I'm willing to bet that despite your protestations, you are now, and will in fact continue to be, a supporter of the PRC, as demonstrated by the clothes, electronics, auto parts, toys, and dishes you buy that are made in the PRC.
Don't worry, you are not alone. Most of the other folks on slashdot are also PRC supporters in this way.
Two degrees? On the surface? That's the best scare you can give us? Two degrees is nothing! Industrial revolution, mass globalization, nuclear weapon testing - and two degrees?!
This isn't even an argument. Here's some perspective for the armchair climatologist: When the temperature in my house changes by two degrees, I definitely notice, and my air conditioning responds by sucking noticably more power during the day. Likewise, when my refrigerator warms by two degrees, that makes the difference between me finding Budweiser drinkable because it is cold enough that I don't taste it, and me being nauseated by the warmish bouquet.
Saying people are causing global warming is like saying we're causing the Earth to spiral into the sun (it's happening, very slowly, but we're not to blame).
No, it isn't. Nobody (except you) is making the assertion that people are causing the Earth to spiral toward the sun. However, climatologists, the people whose job it is to be experts on this sort of thing, agree that certain activities of humans are altering the climate in ways that are causing a measurable increase in the average temperature worldwide.
News media works on mob justice principles and are unbelievably klutzy with their accusations and witch hunts. I'm not inclined to blame "the American people" because most people have better things to do with their time than dig into exactly which employees are guilty, but the media could have been a bit more careful. But hey, it's not their lives wrecked.
Very insightful. In fact, administering this kind of mob "justice" is a triple bonus for the media. First, they attract an audience by breaking the initial scandal/disaster. Second, they attract audience by covering the witch hunt that follows. Third, they attract audience covering the devastation they have helped bring to the innocent bystanders.
Not to say that some of this is not justified, but it is interesting to consider that the news media benefits most from the misfortune of others. Does this mean that the media are the cause of the greatest disasters from which they benefit? Not necessarily, but there must be some temptation when they are rewarded in proportion to the number and scope of the disasters.
First, the units are undoubtedly intended to be units squared, representing floor area. However....
Second, 100 square feet is unimaginably small for a corporate office of any sort. (Seriously, how could you even rent 100 square feet of office space?) However, since this was in Belgium, the units were more likely meters. This means the actual size of the office (100 square meters) would have been approximately 1076 square feet, small for an office space, but not too small to run a business.
I think you're missing what's going on there. You are responding to a troll, not a person. The troll is only interested in generating angry responses and expressing frustration at its own impotence.
Troll formula:
Find common hot-button issue on Slashdot - check:
"Americans Gearing up to fight Global Warming"
Identify position that most inflames the majority of the audience and probably personally insults some members of the audience - check:
Environmentalism is not about solving environmental problems, its about using supposed environmental problems for a coterie of some scientists and activists to get money.
Make up assertions that are inflamatory by nature because they are either false or misleading (or, lacking imagination, borrow someone else's) - check:
.... If "environmentalists" were genuinely about the environment, then, nuclear power would have been adopted 30 years in the USA, and we would have met Kyoto targets decades ago.... Just the other day, one scientist was cheering for ebola to wipe out 90% of the people to save the animals.... [scientists want] my entire family dead.... After 40 years of hearing these people call humanity a virus....
Throw in some racist bait - check:
So, we will get to screw the arabs
Purport to represent a poorly defined bunch of people with a poorly defined position - check:
But we on the right wing were oh so right about nuclear power, all along.
Post, and wait for the angry fish to bite - check
So, seriously, what are you thinking? You said "... Dembsky... Pianka.... Unreasonable faith in the free market... [reasoned response]"
The troll to which you are responding does not give evidence of understanding of who these people are, what a free market is, or what "reason" means or how to apply it.
I advise finding a more productive thread in this or another topic where the troll has no interest.
Am I alone in thinking that that was far more important to the gaming industry than what the producer of Battlestar Galactica had to say?
No, but you are alone in thinking that someone might read your Slashdot journal (which I imagine is very interesting, insightful, informative, funny, and unread.)
Re:So, what options does this release remove?
on
Gnome 2.14 Review
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately for GNOME, they can't remove all choice; I can still choose to use KDE, because KDE chooses to let me customize it any way I want instead of being forced into the defaults GNOME wants. And, please, don't point out GConf, unless you can point to a list of what every single key (at least for a given application) in GConf does.
I swear, every release of GNOME adds to the eye candy, and removes from the usability. And to think I once advocated GNOME over KDE.
