Can you really not think of ways to write these things in flexible ways? If that's the case, you could learn something about being a programmer. Pick up Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture ...but are they implemented in Prevayler??? Because that's what REALLY matters...
I'm actually familiar with these concept. As a matter of fact, I'm very familiar with designing smart polymorphic interfaces for this very type of thing.
I know what CAN be done, but I wasn't talking about what COULD be implemented with Prevayler, I'm refering to how the Prevayler people are implementing thier own system (from what I saw).
Prevayler COULD have transactions (with a lot of work) , Prevayler COULD be flexible (with a lot of work), Prevayler COULD support ad hoc queries (with a lot of work), Prevalyer COULD have a smart/flexible indexing system, but DOES it have one, or is it just an object-hierarchy template with a basic persistance library with no functionality?
You COULD do all of these things, but don't you find it funny that when you do it, you just end up with a half-assed database?
I'm all for finding revolutionary ways of storing data, however this idea doesn't even begin to cut the muster.
If you're going to waste my time, at least waste it by showing me an indexing/sorting/searching library that touts the flexibility you mentioned you can achieve with your in-depth knowledge of design patterns. java.util.HashMap is a fucking joke...
Wow, can you do some PR work for me, because I am seriously impressed as to how you effectively hyped up a basic file saving library. (I'm serious Vess, you have a true talent.)
Lack of Functionality = Open Design Concept for Innovative Solutions
Lack of Ad Hoc Query (SQL) Engine = Collapsing Middleware
War = Peace?:)
I understand the advantage of having a VERY fast in-memory database, but this concept doesn't even fulfill the requirements for an in-memory database as it lacks any functionality other than saving to a file. Anything other than saving to a file you have to write yourself.
There's no transactioning, basic data structure, ad hoc support, concurrency locking, or anything else that saves time and headaches. It's a database that's not a database. It's a concept with no features that save time.
Couldn't one save thier database to a memory-drive (RAM emulating a HD) and periodically copy from the memory-drive to a real hard-disk every 6 hours instead of giving up ALL the useful functionality for a little speed?
You'll have to forgive the original poster for assuming we're all familiar with the power of SQL. Personally, I think did a poor job of tying his thoughts together.
Thought 1 - There are millions of people that already know SQL and can write a decent query with it.
While training/retraining shouldn't be THE SINGLE deciding issue, especially in the face of something revolutionary, it is a BIG factor that shouldn't be ignore. In my experience, I will ignore the training factor IF the benefits can recoup the investment in training, and then some.
IE, I'll be willing to ignore training if a product is revolutionary (In this case, Object Prevalence is nothing close to revolutionary)
Been there, done that...
Thought 2 - How does this help them?
This rhetorical question has two interpretations. The first interpretation relates to training (we just covered it), the second interpretation asks "What are the benefits from using this non-Ad Hoc solution for people who work in an Ad Hoc world?"
IE: Not supporting Ad Hoc is bad enough, targeting people who depend on Ad Hoc tools to switch to a non Ad Hoc tool is short sighted.
Thought 3 - Never underestimate the power of SQL.
SQL is an extremely powerful ad hoc tool for manipulating tables of data, with a feature set that cannot be matched with Java, C++, Python, or whatever the favor of the month is... Unfortunately, the original poster didn't take the time to enumerate the advantages (And I won't, either), rather I'll leave it up to you to discover how most programming languages are deficient when working with sets of data.
IE, SQL has a proven track record for over 30 (That much yet???) that EVEN object-oriented database manufacturers know to adopt and extend SQL's feature set.
I'm not saying SQL will always be the best model, but if you want to displace SQL, you're going to have to prove your alternative model is really revolutionary to displace a technology proven for 30 years, which the automobile did.
Personally, I still think it sounds a lot easier to just map objects to a database.
4) Concurrency - If you haven't implemented locks for an object model, then you haven't lived. Seriously, I can see a lot of people screwing this up with deadlocks galore. Locking up concurrent systems can be a nightmare.
5) Ad Hoc Support - Goodbye Crystal Reports, Goodbye English Query, Goodbye ANY Ad Hoc query support, because if you need anything different, you're going to have to write a lot more code to enumerate throughout your objects. Have fun.
6) Indexing - I hope you have a good B-Tree library and are familiar with Indexing/Searching algorithms when implementing HARDCODED indexing. Oh yeah, have fun rewriting all of your query procedures when you decide to change your hardcoded indexing.
Nothing says flexible like HARDCODING! Yay!
In all seriousness, this is a bad idea for 99% of projects out there. It's inflexible, unscalable, severely error prone, and timely to implement.
(sarcasm) All this just to avoid the "cumbersome" process of mapping objects to tables?
Seriously people, it's not that hard (3 magnitudes easier than this) and there are a lot of tools that help doing it.
