It's actually general practice that engineers (ie, non lawyers) in most companies shall not look at patents. Even if they were decent teaching tools, which they intentionally are not, they systematically aren't available to those who could benefit from them.
if, "A+B" exists, and "C" exists, but there's no explicitly written and published in a specific form art for D, then A+B+C+D can't be be proven beyond any doubt, to be obvious except in hindsight
. Fixed that for you. Because there are many things that could give you a pretty good idea of obviousness.
For example, call a few engineers in the appropriate field and give them the scenario the patent was developed under and remind them of 'A+B+C' - if 'D' if the first thing out of their mouths, it IS obvious.
Also, if there's a list of similar methods D-G, and ABC+D is known to work, applying any of E-G is obvious. The way the people in whose name the law is enacted would use the word,.maybe not the way you do.
I grant that you're very likely right about the legal meanings of the terms, and thus your corrections are helpful. The problem with these discussions though is that they miss the point. You're a lawyer (probably) or soon will be. You get paid to trick people for a living and what benefits you more than anything else is more laws and more complicated laws, more-byzantine interpretations of the ones we have, government subsidies to be sought instead of producing things of value, etc..
You at times can be pushed to defending patents in terms of "increased innovation" but when you're shown to be wrong you still sell the system.
Discussing the details misses the point that encouraging production via government monopoly and injunctions is ridiculous. Even if they were fixed with regards to software, term limits, obviousness, etc, they'd still be the wrong tool for a job that didn't need to be done.
No, people like you - anxious to find spurious connections, draw that picture.
As many people have pointed out, cash can be traded for crime, as can bitcoins, or candy.
Most 419 scams ask for US Dollars. Most drugs get sold for USD, etc. By your logic carrying cash at all should be a sign of criminal intent.
But, if you're an authoritarian
Generation of bitcoins via illegal means brings the bitcoin ecosystem into further disrepute.
No, again, people like you pointing at every bad thing done via bitcoin, or by anyone who uses bitcoins, and claiming this is somehow endemic in bitcoin are trying to bring it into disrepute.
You're doing the practical equivalent of blaming the creators of TCP/IP for the content of the internet.
It also has the big disadvantage that it makes maintaining branches easy. In most projects, branches should be short-lived entities, where you create it, do some world-breaking work, and then merge back into trunk.
Haha. No. You've got the git fear. It's somewhat akin to thinking of pointers as unreliable.
Branches are greatly useful and only someone stunted by an inferior VCS could say such crazy things..
Git makes it easier to keep your changes private than to share them, which is not the behaviour that most projects want to encourage.
What projects want to encourage hastily coded features being merged into the main build? Git makes doing whatever you want as easy so you can decide based on circumstances, instead of being stuck with what your tool will do.
Re:Data, Images, Binary builds etc.
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
You want to pollute your source repo with gigabytes of largely irrelevant files? Knock yourself out. Git will do it as well as almost anything else. However, if you want local copies it means either everyone downloading those files redundantly or having a branch that doesn't get copied by default (and thus lose the decentralization).
Your exact argument works on anything the victim saw coming, and it's the same argument abusive authority always uses - "you knew we tied this abuse to this essential service and you continued to consume it anyway..."
You aren't a lawyer, you're a dictatorship apologist.
So now a TSA pat down is equivalent to being molested?
If unwanted, yes.
It's an ideal situation for a molester. They can separate everyone as desired, they're allowed to lie to and manipulate people, they're the trusted authority whose word courts take by default, everyone "makes up" horrible stories to justify the drugs they had (planted on them)... With such a setup we should be amazed only a few seem bad.
It clearly is though, and anyone who'd say a delusion isn't a delusion simply because it's "religious" in nature is themselves delusional. Psych isn't a hard science to the degree that people can't say those obvious truths.
As long as the field venerates Freud you can't expect their collective wisdom to amount to much.
Sure. And while I'd usually be resistant to adding some new law, if we got rid of patent law and established a simple system of grants it'd be a huge win.
Even if it ended up as useless as the digital media-tax at least it wouldn't be so harmful.
The only reason you can say this is because you don't understand those areas as well as you understand software. Patents are all as crappy as software patents, it's just often less obvious because there are more implementation details in the way.
If we actually wanted to reward innovation we'd look for it and send it a check. For instance, if a lot of projects use a certain library, reward the authors, their teachers (where appropriate), tech writers, and anyone else related to its usefulness to others. No paperwork, no applications, no court, no fees, no injunctions, just cold hard support for innovation. We could use the money we, as a society, lose on lawyers who litigate patent nonsense, to support inventors.
In every area where patents help, or might be needed (drug research), there are simpler and less bureaucratic ways to provide that help.
This is a ridiculous idea. In the sense that hearing this will encourage similar lawsuits, it's a bad precedent. What goes on in a system like Wikipedia is a matter for site policy, not law. What's next? Suing someone because their thief-character stole some in-game item from you?
The public has no reasonable expectation that what they read is right. Companies often leave their strongest competitors off any lists they make of the competition. Nobody has a right to read only right things. So making a website less right isn't a crime against the public. You need to learn to discern the truth, and the only way is to go into everything with a critical eye. If we require everything to be 'true', and forbid lying, you really just criminalize (or in the case of civil law, penalize) dissident views.