I'm saddened to hear of the suffering that the ongoing changes in GNOME have caused in your life. I, also, have experienced some frustration at desktop environment features that didn't work to my liking. However, when I encountered this situation, I simply moved on and chose a tool that worked better for me. The alternative I chose was XFCE.
This page links to the web sites for many of the alternative desktop environments for Linux. Perhaps one of them will provide a more satisfying experience for you.
Even if none of those have what you need, take heart. I understand that both Apple Computer, Inc. and the Microsoft Corporation sell software with similar desktop features....
Ignoring all the items in the list that are in development or would be based on magic, I'm left staring at this item:
- controlling computers with our brains
I suppose there are other things a person could theoretically control a computer, e.g. hormones, but I have always controlled my computer with my brain. Seriously. What do you think directs your fingers on the keyboard, your voice, etc? If it's something other than your brain, you need to cut down on your one-handed web surfing.
Everyone knows the War of the Worlds radio hoax by Orson Wells of course.
Except, of course, that the War of the Worlds radio broadcast was not a hoax, but a scheduled program of Orson Wells and the Mercury Theatre on the Air. The program was listed in the newspaper, and introduced on the air as such. There were also three announcements during the broadcast noting that it was fiction.
Quit playa' hatin'. I enjoyed the prequels very much, and I am glad they were made. What's wrong with making movies that so many enjoyed? Just because you're a jaded 30 something who remembers seeing the OT as a kid and that therefore new generations shouldn't get to enjoy the backstory is plain and simple playa' hatin'.
Ahem; let me try to respond appropriately: Fo' shizzle.
BTW, like all of my other avid SW friends, I am married so we're not a bunch of pathetic desperate geeks like that guy in the 40 year old virgin movie.
So... you're saying the difference between you and your other avid SW friends and a "bunch of pathetic desparate geeks" is that you are no longer "desparate"?
(oh... and I hate that a man who can't pronounce "nuclear" is the one at the top of the chain that could order the button to be pushed!)
This does indeed seem pathetic. However, we should keep in mind that President Lyndon Baines Johnson also mispronounced that word. It's not a coincidence. Lyndon Johnson understood that people appreciated his folksy style. George W. Bush, who spent many of his early years practically in Lyndon Johnson's backyard, learned this lesson well.
Ugh... that post reads like a string of unrelated movie soundbites. I'll just pick on one "small thing" and let the rest go.
It would allow Google to live up to its own motto, which is no small thing.
Google does not "live" at all. It is a corporation, a non-person, no heartbeat, no blood, and (to be metaphysical) no soul. To suggest that Google can "live up to its own motto" is a failure to recognize that a corporation is not a human being, not a citizen, and whether it is held morally accountable or not, has no moral compass. That is how corporations (in the US, at least) are designed. Only the shareholders, officers, and employees of the company can be reasonably said to have any kind of moral accountability.
In the case of Google, the moral judgement that Google has failed to "not be evil" is a only a reflection on the values exercised by 1) the shareholders, 2) the board and officers of the company, and 3) the other employees. If there is guilt, it lies with those people, in that order. The corporation itself, by definition, has no "guilt" or "innocence"; its only measurable values can be described by an accountant.
In the Windows world, one doesn't get the alpha or beta patches, just the blessed finished product
yeah, right! i won't even mention IE's security holes for the last 8 or so years (active x,...) or outlook's bad record of keeping spam from executing malicious code (mostly through the IE engine).
Dr. Thompson didn't say the code was perfect. He was saying that Microsoft does not provide pre-official-release versions of their patches.
but boldly stating how much due diligence is exacted upon the microsoft patches before final release is ridiculous in face of them frequently backfiring and leaving old or new vulnerabilities in their wake:
Thompson didn't state anything about the extent of Microsoft's "due diligence". The only thing he said about how Microsoft approaches patch release was "In the Windows world, one doesn't get the alpha or beta patches, just the blessed finished product."
England did technically make you, so why can't they govern you?
Hmmm.... The only sane(?) conclusion I can draw from this comment is that Darwin was wrong, the Intelligent Design proponents are correct, and England is God.
Well, why not. About as rational as anything else I've read on Slashdot.
The remaining metaphysical question is, of course, for what purpose did England make "slashes", the person to whom you were responding?
Despite all the detractors, this is actually a very interesting question.
Why would you want to leave the US? It is certainly fashionable (in part because it truly can be informative) among the wealthier folks to travel the world in order to learn about different cultures and people. Also, there are many international business issues that require international travel.
