"...it's never a good idea to radically alter the law in a short period of time."
If a certain law is faulty, taking it through a slow process where the same people in power are currently involved in making the law worse is definitely not the solution. Right now the laws are being made according the lobbyists. We can all scream all we want on slashdot about the problems and solutions, but that doesn't make a difference. I doubt many people here trully spend the time thinking about the subject and how their solutions fit into the real world. Unfortunately, the radical ideas are the best. To completely scrap a law is not a bad idea in some cases, this being a major one. Seriously consider the worst possible thing that could happen without the patent laws. Now some of you out there conditioned to fear crime will probably talk about mass piracy of ideas and "intellectual rights" and maybe terrorism thrown in there somewhere. I can now in the same instance give you a crazy utopian view. Now for the reality. Things will change, and unpopular as this opinion is, for the better, without patent laws. If you believe the U.S. is a very capitalistic system (monopolies are discouraged), then why USPTO?
"...law and doctrines that have been refined over hundreds of years."
Prooving my point even more so. The law of intellectual property began by some pressuring to put it in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson did not initially agree to the idea. Considering the writings of Thomas Jefferson, he was most likely pressured. It was the wealthy back then that wanted the USPTO to help control their markets and it is wealthy today that take advantage of this legal power. Somehow people seriously still believe in the idea of idea ownership (copyright is a little different, but currently is still far too restrictive). Our entire intellectualy propery system was a flawed concept from the beginning because it was in the interest of keeping power, not promoting science. That were we are today is because of patents. What does that mean, nothing. The one belief that is so absurd, but apparently convincing, is that the patent system actually promotes progress. The patent system is a tool of control. It allows those with a legal document to have limited control regarding a particular idea. Unfortunately, limited is an understatement. We provided a legal tool for the wealthy, and they expanded the power of the tool. Just take a look at the original IP laws and how they have changed since. I will argue that we must nearly eliminate the law because there are no minor changes that can be made to make significant changes. Even worse, the law is already very large. We have split it into various forms and then made larger and larger volumes of material to move through to understand and/or to fight the law. You can nibble all the small and even large cases in court about particular patents, but by then you've accepted this law as a required. By then, everyone is caught up in this process that no one would seriously consider abolishing the law outright. Imagine all the patent lawyers, judges, companies that use it as market leverage, individuals that receive income because of it. All biased because it is that system in which they live and work that they rely on to survive. Only in support of preventing a major problem in finding ways of bringing these people into a new world where ideas aren't fought in court, but in the market, I would agree that we can't abolish the law(s). I can and will argue against IP laws, but it won't make much different here on slashdot. There is an entire system that would be demolished in almost an instant, and there are far too many that will fight to prevent the destruction of this system. It would be great if law changed for the better, but with IP it has become a tool for control and has only expanded. If those with IP wanted to, they could all sue each other into oblivion right now, but they won't. They pick their battles, and use their portfolio for defense. So the question becomes, well, there are far too many actually. The question is not whether it promotes progress or not, because we already know it doesn't in almost all cases.
You still fail to see the real point, the one that causes people to hate companies like Microsoft and even politics. It isn't about one mistake, but the image the company/person puts out and what really goes on. It is about the agenda behind the person/company and the actions taken over time. Nothing wrong with second chance, but why give criminals enough room to make another more costly one. You can now argue to me the image of Microsoft you have, but that simply doesn't stick to the facts. Hypocrisy is a big problem. Not just because it happens, but because we tolerate it. Imagine any person you have trust in, now imagine that person now lying to you on a frequent basis. Would you then later trust this person with your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The DEA doesn't tolerate personal drug use, but we tolerate criminal behavior in our corporations and government? Now I don't mean that all people do, but that this is what you do not see, and so you are one of the tolerating ones. You wouldn't care to defend the rights of another individual, but somehow have all the words to defend a corporation of which you really no little about. You then went on the attack, claiming all the beautiful rights that corporations throw around in the court room. Your the one failing to realize something. It is that people are rebelling based on moral reasons as much as they are on financial ones. It is no accident that Microsoft has such large sums of money. This is NOT success we should be proud of. It means the economy is inefficient, noncompetitive, and has the ability to create various problems such as social ones. You may not understand this, but some do. I could go on. Instead I will say one last thing, consider the possibility your wrong about what others have convinced you is right. Just because it is on paper, does not make it right. We should follow the law, but understand that we need to fight laws as often as the corporations do to create more innovative ones.
Your right, I misread your post. My attention was immediately taken by this statement
"Nothing to see here, move along move along. I'm sure, of course, this won't stop a bunch of card-carrying tinfoil elitists from crying wolf."
Now is this really necessary? I didn't read the article and I'll admit that. Even though I do read most, I don't have the time to read every single one. I was just interested in skimming the comments to see if anything interesting was being said. Unfortunately,/. contains plenty of quick comments that help in no way to clear up a subject or provide more information. The reason I misunderstood your post is that last line. It focused my attention on your motive. Since you appeared to be bashing anyone that questioned the government, I looked at the previous lines for bias. I only now realize that you wrote "...they say...". My fault for skimming the comments. You have to admit though, that last line just wasn't required. It is an invitation for a flame war, which I did not wish to start and it was my mistake misreading. On the other hand, I do notice that your quite the hypocrite. It is in how you wrote the comment. You provided your opinions "...the conveniently edited write up...",
"...there's not much of anything to see here...", and then the entire last line. The major problem I have with your comments is not that they are opinions, but that they are urging people to ignore this. Your mindset is one in which it is up to you to decide what is important for everyone else. Now although you may not seriously be that type of person, the hints are there. This also is a major problem in the U.S., but that is a different topic. I just don't like others telling others what they should or should not read.
So to answer your last question: "Christ.. is it just me or does Slashdot actively make people dumber?"
Is it not also up to Indymedia to defend itself? If the EFF believes it needs to uphold certain rights, then how is it not in the position to do so in this case? So are we to stop questioning the government?
"...the documents are part of an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized by the unsealing."
Your reaching on that one. Are you making excuses for the government without any knowledge on this matter beyond that which you've read in the news? If you do, then by all means let us know.
The tinfoil, conspiracy theory, and related comments serve no purpose. Why do people insist on arguing about such foolish things? Examples such as "Your a conpiracy nut, whatever you say is a lie", "What do you know, your just... they are...", "They are never wrong" and many many more statements that lose focus. Focus on the argument. In this case EFF is defending freedom of speech and the government is defending its position of secrecy. In most cases freedom of speech wins. Like you sad in #2, disclosure can pose problems under certain circumstances. Yet your post has provided no argument to support the governments stance. Still you defend them. Why?
Since you only posted one side of the coin, I'll do my best on the other side. First, I'm not a Gentoo user. Now, what is it about car tuners, overclockers, Gentoo tweakers, Linux kernel programmers, athletes, engineers, and many others that you hate? Do you hate their drive to push that extra few percent out of their machines or their bodies? Just looking at your own example I see just over 2 percent increase from -O and - 03 -march... Is this not significant? Well sure, maybe you don't give a shit because 1 second does not matter to you. Now before we jump all over another persons opinions, wants, or needs we should take the time to think. Consider a person running a test of some sort running 10 hours using 100 percent of the proc. undrr normal conditions. To tune the OS for a small increase in speed under such circumstances it makes a pretty significant difference in time running. Before you criticize the Gentoo users with comments such as "k-l33t cFlaGz omghax", consider that your only arguing your point-of-view.
It makes sense to me. As a business do you not cater to your market? Their market is interested in large email storage, and more. So they deliver. Whether or not it is easy to do, some do not have an interest in doing it themselves. Some want their job outsourced to a company. Not everyone is interested in, or capable of doing it themselves. Not everyone is like the typical slashdot member. Think business when viewing BUSINESS like decisions. Too many submitters here throw out "why" and make their argument yet ignore other points of view. Although the internet is changing business, a business's number one goal is still profit.
