going to have patents issued for methods of combinatory invention?
If So I claim patent rights on + (plus), - (minus) concepts and any complexicated use of them up to but not excluding any advanced combinatory method parralleling our most advanced methods of mathmatics or symbolic calculation equivilance. I license them to anyone under the same terms of which they either license their patents or in the event of a user, then the terms of the license of applied to their use of the patent that usinsh mine. Including all the licensing fees, consumer costs typically imposed or incurred thru such license.
So make me rich financially or make us all rich in the values we are able to experience in our life or stop thinking.
The point is: The article seems to be about the decussion of simple combinatory patents. But don't we all exist upon the inventions and discoveries of centuries of man before us?
Donkey Physics: The physics of being a jackass, stuborn, unreasonable and even deceptive (thanks for the deception example, BTW)
Donkey Physics is not found on wikipedia, but it should be there for describing the action characteristics of human jackasses.
The link you provided has no results as Abstraction Physics was loosely judged by a couple wikipedia controllers as being original research and even I supported it's removal, due a distorted entry about myself lasting over a year before I found out about it and later decided to correct it, while posting the article on Abstraction Physics as a supporting article as to the real me.
So I know how wrong and biased wikipedia can be, personally and technically and politically. Wikipedia is in no way any sort of authoritive resource of information but rather should have a link to an disclaimer (on every page of every entry and change log) similiar to what you find in a typical software license.... Namely "Use at your own risk" wikipedia has no liability.
There is also the policies of wikipedia designed to enforce the "no liability stand" as it only allows what is in essence "hearsay" entry.
But even wikipedia uses abstraction physics. And even you noted that Google findings found more than than just from myself. Do you have a problem with Richard Stallman? Linus T., Steve Jobs, etc. If not then why do you have a problem with me? These guys started things, maybe I did too, or maybe I'm just the most outspoken voice on the matter (world authority?. Is linux an OS? Or why do some call it GNU/Linux?
Only you'll have to do some genuine research to find out about me. If you'd do honest research you might just find how much you are applying donkey physics.
Don't want to pay for the article "Physics of Computational Abstraction"? (google it) to help you find out about you? Well you don't have to. You too can get if for free along with other relevant articles by another researcher (who has sheep skins).
And to think, I didn't know of his existance until researching for references to the wikipedia article. Certainly I'm not the only one knowledgable of what is in essence the application of abstractions and there are seem to be others comming to recognize a common term or phrase to describe what they otherwaise know via second nature.
And about the wikipedia article I kept on my own site. Do you have problems understanding what is written? Do you deny the basic actions identified? If you have denial problems than simply don't use the actions you disagree with......if you can. Otherwise you are practicing your donkey physics.
Have you practiced your donkey physics enough to make it second nature for you, yet?
Natural Law (laws that govern above the level of mans ability to enforce any law he may make against it) Physical Phenomenon (also something beyond mans reasonable control and ability to enforce) Abstract Ideas (that which has no physical property, though it may be expessed/communicated thru physical media). Mathmatical algorithyms are a fourth but in essence math is an association, not a thing, between abstraction and accounting of the concrete. Also that which is obvious to anyone skilled in the art of which the product is used.
Patents also require inventorship and originality. You can't patent something someone else did. Same with copyright, if you are not the author, you can't copyright it, though originality is a little more flexiable with copyrights (not its only because you can get a copyright on something not so original, but prior art can later overcome your copyrights - the copyright office does notr require you to submit prior art and leves originality up to anyone interested in challenging it - of course in court) Exception to these is if the person of creation is employed to do so, for you. Still their name is attached.
You cannot patent what has been made public for a given time before a patent application is applied for. Prior art issue apply in defence against originality.
Now there is also the need to be novel and useful, though useful today may mean using it's to earn you an income from an infringment lawsuit (which should be grounds to dismiss such a claim as it does not contribute to the founding fathers heart intent.)
Patents do not give you the right to produce the object of patent, as you can invent a bomb and it can meet all the requirement of patentability and you can even eran royalities off of it (perhaps selling a license to the government if they don't just take it from you), but you are not given teh right to produce it by being granted a patent. hat a patent does is give you the right to say "NO, you canno use" to others.
