You only think copyright is required. Sure, the world would look different without the culture of monopoly-grants we give out, but do you really think nobody would make anything?
The problem in discussions like this is someone, like yourself, who can't imagine a different world. You don't fully understand the rules or implications but you're sure there's no other way things could work.
Things change every day, putting some people out of business and helping others. We could pass a law requiring everyone buy unwanted property to help starving real-estate agents. Or better, grant them on-going royalties. How dare you keep living in that building without continuing to pay the person who found it? But then we'll need to cut the builder and lumberjack in...
Eventually we'll all just pay each other and we'll all be rich!
Are you serious? 1984 said very little (effectively at any rate) about socialism. They could have been in a fascist capitalism for all it mattered. The problem was the omnipresent thought police. As for surveillance, they watched 98% of Winston's apartment, and counted his jumping jacks.
the scientists are meanies who keep data from you, a random Slashdot poster who are undoubtedly more qualified to interpret it than them.
Fuck you.
While I, or the next guy, may not be qualified in climatology, or anything, hoarding raw data is never reasonable (when trying to prove something.)
Maybe I couldn't prove anything, but maybe I could. Every time I hear some specialist talking about not releasing data or being transparent they use this "the public are freaking dumb" excuse, as if 1) the public are all identical clones and 2) uneducated people can't help in unexpected ways.
For instance, someone might recognize incorrect numbers (too much/little rain, etc), incorrect math, incorrect assumptions, incorrect practices, the names of biased parties, etc.
If there was an attempt to hide data here, even if minor, I hope these guys fry (in a career sense) because it's not only the mark of a jackass, but also a poor scientist - someone afraid of having their mistakes pointed out to them.
We don't hide data or make up propaganda to convince Creationists, so why does it need to be done here? Why are people even considering standing up for such horrible practices? (I don't know what happened, but you're prepared to condone it all with a - "don't bug your betters" message.)
Never mind that where I live the climate has changed quite dramatically in my very lifetime,
You're such a retard. Few "deniers" deny that the climate changes - ice ages are proof otherwise - merely that the change is human caused and dangerous. You pulling stuff like that out of your ass is actually part of:
it's all a conspiracy, a CONSPIRACY I say!
Well, it could be. Millions of idiots like you with no more proof or idea than the next guy all jumping on the "is so" platform with no visible motive and using more fallacies to argue than a preacher, are the conspiracy.
When you see two things together 1) questioning AGW and 2) decrying bad methods you for some reason have to lump them together and strike out at anyone who merely wants to see what's going on. I read my own economics, politics, medical lit, comp sci, physics, engineering, etc, why should I sit back here and be content to be spoonfed rather than trying to examine it?
No, far more effectively, they've made overt racism the mocked viewpoint. If you're racist in public someone will laugh at you.
Making it illegal would mean no racist would share that viewpoint without being sure they were alone and away from sane people. Then they'd have nothing but supporting nonsense to egg them on.
it's not the norm, anymore, to wage wars based on racial prejudices.
It's not the norm to sell the war with racist propaganda pictures maybe, but it sure is the norm to fight people of a dissimilar race. Not by color necessarily, but by association.
How long would an embargo on Britain or Australia have lasted, with friends and family of the US citizens dying? But an embargo on Iraq where nobody knows anyone from...
Similarly, who knows (many) people from Afghanistan? No wonder the MOAB was used there.
I vote for whoever I want. And I'm racist. So what? Now I'm against the entire idea of voting?
Yup. Well, only the idea of voting as everyone else means it, a way to decide on something. For you it'd just be another way to stab at darky.
If you're not voting on the issue at hand (in this case, who'd make a better president) you're not playing the same game as anyone else. And if you supported your actions, you'd be doing so against the entire idea of voting.
Do you honestly mean to say that all of the citizens of Canada, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, Morocco, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, most of the Carribean islands, Papua New Guinea, and most of the city states in Europe are all slaves? Every single one of those nations, after all, is a constitutional monarchy....
Yup. And the USA, and China, etc.
If you were drafted, which nearly all countries reserve the right to do even if they currently don't practice it, I think you'd feel enslaved.
Similarly, when you're forced to pay for something you don't want by forced government wage garnishment , that's slavery. It's one thing if it's shared property (a new road you drive on) and another if it's a war, but when it's non-optional it certainly isn't the action of a free person.
Are you certain that I'm the one who's been conditionned to devotion to a specific form of government without looking at the merits of the alternatives?