If you're REALLY hung up on not using a relational database, try an Object Database, XML Database, or an Associative Model Database.
I'd like to point out that Powell's plan would have forced the Bells to resell thier copper network for DSL providers like Covad. You can thank commissioner Kevin Martin for fucking this up with his stupid plan, which will effectively result in 50 state lawsuits with 12 different decisions which will all go BACK to the Supreme Court.
Kevin Martin and the Baby Bells are our enemy.
Michael Powell is our friend
Let's stand behind the chairman and support him with his wireless initiatives so we can kick the holy shit out of these fucking greedy, government sanctioned/subsidized, Baby Bells.
Will someone tar and feather commissioner Kevin Martin, please?
The more lines they build, the more money they lose. It's as simple as that. It's as simple as that.
Let's me start by destroying your entire arugment with: The copper lines have been built. The Baby Bells do not need to build more lines to deploy DSL. You do remember that DSL runs over your EXISTING phone line. Do you remember that much?
Secondly, The copper lines have already been built and paid for with all of our tax dollars. They don't need to worry about recouping on investments in copper phone lines.
They're losing money by selling lines to their competition, which I have already spoken strongly against; it's ridiculous.
Thirdly, They only reason they're losing money reselling lines, is because they were reselling these lines to thier own DSL subsiderary at a discount, to give them a competitive advantage over competition. The FCC found the loophole, and forced the Bells to resell to Covad at the same price they sold it to themselves.
Forthy, You can thank the DSL competitors for deploying DSL in a LOT of areas where the Bells DIDN'T. Covad invested and deployed DSL in my neighborhood 4 YEARS before Verizon decided we were worth it. They ONLY reason ANY of us are getting ANY DSL service is because of UNE-P (platform forcing Bells to resell lines) so companies like Covad could invest in areas where the Bells didn't feel like getting of thier assed. The Bells needed someone to light a fire under thier ass, and UNE-P did just that by introducing competiton. Again, the Bells could resell thier lines at any price, as long as they charge the competition and themselves the same price. Instead, they played marytr, and you fell for it.
Do you honestly believe Pac Bell's horseshit lies that they would have deployed FIBER DSL ON THIER OWN, rather that shoving a shitty ISDN (128 k/bits) connection at $150 a month?
You would have really liked Michael Powell's plan, and if Commissioner Kevin Martin (Bush's lapdog) had gone along with Powell, here's what we would have had.
Powell wanted to deregulate the industry much in the same way you want to, except he knew that killing right-of-way laws would in reality do little to help new entrants from competing.
Powell's plan was intented to deregulate fiber and facilities sharing, but would have still required the baby Bells to share the copper network. We don't care about investing the in copper network because it's already built, instead we want to focus on building FIBER networks.
Companies like Covad could still resell copper lines to sell DSL, but they would have to build thier own facilities rather than using the Bell's facilities.
Powell's Plan Results Would have been:
* Open (Shared) Copper Network * Deregulated (Proprietary) Fiber Network * Redundant Facilities (resulting in...) * + New Equipment Purchases for Lucent, Nortel * + Incentive to reduce facilities Costs * + Redundant Infrastructure (Like the Internet)
It wasn't total deregulation, but it was the next best option.
That is, until Kevin Martin and the Democrats fucked it up...
Is it so hard to envision yourself using BOTH this tool AND listening to new music so you can DECIDE if you like it?
The reason I asked if you're a luddite is because I read a lot of comments like yours on slashdot which seems to resist any technology that isn't limited operating systems, programming languages, and basic productivity tools. Any technology that doesn't fit into the status-quo, like DRM is automatically rejected because it doesn't perpetuate what you're comfortable with.
If you can't even consider the positive aspect of this software, how can you honestly expect yourself to make a thorough opinion of something much more controversial like DRM, if you can't even fathom its benefits.
Why should anybody listen to your opinion if you won't even consider the other side's arguments? More importantly, how are you going to defend your position if you don't give the other side a lot of consideration?
If only the USPTO could reach the high standards you set for/. readers...
Sadly, Atleast USPTO workers can read/interpret patent applications...
If you're going to mod me down for not being funny, make sure you mod me down (-1: Ha-Ha-Funny) and not (-1: Ironic-Funny)
(NOTE: While the parent's post was funny and in good fun, I think it needs to be mentioned that while USPTO workers are stupid, we should be chagrined for not even achieving USPTO worker's level of stupidity. Hence, my sad joke, depressing irony, and attempt to win you over with a sad joke (second paragraph))
Apparently Amazon doesn't think thier patent is the same as USENET's forsale newgroups, and I'm pretty sure Amazon's lawyers could do a good job convincing a jury the same thing.
Thier patent isn't moot, because Amazon could file a lawsuit against me, and Amazon could convince a jury thier patent is valid insofar as it covers a smaller scope than what *you think* it covers (Large enough in scope to really hurt every eRetailer with User reviews/comments).