Perhaps the page was about word processors and the "competitor" made a text editor - a totally different program. Is it right to delete them? The correct process is the same as with any other piece of data on Wikipedia - make your change and explain it in the comment. Well supported changes stick. But the community handles it, it's just data.
If there's a case here it's Wikipedia's. Their data has (purportedly) been intentionally made less accurate by someone purporting to be making a useful edit.
That theory, while trivially true, falls down when you're borrowing at usurious rates and taxing people to fund inefficient government-enabled monopolies to inject funds into an economy with more holes in it.
[But mom,] China, Russia, India, or Japan also [...]
Ahhh, comparing yourselves to China and Russia. Remember when you used to make you look good?
You're now spying on all your people (and the rest of the world) and are ten years into the great patriotic war against Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and Yemen, etc.
A law is only applicable if it can be enforced otherwise it's just a bunch of bureaucratic posturing.
In other words, force is the only language you understand. Noted.
You have no expectation of privacy on a work computer. The owners have the right to bypass all security measures and read everything. Then they are required by law to report most of the illegal activity they find.
In the same way the electorate are the rulers of the country and ultimately have the right to know what's being done in their names.
Obviously our government can't be trusted (lying about the need to invade Iraq, etc) and therefore, however beneficial it would be to keep some secrets, we cannot justify it. People are dying, unjustly, at our hands. Our convenience is laughably unimportant.
In this case at least he was relevant. You on the other hand, were not. Your counter-trolling is just more disruption, which (if he is a troll) is his ultimate goal.
Re:They've got a point
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
That's the problem with consoles. On a PC you'd just copy the savedir.
Similarly, I can't imagine the poor schmucks playing Oblivion/Morrowind on the console. There are so many instances (5+) where you can break the main quest through a bug where you can trivially fix on the PC by restoring an item or NPC that would have forced you to replay the game on a console.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually general practice that engineers (ie, non lawyers) in most companies shall not look at patents. Even if they were decent teaching tools, which they intentionally are not, they systematically aren't available to those who could benefit from them.
if, "A+B" exists, and "C" exists, but there's no explicitly written and published in a specific form art for D, then A+B+C+D can't be be proven beyond any doubt, to be obvious except in hindsight
.
Fixed that for you. Because there are many things that could give you a pretty good idea of obviousness.
For example, call a few engineers in the appropriate field and give them the scenario the patent was developed under and remind them of 'A+B+C' - if 'D' if the first thing out of their mouths, it IS obvious.
Also, if there's a list of similar methods D-G, and ABC+D is known to work, applying any of E-G is obvious. The way the people in whose name the law is enacted would use the word,.maybe not the way you do.
I grant that you're very likely right about the legal meanings of the terms, and thus your corrections are helpful. The problem with these discussions though is that they miss the point. You're a lawyer (probably) or soon will be. You get paid to trick people for a living and what benefits you more than anything else is more laws and more complicated laws, more-byzantine interpretations of the ones we have, government subsidies to be sought instead of producing things of value, etc..
You at times can be pushed to defending patents in terms of "increased innovation" but when you're shown to be wrong you still sell the system.
Discussing the details misses the point that encouraging production via government monopoly and injunctions is ridiculous. Even if they were fixed with regards to software, term limits, obviousness, etc, they'd still be the wrong tool for a job that didn't need to be done.
This trojan adds to that picture.
No, people like you - anxious to find spurious connections, draw that picture.
As many people have pointed out, cash can be traded for crime, as can bitcoins, or candy.
Most 419 scams ask for US Dollars. Most drugs get sold for USD, etc. By your logic carrying cash at all should be a sign of criminal intent.
But, if you're an authoritarian
Generation of bitcoins via illegal means brings the bitcoin ecosystem into further disrepute.
No, again, people like you pointing at every bad thing done via bitcoin, or by anyone who uses bitcoins, and claiming this is somehow endemic in bitcoin are trying to bring it into disrepute.
You're doing the practical equivalent of blaming the creators of TCP/IP for the content of the internet.
Yeah, quit white-washing it. He was also a liar, a thief, and probably sexually got off on killing.
It also has the big disadvantage that it makes maintaining branches easy. In most projects, branches should be short-lived entities, where you create it, do some world-breaking work, and then merge back into trunk.
Haha. No. You've got the git fear. It's somewhat akin to thinking of pointers as unreliable.
Branches are greatly useful and only someone stunted by an inferior VCS could say such crazy things..
Git makes it easier to keep your changes private than to share them, which is not the behaviour that most projects want to encourage.
What projects want to encourage hastily coded features being merged into the main build? Git makes doing whatever you want as easy so you can decide based on circumstances, instead of being stuck with what your tool will do.
You want to pollute your source repo with gigabytes of largely irrelevant files? Knock yourself out. Git will do it as well as almost anything else. However, if you want local copies it means either everyone downloading those files redundantly or having a branch that doesn't get copied by default (and thus lose the decentralization).