Its this grant of saying "NO" that is also the basis of the above things that cannot be patented. If you cannot reasonable enforce "NO" then what is the point of applying for a patent (regardless of those who think getting a patent to protect an idea, that it stay open and free.... well there are easier and less expencive ways to do such as mentioned above.)
The manifestation of the concept of granting a right to say "NO, you cannot use" has reached its apex of being more a tool to extract value, from others, then it is to earn directly off the product and sale of the product of the patent. Leave it to man to abuse others through the distortion and manipulation and interpretation of his own creation of laws, laws that other before him probably created.
About that which is not patentable.
Software!
It is by the natural laws of human capabilities to create and use abstractions. It is also by the human rights of men to communicate with each other via such abstractions and that it is through the use of abstract communication that man is enabled to create a great deal, from building physical things such as homes, roads, vehicles, cloths, medicine and treatment of illnesses, even laws that dictate how a traffic light is to work, etc.. These all are examples of physical phenomenon. Not the traffice light, cloths, homes, etc. but the physical phenomenon of abstraction application, the conversion from abstract communication to physical movement. It is a human characteristic, to some degree found in other animals but only of a lower level of abstraction ability.
Software is often argued to be pure mathmatical algorithyms and that this is reason enough for it to not be patentable. Though many might not grasp so easy the ideas that words can somehow be numbers too. But no-matter math and all other abstractions fall into the scope of what is abstraction.
Natural law, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas, mathmatic......All of these non-patentable facets and more apply to software, so wh
How much Open Source Intellectual Property is Microsoft Infringing upon? How much are they using that they are not infringing upon due to a given license such as BSD?
There is a method in the computer industry between companies as to how they calculate teh amount of protection money they pass between themselves,
Take the granted patent paper work and stack it up, measure it and compare it to other stacks. The largest stack wins but the other have to pay protection money to the larger stacks. I don't know the specific formula as to how they calculate it, but it does happen.
So, the FSF can stack its owned stuff up but there is alot more that teh FSF does not own. Perhaps there should be some sort of "count my work in the FOSS stack" method so that we might just see how large our (FOSS) IP stack is (and this would of cource count anti-patent IP prior art).
There are two efforts regarding software patents. "Open source as Prior Art" and a Peer Review project, but both of these are focused and supportive of software patents.
And that is the main problem, as software, by its very nature is provably not patentable. Problem is, neither side of the software rights battle wants to develop the proof of this. Human History has plenty of evidence of the usefulness of denial, but eventually this fact will come out, as facts of the earth revolving around the sun, the hindu arabic decimal system being more powerful then the roman numeral system of mathmatics, etc.
Its really rather obvious once you get past whatever idea is keeping you from seeing teh simplicity of it. The arguement that only a fool would think nothing can have value (re: the zero place holder in teh decimal system) Nobody can break the four minute mile, untill somone did, and then other followed quickly as their mental block was gone.
But even if you don't see it, consider what it wou;d mean across the software industry, should such simplicity of programming happen.
How many have a cell phone ring tone....
on
When Beige Won't Do
·
· Score: 1
that sounds like an old telephone ring?
Face it, beige is here to stay.... just not as much.
For my windows home needs I can wait to upgrade the OS at the point where people are throwing away systems with it installed already. By that time I'll be able to find fixes for the bugs thru google. And best of all, it won't cost me anything,
Mostly I use linux but suspect that I really should get past the cups problems by learning how to network machines and use the windows box for a print server. Now there is an idea, network a windows tossed out box for the shortcommings of linux.
So is there such a hack that allows me to do such a printer thing from inside Linux applications like gimp? To send it thru a windows box and windows printer driver?
Printing is the only pain I have about Linux. And this is only because its a common desktop need.
Ultimately, do you really need to virtualize a windows box at home?
Artificial intelligence is the by product of automating enought that the sum generated the appearance of human character in the reflection of its program processing.
I was confused. Then I clicked on your link. Then I became even more confused.
Do you not recognize the 9-10 actions you do repetitively? if you don't then you are easy to deceive.
Why don't they just suggest we kill ourselfs off as its certainly humans creating the global warming problem.