This is actually a very good method of thinking outside the box for companies. They throw out some clue or some thoughts on some business idea, not too much. The public or some certain gourp of people tear apart the idea and the company/organization gets some good out of the box ideas from this group. Whether this is true on their part, I'm not sure. It would only make sense to gather information that is easily available. Large companies spend a lot of money to both produce an image and to learn about the market. The internet has made this a lot cheaper and easier.
"My buddy runs a tiny little graphic design shop..."
Do you see the flaw in your argument about defending this law without questioning it? His shop exists, DUE TO THE LAW. This is extremely important to understand. The large corporations in fact need these small operations to keep people from believing they do not need this law. Imagine if no small company dealing with IP existed. People would find it obvious that IP laws are unjust in this case. But because there are jobs, small businesses, friends, family, etc. on the line, then we keep the laws. If humanity is to progress, society will eventually have a completely different outlook on IP. Current laws are simply far behind. They are there to protect certain interests. Those of the small businesses and large ones alike. Whether you believe in the "right" to control ones work is because you have a very narrow idea of what IP is. Does one define a person by one accomplishment, or the combination of many factors? IP laws are in between, but obviously not near accomplishing a fair trade for work done. You could tell me you want control over "your" work, but what does that mean? Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds in the grand scheme of things. What leaves your mouth, your hands, etc. is no longer in your possession or control. I am not advocating the elimination of property laws btw. What I mean to say is that a persons work of art/music/invention/etc. is as important as it is. If it is trully grand, then fame, for example, is a form of protection against imposters. If the work is mediocre, then why should one care for control? No one would be interested. Things are a little more complicated, but I can guarantee you, that our current laws are very far from anything one would call good. Costs outway benefits in many many ways in our current system. Humanity will reach an unprecedented level of progress upon the complete overhaul of our IP system. Would you like to discuss this subject further? I don't mean any disrespect, but I hope you and all others with a stance on this issue would learn more before offering their opinions. Information on the other hand is always welcome. Also, about the market for IP. One must understand that nothing works perfectly. There are many factors that are preventing the progress to a new system of IP. You can argue that someone doesn't have to buy the $20 CD, but that comes with assumptions that should not be made. One example is that the industry is not illegally collaborating with price fixing and other tactics to prevent competition. This assumption would be very important in ones argument. But the industry ingores this when defending themselves for obvious reasons. If they admitted to it, well, you know what would basically happen next.
"They make the best web development tools in the business, period."
They have the best known throughout most of the world tools for their purpose, but that does not make them the best necessarily. Btw, who is to say they will continue making such "great" software? A business has no interest in progress unless they have no choice. Business-wise, they are what Microsoft is. They sell software. The internet is leaning the business world toward services, not sale of software. Any company that resists this is going to be up against a lot of pressure. This pressure exists everywhere, from end users that don't want to pay over and over to "upgrade" their product, to the large corporations that wish to lower their TCO. One can argue all they want about software as a "shrink wrapped" product all they want, but it doesn't change what is happening. Macromedia is going to be up against some very stiff competition. What keeps them alive is interesting in a way. They have a large user base for starters. They offered what people wanted at the time and quickly took control over a nice piece of the market. They exist because just like the MS Windows OS, people are stuck with it. There are many flash sites. They are not exactly a standard, they are simply popular. When people say standard, they generally talk about a technology that is NOT controlled by one company. A standard is agreed upon and used througout the world by many. Flash is simply a "popular" (depends on how you define popular too) technology being used by many, in many cases forcefully(not physically, etc. don't twist what I say please).
If they don't own that technology, and it'll cost them too much to buy (patents, licensing, etc) then yes they will supress it if it doesn't cost them as much to do so. You question what you don't know or are unsure of. This makes a lot of sense. There is a very good reason to question these types of things. Of course your not going to question why E = mc^2, unless your a physicist, mathematician, or happen to have knowledge that surrounds this equation. Also, by saying
"Car companies don't suppress technology that can make them a hell of a lot of money."
your assuming a lot of things. Quick example. Let us say that they found that using a different metal in the engine makes for better gas mileage. A decision to change to using this metal has a very profound effect. First off, you've afffected those that have supplied the original metal and now placed the burden on a different supplier (unless the same supplier offers this new metal). I can put many many many more connections to this small change, but I'm sure you get the picture. Any decision to upgrade in terms of technology, no matter how small or large is not small in terms of large corporations. Everything is relative. You see, different metal, no problem, replace metal, upgrade done. They see, suppliers, investors, shipping, effects of metal on other parts of the car, health of person (have to watch out for government regulations as well), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now, although my discussion doesn't directly deal with "suppression", it is there. One example, if the suppliers of this new metal have close business ties with a competitor and it is obviously going to cost them more (money, resources, control), then why not suppress it if you can? Sure, this is oversimplified, but you get the picture.
Yes, in a sense, the world does operate in a sort of logical manner. The problem is, the equation is not so simple.
"They're gonna use that money to make a better version of Windows and hawk it--big deal."
So you believe that $100 dollars is really going to be used to "better" Windows? Consider the fact that they are spending a lot of money of XBox and not doing it to make a profit (as of now). How about all the markets where Microsoft has thrown money into so as to drive the competition under. What you don't realize, is that Microsoft is basically the worst kind of company there is. Now it can be argued, but consider this. For most products we pay about the cost of what it takes to produce it, pay employees, ship it, etc. As long as competition is healthy, things work out pretty well. Microsoft deals with intangible goods. How is it that MS is such a profitable company? A large profit margin. The largest of just about any company in the world. Some employees get paid extremely well, and the top executives/investors/etc. have more money than you can imagine. The company is sitting on money that has not been put to much good use. This can be argued, but we all know how anti-competitive MS has been. When dealing with intangible assets, it becomes even easier to stifle competition and make very large profit margins. Consider that without MS, there would a large software service industry with standards that one company could not just kill off or ignore easily, and that the profit margins would be smaller. A healthy economy has more money moving around, not sitting inside the banks of large corporations like MS. This is all basic economics that you don't need to learn in any school. Agreed that those other problems AIDS, world hunger, and protecting our rights is important. But you don't realize the severity of contributing to Microsoft, in any way shape or form. Why not support those causes and NOT support MS? The bias against MS is well deserved. I'm tired of hearing people defend MS, but just as much about MS bashing remarks that have no foundation. If your going to bash MS, put down some good material. People don't need to hear the BS, since it turns them away from those that really do have things to say about the "evil" company.
About this story, to hell with it. I don't care for supporting Microsoft. If you feel that there is a need for more competition in the console market, then go with a completely different console. Or buy some Linux platform games. The choices of what you buy do make a difference. As a consumer you make daily decisions that, knowingly or not, make a difference. It surprises me how many people that despise what MS is will still go out and buy the XBox. Then again, maybe it doesn't. When the pendulum swings, it has to go all the way till it comes back. We haven't reached that peak yet where at least half their consumers are fed up.
Are you making accusations? Is there a point to this sentence, besides attempting to ridicule? Please be a little more mature when posting. There is no reason for such a comment.
"If an auto company could make their cars any more efficient, they most certainly would."
They can, the point is, why don't they? There are many reasons for this, some which have been pointed out by other posts. It isn't as simple as "we can do it so we will". It is not about the "can", but "will". Your assuming that they can't.
"It's a rather competitive industry, and fuel economy is a major selling point."
Competitive to a degree, yes. But remember, profit is a very very strong motive, and less competition generally means more profit for those selling. The equation is right there. Fuel consumption of automobiles is more a selling point now than it has been in the past, but it is not the number 1 selling point (yet?).
"Why the hell would a car company..."
