I.B.M. is one of several companies that have agreed to submit some patent applications for open peer review as part of the project, beginning early next year. The others include Microsoft, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Intel and Red Hat.
The above-mentioned corporations do all skilled legal staff but patent litigation is not their business. IBM and GE in particular have expertise that allow them to follow through on their patents. Any "copy-cats" would have difficulty producing products from many of the more esoteric, high tech or highly process oriented technologies these companies have to offer.
If patent finding publishing becomes widespread, it will give companies the legal footing to allow them to concentrate on creating technology rather than split hairs over buzzwords. We see an aligning of real innovators against those who simply gamble that some court will award them money like mana from heaven.
That is exactly correct. This is a completely boneheaded maneauver and runs counter to taking care of 'every little detail'. One 'little detail' they missed is what leash length their rabid legal department should have.
My preschool was arrainged in open activity stations. We were taught explicitly to enjoy one station as long as one would like and not share. There were plenty of stations, so if you waited your turn, you were free to use it as long as you wanted. If you got bored waiting, there were other things to do. The real reason to share is when you like someone and want them to be happy, not because you feel some social pressure.
The result was that the children did not bug each other or whine about not getting as much as they wanted. No one was hurried. Anyone who is hurried out of a restaurant after a long wait knows how frustrating being hurried out is.
(Yes, this is Off Topic, but I could not resist a reply)
This Bill would modernize and simplify the process of getting a FISA warrant so that they can focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans
Excuse me, but that sounds like a smokescreen intended to 'soften the blow' that this law has on civil liberties. You know as well as I do that no one in the government is going to focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans because of this bill. The government may or many not have success infiltrating terrorist cells because of this, but they are damn well going to continue infiltrating anti-war knitting clubs and other 'subversive' organisations (Mercury News). That is indefensible and Just Plain Wrong.
The only way to protect civil liberties and gather good intelligence is to have checks and balances and many eyes upon a transparent process.
He did that before the testimony. It wasn't retroactive. (Yes, what came out of his lips was a lie no matter the letter of the law).
Major Lie Score
Bush : WMD, "Will prosecute who played the Plame Name Game", "Mission Accomplished",
"We don't spy on Americans", "Osama will be caught", "We will have a stable Iraq"
I got sick of the "FIRST POST" meme from a while back. Then my user name got truncated from 'Phantom of the Operating System' to 'Phanom of the Opera' so I had thought my account was deleted. On a whim a year ago, I tried 'Phantom of the Opera' and viola; I am back.
Your argument boils down to "People who do work or invest in it should be compensated for it and have control over it." That isn't something outlandish, but that still does not convey an "ownership" of information. If you removed these patent and copyright laws people would still entertain and invent.
Inventing side : These days, it is not so much the people who come up with ideas who reap the rewards from them, it is the people who either invest in those ideas, or who use underhanded tactics and expensive lawyers (reducing the desire to invent if you know your invention will be stolen). If there weren't these patent laws, companies would have to maintain some secrecy and do a better job building their inventions. Mercy! Disaster!
Music/Media side: You seem more worried about people pirating a song or movies. If these laws didn't exist to protect their work, they would have to give concerts, only release their work to movies. Oh, they wouldn't rake in millions? Awwwwww, so sad.
If I listen to a song, I have the information of that song as a memory in my head. No one else can own that. That would be silly.
I think I understand what you mean. There is a bit of a cultural difference. In the United States, there are effectively two candidates for any position. If one loses, the other wins. (Yes, there are rare cases where more than two candidates affect the election).
In the case where no votes are randomly added or removed randomly, the 'slightly losing' candidate would certainly lose. In the case where votes are randomly added or removed randomly, the slightly losing candidate has a chance to gain a certain number of votes. If the race is tight enought, a fluctation could push the candidate over the edge.
I think you make the point that any candidate using their influence to make things more chaotic in an election is committing a form of fraud.
I believe democracy is being threatened in the United States, but I would be foolish to think this a new problem. What is new is that there are mechanical black box voting machines. It is a conflict of interest when you have a company that makes voting machines that also gives to a political campaign.
So why exactly would anyone on earth ever develop intellectual property of any kind ever again?
I enjoy inventing for the sake of inventing. There will be people like that.