I saw on PBS a show on the darkl ages of the 1500's that was likely a volcano explosion in teh indonesia area. It caused the darkening of the sky for some decade or three. Such that daylight was short and heavily masked by the cloud of sulfer covering the planet, It wasn't a healty or abundant farming time for humans.
... you can never have enough of them so to calculate what only a higher level of math can accomplish in the hands of the common man.
Does anyone really think that in 50 -100 years anyone is going to need the skill set we now require for "Information Technology"?
In other words, IT can be made a great deal simpler and will be as demand increases and requires more than can be educated at the current required level of roman numeral mathmatics.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah?
You sound like a roman numeral accountant saying that anyone who thinks nothing can have value must be crazy.
Though it may have taken 300 years, the hindu arabic decimal system with its "nothing" holding a place value (zero) turned out to be so easy and powerful that teh adverage person could easily out do the roman numeral accountants.
The same it is with programming, there is a way to approach it that is easier and even boring.
It's just a matter of approaching it in terms of abstraction physics. Some that we all use everyday and regardless of whether or not we use computers.
Richard Stallman believes in Free Software and I say software will never be genuinely free untill the creation of it is easy enough to do that most anyone will upon the need or inspiration to.
see http://www.threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html and recognize the ten base actions.
first understand that we are all consumers and producers.
With that in mind:
"Consumer choice rules"
And when the choice is not acceptable to the consumer, they put on their producer hat and make it for themselves and to share.
That's OSS!!
The essence why Richard Stallman wrote the GPL in the first place.
He was unhappy what rights his employer, at the time, was claiming of his work.
In law its often used in swearing in. "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
And of course the proceedings that follow based on this is the use of thruth in a manner of "A point" this of "A point" that which often results in a distortion of what is real and honest.
The word truth has been so distorted and manipulated that someone finally challenged it...
The Honesty oath is now law of the land
http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/oath.htm
"Truthiness" is nothing more then further proof of the lessor and lessinging value of the word "truth" over "honesty."
...I didn't know Vista was out yet. Thought it was still in the debuggng stage...
Or maybe I'm still sleeping and this is a dream. Vista released with major operational flaws. Now that's a Linux promotion!
I don't use them myself as I don't like using the phone in general, but I hear enough of other peoples ring tones to know:
There is not enough of a tone sequence to pay a royality on. Only enough to play the game "what ring tone is that from?"
Seriously, it may just barely step over the copyright line by linke three notes of something BUT there is the fair use clause.
And considering the most useful thing about ring tones is having a different one than everyone else around you, its not like they are of much valueto share.
Maybe you have collectors of ring tone (like you did with amiga mod files - but even then a mod file is at least a whole song) and perhaps The RIAA should push legistration for requiring collectors to register (get a collector license) or something.
Another thought is that ring tone users, should charge the RIAA for using their phone as an advertising media, like ads on your web site and getting paid for clicks...
But in no case should RIAA be able to use ring tones as an excuse to lower the royalities the artist get. If anythinhg they shoul increase them if they are not paying the phone users for advertising space.
Somebody really needs to lay it all out and really slap the RIAA down via exposure of their hyporacies.
To be clear, there is no reason with todays technology to subsidize new band promotional risks with the profits off the successful artist (one of the reason we having had enough real creativity on the air). What this means is that the profits/finances the record industry needed in the past to bring new artists to the public with hope the public will buy, doesn't need to be spent today as the internet is alot less expensive and artist can themselves get a following to prove themselves and have bargaining power with any contract they might sign with a label. The fact they did it themselves should show they are serious and business oriented. This path greatly reduces the need to subsidize and mean the successful artist should get more... not less (as they are not helping tro pay for other unknow artist to be market tested)
Maybe that is the problem here! Maybe the new technology is resulting in successful artist annual income to be raising and the RIAA figures it can take some of it but need an excuse (and we all know they do make use of excuses/lies to support their claims).
...Cyber space virtual reality where you never really die and someone else really does own all your base.
Intellectual property rights are man created and man enforced where they can reasonably be enforced.
However, the value of the intellectual property only goes as far as the ability to share it, via licensing or some other method of "regulation" of the value exchange flow.
You can have all the intellectual property in the world but to yourself it is value less, it is only upon sharing it that it becomes valuable or has value.