If you think that monarchy can ever be good, despite the fact that it all depends on the monarch who is totally out of your control, then yes. Otherwise no.
I just ask, because I've had some rather "interesting" discussions with some Americans about the merits of socialism, and it seems that a great many of them equate socialism with Stalinism....
I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. Socialism isn't accurately associated with Stalin...
I just have this to ask all the anti-socialists, what kind of country do you think it is when your property is taxed? Ain't a pure capitalism... (Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but it interferes with the USA/Capitalist v USSR/Communism meme.)
Actually, being a wiki I'm not sure any deletion is ever okay, except maybe to prevent WP from being shut down.
Even if those two lines were all you had to say, is that really worse than no article at all? And if it is, can't the people who pretend to care (when they get to delete something) fix it up?
Frankly, if someone tried this I wouldn't be surprised if the criminal community "policed itself"
Criminal community? You mean, the people down at the Super Villain's bar, or at the evil starbucks?
I mean, seriously, do you think these people just hang out and swap their personal info? I think you watch too many movies like Ocean's Eleven, where there's this huge con-community just waiting to be pulled into some nightmarishly complex scam. And of course, they all know each other and their histories.
Deletionists are all assholes. Sounds implausible that 100% of them could be, but netcraft confirms it or something.
Seriously though, deleting something is a huge power-trip and so you get people who could never make anything on their own tearing things down with glee.
I stopped editing when I heard of deletionists. Never directly encountered one, but when Wikipedia started backing these jerks I took it as a sign.
Now everything I read on there says it's worse. Read through some arbitration and it's almost always some retard claiming he's been injured by other editors accurate summations of him and his abilities. There's a surplus of thin-skinned people who need blow-jobs if you point out their typos, let alone serious errors, and who whine as if their retarded little feelings deserve attention.
IMHO, fork WP. Into an article for every contributor, and use some sort of slashdot-style (choose who you trust) moderation for finding the good pages. Idiots could fork an article and scribble all over it without needing to be reverted or punished - they'd just be ignored.
Stupid assumption #3: That consensus is possible with everyone.
For example, pages about Islam that show pictures of Mork, or whatever their god's name is. To most people this is like Greek gods, or Christianity, some made-up child stuff like Santa, but to real believers in this it's like oxygen.
Wikipedia assumes that these people can be talked to logically. Like, if you explain often enough how the prohibition against pictures applies to them, not to non-believers such as yourself, that they'll understand.
Pft. That's not good enough for religious people. In their mind the article belongs to them because it mentions them.
That's why WP needs, imho, multiple pages and github style forking on the same topic. Let the god-fearing make their little god-pleasing page, and let the rest of the world ignore it.
You can't speak reasonably to someone who fears a drawing of a dead-man, or come to any consensus other than babbling idiocy.
I was simply pointing out when you lump hundreds of millions of people together and simply call them 'idiots' - that you might come off as being a bit biased in your judgement.
I'm comfortable calling them all idiots individually if needed.
You've said the equivalent of "But so many people drive while on the cell-phone, it's unlikely they're all idiots." That's faulty logic. I'm grouping people by similar actions/beliefs, thus they're more likely to share other common traits.
You're entitled to your opinion - but you're not very convincing.
To you.
You're right in saying that science itself is simply a process of deducing truth. I should have said that things pursued by science do not always result in the correct answer. The history of physics alone has seen a great evolution from Greek causation to Newtonian to Einsteinian/quantum mechanics. There's like to be many more.
It learns from them and goes on. Just as many religions have too.
It's the personification of science that you're making a mistake in. It does not learn, it is never right, or wrong. It simply is.
You're also wrong is saying religions learn. First, they're supposedly the word of god. For them to change is to mark themselves as obvious fakes as god wouldn't need to change his view of the world. He'd have used terms in his works that he knew wouldn't mislead (ie, earth revolving around the sun) even if people didn't fully understand it currently. Omnipotence is like that.
Religious organization do learn to lie better (incorporate observed facts into their stories) but that's not learning, per se, as they'd incorporate anything widely believed.
You should be very careful about your facts and the context in which they came from.
Oh I am. The catholic church maintains that their rules/etc come from god, and the pope who (when convenient) speaks with the voice of god.
So when they're wrong, they're absolutely 100% wrong till the end of time. To be right they'd have to admit some of their lies, not merely adjust them to comply with trivially observable physical phenomenon.
This is what I was getting too. It doesn't seem you're very informed on what some of these 'idiots' have been saying. Instead, you seem more than happy to call up something from the early 100's AD and blanket-discount anything they might have to say.