YAPNAL (You are Probably Not a Lawyer), and I think you're assertions are irresponsible.
Even if Amazon holds a patent they don't plan on cashing in now, doesn't mean they won't later. Even worse, it sets a precident for all of these other scumbag companies who want patent obvious features that would have been invented by every other Tom, Dick and Harry had they waited for the Internet to get out of its infancy.
I'm sorry, but pointing to USENET as prior art is uninformed (you didn't read the patent), speculative (both in Amazon's motives and how a jury would decide), and obtuse (Foresale USENET != Amazon's Patent).I'm sorry, we're not going to win against the patent Nazi's by being uninformed, speculative, and obtuse.
If we can't even read and understand patent applications, than these IP Lawyers and beaurocrats are going to eat us for breakfast and shit us out during lunch. They're experts at taking the pedanticly stupid, smelly, hippie, geek stereotypes and using it against us to kill any public support before it even starts.
None of us seems to have a fucking clue as to how the patent system and litigation system actually work, yet we're the voice for reforming it???
Where's our Lawrence Lessig, or heck even an RMS for patent reform?
...but this patent doesn't cover ALL discussion systems, just ones that discuss items being offered for sale (Right there in the patent claim).
I invite everybody reading this article to read and understand the patent abstract, claims, and description. If you're serious about patent reform, you should be able to read and understand patents.
Most people are picking MySQL because it's cheap/free, not because of the feature set.
As a matter of fact, I don't even think MySQL comes close to supporting ANSI SQL 92 standards.
Don't get me wrong, it has enough features for most people, but it's completely inadequate for solving complex problems that require features like triggers and stored procedures.
Let's get this straight. Line sharing doesn't create a disincentive to invest, because the network ALREADY exists. Secondly, We need to stop pouring our money in copper networks. Cutting line sharing was the worse thing the FCC could have done for the deployment of broadband. This will effectively kill the competition (Covad), who has played a key role in deploying broadband where the Bells didn't want to. This was a retarded move.
WE NEED TO INVEST IN FIBER NETWORKS.
We do this by forcing entrant competition to build thier own facilities and fiber networks (THESE ARE THE NETWORKS YOUR DON'T WANT TO SHARE). Facilitiy based competition will truely help in lowering costs, create new jobs, build a redudancies in our important communications network, and lastly give Lucent, Nortel, and the shot in the arm they need by giving them new business.
The Bells and Democrats just used your own conservative zealotry against you, and turned slashdotters against thier best ally, Michael Powell, who would have kept line sharing.
I do, however, dissent from the Majority's decision to immediately eliminate line sharing as an unbundled network element. Most of our policies to promote the goals of the Telecommunications Act have produced little yield to date. However, line sharing has clear and measurable benefits for consumers. It has unquestionably given birth to important competitive broadband suppliers. That additional competition has directly contributed to lower prices for new broadband services. By some estimates, 40% of DSL providers use line shared inputs. The decision to kill off this element and replace it with a transition of higher and higher wholesale prices will lead quite quickly to higher retail prices for broadband consumers.
I also believe the argument that removing line sharing is a form of positive regulatory relief to stimulate broadband is ill-conceived. Line sharing rides on the old copper infrastructure not on the new advanced fiber networks that we are attempting to push to deployment. Indeed, the continued availability of line sharing and the competition that flowed from it likely would have pressured incumbents to deploy more advanced networks in order to move from the negative regulatory pole to the positive regulatory pole, by deploying more fiber infrastructure. This decision actually diminishes the competitive pressure to do so.
I agree with Powell, what we need to do is share the copper-networks like we've been doing, BUT we need force the competition to build thier own facilities, which will in turn force them to buy lots of equipment from Lucent, Nortel, etc.
We need to stop dicking around with copper, and start investing in REAL fiber networks.
Lastly, We need to get rid of these horrible Right of Way laws preventing the competition from building thier own networks.
First of all, I'm with you, I hate regulation. I'm a liberatian at heart, and the first thing I'd like to see is for this entire industry to be deregulated, however I'm not naive enough to let SBC and Verizon dictate the terms, because I know they don't want to deregulate EVERYTHING.
SBC wants to tell you that thier competitiors should built thier own network with thier own investments.
However.
SBC supports Right of Way laws and regulation which keeps incombants from building thier own networks. (Try building your own phone/DSL network in your town, and see how far you get before SBC's lawyers hunt you down)
Q. How can you truely deregulate the local telecommunications industry if you're going to allow incumbants to build thier own networks?
A. You can't. You just end up re-regulating a single monopoly.
What you are witnessing with SBC and every other Baby Bell is a hostage situation where they have taken themselves hostage.
Sounds insane???? It is insane, read on...