With this in mind the apex of debate is regarding at what time does the IP rights constraints become to constraining to others on the path to human advancement that it falsely limits human advancement even effecting the author/inventor life and living environment?
Maybe some see creative works of non-invention as something that doesn't apply to this but the fact is that such creative works being constrained of the past would have, for example, nearly eliminated all science fiction of today. Today all science fiction contains enough elements of works previously done that it would be virtuallyt impossible to write a decent story. The same applies to alot of music.
Intellectual property right are intended to benefit the creator of it, but not to give them a permanet monopoly on it.
As a human character, right and duty, we build upon and with the works of those before us. If we did not then we could not evolved our environment, society, technology, medicine, shelter, transportation etc.. We'd still be living in caves and hunting for food.
Now what if technology could reach the rate of advancement that itself would provide solutions fast enough that we could live much longer, healthier, etc. And this would certainly effect any living "creator"
This cannot happen with IP rights constraining such forward movement!
It's not like google is running his board or that he is paying google to debug his site.
I felt like making some silly comment about how lost the site is with out creationism and science.
Without either the site couldn't exist, or at least there would be nothing to "talk" about.
Some paradoxs:
We have science and use it to do things, to create things. Someday we may have the know how to create a galaxy and care for it lie a farmer does his crop. To inject life and help mold it to a conscious life from. But what would hat life form believe? Creationism, that they can never be such creator we have become? Maybe they would rather develope science and learn how to.
One cannot exist without the other.
Right to life vs. freedome of choice is another paradox exposed by a starving child who doesn't seem to have the freedome of choice to eat some food and there for will lose his right to life. Imagin all teh children that could have been feed, clothed, taught, given shelter and medicine with all the resources that have been wasted in the arguement....
People who something for themselves can sometime take advantage of something symbotic by falsely splitting it to create a public arguement that sells their book or presence, wins them an election, etc..
.
It seems to me that ATM machines get a great deal more use and account for a great deal of money. They give a receipt and also have an internal paper log. It takes two people to open one up legally ....
You'd think this was new technology in light of the voting machine problems.
But ATMs have been in use for at least a quarter century.
actually it should never have been without a paper trail.
It's not like we don't have enough prior experience with data losss not to know how useful a paper trail is.
And the government with its sexdulpicates should have already know it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fuck+off&start=0&ie =utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:e n-US:official
Notice wikipedia entry.
how do I filter the spam being sent me thru such utilities?
....in wikipedia?
Oh wait did I say that??
If an article become controversal then it become alot less accurate.
If and article isn't hearsay then it become deletable (a matter of wikipedia policy).
If an article is generic and more or less common knowledge, then it is likely to be more accurate.
But there is one remaining fact:
Wikipedia holds no liability. so it really is like any profession, there are idiots in the bunch.
USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK, as there is no life guard.
How I know this from personal experience where an article was posted about myself (by another whom I was unaware of)in error and existed for over a year before I noticed and tried to correct it. The correction resulted in the article being removed as well as an article correcting and validating an entry existance in wikipedia on myself.
The sum result is libel. But do I have any recourse? No, because wikipedia is not an "official resource"
SCO can't find any infringing code in teh "OPEN SOURCE" of GNU/Linux.
So there is nothing for GNU/Linux to have to remove and work around.
Or was this already obvious?
... its just on lunch break and waiting for a raise.
Duplication plant?
I mean if they can duplicate it then they should be able to take a prototype and put it into mass production for cost less then anywhere else.
And since China is supposed to be a socialistic society then that means their society gets a big discount.
right?
Its the industrial age in china and lets fact it, they have more people then when we went thru that age.
Are we now going to have patents issued for methods of combinatory invention?
If So I claim patent rights on + (plus), - (minus) concepts and any complexicated use of them up to but not excluding any advanced combinatory method parralleling our most advanced methods of mathmatics or symbolic calculation equivilance. I license them to anyone under the same terms of which they either license their patents or in the event of a user, then the terms of the license of applied to their use of the patent that usinsh mine. Including all the licensing fees, consumer costs typically imposed or incurred thru such license.
So make me rich financially or make us all rich in the values we are able to experience in our life or stop thinking.
The point is: The article seems to be about the decussion of simple combinatory patents. But don't we all exist upon the inventions and discoveries of centuries of man before us?