Duh, I don't care if the pope himself if hugely insightful in some area, he's carrying the burden of thousands of years of torture and lies in god's name. Until he steps up and admits his imaginary friend isn't actually there it's just another layer of whitewash.
They're led by omnipotent god. Any mistakes are obviously too many.
I was trying to make the point that when you do that, you sound as foolish as those you're trying to discount.
Nope. Only to you and the others who don't get it. If you think 'right' is a popularity game then sure, minority opinions like mine will always seem wrong.
Anyone can look at our pasts and see our mistakes.
Quoting the word of god was a mistake? Because the word itself certainly couldn't be.
Do you want to keep holding on to the ones of the past as a weapon against people in the now that DON'T believe those things anymore?
Don't believe what? That god is omnipotent, or that the pope speaks for him?
Or a couple of specifics about orbital mechanics?
I think you'll find that the majority of believers will now simply believe the new lies and be no closer to actually thinking for themselves.
Religion=idiots= throw anything they have to say about the value of life and human existance
It's depressing talking to someone like you. Your tricks (redefining this away from scientific fact to 'life and human existance') are sha
I'm curious to meet this "the rest of us" you think you speak for.
Who can see that the 'house' of patents is 'on fire'?
Well, what do you expect from a government-granted, tax-funded monopoly granting institute proposed, created, and run by lawyers?
Something useful and helpful to the public at large? Not likely.
So I'll repeat my question: if that's so, why isn't anyone doing it?
Who knows? It's irrelevant. Like one-click purchasing, nothing except desire stopped anyone from doing it. Maybe it's a good UI idea, maybe not, but there's no patentable technology in it. In fact, there were probably shopping cart malfunctions that caused other sites to function that way, but that were seen as bugs and fixed.
Patents are supposed to be on a device beyond the state of the art for the average practitioner. Any programmer who could write a shopping cart could write one Amazon's way, simply by having the desired UI described to them. Maybe even 'original', but not useful new technology.
If you want to call waiting to hear the facts and arguments "tiptoeing around", so be it.
Well, that boy (Amazon) has cried wolf before...
You certainly can choose to see the house on fire and react by throwing more fuel if you really think that's gonig to help.
Or spray everything with water and wait for people to come to their senses.
Funny how you see ignoring a known liar as throwing fuel on the fire. I see listening to them and validating their continual gibberish with a bunch of wild what-if-they're-not-lying-this-time hypothesizing to be the fire-fanning action.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Especially from known liars. They might be telling the truth, or they could be a bunch of rent-seeking assholes like the other 99% of the lawyer-infested patent abusers. I recommend a careful pessimistic stance. Hold onto your wallet.
He hates jerks who aggregate community content behind a paywall. Like CDDB.
Many users don't know that there free options like Stack Overflow that are better for everyone, so they get stuck at the first company to come up on Google. While such flypaper may occasionally catch an interesting tidbit, the flypaper still needs to be removed to make a better place for everyone.
Without them these questions and answers would end up on some other forum, or Usenet, and everyone would be better off.
Slashdot Mirror
You only think copyright is required. Sure, the world would look different without the culture of monopoly-grants we give out, but do you really think nobody would make anything?
The problem in discussions like this is someone, like yourself, who can't imagine a different world. You don't fully understand the rules or implications but you're sure there's no other way things could work.
Things change every day, putting some people out of business and helping others. We could pass a law requiring everyone buy unwanted property to help starving real-estate agents. Or better, grant them on-going royalties. How dare you keep living in that building without continuing to pay the person who found it? But then we'll need to cut the builder and lumberjack in...
Eventually we'll all just pay each other and we'll all be rich!
Certainly as few reasonable people would like to see glaciation return to south Florida as would like to see it sink into the sea.
Either would do.
However, all that data is going to contain the operations of some malicious organizations.
Or not. Malicious organizations are the likeliest to use encryption, innocent people the least.
Are you serious? 1984 said very little (effectively at any rate) about socialism. They could have been in a fascist capitalism for all it mattered. The problem was the omnipresent thought police. As for surveillance, they watched 98% of Winston's apartment, and counted his jumping jacks.
Yeah, sign up for the first thing they offer you or you deserve all the crap they shove at you.
Jerk.
the scientists are meanies who keep data from you, a random Slashdot poster who are undoubtedly more qualified to interpret it than them.
Fuck you.