You see, SBC and Verizon have a seperate DSL Internet business that competes with CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, ie. Covad) whom invest in thier own DSL equipment just like the Baby Bells, and set up thier own DSL offices just like the Baby Bells, but they have to lease phone lines from the Baby Bells to make it work.
SBC and Verizon were leasing these phone lines to THEMSELVES below profit for years, to give themselves a competitive advantage over the CLECs (Covad). Essentially, this was one of MANY anti-competitive loopholes to shutout competitive incombants.
The regulators caught on to this trick, and recently forced SBC and Verizon to play fair by either offering the CLECs (Covad) the same discount, or stop giving thier own DSL company the discount. Either way, the Baby Bells have to lease the lines at the same rate they lease it to themselves.
You see, SBC and Verizon doesn't actually have to lease the phone lines below profit. What they have done is taking themselves hostage, and told everybody the government made them lease thier lines at under-a-profit to sucker everybody into thier they're getting an unfair shake.
I'm all for allowing telecommunications companies recouping on thier investments, but I'm not stupid enough to believe the Baby Bells lies at face value.
It's not the government, no matter how much they want to tell you that.
The reason the baby bells have to lease thier lines to competition BELOW profit, is because the baby bells have been leasing thier lines to themselves (FOR DSL Service), BELOW PROFIT.
By doing this, they were selling thier DSL service at a nice discount the CLECs (Covad) couldn't compete with.
After enough complaining, the gov't realized the problem, and forced the baby bells to give the CLECs (Covad) the same discount the baby bells were giving itself.
So, If the Bells want to stop leasing thier lines below profit, them all they have to do is stop leasing to themselves below profit.
In other words, they're blaming the government for the pain they inflicting on themselves. THEY ARE THAT SLEAZY!!
I think your ideas is a truely wonderful and inspiring idea. I was equally inspired by the same idea when I had it 10 years ago.
SBC and friends will NEVER agree to this. These guys will fight tooth and nail to make sure you do not build an incombant network.
This is worse to them than having them resell phone lines.
I honestly think the Baby Bells should suffer, and severely. These companies need to be severely devalued.
Let the current system take effect for a couple of years, and lets give thier business to the cable companies and wireless providers, and then maybe they'll be a little more willing to talk about your idea.:)
1. Give back the public infrastructure built by public money (gov't subsidies).
2. Let the Baby Bells build thier OWN friggin' infrastructure, just like the Cable Companies.
3. Do away with these Right of Way laws (supported by the baby bells) and ALLOW incumabants build thier own COMPETITIVE networks.
What you don't understand, is that that LAST thing the Baby Bells want is to compete like cable companies. They want EXCLUSIVE access to the PUBLIC's network, so they can charge as much as they want.
They have it rigged so couldn't build a competing network EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO...
Don't be a sucker... What the Baby Bells is far worse than your worst communist nightmare.
Maybe it's my laissez-fair sentiments, but why-oh-why do you want to return to a system where the Baby Bells are once again are granted EXCLUSIVE access to a PUBLIC infrastructure.
You do make a good argument, in that Baby Bells should be able to invest in THIER (not the public's) infrastructure, and not have to worry about sharing it with people who have no interests in recouping on the investment. That's perfectly clear....but going back to government sanctioned monopolies (sanction with exclusive access to the infrastucture) is definitely the worse of two evils.
...and you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. We understand this isn't the first time it's happened. This happens all the time, just like earthquakes happen all the time, and bribery and extortion happen all the time. It's still "news".
It may not be new to you, but it is to other people, AND it's also worthy of taking notice especially considering the broad scope of these patents.
Just because you think you've hashed through the issues doesn't mean it's not news.
Lastly, you might want to reconsider your hashing skills, you obviously didn't put a lot of thought into your argument.
You're apathy is really admirable. I wish I gave a shit as much as you do about large corporations exploiting the incompetence of the Patent system while also leveraging the high legal costs of nullifying patents to extort cash out of smaller legitimate companies.
Maybe you don't understand the purpose behind making this alarmist? It's the only was to get people to actually care about issues like this, and it does a lot more to inform people about the problems with the USPTO than you apathetic "Nothing to see here" idiotic stance.
Those of us who understand the issue know that NCR isn't going to sue the entire Internet, but that's a much better way of explaining the scope of thier patents than your useless insight.
You may want to note that the dicipline of science puts the burden of evidence on the person making claims, just like most judicial systems put the burden of evidence on the accuser, rather than the defendant.
By default, this is snake oil.
Should somebody investigate it? Sure. Is it our burden to prove it's unbreakable? No.
If truely lives up to it's claim, the academic community will be giving out nobel prizes to our Isreali friends, every tech journal and business magazine will have an article on it, and the news will resonate across the Internet, because these guys have proved the smartest minds wrong.