However, there are also reasons not to leave the US, and why it may not be necessary to leave. One of the effects of international travel is international health risks (e.g. SARS). Also, for the purpose of cultural education, the US has very diverse culture and cultural education resources due to immigrant populations that settled in various parts of the country (e.g. New York, San Fancisco, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.)
There are many more arguments for and against international travel, but this at least scratches the surface of the issue.
I would vote "insightful" or "interesting" for the parent post.
he's right. this is the response you get for wasting your time coding for free
Hmmm... good point. I know a lot of people who write free software, but all of them get paid to do it. Why do it for free if you can get paid for it?
If, on the other hand, you're writing free software simply to get street cred, you should write for the people from whom you want respect. This means, if you want respect from Windows developers, write for Windows; if you want respect from Linux developers, write for Linux, if you want respect from everyone, write cross-platform.
First, identify your goal. Then, work to achieve your goal. Seems as if the individuals complaining about the lack of respect forgot to identify their goals.
All works produced by the United States Government fall into the Public Domain. Period. See Section 105 of the Copyright Act.
You are absolutely correct. However, if I understand correctly, the Seal of the President of the United States of America is protected as a trademark, not as a copyrighted work.
Let's step back a minute. The point of bringing this article to light was to illustrate that the recent attention about global warming, and its proposed anthropogenic source, may be a bit precipitous, given the accuracy of the predictive modelling of global climate simulations. While I've seen results of global climate simulations that extend out 150 years, I've yet to see any good data that give me confidence that our accuracy is high enough to say more than "global warming is not much than a mildly promising theory." And specifically "global warming" = "anthropogenic causation of global warming". This was the claim that I was attempting to bolster.
Fair enough. It appeared that the linked article was meant as evidence to refute the accuracy of the historical temperature measurements.
However, the article says in closing:
"We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares."
The groups mentioned include every organization capable of doing the proposed "impartial research". This is a false argument, allowing the author to simply discount any group which arrives at the inconvenient conclusion that action is necessary.
If there is any valid doubt that the activity of people is contributing to the warming trend (as there almost certainly is), then surely there are articles containing discussions of the actual data and methodology used to arrive at the questionable conclusions by people versed in the relevant sciences. This is simply not such an article.
Actually, the article you refer to (presumably as proof that, as the grandparent post says, "the temperature measurements from the past century are wrong") says:
"We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made."
Otherwise, this is not an article that discusses specific scientific observations; it is a collection of generalizations about the scientific study of the world's climate. The object of the article is to convince people that the global warming issue and related initiatives are being driven by rich countries and forced upon the poor ones (specifically India, in this case). Whether or not the author's point of view is correct, this article does not at all dispute the observations of global warming.
Actually point more toward the court system. With the exception of the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS most courts have a horrible misunderstanding of patent law and the patent process as a whole. And pointing blame at the USPTO? Of course that gets modded Insightful instead of offtopic or trolling, cause after all hating the PTO is cool thing to do on slashdot.
What Google are doing is not research. The fact that you may be able to use Google's service for research is irrelevant becuase that's not why the service exists.
Google is indeed doing research on behalf of its users (the people who enter the search criteria) as surely as a University professor may indeed be doing research on behalf of a government organization or company that provides the criteria for grant that funds the research. The reason for the University professor's existence, while arguably an interesting philosophical question, has no bearing upon whether we call his work for hire, such as work funded by grants,"research".
They aren't doing it to further the sum of human knowledge, they are doing it to get rich.
This does not, in any way, conflict with the copyright laws of the United States of America. It is of absolutely no consequence to the law whether someone's intented result of doing research that makes fair use of a copyrighted work is "to further the sum of human knowledge" or to be the wealthiest fool in North America.
Nothing but more crap from a vendor who's seeing their gravy train getting ready to leave the station on its last run.
Really, Symantec will be around a long time protecting MS Windows customers. This is not an attempt to crack new markets, but an attempt to scare people aware from OSX, *BSD, and Linux, and retain them in their current market, MS Windows.
The irony, of course, is that Microsoft really is working at reducing the need for "leech" companies such as Symantec which feed off its flaws. Each successive release of MS Windows is a blow to the relevance of "security" purveyors like Symantec.
The biggest security threats of the future (in my humble opinion) are phishers, not hackers. Eventually, even Microsoft will produce a system with adequate security by default. (No, really.) Bogus web sites will be (if they are not already) a bigger threat than the vulnerability of operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey PRC, You arent winning any fans with this....