While I, or the next guy, may not be qualified in climatology, or anything, hoarding raw data is never reasonable (when trying to prove something.)
Maybe I couldn't prove anything, but maybe I could. Every time I hear some specialist talking about not releasing data or being transparent they use this "the public are freaking dumb" excuse, as if 1) the public are all identical clones and 2) uneducated people can't help in unexpected ways.
For instance, someone might recognize incorrect numbers (too much/little rain, etc), incorrect math, incorrect assumptions, incorrect practices, the names of biased parties, etc.
If there was an attempt to hide data here, even if minor, I hope these guys fry (in a career sense) because it's not only the mark of a jackass, but also a poor scientist - someone afraid of having their mistakes pointed out to them.
We don't hide data or make up propaganda to convince Creationists, so why does it need to be done here? Why are people even considering standing up for such horrible practices? (I don't know what happened, but you're prepared to condone it all with a - "don't bug your betters" message.)
Never mind that where I live the climate has changed quite dramatically in my very lifetime,
You're such a retard. Few "deniers" deny that the climate changes - ice ages are proof otherwise - merely that the change is human caused and dangerous. You pulling stuff like that out of your ass is actually part of:
it's all a conspiracy, a CONSPIRACY I say!
Well, it could be. Millions of idiots like you with no more proof or idea than the next guy all jumping on the "is so" platform with no visible motive and using more fallacies to argue than a preacher, are the conspiracy.
When you see two things together 1) questioning AGW and 2) decrying bad methods you for some reason have to lump them together and strike out at anyone who merely wants to see what's going on. I read my own economics, politics, medical lit, comp sci, physics, engineering, etc, why should I sit back here and be content to be spoonfed rather than trying to examine it?
You've become the creationist.
Was it about comparing facial expressions and a critic of the person's intelligence?
No.
Or was it done with racist intent?
No.
Let's consider what is most likely
?
Again, no. How about you actually do a tiny bit of research and discover the truth?
Apparently, the image was created by celebritychimps, a site that turns many celebs into chimps. Badly.
No, far more effectively, they've made overt racism the mocked viewpoint. If you're racist in public someone will laugh at you.
Making it illegal would mean no racist would share that viewpoint without being sure they were alone and away from sane people. Then they'd have nothing but supporting nonsense to egg them on.
I agree, while I find comparing a first lady to a monkey, or anyone for that matter beyond tasteless,
Ridiculous. Comparing things to things is just communication. If you're inarticulate and fling poo...
What if I called George Bush a monkey?
You'd be right in more ways than one.
You can be proud of your race sure,
Only if you're a festering fucking imbecile.
How you can be proud of anything that happened to you by chance and is coincidentally shared with others, is amazing.
White pride is the new KKK and both need to suck dynamite.
In conclusion, the best thing to do would be for Michelle or the President himself to ask Google to return the images.
Yup. That'd certainly strip their effectiveness and boost the Obama's standing. Good idea.
That would make me even more proud to be an American
Yeah, because you and him coincidentally share a country you'd be proud.
and have considerably more faith in my President about his confidence of his own actions and merits.
GW Bush had great confidence in his actions... That's what faith gets you, idiocy.
I am a Christian and don't necessarily believe in all of the "mainstream" theory of evolution
I see.
it's not the norm, anymore, to wage wars based on racial prejudices.
It's not the norm to sell the war with racist propaganda pictures maybe, but it sure is the norm to fight people of a dissimilar race. Not by color necessarily, but by association.
How long would an embargo on Britain or Australia have lasted, with friends and family of the US citizens dying? But an embargo on Iraq where nobody knows anyone from...
Similarly, who knows (many) people from Afghanistan? No wonder the MOAB was used there.
No, you have no idea.
Any discrimination based on differences in race (which is kind of a silly concept anyways IMHO) is racism.
Right-o. But you apparently can't read.
A white person saying that black people have darker skin pigmentation is not racist.
You see, a simple factual observation isn't racist.
Even offering different levels of sunscreen isn't racism, anymore than offering big tall people more food is sizeist.
I vote for whoever I want. And I'm racist. So what? Now I'm against the entire idea of voting?
Yup. Well, only the idea of voting as everyone else means it, a way to decide on something. For you it'd just be another way to stab at darky.
If you're not voting on the issue at hand (in this case, who'd make a better president) you're not playing the same game as anyone else. And if you supported your actions, you'd be doing so against the entire idea of voting.
The mere fact that a work was paid for by tax money does not put it in the public domain.