I will salute them if they did it, however it's thier burden to prove it, just like it's Silvia Browne's burden to prove she's psychic.
Isn't there supposed to be a novel, non-obvious criteria.
It seems to me, when a patent clerk fucks up, we should have a fast track system for throwing out obvious patents, where it doesn't cost lots of $$$ in legal fees.
Keep this in mind at all times: The Patent system has been designed to make Patent lawyers rich. It doesn't matter if David or Goliath wins, the lawyers ALWAYS win. You will ALWAYS lose.
Good reform should focus on making it easy to invalidate patents, giving the burdon to the patent holder. That's the price for having a monopoly on an idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the achilles heel of this concept
...but are they implemented in Prevayler???
Can you really not think of ways to write these things in flexible ways? If that's the case, you could learn something about being a programmer. Pick up Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture
Because that's what REALLY matters...
I'm actually familiar with these concept. As a matter of fact, I'm very familiar with designing smart polymorphic interfaces for this very type of thing.
I know what CAN be done, but I wasn't talking about what COULD be implemented with Prevayler, I'm refering to how the Prevayler people are implementing thier own system (from what I saw).
Prevayler COULD have transactions (with a lot of work) , Prevayler COULD be flexible (with a lot of work), Prevayler COULD support ad hoc queries (with a lot of work), Prevalyer COULD have a smart/flexible indexing system, but DOES it have one, or is it just an object-hierarchy template with a basic persistance library with no functionality?
You COULD do all of these things, but don't you find it funny that when you do it, you just end up with a half-assed database?
I'm all for finding revolutionary ways of storing data, however this idea doesn't even begin to cut the muster.
If you're going to waste my time, at least waste it by showing me an indexing/sorting/searching library that touts the flexibility you mentioned you can achieve with your in-depth knowledge of design patterns. java.util.HashMap is a fucking joke...
Wow, can you do some PR work for me, because I am seriously impressed as to how you effectively hyped up a basic file saving library. (I'm serious Vess, you have a true talent.)
:)
Lack of Functionality = Open Design Concept for Innovative Solutions
Lack of Ad Hoc Query (SQL) Engine = Collapsing Middleware
War = Peace?
I understand the advantage of having a VERY fast in-memory database, but this concept doesn't even fulfill the requirements for an in-memory database as it lacks any functionality other than saving to a file. Anything other than saving to a file you have to write yourself.
There's no transactioning, basic data structure, ad hoc support, concurrency locking, or anything else that saves time and headaches. It's a database that's not a database. It's a concept with no features that save time.
Couldn't one save thier database to a memory-drive (RAM emulating a HD) and periodically copy from the memory-drive to a real hard-disk every 6 hours instead of giving up ALL the useful functionality for a little speed?
You'll have to forgive the original poster for assuming we're all familiar with the power of SQL. Personally, I think did a poor job of tying his thoughts together.
Thought 1 - There are millions of people that already know SQL and can write a decent query with it.
While training/retraining shouldn't be THE SINGLE deciding issue, especially in the face of something revolutionary, it is a BIG factor that shouldn't be ignore. In my experience, I will ignore the training factor IF the benefits can recoup the investment in training, and then some.
IE, I'll be willing to ignore training if a product is revolutionary (In this case, Object Prevalence is nothing close to revolutionary)
Been there, done that...
Thought 2 - How does this help them?
This rhetorical question has two interpretations. The first interpretation relates to training (we just covered it), the second interpretation asks "What are the benefits from using this non-Ad Hoc solution for people who work in an Ad Hoc world?"
IE: Not supporting Ad Hoc is bad enough, targeting people who depend on Ad Hoc tools to switch to a non Ad Hoc tool is short sighted.
Thought 3 - Never underestimate the power of SQL.
SQL is an extremely powerful ad hoc tool for manipulating tables of data, with a feature set that cannot be matched with Java, C++, Python, or whatever the favor of the month is... Unfortunately, the original poster didn't take the time to enumerate the advantages (And I won't, either), rather I'll leave it up to you to discover how most programming languages are deficient when working with sets of data.
IE, SQL has a proven track record for over 30 (That much yet???) that EVEN object-oriented database manufacturers know to adopt and extend SQL's feature set.
I'm not saying SQL will always be the best model, but if you want to displace SQL, you're going to have to prove your alternative model is really revolutionary to displace a technology proven for 30 years, which the automobile did.
Personally, I still think it sounds a lot easier to just map objects to a database.
4) Concurrency - If you haven't implemented locks for an object model, then you haven't lived. Seriously, I can see a lot of people screwing this up with deadlocks galore. Locking up concurrent systems can be a nightmare.
5) Ad Hoc Support - Goodbye Crystal Reports, Goodbye English Query, Goodbye ANY Ad Hoc query support, because if you need anything different, you're going to have to write a lot more code to enumerate throughout your objects. Have fun.