I do not know all the answers, and I will never claim I do. I do one thing well though, and that is avoid making strong assumptions, especially that of which I do not know. Sometimes one has to fill in the gaps and assume some things and see if it fits the picture, and slowly work out all the facts to create a better understanding of "reality". I could give speculate many reasons why certain things are the way they are. What I try to do in all my posts is point out to everyone that they should never assume something and stick with it. Keep questioning, get all the facts you can, and don't forget to stop and quetion the facts you have obtained. There is a lot I do not know, and if I make a mistake I think about it. I will admit to it, and then attempt to figure out why my thoughts came to the wrong conclusion. I have gone completely off topic now. In conclusion, there is none.
A little optimistic when it comes to the better ideas winning. You ever read any books whatsoever? Heard of Tesla and Edision? How about the old steam engine wars? Why not look at the history of automobiles in general? The history of suppression of good ideas goes back as far as history itself. In a world of patents, copyright, reputation, various intellectual property laws, egoism, and other factors, the better idea doesn't always triumph. In fact, the opposite is true for the most part. It will take more than an idea to improve the automobile, there are plenty of those to go around. The technology exists to make automobiles many times more efficient. It is obvious that there are many factors that are not allowing these "ideas" to be used. The question is not what the next technological solution is, but what is the solution to bring out the tech that already exists without collapsing the economy and convincing/forcing/etc. the rich and powerful to go along with it. It will also take some education of the general population, which the wealthy and powerful don't care to do. The people have a say in this as well, but in general we appear to be happy for now.
In fact, what I just wrote is misleading too. All readers ignore what he said and what I said. Go get some physics books, some scientific material, and whatever else you can. Also, mod him down to oblivion. Funny maybe, but not "interesting" or "insightful".
First off, I didn't say that it was a definite. Second, thank you for posting an intelligent post as opposed to the "funny" posts that serve no purpose beyond entertainment. Third, do not throw out remakrs such as "Moron" or "take the plastic off before smoking". These comments make you look bad to the wise ones, and like we care about those that laugh about "mamma's jokes" like the immature kids do at school. This is slashdot, no need for such pointless language. Now to my point. This fact you pointed out is important. It shows how easily the patent office can be manipulated. It appears this criminal was not very smart. If that is the case, then imagine what a smart group of people working together as a company can do to make easy money on intellectual property. He removed files, what about another that could simply slip files through giving a company an advantage. The only thing one would need to do then is have some lawyers to back up all the legal matters. I side with neither in this case. In fact, I take what is said in such matters and go deeper. Remember, these papers are not truth. It is what each side said. What is said could be true or false and then one must consider what was NOT said. It is difficult analyzing all of this, especially when most of it is hearsay and claims from both sides. I can not come to any conclusion in this matter but the same one I do in all of these matters; the intellectual property system is seriously flawed and complicates our entire idea economy. Although I will say this. The man is obviously in the wrong. Like they say, two wrongs don't make a right. On the other hand, the defendant could be just as wrong as he is. The only problem is, it is him vs the entire company he screwed.
Actually, I would not say that it is funny, but interesting. There is a lot of comments about how the company he was extorting was in corruption with the USPTO. I would not doubt this either. The sole purpose of this company was intellectual property. In the world of IP, it is much easier to make money from basically nothing. You take the work of others, and make it illegal for any one else to use it. The problem is, you need some good lawyers and some connections in the USPTO to guarantee that you receive the patents soon enough and that they go through. Now, you can argua about IP and the function it is supposed to serve, but it is what is happening in reality that I am concerned about. IP is not about progress, rarely is the case. It is about keeping control over a particular industry/technology/company/etc. It appears that this criminal was in the know of the problems, but was unfortunately a complete idiot and when it came down to it, acted foolishly. Even all the comments on slashdot are about "darwin" this "dumb criminal" that. For a bunch of geeks, it makes me sad to hear that most of you fail to look deeper into this. Go ahead, make your jokes. Laugh at the foolish criminal that has the same immoral thoughts as the company he went after. He went for the money, not the right thing to do. If he really did have information that would have exposed the company to ties with the USPTO, it would give more firepower to changing the patent system or even eliminating it and replacing it with something that would work more in helping progress science. Now, I don't know what is true or not, and these all could be lies, but I don't ignore it as absurd simply because it was a foolish criminal that said it. Making a fool out of a someone that is an enemy will tend to help you escape some of those ugly comments they made. Then again, I could have misread, I did read through only some of it really quick anyway. I recommend people read this, not any foolish remarks on a foolish person. This is slashdot, not Criminal Minds R' Us. I'll read it later, will you?
So, what moral principle are they acting on? Why do they support Microsoft? You realize how hypcritical this organization is? One could easily show that these people have a financial interest in this. It may not be direct, but it exists. Go to the core of Microsoft vs Linux and you see what it is. You tell me which is closer to the word freedom. If you were to make a choice in operating systems based on freedom, which would it be? I assume that you have enough sense to understand what freedom means. So, those working at Microsoft are working for principle and those spending free time developing Linux and other open source software are doing it for the money? Ok, I understand. You equate freedom to money. You equate freedom to all the laws that PREVENT one from having access to source code, ability to copy, ability to modify, ability to contribute to, ability to toss away at any time, ability to receive, and many other aspects of open source. So, let me ask. What is the purpose behind these organizations? Why do they push their so called "freedoms", upon people who freely develop software? Why stop engineers from building for society which would otherwise be forced by what one calls a job? Is cooperation a bad thing? All those attacking open source will never outnumber those that contribute. I ask you now, which side do you stand on? Do you wish to contribute, or to attack the hand that feeds you?
"Just a reminder to every developer next time you try to implement a feature in your program, don't forget to search all existing patents and patent applications for possible violations."
This is NOT what one should do when implementing a feature in a program. First of all, developers should not be wasting time with the legal side of software. Most developers do not care for patents. Second, the moment a developer starts sifting through patent portfolios, they are both seeing a solution from the point of view of another developer(s) (or lawyers) and may have a hard time getting past this "better" option and sticking with their own, and they now can not legally say they had no idea the patent existed. I have heard before that even patent lawyers suggest that an inventor/developer not search through patents. What is a developer, a lawyer? No, they are interested in solving problems. Engineers are not interested in making things more complex (and you can not argue that law is about making things simple). Although the process itself may be complex, it is not in the interest of developers and such to complicate things. Fear is what I see in your entire post. Scare tactics. FUD, whatever you want to call it. Let me repeat, DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, etc. ARE NOT INTERESTED IN COMPLICATING THINGS. They seek the truth and/or they build machines/software/ideas to solve problems or understand a problem(or event). How many great scientists/developers/engineers do you know that support the patent system? Yes, some will say that we need it, but that it is currently flawed. Yet, even they will admit that they don't have the solution. There have been economists and various other social science professionals on the other hand that are against the idea of the patent system. First you must understand the reasons the patent system was created and why it still exists. You can spout the old myths about progress due to the patent system, but I dare you to show me scientifically (or any other possible, but convincing way) that patents are directly related to progress and I'll give my apologies. I'm very sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of the ignorance behind this patent issue. It is bad enough that people support the system, but to recommend that developers go spend their time sifting through patent files? If the patent system was unenforced though, it would be a great system for sharing knowledge related to inventing/engineering/etc.
"What it boils down to is that there's something horribly wrong with the current approach to "AI"."