Donkey Physics: The physics of being a jackass, stuborn, unreasonable and even deceptive (thanks for the deception example, BTW)
Donkey Physics is not found on wikipedia, but it should be there for describing the action characteristics of human jackasses.
The link you provided has no results as Abstraction Physics was loosely judged by a couple wikipedia controllers as being original research and even I supported it's removal, due a distorted entry about myself lasting over a year before I found out about it and later decided to correct it, while posting the article on Abstraction Physics as a supporting article as to the real me.
So I know how wrong and biased wikipedia can be, personally and technically and politically. Wikipedia is in no way any sort of authoritive resource of information but rather should have a link to an disclaimer (on every page of every entry and change log) similiar to what you find in a typical software license.... Namely "Use at your own risk" wikipedia has no liability.
There is also the policies of wikipedia designed to enforce the "no liability stand" as it only allows what is in essence "hearsay" entry.
But even wikipedia uses abstraction physics. And even you noted that Google findings found more than than just from myself.
Do you have a problem with Richard Stallman? Linus T., Steve Jobs, etc. If not then why do you have a problem with me? These guys started things, maybe I did too, or maybe I'm just the most outspoken voice on the matter (world authority?. Is linux an OS? Or why do some call it GNU/Linux?
Only you'll have to do some genuine research to find out about me.
If you'd do honest research you might just find how much you are applying donkey physics.
Don't want to pay for the article "Physics of Computational Abstraction"? (google it) to help you find out about you?
Well you don't have to. You too can get if for free along with other relevant articles by another researcher (who has sheep skins).
http://www.matzkefamily.net/doug/
And to think, I didn't know of his existance until researching for references to the wikipedia article. Certainly I'm not the only one knowledgable of what is in essence the application of abstractions and there are seem to be others comming to recognize a common term or phrase to describe what they otherwaise know via second nature.
And about the wikipedia article I kept on my own site. Do you have problems understanding what is written? Do you deny the basic actions identified?
If you have denial problems than simply don't use the actions you disagree with......if you can. Otherwise you are practicing your donkey physics.
Have you practiced your donkey physics enough to make it second nature for you, yet?
Natural Law (laws that govern above the level of mans ability to enforce any law he may make against it)
Physical Phenomenon (also something beyond mans reasonable control and ability to enforce)
Abstract Ideas (that which has no physical property, though it may be expessed/communicated thru physical media).
Mathmatical algorithyms are a fourth but in essence math is an association, not a thing, between abstraction and accounting of the concrete.
Also that which is obvious to anyone skilled in the art of which the product is used.
Patents also require inventorship and originality. You can't patent something someone else did.
Same with copyright, if you are not the author, you can't copyright it, though originality is a little more flexiable with copyrights
(not its only because you can get a copyright on something not so original, but prior art can later overcome your copyrights - the copyright office does notr require you to submit prior art and leves originality up to anyone interested in challenging it - of course in court)
Exception to these is if the person of creation is employed to do so, for you. Still their name is attached.
You cannot patent what has been made public for a given time before a patent application is applied for.
Prior art issue apply in defence against originality.
Now there is also the need to be novel and useful, though useful today may mean using it's to earn you an income from an infringment lawsuit (which should be grounds to dismiss such a claim as it does not contribute to the founding fathers heart intent.)
Patents do not give you the right to produce the object of patent, as you can invent a bomb and it can meet all the requirement of patentability and you can even eran royalities off of it (perhaps selling a license to the government if they don't just take it from you), but you are not given teh right to produce it by being granted a patent. hat a patent does is give you the right to say "NO, you canno use" to others.
Its this grant of saying "NO" that is also the basis of the above things that cannot be patented. If you cannot reasonable enforce "NO" then what is the point of applying for a patent (regardless of those who think getting a patent to protect an idea, that it stay open and free.... well there are easier and less expencive ways to do such as mentioned above.)
The manifestation of the concept of granting a right to say "NO, you cannot use" has reached its apex of being more a tool to extract value, from others, then it is to earn directly off the product and sale of the product of the patent. Leave it to man to abuse others through the distortion and manipulation and interpretation of his own creation of laws, laws that other before him probably created.