Until we all decide it does. Treat it like it is and it will be.
What else could the phrase mean? If the public wills it...
Do you honestly mean to say that all of the citizens of Canada, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, Morocco, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, most of the Carribean islands, Papua New Guinea, and most of the city states in Europe are all slaves? Every single one of those nations, after all, is a constitutional monarchy....
Yup. And the USA, and China, etc.
If you were drafted, which nearly all countries reserve the right to do even if they currently don't practice it, I think you'd feel enslaved.
Similarly, when you're forced to pay for something you don't want by forced government wage garnishment , that's slavery. It's one thing if it's shared property (a new road you drive on) and another if it's a war, but when it's non-optional it certainly isn't the action of a free person.
Are you certain that I'm the one who's been conditionned to devotion to a specific form of government without looking at the merits of the alternatives?
If you think that monarchy can ever be good, despite the fact that it all depends on the monarch who is totally out of your control, then yes. Otherwise no.
I just ask, because I've had some rather "interesting" discussions with some Americans about the merits of socialism, and it seems that a great many of them equate socialism with Stalinism....
I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. Socialism isn't accurately associated with Stalin...
I just have this to ask all the anti-socialists, what kind of country do you think it is when your property is taxed? Ain't a pure capitalism... (Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but it interferes with the USA/Capitalist v USSR/Communism meme.)
Actually, being a wiki I'm not sure any deletion is ever okay, except maybe to prevent WP from being shut down.
Even if those two lines were all you had to say, is that really worse than no article at all? And if it is, can't the people who pretend to care (when they get to delete something) fix it up?
But why should real people care what a deletionist thinks?
I'm sure they've got something they'd call a reason, but it's probably closer to stomach gas.
Frankly, if someone tried this I wouldn't be surprised if the criminal community "policed itself"
Criminal community? You mean, the people down at the Super Villain's bar, or at the evil starbucks?
I mean, seriously, do you think these people just hang out and swap their personal info? I think you watch too many movies like Ocean's Eleven, where there's this huge con-community just waiting to be pulled into some nightmarishly complex scam. And of course, they all know each other and their histories.
It's wonderful that Facebook has come and collected so much of the irrelevant crap behind a reg-wall so I don't have to find it.
I only hope Microsoft throws Fox's content behind a paywall and hides it from Google for a similar cleanup.
Deletionists are all assholes. Sounds implausible that 100% of them could be, but netcraft confirms it or something.
Seriously though, deleting something is a huge power-trip and so you get people who could never make anything on their own tearing things down with glee.
I stopped editing when I heard of deletionists. Never directly encountered one, but when Wikipedia started backing these jerks I took it as a sign.
Now everything I read on there says it's worse. Read through some arbitration and it's almost always some retard claiming he's been injured by other editors accurate summations of him and his abilities. There's a surplus of thin-skinned people who need blow-jobs if you point out their typos, let alone serious errors, and who whine as if their retarded little feelings deserve attention.
IMHO, fork WP. Into an article for every contributor, and use some sort of slashdot-style (choose who you trust) moderation for finding the good pages. Idiots could fork an article and scribble all over it without needing to be reverted or punished - they'd just be ignored.
Stupid assumption #3: That consensus is possible with everyone.
For example, pages about Islam that show pictures of Mork, or whatever their god's name is. To most people this is like Greek gods, or Christianity, some made-up child stuff like Santa, but to real believers in this it's like oxygen.
Wikipedia assumes that these people can be talked to logically. Like, if you explain often enough how the prohibition against pictures applies to them, not to non-believers such as yourself, that they'll understand.
Pft. That's not good enough for religious people. In their mind the article belongs to them because it mentions them.
That's why WP needs, imho, multiple pages and github style forking on the same topic. Let the god-fearing make their little god-pleasing page, and let the rest of the world ignore it.
You can't speak reasonably to someone who fears a drawing of a dead-man, or come to any consensus other than babbling idiocy.
I was simply pointing out when you lump hundreds of millions of people together and simply call them 'idiots' - that you might come off as being a bit biased in your judgement.
I'm comfortable calling them all idiots individually if needed.
You've said the equivalent of "But so many people drive while on the cell-phone, it's unlikely they're all idiots." That's faulty logic. I'm grouping people by similar actions/beliefs, thus they're more likely to share other common traits.
You're entitled to your opinion - but you're not very convincing.
To you.