I think that this depends which "current approach" your talking about. I don't personally know those working with AI, but when you get down to it, just about all scientists are in a sense are working on AI. Every field is related in some way or another. A programmer is working on an AI that works in binary, taking various input from any kind of device, doing the math, then outputting some results to some device(s). Medicine, what is that? We have created artifical medicines that react with our bodies in certain ways to produce some result(s). Mechanical engineers (like automobile engineers) create artifical objects for transportation. The only difference now is that a human is not using the machine real-time, but applying some more complicated machine we created to do what we asked it to do. The problem I see is that most engineers have a narrowed field of study and sometimes forget some of the other factors involved in a goal/task/process/etc. They then test and retest over and over their system they create to find problems and work a solution around it, broadening both the complexity and ability of the machine, but never perfecting it or making it any easier mentally for one person to comprehend. Since nature (physics, biology, math, etc.) is all connected in some way, understanding physics, math, and programming alone will only accomplish being able to make physics calculations for example and create software that produces results according to certain physics math. One with such knowledge still needs to know, location of objects on the terrain, the type of terrain, the amount of turn in the steering wheel to change the direction a specific angle, and compensating real-time for this change. There are many other factors and I could (even with my limited amount of knowledge on these subjects) write pages and pages of them. On the other hand, not all people have the capibility of understanding (could be argued and I wouldn't disagree) everything that is involved in this process of creating an autonomous vehicle to accomplish a task such as traversing a particular course. So people learn what they can and by combining the skills of many different people, as a team, they can accomplish complex tasks (although inefficiently) that nature has spent who knows how long to create an intelligence for. I believe that it all depends on the teams. Who is part of the team, who is leading the team, and the available resources the team has. As many intelligent people as there are out there, there is bound to be a team that can combine the right skills to accomplish the goal DARPA has set. I think the best bet would be to have a team that has at least one (if not more) person(people) that has(have) vast amounts of knowledge pertaining to fields that could be applied to this task, but not having to have mastered any particular field (although it would be extremely helpful). AI is a field that not one particular area of science can claim to posses the answer to (at least at our current level of understanding).
"...until some totally new approaches are developed for processing and information retrieval."
This is not a good thing. Consider this. If the RIAA continues, they will hinder technological progress by complicating the devices consumers use which means companies developing these devices will require employees with vast amounts of knowledge which the general consumer is not supposed to have since it is he/she that is the potential pirate. This will cause whatever piracy remains to be highly organized and tied into the blackmarket (they are indirectly creating crime that would not exist if they didn't have such control over their market). Going against the market creates problems. If you compare the RIAA do the DEA, you will notice certain similarities. They are in effect creating a new crime. Don't be surprised if 10-20 years from now you find the RIAA is closer to resembling the DEA. When a person making minimum wage sees a CD costing them maybe a quarter of a days worth of work at the store, what do you think goes through their mind? They have a some options; not to buy the CD, buy the CD and have less money for food/clothing/shelter/school/kids/books/whatever, steal the CD, find a friend that will make a copy for maybe around a dollar or free, download it offline for free, download it online from a foreign site for cheap(legal?), or buy it from an organized piracy group.
You understand the intentions of the RIAA well. Unfortunately, the outcome of their actions is not something I and I'm sure many others are willing to live with. The RIAA is simply a legal cartel. The question is, what do we do? Some have tried fighting it in the courts, some have used technological methods (P2P), some have gone to congress, and others have gone around their system trying to sell more directly. In every case, the RIAA has been there to make sure they still maintain control. They have threatened companies, consumers, and probably even congressmen. They have sued companies, consumers (not quite there yet, out of court for now it seems), and taken everyone they could to court. Competition? They are there, but are finding it hard fighting the RIAA cartel.
I don't disagree with your post, in fact, I agree. I just wanted to add some insight into the consequences of their actions.
That is all true, and very relevant. I think that their strategy may be underestimated though. Consider the fact that the U.S. and other western countries hold control over a lot of this technology. For them it isn't so much about progress as much as it is about control. There is a lot of history about corporations using their control to suppress superior technology because it would take away some of their control and in the end they would be replaced by some other company/industry. Politics, legal system, patents, licensing, control, and various other factors have a very large influence on progress. If China can manage to prevent the creation of a system both slow and restrictive, then it could easily progress a lot faster than expected. Few would have predicted the growth of the U.S. when it broke apart from the British empire. Few see the ability that China has in advancing. Compare the history of the U.S. and the British empire to that of todays U.S. empire vs. China for example. You would be right if not for all these other factors. Sometimes people just forget about the other variables in the equation.
They could go the other route. Depend on the U.S. to create standards for them AND pay the license fees. All this giving the U.S. more control, understanding, and knowledge. China with around a billion people, over 3 times as much as the U.S., is not going to lose when it comes to progress. In the immediate future, China may have a few setbacks. In the not too distant future, they may very well out run us.
Btw, why did moderators moderate this as insightful? "Creating national standards is an eventual dead-end." This is a statement with no basis and goes against certain facts we know. Look back on history and you will notice that superpowers have done this before. "Eventually, when the Next Big Thing overtakes the world,..." Same thing with the U.S.. The U.S. was the "Next Big Thing" and now our standards are impeding progress. Why are we still not using the metric system?
You have it partially right, but your drawing too many comparisons between them being "communist" as the reason this is being done.
"...Chinese firms growing tired of paying foreign patent fees."
This is the part that holds the most significance as the reason it is being done. The western world dominates when it comes to patents. What patents mean in a legal sense is control. The Chinese business interests obviously want control over their own businesses. They have two choices, pay the patent fees and allow U.S. interests control over certain aspects of their technology and business, or ignore patents and/or develop your own so that the control and knowledge is held within your own businesses and country.
Here is the major problem. We are seperating. The U.S., business interests, investors, and even the citizens are unwilling to give up/change the patent system. It is about control and losing it is not what most want. So China is pushing away. This will create tensions between the western world and China, which is not a good thing. Tensions will exist between programmers, politicians, business persons, and many others. Why will they exist? Because now there is a whole new level of understanding and translation. Between China and the west, standards would not match and so translation is required. Understanding would include Chinese attempting to understand our system and the west understanding the Chinese system. Patents are deeply integrated in the technological and business world. All the way from the few existing lone inventors that have a patent of a few to the large conglomerates and even the military.
The ignorance of the Chinese towards patents is not a bad thing. We are led to believe that patents are the answer to progress (and I will argue that with anyone if they wish), but after the introduction of a patent system within our entire legal, social, and economical structure the opposite becomes true and progress is then defined within the limits of the remaining freedoms of thought within our corporate economic system. By ignoring patents and allowing a more natural kind of competition that prevents the tieing up of progress by the legal system which corporations in the U.S. and western countries use as control mechanisms. If is plain to see that the Chinese benefit from such a move and could easily overtake the western world in progress. They have the resources and the people.
Maybe I should consider learning Chinese.
Btw, if anyone isn't sure what I meant by this entire post, please ask. I have a way with words that causes confusion for many.
These "examples of bullshit issues" you have provided are important. True, in part they are a distraction, but they are issues we should have nearly solved a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is enough propaganda and enough people that are extremists in their beliefs and don't mind pushing them on others that the issues are still there. Let us take a few examples. Gay marriage, why is this even being discussed by our government? Why should any other person care if two people of the same sex want to get married? Marijuana, this is one of the most important because of the amount of problems associated with it. Why should the government have any authority over a persons own free will to injest any substance one wishes? As much as these two examples and many others are about distracting us from other things, they are real. These are freedoms we do not have but should. Where do we start fighting for our freedom? If these issues are distractions, then what issues do we work on? Free speech is important and by ignoring these "bullshit" issues, we allow them to censor just a little more. How much research related to harmful effects of tobacco was thrown aside by the tobacco industry decades ago? How much research related to the uses of the marijuana plant has there been? How much of this research was destroyed by our government? These are REAL issues. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech whether it be about an issue you personally care about or not. If you let one issue slip by, you make it easier for them to win another. There is no "bullshit" issue when it comes to freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
"...it's never a good idea to radically alter the law in a short period of time."