I'm willing to bet that despite your protestations, you are now, and will in fact continue to be, a supporter of the PRC, as demonstrated by the clothes, electronics, auto parts, toys, and dishes you buy that are made in the PRC.
Don't worry, you are not alone. Most of the other folks on slashdot are also PRC supporters in this way.
I like it how the DMCA and other "bad" laws can have unintended consequences, but "good" laws ... nevermind thinking about them for the "good" laws.
Not quite sure where you were going with this comment, but....
What on earth makes people think that these consequences are unintended?
Two degrees? On the surface? That's the best scare you can give us? Two degrees is nothing! Industrial revolution, mass globalization, nuclear weapon testing - and two degrees?!
This isn't even an argument. Here's some perspective for the armchair climatologist: When the temperature in my house changes by two degrees, I definitely notice, and my air conditioning responds by sucking noticably more power during the day. Likewise, when my refrigerator warms by two degrees, that makes the difference between me finding Budweiser drinkable because it is cold enough that I don't taste it, and me being nauseated by the warmish bouquet.
Saying people are causing global warming is like saying we're causing the Earth to spiral into the sun (it's happening, very slowly, but we're not to blame).
No, it isn't. Nobody (except you) is making the assertion that people are causing the Earth to spiral toward the sun. However, climatologists, the people whose job it is to be experts on this sort of thing, agree that certain activities of humans are altering the climate in ways that are causing a measurable increase in the average temperature worldwide.
News media works on mob justice principles and are unbelievably klutzy with their accusations and witch hunts. I'm not inclined to blame "the American people" because most people have better things to do with their time than dig into exactly which employees are guilty, but the media could have been a bit more careful. But hey, it's not their lives wrecked.
Very insightful. In fact, administering this kind of mob "justice" is a triple bonus for the media. First, they attract an audience by breaking the initial scandal/disaster. Second, they attract audience by covering the witch hunt that follows. Third, they attract audience covering the devastation they have helped bring to the innocent bystanders.
Not to say that some of this is not justified, but it is interesting to consider that the news media benefits most from the misfortune of others. Does this mean that the media are the cause of the greatest disasters from which they benefit? Not necessarily, but there must be some temptation when they are rewarded in proportion to the number and scope of the disasters.
First, the units are undoubtedly intended to be units squared, representing floor area. However....
Second, 100 square feet is unimaginably small for a corporate office of any sort. (Seriously, how could you even rent 100 square feet of office space?) However, since this was in Belgium, the units were more likely meters. This means the actual size of the office (100 square meters) would have been approximately 1076 square feet, small for an office space, but not too small to run a business.
Troll formula:
"Americans Gearing up to fight Global Warming"
Environmentalism is not about solving environmental problems, its about using supposed environmental problems for a coterie of some scientists and activists to get money.
So, we will get to screw the arabs
But we on the right wing were oh so right about nuclear power, all along.
So, seriously, what are you thinking? You said "... Dembsky... Pianka.... Unreasonable faith in the free market... [reasoned response]"
The troll to which you are responding does not give evidence of understanding of who these people are, what a free market is, or what "reason" means or how to apply it.
I advise finding a more productive thread in this or another topic where the troll has no interest.
Am I alone in thinking that that was far more important to the gaming industry than what the producer of Battlestar Galactica had to say?
No, but you are alone in thinking that someone might read your Slashdot journal (which I imagine is very interesting, insightful, informative, funny, and unread.)
Unfortunately for GNOME, they can't remove all choice; I can still choose to use KDE, because KDE chooses to let me customize it any way I want instead of being forced into the defaults GNOME wants. And, please, don't point out GConf, unless you can point to a list of what every single key (at least for a given application) in GConf does.
I swear, every release of GNOME adds to the eye candy, and removes from the usability. And to think I once advocated GNOME over KDE.
I'm saddened to hear of the suffering that the ongoing changes in GNOME have caused in your life. I, also, have experienced some frustration at desktop environment features that didn't work to my liking. However, when I encountered this situation, I simply moved on and chose a tool that worked better for me. The alternative I chose was XFCE.
This page links to the web sites for many of the alternative desktop environments for Linux. Perhaps one of them will provide a more satisfying experience for you.
Even if none of those have what you need, take heart. I understand that both Apple Computer, Inc. and the Microsoft Corporation sell software with similar desktop features....
