"Some of the best educated people in the world have been the most terrible."
The argument of increasing the education of the general populous would help prevent this. Those "best educated" but "most terrible" people were unchallenged because the general populous didn't know any better.
"Conflict is inevitable in the world." Seems very true, but then again you have to be specific when it comes to conflict. When it comes to few individuals making choices that effect millions of people, then I believe this conflict can be eliminated with more equality and education. On the other hand, when it comes to conflict such as who is to blame in a car accident, then it gets more complicated. Still, with understanding (which becomes easier with more education) even such problems can be solved with little conflict.
There is a lot of truth in your arguments, but the fact is even though education and money are not going to solve it alone, they are key ingredients in the solution. Money and education should never be left out of the equation, because they effect us the most.
Sending lawyers to jail, awesome! I agree, that would solve some problems. It pisses me off that instead of seeing this as an insightful post, slashdotters mod it as Flaimbait. Then again, I'm not pissed, just disappointed.
You must admit, our laws are not perfect and some should flat out be nonexistant.
The fact is, it takes civil disobedience to change laws. There is literally almost no other way. You may or may not agree with our current intellectual property laws, but it will not be up to you, any politician, or any company executive to decide if the law is right. Although it may take some time for people to realize it themselves, the law will change. Take slavery for example. Even though slaves outnumbered slave owners in many areas, the law did not immediately change. It took time for people to make changes to the law. The law will never be perfect and you should never base your argument on law. Using law, you could flip the world upside down when it comes to right and wrong.
There is a big difference between investing and fraud. How something like this can help prevent fraud? You got me all confused. From all the fraud I've heard of, none of it delt with someone simply investing in a company, it was more like outvesting.
True. Well said. The only problem is that the first targets are small ones. They send letters to businesses saying to pay royalties. Almost all of them have no choice but to pay the smaller royalties than the legal costs of going against them. Slowly but surely they receive money and can continue forcing more to pay while going for larger businesses. The few that finally decide to take the patent to court rarely win. In theory, the system doesn't sound that bad. In practice, it has been a whole different world.
Check out "Owning The Future", its a book. Then you'll see how many stupid patents exist.
"If they grant thousands of patents a year and we only see 20 stupid patent articles..."
You seem to be assuming all stupid patents are posted on slashdot or other news sources. I wish all stupid patents were posted in the news because then people might finally start taking the issue on intellectual property seriously. Do some research on patents and you'll find more than you could ever ask for. You could spend the rest of your life reading about stupid patents and all the ways they have been used to stifle innovation, put others out of business, prevent competition, and put more money into lawyers pockets. Soon enough, half your money spent on products will be going towards paying off IP expenses. I just read recently that law expenses average to about $1,000 per person in America, many times what it was years ago.
"It's not until they start granting a "patent" on the whole idea of a toggling stick that we start having trouble."
That is the problem. Many patents are that way. At least in the eyes of lawyers. Certain companies and individuals have literally taken control of an entire idea with patents. Check out "Owning The Future". It's a book on patents mainly.
"best part is that the cost of Plan I (which has a data transfer limit of 500 megs) is only Rs 825 ($ 16.50)"
Sure, for us $16.50 doesn't sound bad, but in India where they obviously make more than we do (*sarcasm*)? Btw, what is this "Rs", CIA world factbook shows "Indian rupee (INR)" as being India's currency?
"...check out the Russian isolation experiment where 6 people will spend 500 days in a simulated spacecraft environment. (Sounds like a good reality TV show to me.)"
So do we get to vote them off? or do they vote off each other?
Nevermind. The exhaust was the cheat. I was wrong about the tires. Next time I should check out a better quality version of the video, and pay attention. I'm kind of out of it right now.
Actually, it didn't look to be CGI. Then again, I watched a slightly lower quality video of the commercial. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary except the tires rolling uphill. That was the obvious "cheat" they were talking about.
Just a small list of some popular ones: Beck Daniel Bedingfield Bee Gees blink-182 Bon Jovi Sheryl Crow Dr. Dre Eminem Jimi Hendrix Jay-Z
This is just a small list of some I thought most would know. Check out the list, SILIZIUMM put up a link. Just look for the reply below. Anyway, I was wondering, are they signed up with the RIAA? If so, if Apple does buy them, will they still be signed up? Personally, I think we should boycott the RIAA. http://www.boycott-riaa.com
Sell drugs. Its risky, but supposedly the profits are great. The best thing is you don't have to worry about taxes, just skip them altogether. You'll be out of luck if they decide to legalize and tax it though. Jail time, risk of getting shot, etc. are all bad things as well. Then again, stick to whatever your doing. Sorry I can't help with your taxes.