If a certain law is faulty, taking it through a slow process where the same people in power are currently involved in making the law worse is definitely not the solution. Right now the laws are being made according the lobbyists. We can all scream all we want on slashdot about the problems and solutions, but that doesn't make a difference. I doubt many people here trully spend the time thinking about the subject and how their solutions fit into the real world. Unfortunately, the radical ideas are the best. To completely scrap a law is not a bad idea in some cases, this being a major one. Seriously consider the worst possible thing that could happen without the patent laws. Now some of you out there conditioned to fear crime will probably talk about mass piracy of ideas and "intellectual rights" and maybe terrorism thrown in there somewhere. I can now in the same instance give you a crazy utopian view. Now for the reality. Things will change, and unpopular as this opinion is, for the better, without patent laws. If you believe the U.S. is a very capitalistic system (monopolies are discouraged), then why USPTO?
"...law and doctrines that have been refined over hundreds of years."
Prooving my point even more so. The law of intellectual property began by some pressuring to put it in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson did not initially agree to the idea. Considering the writings of Thomas Jefferson, he was most likely pressured. It was the wealthy back then that wanted the USPTO to help control their markets and it is wealthy today that take advantage of this legal power. Somehow people seriously still believe in the idea of idea ownership (copyright is a little different, but currently is still far too restrictive). Our entire intellectualy propery system was a flawed concept from the beginning because it was in the interest of keeping power, not promoting science. That were we are today is because of patents. What does that mean, nothing. The one belief that is so absurd, but apparently convincing, is that the patent system actually promotes progress. The patent system is a tool of control. It allows those with a legal document to have limited control regarding a particular idea. Unfortunately, limited is an understatement. We provided a legal tool for the wealthy, and they expanded the power of the tool. Just take a look at the original IP laws and how they have changed since. I will argue that we must nearly eliminate the law because there are no minor changes that can be made to make significant changes. Even worse, the law is already very large. We have split it into various forms and then made larger and larger volumes of material to move through to understand and/or to fight the law. You can nibble all the small and even large cases in court about particular patents, but by then you've accepted this law as a required. By then, everyone is caught up in this process that no one would seriously consider abolishing the law outright. Imagine all the patent lawyers, judges, companies that use it as market leverage, individuals that receive income because of it. All biased because it is that system in which they live and work that they rely on to survive. Only in support of preventing a major problem in finding ways of bringing these people into a new world where ideas aren't fought in court, but in the market, I would agree that we can't abolish the law(s). I can and will argue against IP laws, but it won't make much different here on slashdot. There is an entire system that would be demolished in almost an instant, and there are far too many that will fight to prevent the destruction of this system. It would be great if law changed for the better, but with IP it has become a tool for control and has only expanded. If those with IP wanted to, they could all sue each other into oblivion right now, but they won't. They pick their battles, and use their portfolio for defense. So the question becomes, well, there are far too many actually. The question is not whether it promotes progress or not, because we already know it doesn't in almost all cases.
You still fail to see the real point, the one that causes people to hate companies like Microsoft and even politics. It isn't about one mistake, but the image the company/person puts out and what really goes on. It is about the agenda behind the person/company and the actions taken over time. Nothing wrong with second chance, but why give criminals enough room to make another more costly one. You can now argue to me the image of Microsoft you have, but that simply doesn't stick to the facts. Hypocrisy is a big problem. Not just because it happens, but because we tolerate it. Imagine any person you have trust in, now imagine that person now lying to you on a frequent basis. Would you then later trust this person with your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The DEA doesn't tolerate personal drug use, but we tolerate criminal behavior in our corporations and government? Now I don't mean that all people do, but that this is what you do not see, and so you are one of the tolerating ones. You wouldn't care to defend the rights of another individual, but somehow have all the words to defend a corporation of which you really no little about.
You then went on the attack, claiming all the beautiful rights that corporations throw around in the court room. Your the one failing to realize something. It is that people are rebelling based on moral reasons as much as they are on financial ones. It is no accident that Microsoft has such large sums of money. This is NOT success we should be proud of. It means the economy is inefficient, noncompetitive, and has the ability to create various problems such as social ones. You may not understand this, but some do. I could go on. Instead I will say one last thing, consider the possibility your wrong about what others have convinced you is right. Just because it is on paper, does not make it right. We should follow the law, but understand that we need to fight laws as often as the corporations do to create more innovative ones.
Your right, I misread your post. My attention was immediately taken by this statement
/. contains plenty of quick comments that help in no way to clear up a subject or provide more information. The reason I misunderstood your post is that last line. It focused my attention on your motive. Since you appeared to be bashing anyone that questioned the government, I looked at the previous lines for bias. I only now realize that you wrote "...they say...". My fault for skimming the comments. You have to admit though, that last line just wasn't required. It is an invitation for a flame war, which I did not wish to start and it was my mistake misreading. On the other hand, I do notice that your quite the hypocrite. It is in how you wrote the comment. You provided your opinions "...the conveniently edited write up...",
"Nothing to see here, move along move along. I'm sure, of course, this won't stop a bunch of card-carrying tinfoil elitists from crying wolf."
Now is this really necessary? I didn't read the article and I'll admit that. Even though I do read most, I don't have the time to read every single one. I was just interested in skimming the comments to see if anything interesting was being said. Unfortunately,
"...there's not much of anything to see here...", and then the entire last line. The major problem I have with your comments is not that they are opinions, but that they are urging people to ignore this. Your mindset is one in which it is up to you to decide what is important for everyone else. Now although you may not seriously be that type of person, the hints are there. This also is a major problem in the U.S., but that is a different topic. I just don't like others telling others what they should or should not read.
So to answer your last question: "Christ.. is it just me or does Slashdot actively make people dumber?"
It can with comments like "nothing to see here".
"... that's up to Rackspace..."
... they are ...", "They are never wrong" and many many more statements that lose focus. Focus on the argument. In this case EFF is defending freedom of speech and the government is defending its position of secrecy. In most cases freedom of speech wins. Like you sad in #2, disclosure can pose problems under certain circumstances. Yet your post has provided no argument to support the governments stance. Still you defend them. Why?
Is it not also up to Indymedia to defend itself? If the EFF believes it needs to uphold certain rights, then how is it not in the position to do so in this case? So are we to stop questioning the government?
"...the documents are part of an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized by the unsealing."
Your reaching on that one. Are you making excuses for the government without any knowledge on this matter beyond that which you've read in the news? If you do, then by all means let us know.
The tinfoil, conspiracy theory, and related comments serve no purpose. Why do people insist on arguing about such foolish things? Examples such as "Your a conpiracy nut, whatever you say is a lie", "What do you know, your just
Since you only posted one side of the coin, I'll do my best on the other side. First, I'm not a Gentoo user. Now, what is it about car tuners, overclockers, Gentoo tweakers, Linux kernel programmers, athletes, engineers, and many others that you hate? Do you hate their drive to push that extra few percent out of their machines or their bodies? Just looking at your own example I see just over 2 percent increase from -O and - 03 -march... Is this not significant? Well sure, maybe you don't give a shit because 1 second does not matter to you. Now before we jump all over another persons opinions, wants, or needs we should take the time to think. Consider a person running a test of some sort running 10 hours using 100 percent of the proc. undrr normal conditions. To tune the OS for a small increase in speed under such circumstances it makes a pretty significant difference in time running. Before you criticize the Gentoo users with comments such as "k-l33t cFlaGz omghax", consider that your only arguing your point-of-view.
It makes sense to me. As a business do you not cater to your market? Their market is interested in large email storage, and more. So they deliver. Whether or not it is easy to do, some do not have an interest in doing it themselves. Some want their job outsourced to a company. Not everyone is interested in, or capable of doing it themselves. Not everyone is like the typical slashdot member. Think business when viewing BUSINESS like decisions. Too many submitters here throw out "why" and make their argument yet ignore other points of view. Although the internet is changing business, a business's number one goal is still profit.