Ignoring all the items in the list that are in development or would be based on magic, I'm left staring at this item:
- controlling computers with our brains
I suppose there are other things a person could theoretically control a computer, e.g. hormones, but I have always controlled my computer with my brain. Seriously. What do you think directs your fingers on the keyboard, your voice, etc? If it's something other than your brain, you need to cut down on your one-handed web surfing.
Everyone knows the War of the Worlds radio hoax by Orson Wells of course.
Except, of course, that the War of the Worlds radio broadcast was not a hoax, but a scheduled program of Orson Wells and the Mercury Theatre on the Air. The program was listed in the newspaper, and introduced on the air as such. There were also three announcements during the broadcast noting that it was fiction.
Quit playa' hatin'. I enjoyed the prequels very much, and I am glad they were made. What's wrong with making movies that so many enjoyed? Just because you're a jaded 30 something who remembers seeing the OT as a kid and that therefore new generations shouldn't get to enjoy the backstory is plain and simple playa' hatin'.
Ahem; let me try to respond appropriately: Fo' shizzle.
BTW, like all of my other avid SW friends, I am married so we're not a bunch of pathetic desperate geeks like that guy in the 40 year old virgin movie.
So... you're saying the difference between you and your other avid SW friends and a "bunch of pathetic desparate geeks" is that you are no longer "desparate"?
(oh... and I hate that a man who can't pronounce "nuclear" is the one at the top of the chain that could order the button to be pushed!)
This does indeed seem pathetic. However, we should keep in mind that President Lyndon Baines Johnson also mispronounced that word. It's not a coincidence. Lyndon Johnson understood that people appreciated his folksy style. George W. Bush, who spent many of his early years practically in Lyndon Johnson's backyard, learned this lesson well.
Ugh... that post reads like a string of unrelated movie soundbites. I'll just pick on one "small thing" and let the rest go.
It would allow Google to live up to its own motto, which is no small thing.
Google does not "live" at all. It is a corporation, a non-person, no heartbeat, no blood, and (to be metaphysical) no soul. To suggest that Google can "live up to its own motto" is a failure to recognize that a corporation is not a human being, not a citizen, and whether it is held morally accountable or not, has no moral compass. That is how corporations (in the US, at least) are designed. Only the shareholders, officers, and employees of the company can be reasonably said to have any kind of moral accountability.
In the case of Google, the moral judgement that Google has failed to "not be evil" is a only a reflection on the values exercised by 1) the shareholders, 2) the board and officers of the company, and 3) the other employees. If there is guilt, it lies with those people, in that order. The corporation itself, by definition, has no "guilt" or "innocence"; its only measurable values can be described by an accountant.
In the Windows world, one doesn't get the alpha or beta patches, just the blessed finished product
...) or outlook's bad record of keeping spam from executing malicious code (mostly through the IE engine).
yeah, right!
i won't even mention IE's security holes for the last 8 or so years (active x,
Dr. Thompson didn't say the code was perfect. He was saying that Microsoft does not provide pre-official-release versions of their patches.
but boldly stating how much due diligence is exacted upon the microsoft patches before final release is ridiculous in face of them frequently backfiring and leaving old or new vulnerabilities in their wake:
Thompson didn't state anything about the extent of Microsoft's "due diligence". The only thing he said about how Microsoft approaches patch release was "In the Windows world, one doesn't get the alpha or beta patches, just the blessed finished product."
Some people, such as my girlfriend (oops - what am I doing on /. ?)....
(What are you doing? You're typing as fast as you can so you can finish posting your comment, then open the box and reinflate her.)
I jest, of course.
England did technically make you, so why can't they govern you?
Hmmm.... The only sane(?) conclusion I can draw from this comment is that Darwin was wrong, the Intelligent Design proponents are correct, and England is God.
Well, why not. About as rational as anything else I've read on Slashdot.
The remaining metaphysical question is, of course, for what purpose did England make "slashes", the person to whom you were responding?
Why would I want to leave the US anyway?
Despite all the detractors, this is actually a very interesting question.
Why would you want to leave the US? It is certainly fashionable (in part because it truly can be informative) among the wealthier folks to travel the world in order to learn about different cultures and people. Also, there are many international business issues that require international travel.
However, there are also reasons not to leave the US, and why it may not be necessary to leave. One of the effects of international travel is international health risks (e.g. SARS). Also, for the purpose of cultural education, the US has very diverse culture and cultural education resources due to immigrant populations that settled in various parts of the country (e.g. New York, San Fancisco, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.)