Especially as Bradley Manning is the hero of this war.
groping is a potentially required process.
No, it isn't. The groping is the terrorists winning. When applied as a ritual it does nothing.
That decision requires a screening, whether or not you agree.
So "require" in your stunted authoritarian world just means some liar with a uniform said it was necessary?
Your exact argument works on anything the victim saw coming, and it's the same argument abusive authority always uses - "you knew we tied this abuse to this essential service and you continued to consume it anyway..."
You aren't a lawyer, you're a dictatorship apologist.
So now a TSA pat down is equivalent to being molested?
If unwanted, yes.
It's an ideal situation for a molester. They can separate everyone as desired, they're allowed to lie to and manipulate people, they're the trusted authority whose word courts take by default, everyone "makes up" horrible stories to justify the drugs they had (planted on them)... With such a setup we should be amazed only a few seem bad.
It clearly is though, and anyone who'd say a delusion isn't a delusion simply because it's "religious" in nature is themselves delusional. Psych isn't a hard science to the degree that people can't say those obvious truths.
As long as the field venerates Freud you can't expect their collective wisdom to amount to much.
We need to realize that terrorist is an objective term, and our soldiers are terrorists by all rational standards.
"Shock and Awe"
Sure. And while I'd usually be resistant to adding some new law, if we got rid of patent law and established a simple system of grants it'd be a huge win.
Even if it ended up as useless as the digital media-tax at least it wouldn't be so harmful.
The only reason you can say this is because you don't understand those areas as well as you understand software. Patents are all as crappy as software patents, it's just often less obvious because there are more implementation details in the way.
If we actually wanted to reward innovation we'd look for it and send it a check. For instance, if a lot of projects use a certain library, reward the authors, their teachers (where appropriate), tech writers, and anyone else related to its usefulness to others. No paperwork, no applications, no court, no fees, no injunctions, just cold hard support for innovation. We could use the money we, as a society, lose on lawyers who litigate patent nonsense, to support inventors.
In every area where patents help, or might be needed (drug research), there are simpler and less bureaucratic ways to provide that help.
This is a ridiculous idea. In the sense that hearing this will encourage similar lawsuits, it's a bad precedent. What goes on in a system like Wikipedia is a matter for site policy, not law. What's next? Suing someone because their thief-character stole some in-game item from you?
The public has no reasonable expectation that what they read is right. Companies often leave their strongest competitors off any lists they make of the competition. Nobody has a right to read only right things. So making a website less right isn't a crime against the public. You need to learn to discern the truth, and the only way is to go into everything with a critical eye. If we require everything to be 'true', and forbid lying, you really just criminalize (or in the case of civil law, penalize) dissident views.
Perhaps the page was about word processors and the "competitor" made a text editor - a totally different program. Is it right to delete them? The correct process is the same as with any other piece of data on Wikipedia - make your change and explain it in the comment. Well supported changes stick. But the community handles it, it's just data.
If there's a case here it's Wikipedia's. Their data has (purportedly) been intentionally made less accurate by someone purporting to be making a useful edit.
That theory, while trivially true, falls down when you're borrowing at usurious rates and taxing people to fund inefficient government-enabled monopolies to inject funds into an economy with more holes in it.
[But mom,] China, Russia, India, or Japan also [...]
Ahhh, comparing yourselves to China and Russia. Remember when you used to make you look good?
You're now spying on all your people (and the rest of the world) and are ten years into the great patriotic war against Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and Yemen, etc.
A law is only applicable if it can be enforced otherwise it's just a bunch of bureaucratic posturing.
In other words, force is the only language you understand. Noted.
You have no expectation of privacy on a work computer. The owners have the right to bypass all security measures and read everything. Then they are required by law to report most of the illegal activity they find.
In the same way the electorate are the rulers of the country and ultimately have the right to know what's being done in their names.
Obviously our government can't be trusted (lying about the need to invade Iraq, etc) and therefore, however beneficial it would be to keep some secrets, we cannot justify it. People are dying, unjustly, at our hands. Our convenience is laughably unimportant.
Julian Assange is just telling the truth. If you think that's a military action you'd have to admit that your intense propagandizing certainly is.
If a Wikileaks supporter popped over tonight, round 7ish, to shoot you for your role in this military action would you still feel this is okay?
I heard they're chopping what they pay you astroturfers which I guess explains why you're just phoning it in these days.
Will you shill for any authoritarian nonsense or are you fixated on IP?
In this case at least he was relevant. You on the other hand, were not. Your counter-trolling is just more disruption, which (if he is a troll) is his ultimate goal.
e^(i*tau)+0=1
There, art and useful.
If you want non-crippled install media you'll want to download it. Same with games. When the DRM gets in the way you get a working pirated version.
That's the problem with consoles. On a PC you'd just copy the savedir.
Similarly, I can't imagine the poor schmucks playing Oblivion/Morrowind on the console. There are so many instances (5+) where you can break the main quest through a bug where you can trivially fix on the PC by restoring an item or NPC that would have forced you to replay the game on a console.
FYI, You're off on all of those by a huge factor.
Trillions of dollars, billions of gallons of oil, and millions of lives.