You're right in saying that science itself is simply a process of deducing truth. I should have said that things pursued by science do not always result in the correct answer. The history of physics alone has seen a great evolution from Greek causation to Newtonian to Einsteinian/quantum mechanics. There's like to be many more.
It learns from them and goes on. Just as many religions have too.
It's the personification of science that you're making a mistake in. It does not learn, it is never right, or wrong. It simply is.
You're also wrong is saying religions learn. First, they're supposedly the word of god. For them to change is to mark themselves as obvious fakes as god wouldn't need to change his view of the world. He'd have used terms in his works that he knew wouldn't mislead (ie, earth revolving around the sun) even if people didn't fully understand it currently. Omnipotence is like that.
Religious organization do learn to lie better (incorporate observed facts into their stories) but that's not learning, per se, as they'd incorporate anything widely believed.
You should be very careful about your facts and the context in which they came from.
Oh I am. The catholic church maintains that their rules/etc come from god, and the pope who (when convenient) speaks with the voice of god.
So when they're wrong, they're absolutely 100% wrong till the end of time. To be right they'd have to admit some of their lies, not merely adjust them to comply with trivially observable physical phenomenon.
This is what I was getting too. It doesn't seem you're very informed on what some of these 'idiots' have been saying. Instead, you seem more than happy to call up something from the early 100's AD and blanket-discount anything they might have to say.
Duh, I don't care if the pope himself if hugely insightful in some area, he's carrying the burden of thousands of years of torture and lies in god's name. Until he steps up and admits his imaginary friend isn't actually there it's just another layer of whitewash.
They're led by omnipotent god. Any mistakes are obviously too many.
I was trying to make the point that when you do that, you sound as foolish as those you're trying to discount.
Nope. Only to you and the others who don't get it. If you think 'right' is a popularity game then sure, minority opinions like mine will always seem wrong.
Anyone can look at our pasts and see our mistakes.
Quoting the word of god was a mistake? Because the word itself certainly couldn't be.
Do you want to keep holding on to the ones of the past as a weapon against people in the now that DON'T believe those things anymore?
Don't believe what? That god is omnipotent, or that the pope speaks for him?
Or a couple of specifics about orbital mechanics?
I think you'll find that the majority of believers will now simply believe the new lies and be no closer to actually thinking for themselves.
Religion=idiots= throw anything they have to say about the value of life and human existance
It's depressing talking to someone like you. Your tricks (redefining this away from scientific fact to 'life and human existance') are sha
I'm curious to meet this "the rest of us" you think you speak for.
Who can see that the 'house' of patents is 'on fire'?
Well, what do you expect from a government-granted, tax-funded monopoly granting institute proposed, created, and run by lawyers?
Something useful and helpful to the public at large? Not likely.
So I'll repeat my question: if that's so, why isn't anyone doing it?
Who knows? It's irrelevant. Like one-click purchasing, nothing except desire stopped anyone from doing it. Maybe it's a good UI idea, maybe not, but there's no patentable technology in it. In fact, there were probably shopping cart malfunctions that caused other sites to function that way, but that were seen as bugs and fixed.
Patents are supposed to be on a device beyond the state of the art for the average practitioner. Any programmer who could write a shopping cart could write one Amazon's way, simply by having the desired UI described to them. Maybe even 'original', but not useful new technology.
If you want to call waiting to hear the facts and arguments "tiptoeing around", so be it.
Well, that boy (Amazon) has cried wolf before...
You certainly can choose to see the house on fire and react by throwing more fuel if you really think that's gonig to help.
Or spray everything with water and wait for people to come to their senses.
Funny how you see ignoring a known liar as throwing fuel on the fire. I see listening to them and validating their continual gibberish with a bunch of wild what-if-they're-not-lying-this-time hypothesizing to be the fire-fanning action.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Especially from known liars. They might be telling the truth, or they could be a bunch of rent-seeking assholes like the other 99% of the lawyer-infested patent abusers. I recommend a careful pessimistic stance. Hold onto your wallet.
Sorry, an AC beat you to it by two posts.
Otherwise, by modern US patent law, you'd like totally own it.
Any sites you could pay to leave Google would only benefit Google and the world when they were gone, imho.
He hates jerks who aggregate community content behind a paywall. Like CDDB.
Many users don't know that there free options like Stack Overflow that are better for everyone, so they get stuck at the first company to come up on Google. While such flypaper may occasionally catch an interesting tidbit, the flypaper still needs to be removed to make a better place for everyone.
Without them these questions and answers would end up on some other forum, or Usenet, and everyone would be better off.