This is actually a very good method of thinking outside the box for companies. They throw out some clue or some thoughts on some business idea, not too much. The public or some certain gourp of people tear apart the idea and the company/organization gets some good out of the box ideas from this group.
Whether this is true on their part, I'm not sure. It would only make sense to gather information that is easily available. Large companies spend a lot of money to both produce an image and to learn about the market. The internet has made this a lot cheaper and easier.
"My buddy runs a tiny little graphic design shop..."
Do you see the flaw in your argument about defending this law without questioning it?
His shop exists, DUE TO THE LAW. This is extremely important to understand. The large corporations in fact need these small operations to keep people from believing they do not need this law. Imagine if no small company dealing with IP existed. People would find it obvious that IP laws are unjust in this case. But because there are jobs, small businesses, friends, family, etc. on the line, then we keep the laws. If humanity is to progress, society will eventually have a completely different outlook on IP. Current laws are simply far behind. They are there to protect certain interests. Those of the small businesses and large ones alike. Whether you believe in the "right" to control ones work is because you have a very narrow idea of what IP is. Does one define a person by one accomplishment, or the combination of many factors? IP laws are in between, but obviously not near accomplishing a fair trade for work done. You could tell me you want control over "your" work, but what does that mean? Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds in the grand scheme of things. What leaves your mouth, your hands, etc. is no longer in your possession or control. I am not advocating the elimination of property laws btw. What I mean to say is that a persons work of art/music/invention/etc. is as important as it is. If it is trully grand, then fame, for example, is a form of protection against imposters. If the work is mediocre, then why should one care for control? No one would be interested. Things are a little more complicated, but I can guarantee you, that our current laws are very far from anything one would call good. Costs outway benefits in many many ways in our current system. Humanity will reach an unprecedented level of progress upon the complete overhaul of our IP system. Would you like to discuss this subject further? I don't mean any disrespect, but I hope you and all others with a stance on this issue would learn more before offering their opinions. Information on the other hand is always welcome. Also, about the market for IP. One must understand that nothing works perfectly. There are many factors that are preventing the progress to a new system of IP. You can argue that someone doesn't have to buy the $20 CD, but that comes with assumptions that should not be made. One example is that the industry is not illegally collaborating with price fixing and other tactics to prevent competition. This assumption would be very important in ones argument. But the industry ingores this when defending themselves for obvious reasons. If they admitted to it, well, you know what would basically happen next.
"They make the best web development tools in the business, period."
They have the best known throughout most of the world tools for their purpose, but that does not make them the best necessarily. Btw, who is to say they will continue making such "great" software? A business has no interest in progress unless they have no choice. Business-wise, they are what Microsoft is. They sell software. The internet is leaning the business world toward services, not sale of software. Any company that resists this is going to be up against a lot of pressure. This pressure exists everywhere, from end users that don't want to pay over and over to "upgrade" their product, to the large corporations that wish to lower their TCO. One can argue all they want about software as a "shrink wrapped" product all they want, but it doesn't change what is happening. Macromedia is going to be up against some very stiff competition. What keeps them alive is interesting in a way. They have a large user base for starters. They offered what people wanted at the time and quickly took control over a nice piece of the market. They exist because just like the MS Windows OS, people are stuck with it. There are many flash sites. They are not exactly a standard, they are simply popular. When people say standard, they generally talk about a technology that is NOT controlled by one company. A standard is agreed upon and used througout the world by many. Flash is simply a "popular" (depends on how you define popular too) technology being used by many, in many cases forcefully(not physically, etc. don't twist what I say please).
As the article poster stated "...and as a bonus, the reservoir can be used as an aquarium."
So you could cook up a bowl of fish soup too.
If they don't own that technology, and it'll cost them too much to buy (patents, licensing, etc) then yes they will supress it if it doesn't cost them as much to do so.
You question what you don't know or are unsure of. This makes a lot of sense. There is a very good reason to question these types of things. Of course your not going to question why E = mc^2, unless your a physicist, mathematician, or happen to have knowledge that surrounds this equation.
Also, by saying
"Car companies don't suppress technology that can make them a hell of a lot of money."
your assuming a lot of things. Quick example. Let us say that they found that using a different metal in the engine makes for better gas mileage. A decision to change to using this metal has a very profound effect. First off, you've afffected those that have supplied the original metal and now placed the burden on a different supplier (unless the same supplier offers this new metal). I can put many many many more connections to this small change, but I'm sure you get the picture. Any decision to upgrade in terms of technology, no matter how small or large is not small in terms of large corporations. Everything is relative. You see, different metal, no problem, replace metal, upgrade done. They see, suppliers, investors, shipping, effects of metal on other parts of the car, health of person (have to watch out for government regulations as well), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now, although my discussion doesn't directly deal with "suppression", it is there. One example, if the suppliers of this new metal have close business ties with a competitor and it is obviously going to cost them more (money, resources, control), then why not suppress it if you can? Sure, this is oversimplified, but you get the picture.
Yes, in a sense, the world does operate in a sort of logical manner. The problem is, the equation is not so simple.
"They're gonna use that money to make a better version of Windows and hawk it--big deal."
So you believe that $100 dollars is really going to be used to "better" Windows? Consider the fact that they are spending a lot of money of XBox and not doing it to make a profit (as of now). How about all the markets where Microsoft has thrown money into so as to drive the competition under. What you don't realize, is that Microsoft is basically the worst kind of company there is. Now it can be argued, but consider this. For most products we pay about the cost of what it takes to produce it, pay employees, ship it, etc. As long as competition is healthy, things work out pretty well. Microsoft deals with intangible goods. How is it that MS is such a profitable company? A large profit margin. The largest of just about any company in the world. Some employees get paid extremely well, and the top executives/investors/etc. have more money than you can imagine. The company is sitting on money that has not been put to much good use. This can be argued, but we all know how anti-competitive MS has been. When dealing with intangible assets, it becomes even easier to stifle competition and make very large profit margins. Consider that without MS, there would a large software service industry with standards that one company could not just kill off or ignore easily, and that the profit margins would be smaller. A healthy economy has more money moving around, not sitting inside the banks of large corporations like MS. This is all basic economics that you don't need to learn in any school. Agreed that those other problems AIDS, world hunger, and protecting our rights is important. But you don't realize the severity of contributing to Microsoft, in any way shape or form. Why not support those causes and NOT support MS? The bias against MS is well deserved. I'm tired of hearing people defend MS, but just as much about MS bashing remarks that have no foundation. If your going to bash MS, put down some good material. People don't need to hear the BS, since it turns them away from those that really do have things to say about the "evil" company.
About this story, to hell with it. I don't care for supporting Microsoft. If you feel that there is a need for more competition in the console market, then go with a completely different console. Or buy some Linux platform games. The choices of what you buy do make a difference. As a consumer you make daily decisions that, knowingly or not, make a difference. It surprises me how many people that despise what MS is will still go out and buy the XBox. Then again, maybe it doesn't. When the pendulum swings, it has to go all the way till it comes back. We haven't reached that peak yet where at least half their consumers are fed up.
"Put down the crack pipe, man"
Are you making accusations? Is there a point to this sentence, besides attempting to ridicule? Please be a little more mature when posting. There is no reason for such a comment.
"If an auto company could make their cars any more efficient, they most certainly would."
They can, the point is, why don't they? There are many reasons for this, some which have been pointed out by other posts. It isn't as simple as "we can do it so we will". It is not about the "can", but "will". Your assuming that they can't.
"It's a rather competitive industry, and fuel economy is a major selling point."
Competitive to a degree, yes. But remember, profit is a very very strong motive, and less competition generally means more profit for those selling. The equation is right there. Fuel consumption of automobiles is more a selling point now than it has been in the past, but it is not the number 1 selling point (yet?).