6) Indexing - I hope you have a good B-Tree library and are familiar with Indexing/Searching algorithms when implementing HARDCODED indexing. Oh yeah, have fun rewriting all of your query procedures when you decide to change your hardcoded indexing.
Nothing says flexible like HARDCODING! Yay!
In all seriousness, this is a bad idea for 99% of projects out there. It's inflexible, unscalable, severely error prone, and timely to implement.
(sarcasm) All this just to avoid the "cumbersome" process of mapping objects to tables?
Seriously people, it's not that hard (3 magnitudes easier than this) and there are a lot of tools that help doing it.
If you're REALLY hung up on not using a relational database, try an Object Database, XML Database, or an Associative Model Database.
I'd like to point out that Powell's plan would have forced the Bells to resell thier copper network for DSL providers like Covad. You can thank commissioner Kevin Martin for fucking this up with his stupid plan, which will effectively result in 50 state lawsuits with 12 different decisions which will all go BACK to the Supreme Court.
Kevin Martin and the Baby Bells are our enemy.
Michael Powell is our friend
Let's stand behind the chairman and support him with his wireless initiatives so we can kick the holy shit out of these fucking greedy, government sanctioned/subsidized, Baby Bells.
Will someone tar and feather commissioner Kevin Martin, please?
The more lines they build, the more money they lose. It's as simple as that. It's as simple as that.
Let's me start by destroying your entire arugment with: The copper lines have been built. The Baby Bells do not need to build more lines to deploy DSL. You do remember that DSL runs over your EXISTING phone line. Do you remember that much?
Secondly, The copper lines have already been built and paid for with all of our tax dollars. They don't need to worry about recouping on investments in copper phone lines.
They're losing money by selling lines to their competition, which I have already spoken strongly against; it's ridiculous.
Thirdly, They only reason they're losing money reselling lines, is because they were reselling these lines to thier own DSL subsiderary at a discount, to give them a competitive advantage over competition. The FCC found the loophole, and forced the Bells to resell to Covad at the same price they sold it to themselves.
Forthy, You can thank the DSL competitors for deploying DSL in a LOT of areas where the Bells DIDN'T. Covad invested and deployed DSL in my neighborhood 4 YEARS before Verizon decided we were worth it. They ONLY reason ANY of us are getting ANY DSL service is because of UNE-P (platform forcing Bells to resell lines) so companies like Covad could invest in areas where the Bells didn't feel like getting of thier assed. The Bells needed someone to light a fire under thier ass, and UNE-P did just that by introducing competiton. Again, the Bells could resell thier lines at any price, as long as they charge the competition and themselves the same price. Instead, they played marytr, and you fell for it.
Do you honestly believe Pac Bell's horseshit lies that they would have deployed FIBER DSL ON THIER OWN, rather that shoving a shitty ISDN (128 k/bits) connection at $150 a month?
You sir, are a chump.
You would have really liked Michael Powell's plan, and if Commissioner Kevin Martin (Bush's lapdog) had gone along with Powell, here's what we would have had.
Powell wanted to deregulate the industry much in the same way you want to, except he knew that killing right-of-way laws would in reality do little to help new entrants from competing.
Powell's plan was intented to deregulate fiber and facilities sharing, but would have still required the baby Bells to share the copper network. We don't care about investing the in copper network because it's already built, instead we want to focus on building FIBER networks.
Companies like Covad could still resell copper lines to sell DSL, but they would have to build thier own facilities rather than using the Bell's facilities.
Powell's Plan Results Would have been:
* Open (Shared) Copper Network
* Deregulated (Proprietary) Fiber Network
* Redundant Facilities (resulting in...)
* + New Equipment Purchases for Lucent, Nortel
* + Incentive to reduce facilities Costs
* + Redundant Infrastructure (Like the Internet)
It wasn't total deregulation, but it was the next best option.
That is, until Kevin Martin and the Democrats fucked it up...
Are you a luddite?
Is it so hard to envision yourself using BOTH this tool AND listening to new music so you can DECIDE if you like it?
The reason I asked if you're a luddite is because I read a lot of comments like yours on slashdot which seems to resist any technology that isn't limited operating systems, programming languages, and basic productivity tools. Any technology that doesn't fit into the status-quo, like DRM is automatically rejected because it doesn't perpetuate what you're comfortable with.
If you can't even consider the positive aspect of this software, how can you honestly expect yourself to make a thorough opinion of something much more controversial like DRM, if you can't even fathom its benefits.
Why should anybody listen to your opinion if you won't even consider the other side's arguments? More importantly, how are you going to defend your position if you don't give the other side a lot of consideration?
If only the USPTO could reach the high standards you set for /. readers...
Sadly, Atleast USPTO workers can read/interpret patent applications...