About that which is not patentable.
Software!
It is by the natural laws of human capabilities to create and use abstractions. It is also by the human rights of men to communicate with each other via such abstractions and that it is through the use of abstract communication that man is enabled to create a great deal, from building physical things such as homes, roads, vehicles, cloths, medicine and treatment of illnesses, even laws that dictate how a traffic light is to work, etc.. These all are examples of physical phenomenon. Not the traffice light, cloths, homes, etc. but the physical phenomenon of abstraction application, the conversion from abstract communication to physical movement. It is a human characteristic, to some degree found in other animals but only of a lower level of abstraction ability.
Software is often argued to be pure mathmatical algorithyms and that this is reason enough for it to not be patentable. Though many might not grasp so easy the ideas that words can somehow be numbers too. But no-matter math and all other abstractions fall into the scope of what is abstraction.
Natural law, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas, mathmatic......All of these non-patentable facets and more apply to software, so wh
How much Open Source Intellectual Property is Microsoft Infringing upon? How much are they using that they are not infringing upon due to a given license such as BSD?
There is a method in the computer industry between companies as to how they calculate teh amount of protection money they pass between themselves,
Take the granted patent paper work and stack it up, measure it and compare it to other stacks. The largest stack wins but the other have to pay protection money to the larger stacks. I don't know the specific formula as to how they calculate it, but it does happen.
So, the FSF can stack its owned stuff up but there is alot more that teh FSF does not own.
Perhaps there should be some sort of "count my work in the FOSS stack" method so that we might just see how large our (FOSS) IP stack is (and this would of cource count anti-patent IP prior art).
There are two efforts regarding software patents. "Open source as Prior Art" and a Peer Review project, but both of these are focused and supportive of software patents.
And that is the main problem, as software, by its very nature is provably not patentable. Problem is, neither side of the software rights battle wants to develop the proof of this. Human History has plenty of evidence of the usefulness of denial, but eventually this fact will come out, as facts of the earth revolving around the sun, the hindu arabic decimal system being more powerful then the roman numeral system of mathmatics, etc.
There is a quality and characteristic of being human, a human right. A natural right to apply abstraction physics. http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
Its really rather obvious once you get past whatever idea is keeping you from seeing teh simplicity of it.
The arguement that only a fool would think nothing can have value (re: the zero place holder in teh decimal system)
Nobody can break the four minute mile, untill somone did, and then other followed quickly as their mental block was gone.
But even if you don't see it, consider what it wou;d mean across the software industry, should such simplicity of programming happen.
that sounds like an old telephone ring?
Face it, beige is here to stay.... just not as much.
For my windows home needs I can wait to upgrade the OS at the point where people are throwing away systems with it installed already.
By that time I'll be able to find fixes for the bugs thru google. And best of all, it won't cost me anything,
Mostly I use linux but suspect that I really should get past the cups problems by learning how to network machines and use the windows box for a print server. Now there is an idea, network a windows tossed out box for the shortcommings of linux.
So is there such a hack that allows me to do such a printer thing from inside Linux applications like gimp? To send it thru a windows box and windows printer driver?
Printing is the only pain I have about Linux. And this is only because its a common desktop need.
Ultimately, do you really need to virtualize a windows box at home?
Do you not recognize the 9-10 actions you do repetitively?
if you don't then you are easy to deceive.
Why don't they just suggest we kill ourselfs off as its certainly humans creating the global warming problem.
I saw on PBS a show on the darkl ages of the 1500's that was likely a volcano explosion in teh indonesia area. It caused the darkening of the sky for some decade or three. Such that daylight was short and heavily masked by the cloud of sulfer covering the planet, It wasn't a healty or abundant farming time for humans.
follow the money.
trillion dollar bet, read the transcript and know money comes and goes but never just appears and disapears.
That will never happen again and as such, neither will such a thing result in such a large free flow of money to invest in mindless ventures.
... you can never have enough of them so to calculate what only a higher level of math can accomplish in the hands of the common man.
Does anyone really think that in 50 -100 years anyone is going to need the skill set we now require for "Information Technology"?
In other words, IT can be made a great deal simpler and will be as demand increases and requires more than can be educated at the current required level of roman numeral mathmatics.