Anyone remember the last Star Wars movie? The part where the Chancelor (I think) was given supreme power to build a clone army and he said afterwards he would step down. Isn't it sad when power is meant to be instituted upon an individual or group for a limited time, but when that individual or group gains that power they suddenly realize "hey I like this, I wanna keep it." The power of corruption with those in power is amazingly strong. Even worse fact is that those in power don't really think that what they are doing is wrong. We can't allow them to just extend an Act because they feel it is right. The people I'm sure don't feel like it is right.
Doesn't work the same with ideas. Physical property is far different. To treat ideas like we do physical property would be wrong. One should never even consider physical property when coming up with laws to "protect" ideas. In math infinity is treated different from other numbers, very different. We don't worry about running out of the air we breathe because it is infinite (atleast it seems), but we do worry about having enough food. If there is something you do not understand, please feel free to ask.
People won't respect the law if they don't agree to it, and there are many that don't agree to IP laws. I am one of them. I could go on about why, but instead I'll direct you towards some sources. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/ http://w ww.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/ http:// www.reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml and if you can find a book titled "Owning the Future" by Seth Shulman.
"I disagree that free markets are self-organizing..."
Then you go on about fraud. Free market is a market where the supply and demand are not regulated. Where does fraud come in to play? If free markets aren't self-organizing, then who is doing the organizing?
"This hasn't always been the case..."
Hence the reason he wrote "according to our present views."
"for quality reasons, rather than for purposes of copying and "sharing.""
Actually, we are moving towards more sharing of information, only corporations and certain groups and individuals are resisting it. The distribution of information and sharing it has been constantly increasing technology wise. Slashdot is one example, should I give you thousands of others? Yes, quality is a factor, but copying and sharing is a more important when it comes to ideas and information. You can't get better quality than a perfect digital copy.
He wrote "Technology today is simply exposing the false assumption, made long ago, that information is difficult to copy."
then you responded "Again, I don't think you can make that argument."
I think he can make that argument. Look at it one more time. You then go on about how some have abused the convenience of copying. Humans do this. We make things more convenient. That is why we invented the bike, the car, the phone, the plane, etc.
"Communist and Socialist influence. Alas, many people still subscribe to those morally bankrupt philosophies..."
The whole idea behind these philosophies was to bring about equality. These philosophies are not perfect and also something you should know THEY WERE NOT PRACTICED AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. Communism in theory was very good, but that was in theory. Still, ideas within the philosophy are very important. Some of them should be taken very seriously. The capitalistic system is not perfect and neither is any other. Instead, one should acknowledge this and adapt to create a better system.
Re:/bzzzt *black cloud of smoke*
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
"those that just don't want to pay for anything"
Assumptions a plenty here at slashdot. You find me one person that wants to pay for everything. How about the air we breathe, maybe someone should charge for that. Consider the fact that ideas unlike physical property is infinite in number. To "own" it is simply a means to control it. Giving any one person or company such control is dangerous and bad in many other ways that I will not discuss at the moment. I'll leave your imagination to think of some.
I got an idea. It is something that will more than likely be used one day. Now for a patent. Few years later, bam, first victim. Some odd years later I'm a millionaire. Not possible. Well, actually there is one case where a man set up a small company (simply to cover his a$$ in court) got a bunch of lawyers and started patenting ideas that were going to be used in the future and even ones that already were being used. Then all the letters for royalty payments. Most gave in, due to high legal fees, and most who fought lost. There are other cases of people that did this. Amazon seems to be following them in their footsteps with all there crazy patents.
"The technology developed by SplashPower is based on the principle of magnetic inductive power transfer.
Inductive charging systems are already used in products like rechargeable electric toothbrushes."
They based it on a principle they did not discover. The technology already exists and all they did was make a slight improvement. So they deserve to own the rights to the technology all of a sudden?
Personally I'm against all patents (Based on many many many many hours of reading about the subject). Yet, I know most people do not agree with that. Still, what is so new that they did here to get a patent if you really believe in it? Slight improvement? If you did some reading on the legal side of patents you'd see that for one they would be infringing on a patent if one existed for the technology already. Second, if they did receive one, due to the way lawyers seem to do things, they could charge royalties on all those previous products similar to theirs. Don't think so? The companies that have to pay royalties have two choices. One is pay up in royalties, or second is pay up in legal fees to fight the patent, which will cost many times more than the royalties themselves. The rate at which companies spend on legal fees is increasing constantly. Less is put into technology investment due to this, or the cost is just passed to the customers.
How much do you really know about patents to make such a statement as you did?
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, the industry is down to its knees begging to have laws passed to help keep them alive in the future.
"Some of the best educated people in the world have been the most terrible."
The argument of increasing the education of the general populous would help prevent this. Those "best educated" but "most terrible" people were unchallenged because the general populous didn't know any better.