If you're going to mod me down for not being funny, make sure you mod me down (-1: Ha-Ha-Funny) and not (-1: Ironic-Funny)
(NOTE: While the parent's post was funny and in good fun, I think it needs to be mentioned that while USPTO workers are stupid, we should be chagrined for not even achieving USPTO worker's level of stupidity. Hence, my sad joke, depressing irony, and attempt to win you over with a sad joke (second paragraph))
Oh yeah, we're fucked... Know any good jokes?
Apparently Amazon doesn't think thier patent is the same as USENET's forsale newgroups, and I'm pretty sure Amazon's lawyers could do a good job convincing a jury the same thing.
Thier patent isn't moot, because Amazon could file a lawsuit against me, and Amazon could convince a jury thier patent is valid insofar as it covers a smaller scope than what *you think* it covers (Large enough in scope to really hurt every eRetailer with User reviews/comments).
YAPNAL (You are Probably Not a Lawyer), and I think you're assertions are irresponsible.
Even if Amazon holds a patent they don't plan on cashing in now, doesn't mean they won't later. Even worse, it sets a precident for all of these other scumbag companies who want patent obvious features that would have been invented by every other Tom, Dick and Harry had they waited for the Internet to get out of its infancy.
I'm sorry, but pointing to USENET as prior art is uninformed (you didn't read the patent), speculative (both in Amazon's motives and how a jury would decide), and obtuse (Foresale USENET != Amazon's Patent).I'm sorry, we're not going to win against the patent Nazi's by being uninformed, speculative, and obtuse.
If we can't even read and understand patent applications, than these IP Lawyers and beaurocrats are going to eat us for breakfast and shit us out during lunch. They're experts at taking the pedanticly stupid, smelly, hippie, geek stereotypes and using it against us to kill any public support before it even starts.
None of us seems to have a fucking clue as to how the patent system and litigation system actually work, yet we're the voice for reforming it???
Where's our Lawrence Lessig, or heck even an RMS for patent reform?
...but this patent doesn't cover ALL discussion systems, just ones that discuss items being offered for sale (Right there in the patent claim).
I invite everybody reading this article to read and understand the patent abstract, claims, and description. If you're serious about patent reform, you should be able to read and understand patents.
I know you're a troll, but I'm sure there's at least one idiot who will think you have a point, so I'll respond.
Unlike Cable TV, I think it's pretty obvious that the Internet can be used as a tool to better oneself.
Most people are picking MySQL because it's cheap/free, not because of the feature set.
As a matter of fact, I don't even think MySQL comes close to supporting ANSI SQL 92 standards.
Don't get me wrong, it has enough features for most people, but it's completely inadequate for solving complex problems that require features like triggers and stored procedures.
WE DON'T NEED TO INVEST IN COPPER NETWORKS
Let's get this straight. Line sharing doesn't create a disincentive to invest, because the network ALREADY exists. Secondly, We need to stop pouring our money in copper networks. Cutting line sharing was the worse thing the FCC could have done for the deployment of broadband. This will effectively kill the competition (Covad), who has played a key role in deploying broadband where the Bells didn't want to. This was a retarded move.
WE NEED TO INVEST IN FIBER NETWORKS.
We do this by forcing entrant competition to build thier own facilities and fiber networks (THESE ARE THE NETWORKS YOUR DON'T WANT TO SHARE). Facilitiy based competition will truely help in lowering costs, create new jobs, build a redudancies in our important communications network, and lastly give Lucent, Nortel, and the shot in the arm they need by giving them new business.
The Bells and Democrats just used your own conservative zealotry against you, and turned slashdotters against thier best ally, Michael Powell, who would have kept line sharing.
That's how dichotomies are played...
From Chairman Powell's Dissent
I do, however, dissent from the Majority's decision to immediately eliminate line sharing as an unbundled network element. Most of our policies to promote the goals of the Telecommunications Act have produced little yield to date. However, line sharing has clear and measurable benefits for consumers. It has unquestionably given birth to important competitive broadband suppliers. That additional competition has directly contributed to lower prices for new broadband services. By some estimates, 40% of DSL providers use line shared inputs. The decision to kill off this element and replace it with a transition of higher and higher wholesale prices will lead quite quickly to higher retail prices for broadband consumers.
I also believe the argument that removing line sharing is a form of positive regulatory relief to stimulate broadband is ill-conceived. Line sharing rides on the old copper infrastructure not on the new advanced fiber networks that we are attempting to push to deployment. Indeed, the continued availability of line sharing and the competition that flowed from it likely would have pressured incumbents to deploy more advanced networks in order to move from the negative regulatory pole to the positive regulatory pole, by deploying more fiber infrastructure. This decision actually diminishes the competitive pressure to do so.
I agree with Powell, what we need to do is share the copper-networks like we've been doing, BUT we need force the competition to build thier own facilities, which will in turn force them to buy lots of equipment from Lucent, Nortel, etc.