IP laws hurt inventing. It is pretty easy for someone to rip off someone else's invention and patent it away. Look at what happened to Philo T Farnsworth.
Why bother inventing something when someone with sneaky tricks and a better attorney can snatch it up from you.
You mean the voters? Some know, some don't. It is our job to educate people.
If you know the politicians and beaurocrats? Some know and care, some know and delight. Any randomness is going to increase the chance of a slightly losing candidate to actually win.
If the majority of the Chinese are content with their government or its actions (which is the case otherwise their country would be in a civil war until it changed) we as a world community have to respect their right to govern their country.
How can we know if the majority are content with laws like these? Even if a minority are not content, that minority could be in the hundreds of millions.
The well behaved applications keep those resources (the configurations and stuff) in the application icon directory from what I've seen. For example, the games I have keep the save files inside that directory tree, not in the users' Library directories.
There is nothing keeping applications from writing outside their resources directory other than normal filesystem permissions. It's just a rather nice convention.
Most OS X application installations work like this :
Drag the program icon from the install disco to the Applications directory.
To uninstall, just drag the program icon to the trash.
The icon is actually a directory that holds resources, libs and executables.
Want to reinstall but keep the old one around just in case? Rename the icon and drag the new one over.
It is inevitable that there is going to be more censorship and limitations on citizens' freedoms around the globe. The reason for this is that people spend a disproportionate amount of attention on what frightens them the most. Dying of a terrorist attack is more terrifying than being censored.
Compare traffic fatalites per annum with the terrorism fatalities.
terrorism : 2,976 fatalities in 9/11 | spending 37.7 billion dollars (just for homeland security)
traffic : 41,945 fatailities in 2000 | spending 5.3 billion dollars (just for the TSA)
If there is an infinitesimal chance that censorship is going to prevent something that scares them, people in general are going to take that chance. The blogs may actually inspire terrorism, and it is easier to address that than the issues that inspire those blogs.
Slashdot Mirror
The above-mentioned corporations do all skilled legal staff but patent litigation is not their business. IBM and GE in particular have expertise that allow them to follow through on their patents. Any "copy-cats" would have difficulty producing products from many of the more esoteric, high tech or highly process oriented technologies these companies have to offer.
If patent finding publishing becomes widespread, it will give companies the legal footing to allow them to concentrate on creating technology rather than split hairs over buzzwords. We see an aligning of real innovators against those who simply gamble that some court will award them money like mana from heaven.
That is exactly correct. This is a completely boneheaded maneauver and runs counter to taking care of 'every little detail'. One 'little detail' they missed is what leash length their rabid legal department should have.
This is going to bite them in the ass.
My preschool was arrainged in open activity stations. We were taught explicitly to enjoy one station as long as one would like and not share. There were plenty of stations, so if you waited your turn, you were free to use it as long as you wanted. If you got bored waiting, there were other things to do. The real reason to share is when you like someone and want them to be happy, not because you feel some social pressure.
The result was that the children did not bug each other or whine about not getting as much as they wanted. No one was hurried. Anyone who is hurried out of a restaurant after a long wait knows how frustrating being hurried out is.
(Yes, this is Off Topic, but I could not resist a reply)
Is it possible to be an effective anonymous journalist? I ask because of events like the HP scandal (HP had journalists investigated) and the jailing of Josh Wolf http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/08/01/MNGVQK97AK4.DTL.
scientist : "We have to explore space. and test our rockets"
.. they will get space radiation that will give us a race of supermen"
bureaucrat : "What's in it for prestige? Come on, testing rockets?"
scientist : "Look um, its really important that we get this right."
b : "I can't put that in a glorious press release. You'll have to do better than that."
s : "Um....OK....we..we can put seeds on it, and
b : "sold"
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/l
Excuse me, but that sounds like a smokescreen intended to 'soften the blow' that this law has on civil liberties. You know as well as I do that no one in the government is going to focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans because of this bill. The government may or many not have success infiltrating terrorist cells because of this, but they are damn well going to continue infiltrating anti-war knitting clubs and other 'subversive' organisations (Mercury News). That is indefensible and Just Plain Wrong.
The only way to protect civil liberties and gather good intelligence is to have checks and balances and many eyes upon a transparent process.
He did that before the testimony. It wasn't retroactive. (Yes, what came out of his lips was a lie no matter the letter of the law).