"Conflict is inevitable in the world." Seems very true, but then again you have to be specific when it comes to conflict. When it comes to few individuals making choices that effect millions of people, then I believe this conflict can be eliminated with more equality and education. On the other hand, when it comes to conflict such as who is to blame in a car accident, then it gets more complicated. Still, with understanding (which becomes easier with more education) even such problems can be solved with little conflict.
There is a lot of truth in your arguments, but the fact is even though education and money are not going to solve it alone, they are key ingredients in the solution. Money and education should never be left out of the equation, because they effect us the most.
Sending lawyers to jail, awesome! I agree, that would solve some problems. It pisses me off that instead of seeing this as an insightful post, slashdotters mod it as Flaimbait. Then again, I'm not pissed, just disappointed.
You must admit, our laws are not perfect and some should flat out be nonexistant.
The fact is, it takes civil disobedience to change laws. There is literally almost no other way. You may or may not agree with our current intellectual property laws, but it will not be up to you, any politician, or any company executive to decide if the law is right.
Although it may take some time for people to realize it themselves, the law will change. Take slavery for example. Even though slaves outnumbered slave owners in many areas, the law did not immediately change. It took time for people to make changes to the law. The law will never be perfect and you should never base your argument on law. Using law, you could flip the world upside down when it comes to right and wrong.
There is a big difference between investing and fraud. How something like this can help prevent fraud? You got me all confused. From all the fraud I've heard of, none of it delt with someone simply investing in a company, it was more like outvesting.
True. Well said. The only problem is that the first targets are small ones. They send letters to businesses saying to pay royalties. Almost all of them have no choice but to pay the smaller royalties than the legal costs of going against them. Slowly but surely they receive money and can continue forcing more to pay while going for larger businesses. The few that finally decide to take the patent to court rarely win. In theory, the system doesn't sound that bad. In practice, it has been a whole different world.
Check out "Owning The Future", its a book. Then you'll see how many stupid patents exist.
"If they grant thousands of patents a year and we only see 20 stupid patent articles..."
You seem to be assuming all stupid patents are posted on slashdot or other news sources. I wish all stupid patents were posted in the news because then people might finally start taking the issue on intellectual property seriously. Do some research on patents and you'll find more than you could ever ask for. You could spend the rest of your life reading about stupid patents and all the ways they have been used to stifle innovation, put others out of business, prevent competition, and put more money into lawyers pockets. Soon enough, half your money spent on products will be going towards paying off IP expenses. I just read recently that law expenses average to about $1,000 per person in America, many times what it was years ago.
"It's not until they start granting a "patent" on the whole idea of a toggling stick that we start having trouble."
That is the problem. Many patents are that way. At least in the eyes of lawyers. Certain companies and individuals have literally taken control of an entire idea with patents. Check out "Owning The Future". It's a book on patents mainly.
Freedom on the internet is becoming increasingly threatened by corporate and government interests. What can a /. reader do to help prevent this?
"best part is that the cost of Plan I (which has a data transfer limit of 500 megs) is only Rs 825 ($ 16.50)"
Sure, for us $16.50 doesn't sound bad, but in India where they obviously make more than we do (*sarcasm*)?
Btw, what is this "Rs", CIA world factbook shows "Indian rupee (INR)" as being India's currency?
"...check out the Russian isolation experiment where 6 people will spend 500 days in a simulated spacecraft environment. (Sounds like a good reality TV show to me.)"
So do we get to vote them off? or do they vote off each other?
Nevermind. The exhaust was the cheat. I was wrong about the tires. Next time I should check out a better quality version of the video, and pay attention. I'm kind of out of it right now.
Actually, it didn't look to be CGI. Then again, I watched a slightly lower quality video of the commercial. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary except the tires rolling uphill. That was the obvious "cheat" they were talking about.
Just a small list of some popular ones:
Beck
Daniel Bedingfield
Bee Gees
blink-182
Bon Jovi
Sheryl Crow
Dr. Dre
Eminem
Jimi Hendrix
Jay-Z
This is just a small list of some I thought most would know. Check out the list, SILIZIUMM put up a link. Just look for the reply below. Anyway, I was wondering, are they signed up with the RIAA? If so, if Apple does buy them, will they still be signed up? Personally, I think we should boycott the RIAA. http://www.boycott-riaa.com
Sell drugs. Its risky, but supposedly the profits are great. The best thing is you don't have to worry about taxes, just skip them altogether. You'll be out of luck if they decide to legalize and tax it though. Jail time, risk of getting shot, etc. are all bad things as well. Then again, stick to whatever your doing. Sorry I can't help with your taxes.