There are many more arguments for and against international travel, but this at least scratches the surface of the issue.
I would vote "insightful" or "interesting" for the parent post.
he's right. this is the response you get for wasting your time coding for free
Hmmm... good point. I know a lot of people who write free software, but all of them get paid to do it. Why do it for free if you can get paid for it?
If, on the other hand, you're writing free software simply to get street cred, you should write for the people from whom you want respect. This means, if you want respect from Windows developers, write for Windows; if you want respect from Linux developers, write for Linux, if you want respect from everyone, write cross-platform.
First, identify your goal. Then, work to achieve your goal. Seems as if the individuals complaining about the lack of respect forgot to identify their goals.
All works produced by the United States Government fall into the Public Domain. Period. See Section 105 of the Copyright Act.
You are absolutely correct. However, if I understand correctly, the Seal of the President of the United States of America is protected as a trademark, not as a copyrighted work.
Let's step back a minute. The point of bringing this article to light was to illustrate that the recent attention about global warming, and its proposed anthropogenic source, may be a bit precipitous, given the accuracy of the predictive modelling of global climate simulations. While I've seen results of global climate simulations that extend out 150 years, I've yet to see any good data that give me confidence that our accuracy is high enough to say more than "global warming is not much than a mildly promising theory." And specifically "global warming" = "anthropogenic causation of global warming". This was the claim that I was attempting to bolster.
Fair enough. It appeared that the linked article was meant as evidence to refute the accuracy of the historical temperature measurements.
However, the article says in closing:
"We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares."
The groups mentioned include every organization capable of doing the proposed "impartial research". This is a false argument, allowing the author to simply discount any group which arrives at the inconvenient conclusion that action is necessary.
If there is any valid doubt that the activity of people is contributing to the warming trend (as there almost certainly is), then surely there are articles containing discussions of the actual data and methodology used to arrive at the questionable conclusions by people versed in the relevant sciences. This is simply not such an article.
Actually, the article you refer to (presumably as proof that, as the grandparent post says, "the temperature measurements from the past century are wrong") says:
"We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made."
Otherwise, this is not an article that discusses specific scientific observations; it is a collection of generalizations about the scientific study of the world's climate. The object of the article is to convince people that the global warming issue and related initiatives are being driven by rich countries and forced upon the poor ones (specifically India, in this case). Whether or not the author's point of view is correct, this article does not at all dispute the observations of global warming.
Actually point more toward the court system. With the exception of the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS most courts have a horrible misunderstanding of patent law and the patent process as a whole. And pointing blame at the USPTO? Of course that gets modded Insightful instead of offtopic or trolling, cause after all hating the PTO is cool thing to do on slashdot.
Well, if the Wikipedia article on the subject of software patents in the US is accurate, the US Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the US Patent and Trademark office should share the blame for the current state of affairs.
But hey, who believes anything documented in the Wikipedia?
Pah! I fully intend to google my google to the google to google some google for my google.
Hmmm.... Replace "google" with "smurf", and I think you might have something there.
What Google are doing is not research. The fact that you may be able to use Google's service for research is irrelevant becuase that's not why the service exists.
Google is indeed doing research on behalf of its users (the people who enter the search criteria) as surely as a University professor may indeed be doing research on behalf of a government organization or company that provides the criteria for grant that funds the research. The reason for the University professor's existence, while arguably an interesting philosophical question, has no bearing upon whether we call his work for hire, such as work funded by grants,"research".
They aren't doing it to further the sum of human knowledge, they are doing it to get rich.
This does not, in any way, conflict with the copyright laws of the United States of America. It is of absolutely no consequence to the law whether someone's intented result of doing research that makes fair use of a copyrighted work is "to further the sum of human knowledge" or to be the wealthiest fool in North America.
Nothing but more crap from a vendor who's seeing their gravy train getting ready to leave the station on its last run.
Really, Symantec will be around a long time protecting MS Windows customers. This is not an attempt to crack new markets, but an attempt to scare people aware from OSX, *BSD, and Linux, and retain them in their current market, MS Windows.
The irony, of course, is that Microsoft really is working at reducing the need for "leech" companies such as Symantec which feed off its flaws. Each successive release of MS Windows is a blow to the relevance of "security" purveyors like Symantec.
The biggest security threats of the future (in my humble opinion) are phishers, not hackers. Eventually, even Microsoft will produce a system with adequate security by default. (No, really.) Bogus web sites will be (if they are not already) a bigger threat than the vulnerability of operating systems.