"Why the hell would a car company..."
I do not know all the answers, and I will never claim I do. I do one thing well though, and that is avoid making strong assumptions, especially that of which I do not know. Sometimes one has to fill in the gaps and assume some things and see if it fits the picture, and slowly work out all the facts to create a better understanding of "reality". I could give speculate many reasons why certain things are the way they are. What I try to do in all my posts is point out to everyone that they should never assume something and stick with it. Keep questioning, get all the facts you can, and don't forget to stop and quetion the facts you have obtained. There is a lot I do not know, and if I make a mistake I think about it. I will admit to it, and then attempt to figure out why my thoughts came to the wrong conclusion. I have gone completely off topic now. In conclusion, there is none.
"... it only requires One Bright Idea(tm)..."
A little optimistic when it comes to the better ideas winning. You ever read any books whatsoever? Heard of Tesla and Edision? How about the old steam engine wars? Why not look at the history of automobiles in general? The history of suppression of good ideas goes back as far as history itself. In a world of patents, copyright, reputation, various intellectual property laws, egoism, and other factors, the better idea doesn't always triumph. In fact, the opposite is true for the most part. It will take more than an idea to improve the automobile, there are plenty of those to go around. The technology exists to make automobiles many times more efficient. It is obvious that there are many factors that are not allowing these "ideas" to be used. The question is not what the next technological solution is, but what is the solution to bring out the tech that already exists without collapsing the economy and convincing/forcing/etc. the rich and powerful to go along with it. It will also take some education of the general population, which the wealthy and powerful don't care to do. The people have a say in this as well, but in general we appear to be happy for now.
In fact, what I just wrote is misleading too. All readers ignore what he said and what I said. Go get some physics books, some scientific material, and whatever else you can. Also, mod him down to oblivion. Funny maybe, but not "interesting" or "insightful".
First off, I didn't say that it was a definite. Second, thank you for posting an intelligent post as opposed to the "funny" posts that serve no purpose beyond entertainment. Third, do not throw out remakrs such as "Moron" or "take the plastic off before smoking". These comments make you look bad to the wise ones, and like we care about those that laugh about "mamma's jokes" like the immature kids do at school. This is slashdot, no need for such pointless language. Now to my point. This fact you pointed out is important. It shows how easily the patent office can be manipulated. It appears this criminal was not very smart. If that is the case, then imagine what a smart group of people working together as a company can do to make easy money on intellectual property. He removed files, what about another that could simply slip files through giving a company an advantage. The only thing one would need to do then is have some lawyers to back up all the legal matters. I side with neither in this case. In fact, I take what is said in such matters and go deeper. Remember, these papers are not truth. It is what each side said. What is said could be true or false and then one must consider what was NOT said. It is difficult analyzing all of this, especially when most of it is hearsay and claims from both sides. I can not come to any conclusion in this matter but the same one I do in all of these matters; the intellectual property system is seriously flawed and complicates our entire idea economy. Although I will say this. The man is obviously in the wrong. Like they say, two wrongs don't make a right. On the other hand, the defendant could be just as wrong as he is. The only problem is, it is him vs the entire company he screwed.
Actually, I would not say that it is funny, but interesting. There is a lot of comments about how the company he was extorting was in corruption with the USPTO. I would not doubt this either. The sole purpose of this company was intellectual property. In the world of IP, it is much easier to make money from basically nothing. You take the work of others, and make it illegal for any one else to use it. The problem is, you need some good lawyers and some connections in the USPTO to guarantee that you receive the patents soon enough and that they go through. Now, you can argua about IP and the function it is supposed to serve, but it is what is happening in reality that I am concerned about. IP is not about progress, rarely is the case. It is about keeping control over a particular industry/technology/company/etc. It appears that this criminal was in the know of the problems, but was unfortunately a complete idiot and when it came down to it, acted foolishly. Even all the comments on slashdot are about "darwin" this "dumb criminal" that. For a bunch of geeks, it makes me sad to hear that most of you fail to look deeper into this. Go ahead, make your jokes. Laugh at the foolish criminal that has the same immoral thoughts as the company he went after. He went for the money, not the right thing to do. If he really did have information that would have exposed the company to ties with the USPTO, it would give more firepower to changing the patent system or even eliminating it and replacing it with something that would work more in helping progress science. Now, I don't know what is true or not, and these all could be lies, but I don't ignore it as absurd simply because it was a foolish criminal that said it. Making a fool out of a someone that is an enemy will tend to help you escape some of those ugly comments they made. Then again, I could have misread, I did read through only some of it really quick anyway. I recommend people read this, not any foolish remarks on a foolish person. This is slashdot, not Criminal Minds R' Us. I'll read it later, will you?
So, what moral principle are they acting on? Why do they support Microsoft? You realize how hypcritical this organization is? One could easily show that these people have a financial interest in this. It may not be direct, but it exists. Go to the core of Microsoft vs Linux and you see what it is. You tell me which is closer to the word freedom. If you were to make a choice in operating systems based on freedom, which would it be? I assume that you have enough sense to understand what freedom means. So, those working at Microsoft are working for principle and those spending free time developing Linux and other open source software are doing it for the money? Ok, I understand. You equate freedom to money. You equate freedom to all the laws that PREVENT one from having access to source code, ability to copy, ability to modify, ability to contribute to, ability to toss away at any time, ability to receive, and many other aspects of open source. So, let me ask. What is the purpose behind these organizations? Why do they push their so called "freedoms", upon people who freely develop software? Why stop engineers from building for society which would otherwise be forced by what one calls a job? Is cooperation a bad thing? All those attacking open source will never outnumber those that contribute. I ask you now, which side do you stand on? Do you wish to contribute, or to attack the hand that feeds you?
"Just a reminder to every developer next time you try to implement a feature in your program, don't forget to search all existing patents and patent applications for possible violations."
This is NOT what one should do when implementing a feature in a program. First of all, developers should not be wasting time with the legal side of software. Most developers do not care for patents. Second, the moment a developer starts sifting through patent portfolios, they are both seeing a solution from the point of view of another developer(s) (or lawyers) and may have a hard time getting past this "better" option and sticking with their own, and they now can not legally say they had no idea the patent existed. I have heard before that even patent lawyers suggest that an inventor/developer not search through patents. What is a developer, a lawyer? No, they are interested in solving problems. Engineers are not interested in making things more complex (and you can not argue that law is about making things simple). Although the process itself may be complex, it is not in the interest of developers and such to complicate things. Fear is what I see in your entire post. Scare tactics. FUD, whatever you want to call it. Let me repeat, DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, etc. ARE NOT INTERESTED IN COMPLICATING THINGS. They seek the truth and/or they build machines/software/ideas to solve problems or understand a problem(or event). How many great scientists/developers/engineers do you know that support the patent system? Yes, some will say that we need it, but that it is currently flawed. Yet, even they will admit that they don't have the solution. There have been economists and various other social science professionals on the other hand that are against the idea of the patent system. First you must understand the reasons the patent system was created and why it still exists. You can spout the old myths about progress due to the patent system, but I dare you to show me scientifically (or any other possible, but convincing way) that patents are directly related to progress and I'll give my apologies. I'm very sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of the ignorance behind this patent issue. It is bad enough that people support the system, but to recommend that developers go spend their time sifting through patent files? If the patent system was unenforced though, it would be a great system for sharing knowledge related to inventing/engineering/etc.
I agree for the most part. Except:
"What it boils down to is that there's something horribly wrong with the current approach to "AI"."