Major Lie Score
Bush : WMD, "Will prosecute who played the Plame Name Game", "Mission Accomplished",
"We don't spy on Americans", "Osama will be caught", "We will have a stable Iraq"
Clinton: 1 blowjob
then get off your butt, turn off the TV and get inventing.
The only way to succeed is to build success yourself.
but I'm keeping it. To hell with good sense.
I got sick of the "FIRST POST" meme from a while back. Then my user name got truncated from 'Phantom of the Operating System' to 'Phanom of the Opera' so I had thought my account was deleted. On a whim a year ago, I tried 'Phantom of the Opera' and viola; I am back.
lets not get carried away here
HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks!
just curious...
Your argument boils down to "People who do work or invest in it should be compensated for it and have control over it." That isn't something outlandish, but that still does not convey an "ownership" of information. If you removed these patent and copyright laws people would still entertain and invent.
Inventing side :
These days, it is not so much the people who come up with ideas who reap the rewards from them, it is the people who either invest in those ideas, or who use underhanded tactics and expensive lawyers (reducing the desire to invent if you know your invention will be stolen). If there weren't these patent laws, companies would have to maintain some secrecy and do a better job building their inventions. Mercy! Disaster!
Music/Media side:
You seem more worried about people pirating a song or movies. If these laws didn't exist to protect their work, they would have to give concerts, only release their work to movies. Oh, they wouldn't rake in millions? Awwwwww, so sad.
If I listen to a song, I have the information of that song as a memory in my head. No one else can own that. That would be silly.
I think I understand what you mean. There is a bit of a cultural difference. In the United States, there are effectively two candidates for any position. If one loses, the other wins. (Yes, there are rare cases where more than two candidates affect the election).
In the case where no votes are randomly added or removed randomly, the 'slightly losing' candidate would certainly lose. In the case where votes are randomly added or removed randomly, the slightly losing candidate has a chance to gain a certain number of votes. If the race is tight enought, a fluctation could push the candidate over the edge.
I think you make the point that any candidate using their influence to make things more chaotic in an election is committing a form of fraud.
I believe democracy is being threatened in the United States, but I would be foolish to think this a new problem. What is new is that there are mechanical black box voting machines. It is a conflict of interest when you have a company that makes voting machines that also gives to a political campaign.
My meanings are not always clear.
By "any randomness", I mean a random number of votes introduced to the system.
By "slightly losing candidate", I mean a candidate that would actually lose, but barely, if the correct number of votes were to be tallied properly.
Does that help you understand?
I enjoy inventing for the sake of inventing. There will be people like that.
IP laws hurt inventing. It is pretty easy for someone to rip off someone else's invention and patent it away. Look at what happened to Philo T Farnsworth.
Why bother inventing something when someone with sneaky tricks and a better attorney can snatch it up from you.
Owning information is just silly. Having a song stuck in your head would be an offense
--- phantom of the operating system
You mean the voters? Some know, some don't. It is our job to educate people.
If you know the politicians and beaurocrats? Some know and care, some know and delight. Any randomness is going to increase the chance of a slightly losing candidate to actually win.
A muck with a direct neural interface. It will come complete with an IV drip and a security webcam.
Gah!
The well behaved applications keep those resources (the configurations and stuff) in the application icon directory from what I've seen. For example, the games I have keep the save files inside that directory tree, not in the users' Library directories.
There is nothing keeping applications from writing outside their resources directory other than normal filesystem permissions. It's just a rather nice convention.
Most OS X application installations work like this :
Drag the program icon from the install disco to the Applications directory.
To uninstall, just drag the program icon to the trash.
The icon is actually a directory that holds resources, libs and executables.
Want to reinstall but keep the old one around just in case? Rename the icon and drag the new one over.
I love that!
-phantom of the operating system
Compare traffic fatalites per annum with the terrorism fatalities.
- terrorism : 2,976 fatalities in 9/11 | spending 37.7 billion dollars (just for homeland security)
- traffic : 41,945 fatailities in 2000 | spending 5.3 billion dollars (just for the TSA)
If there is an infinitesimal chance that censorship is going to prevent something that scares them, people in general are going to take that chance. The blogs may actually inspire terrorism, and it is easier to address that than the issues that inspire those blogs.-Phantom of the Operating System
references