Anyone remember the last Star Wars movie? The part where the Chancelor (I think) was given supreme power to build a clone army and he said afterwards he would step down. Isn't it sad when power is meant to be instituted upon an individual or group for a limited time, but when that individual or group gains that power they suddenly realize "hey I like this, I wanna keep it." The power of corruption with those in power is amazingly strong. Even worse fact is that those in power don't really think that what they are doing is wrong. We can't allow them to just extend an Act because they feel it is right. The people I'm sure don't feel like it is right.
LOL, oops. I never realized that it was spelled that way before. Funny how I usually spell correctly. Thanks for the correction.
Doesn't work the same with ideas. Physical property is far different. To treat ideas like we do physical property would be wrong. One should never even consider physical property when coming up with laws to "protect" ideas. In math infinity is treated different from other numbers, very different. We don't worry about running out of the air we breathe because it is infinite (atleast it seems), but we do worry about having enough food. If there is something you do not understand, please feel free to ask.
Just to let you know. You mispelled speech.
People won't respect the law if they don't agree to it, and there are many that don't agree to IP laws. I am one of them. I could go on about why, but instead I'll direct you towards some sources.w ww.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il// www.reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/
http://
http:/
and if you can find a book titled "Owning the Future" by Seth Shulman.
"I disagree that free markets are self-organizing..."
Then you go on about fraud. Free market is a market where the supply and demand are not regulated. Where does fraud come in to play? If free markets aren't self-organizing, then who is doing the organizing?
"This hasn't always been the case..."
Hence the reason he wrote "according to our present views."
"for quality reasons, rather than for purposes of copying and "sharing.""
Actually, we are moving towards more sharing of information, only corporations and certain groups and individuals are resisting it. The distribution of information and sharing it has been constantly increasing technology wise. Slashdot is one example, should I give you thousands of others? Yes, quality is a factor, but copying and sharing is a more important when it comes to ideas and information. You can't get better quality than a perfect digital copy.
He wrote "Technology today is simply exposing the false assumption, made long ago, that information is difficult to copy."
then you responded
"Again, I don't think you can make that argument."
I think he can make that argument. Look at it one more time. You then go on about how some have abused the convenience of copying. Humans do this. We make things more convenient. That is why we invented the bike, the car, the phone, the plane, etc.
"Communist and Socialist influence. Alas, many people still subscribe to those morally bankrupt philosophies..."
The whole idea behind these philosophies was to bring about equality. These philosophies are not perfect and also something you should know THEY WERE NOT PRACTICED AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. Communism in theory was very good, but that was in theory. Still, ideas within the philosophy are very important. Some of them should be taken very seriously. The capitalistic system is not perfect and neither is any other. Instead, one should acknowledge this and adapt to create a better system.
"those that just don't want to pay for anything"
Assumptions a plenty here at slashdot. You find me one person that wants to pay for everything. How about the air we breathe, maybe someone should charge for that. Consider the fact that ideas unlike physical property is infinite in number. To "own" it is simply a means to control it. Giving any one person or company such control is dangerous and bad in many other ways that I will not discuss at the moment. I'll leave your imagination to think of some.
I got an idea. It is something that will more than likely be used one day. Now for a patent. Few years later, bam, first victim. Some odd years later I'm a millionaire. Not possible. Well, actually there is one case where a man set up a small company (simply to cover his a$$ in court) got a bunch of lawyers and started patenting ideas that were going to be used in the future and even ones that already were being used. Then all the letters for royalty payments. Most gave in, due to high legal fees, and most who fought lost. There are other cases of people that did this. Amazon seems to be following them in their footsteps with all there crazy patents.
"The technology developed by SplashPower is based on the principle of magnetic inductive power transfer.
Inductive charging systems are already used in products like rechargeable electric toothbrushes."
They based it on a principle they did not discover. The technology already exists and all they did was make a slight improvement. So they deserve to own the rights to the technology all of a sudden?
Personally I'm against all patents (Based on many many many many hours of reading about the subject). Yet, I know most people do not agree with that. Still, what is so new that they did here to get a patent if you really believe in it? Slight improvement? If you did some reading on the legal side of patents you'd see that for one they would be infringing on a patent if one existed for the technology already. Second, if they did receive one, due to the way lawyers seem to do things, they could charge royalties on all those previous products similar to theirs. Don't think so? The companies that have to pay royalties have two choices. One is pay up in royalties, or second is pay up in legal fees to fight the patent, which will cost many times more than the royalties themselves. The rate at which companies spend on legal fees is increasing constantly. Less is put into technology investment due to this, or the cost is just passed to the customers.
How much do you really know about patents to make such a statement as you did?
Just had some more thoughts. Make that 360 degrees. 180 wouldn't be good for a number or reasons.