I think that this depends which "current approach" your talking about. I don't personally know those working with AI, but when you get down to it, just about all scientists are in a sense are working on AI. Every field is related in some way or another. A programmer is working on an AI that works in binary, taking various input from any kind of device, doing the math, then outputting some results to some device(s). Medicine, what is that? We have created artifical medicines that react with our bodies in certain ways to produce some result(s). Mechanical engineers (like automobile engineers) create artifical objects for transportation. The only difference now is that a human is not using the machine real-time, but applying some more complicated machine we created to do what we asked it to do. The problem I see is that most engineers have a narrowed field of study and sometimes forget some of the other factors involved in a goal/task/process/etc. They then test and retest over and over their system they create to find problems and work a solution around it, broadening both the complexity and ability of the machine, but never perfecting it or making it any easier mentally for one person to comprehend. Since nature (physics, biology, math, etc.) is all connected in some way, understanding physics, math, and programming alone will only accomplish being able to make physics calculations for example and create software that produces results according to certain physics math. One with such knowledge still needs to know, location of objects on the terrain, the type of terrain, the amount of turn in the steering wheel to change the direction a specific angle, and compensating real-time for this change. There are many other factors and I could (even with my limited amount of knowledge on these subjects) write pages and pages of them. On the other hand, not all people have the capibility of understanding (could be argued and I wouldn't disagree) everything that is involved in this process of creating an autonomous vehicle to accomplish a task such as traversing a particular course. So people learn what they can and by combining the skills of many different people, as a team, they can accomplish complex tasks (although inefficiently) that nature has spent who knows how long to create an intelligence for. I believe that it all depends on the teams. Who is part of the team, who is leading the team, and the available resources the team has. As many intelligent people as there are out there, there is bound to be a team that can combine the right skills to accomplish the goal DARPA has set. I think the best bet would be to have a team that has at least one (if not more) person(people) that has(have) vast amounts of knowledge pertaining to fields that could be applied to this task, but not having to have mastered any particular field (although it would be extremely helpful). AI is a field that not one particular area of science can claim to posses the answer to (at least at our current level of understanding).
"...until some totally new approaches are developed for processing and information retrieval."
and I agree. This is what it all comes down to.
This is not a good thing. Consider this. If the RIAA continues, they will hinder technological progress by complicating the devices consumers use which means companies developing these devices will require employees with vast amounts of knowledge which the general consumer is not supposed to have since it is he/she that is the potential pirate. This will cause whatever piracy remains to be highly organized and tied into the blackmarket (they are indirectly creating crime that would not exist if they didn't have such control over their market). Going against the market creates problems. If you compare the RIAA do the DEA, you will notice certain similarities. They are in effect creating a new crime. Don't be surprised if 10-20 years from now you find the RIAA is closer to resembling the DEA. When a person making minimum wage sees a CD costing them maybe a quarter of a days worth of work at the store, what do you think goes through their mind? They have a some options; not to buy the CD, buy the CD and have less money for food/clothing/shelter/school/kids/books/whatever, steal the CD, find a friend that will make a copy for maybe around a dollar or free, download it offline for free, download it online from a foreign site for cheap(legal?), or buy it from an organized piracy group.
You understand the intentions of the RIAA well. Unfortunately, the outcome of their actions is not something I and I'm sure many others are willing to live with. The RIAA is simply a legal cartel. The question is, what do we do? Some have tried fighting it in the courts, some have used technological methods (P2P), some have gone to congress, and others have gone around their system trying to sell more directly. In every case, the RIAA has been there to make sure they still maintain control. They have threatened companies, consumers, and probably even congressmen. They have sued companies, consumers (not quite there yet, out of court for now it seems), and taken everyone they could to court. Competition? They are there, but are finding it hard fighting the RIAA cartel.
I don't disagree with your post, in fact, I agree. I just wanted to add some insight into the consequences of their actions.
That is all true, and very relevant. I think that their strategy may be underestimated though. Consider the fact that the U.S. and other western countries hold control over a lot of this technology. For them it isn't so much about progress as much as it is about control. There is a lot of history about corporations using their control to suppress superior technology because it would take away some of their control and in the end they would be replaced by some other company/industry. Politics, legal system, patents, licensing, control, and various other factors have a very large influence on progress. If China can manage to prevent the creation of a system both slow and restrictive, then it could easily progress a lot faster than expected. Few would have predicted the growth of the U.S. when it broke apart from the British empire. Few see the ability that China has in advancing. Compare the history of the U.S. and the British empire to that of todays U.S. empire vs. China for example.
You would be right if not for all these other factors. Sometimes people just forget about the other variables in the equation.
They could go the other route. Depend on the U.S. to create standards for them AND pay the license fees. All this giving the U.S. more control, understanding, and knowledge. China with around a billion people, over 3 times as much as the U.S., is not going to lose when it comes to progress. In the immediate future, China may have a few setbacks. In the not too distant future, they may very well out run us.
Btw, why did moderators moderate this as insightful? "Creating national standards is an eventual dead-end." This is a statement with no basis and goes against certain facts we know. Look back on history and you will notice that superpowers have done this before. "Eventually, when the Next Big Thing overtakes the world,..." Same thing with the U.S.. The U.S. was the "Next Big Thing" and now our standards are impeding progress. Why are we still not using the metric system?
You have it partially right, but your drawing too many comparisons between them being "communist" as the reason this is being done.
"...Chinese firms growing tired of paying foreign patent fees."
This is the part that holds the most significance as the reason it is being done. The western world dominates when it comes to patents. What patents mean in a legal sense is control. The Chinese business interests obviously want control over their own businesses. They have two choices, pay the patent fees and allow U.S. interests control over certain aspects of their technology and business, or ignore patents and/or develop your own so that the control and knowledge is held within your own businesses and country.
Here is the major problem. We are seperating. The U.S., business interests, investors, and even the citizens are unwilling to give up/change the patent system. It is about control and losing it is not what most want. So China is pushing away. This will create tensions between the western world and China, which is not a good thing. Tensions will exist between programmers, politicians, business persons, and many others. Why will they exist? Because now there is a whole new level of understanding and translation. Between China and the west, standards would not match and so translation is required. Understanding would include Chinese attempting to understand our system and the west understanding the Chinese system. Patents are deeply integrated in the technological and business world. All the way from the few existing lone inventors that have a patent of a few to the large conglomerates and even the military.
The ignorance of the Chinese towards patents is not a bad thing. We are led to believe that patents are the answer to progress (and I will argue that with anyone if they wish), but after the introduction of a patent system within our entire legal, social, and economical structure the opposite becomes true and progress is then defined within the limits of the remaining freedoms of thought within our corporate economic system. By ignoring patents and allowing a more natural kind of competition that prevents the tieing up of progress by the legal system which corporations in the U.S. and western countries use as control mechanisms. If is plain to see that the Chinese benefit from such a move and could easily overtake the western world in progress. They have the resources and the people.
Maybe I should consider learning Chinese.
Btw, if anyone isn't sure what I meant by this entire post, please ask. I have a way with words that causes confusion for many.
These "examples of bullshit issues" you have provided are important. True, in part they are a distraction, but they are issues we should have nearly solved a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is enough propaganda and enough people that are extremists in their beliefs and don't mind pushing them on others that the issues are still there. Let us take a few examples. Gay marriage, why is this even being discussed by our government? Why should any other person care if two people of the same sex want to get married? Marijuana, this is one of the most important because of the amount of problems associated with it. Why should the government have any authority over a persons own free will to injest any substance one wishes? As much as these two examples and many others are about distracting us from other things, they are real. These are freedoms we do not have but should. Where do we start fighting for our freedom? If these issues are distractions, then what issues do we work on? Free speech is important and by ignoring these "bullshit" issues, we allow them to censor just a little more. How much research related to harmful effects of tobacco was thrown aside by the tobacco industry decades ago? How much research related to the uses of the marijuana plant has there been? How much of this research was destroyed by our government? These are REAL issues. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech whether it be about an issue you personally care about or not. If you let one issue slip by, you make it easier for them to win another. There is no "bullshit" issue when it comes to freedom of speech.