We need to stop dicking around with copper, and start investing in REAL fiber networks.
Lastly, We need to get rid of these horrible Right of Way laws preventing the competition from building thier own networks.
First of all, I'm with you, I hate regulation. I'm a liberatian at heart, and the first thing I'd like to see is for this entire industry to be deregulated, however I'm not naive enough to let SBC and Verizon dictate the terms, because I know they don't want to deregulate EVERYTHING.
SBC wants to tell you that thier competitiors should built thier own network with thier own investments.
However.
SBC supports Right of Way laws and regulation which keeps incombants from building thier own networks. (Try building your own phone/DSL network in your town, and see how far you get before SBC's lawyers hunt you down)
Q. How can you truely deregulate the local telecommunications industry if you're going to allow incumbants to build thier own networks?
A. You can't. You just end up re-regulating a single monopoly.
What you are witnessing with SBC and every other Baby Bell is a hostage situation where they have taken themselves hostage.
Sounds insane???? It is insane, read on...
You see, SBC and Verizon have a seperate DSL Internet business that competes with CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, ie. Covad) whom invest in thier own DSL equipment just like the Baby Bells, and set up thier own DSL offices just like the Baby Bells, but they have to lease phone lines from the Baby Bells to make it work.
SBC and Verizon were leasing these phone lines to THEMSELVES below profit for years, to give themselves a competitive advantage over the CLECs (Covad). Essentially, this was one of MANY anti-competitive loopholes to shutout competitive incombants.
The regulators caught on to this trick, and recently forced SBC and Verizon to play fair by either offering the CLECs (Covad) the same discount, or stop giving thier own DSL company the discount. Either way, the Baby Bells have to lease the lines at the same rate they lease it to themselves.
You see, SBC and Verizon doesn't actually have to lease the phone lines below profit. What they have done is taking themselves hostage, and told everybody the government made them lease thier lines at under-a-profit to sucker everybody into thier they're getting an unfair shake.
I'm all for allowing telecommunications companies recouping on thier investments, but I'm not stupid enough to believe the Baby Bells lies at face value.
YOU, LIKE MANY OTHERS, HAVE BEEN SUCKERED
It's not the government, no matter how much they want to tell you that.
The reason the baby bells have to lease thier lines to competition BELOW profit, is because the baby bells have been leasing thier lines to themselves (FOR DSL Service), BELOW PROFIT.
By doing this, they were selling thier DSL service at a nice discount the CLECs (Covad) couldn't compete with.
After enough complaining, the gov't realized the problem, and forced the baby bells to give the CLECs (Covad) the same discount the baby bells were giving itself.
So, If the Bells want to stop leasing thier lines below profit, them all they have to do is stop leasing to themselves below profit.
In other words, they're blaming the government for the pain they inflicting on themselves. THEY ARE THAT SLEAZY!!
Don't you feel like a sucker now?
I think your ideas is a truely wonderful and inspiring idea. I was equally inspired by the same idea when I had it 10 years ago.
:)
SBC and friends will NEVER agree to this. These guys will fight tooth and nail to make sure you do not build an incombant network.
This is worse to them than having them resell phone lines.
I honestly think the Baby Bells should suffer, and severely. These companies need to be severely devalued.
Let the current system take effect for a couple of years, and lets give thier business to the cable companies and wireless providers, and then maybe they'll be a little more willing to talk about your idea.
1. Give back the public infrastructure built by public money (gov't subsidies).
2. Let the Baby Bells build thier OWN friggin' infrastructure, just like the Cable Companies.
3. Do away with these Right of Way laws (supported by the baby bells) and ALLOW incumabants build thier own COMPETITIVE networks.
What you don't understand, is that that LAST thing the Baby Bells want is to compete like cable companies. They want EXCLUSIVE access to the PUBLIC's network, so they can charge as much as they want.
They have it rigged so couldn't build a competing network EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO...
Don't be a sucker... What the Baby Bells is far worse than your worst communist nightmare.
Maybe it's my laissez-fair sentiments, but why-oh-why do you want to return to a system where the Baby Bells are once again are granted EXCLUSIVE access to a PUBLIC infrastructure.
...but going back to government sanctioned monopolies (sanction with exclusive access to the infrastucture) is definitely the worse of two evils.
You do make a good argument, in that Baby Bells should be able to invest in THIER (not the public's) infrastructure, and not have to worry about sharing it with people who have no interests in recouping on the investment. That's perfectly clear.
...and you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. We understand this isn't the first time it's happened. This happens all the time, just like earthquakes happen all the time, and bribery and extortion happen all the time. It's still "news".
It may not be new to you, but it is to other people, AND it's also worthy of taking notice especially considering the broad scope of these patents.
Just because you think you've hashed through the issues doesn't mean it's not news.
Lastly, you might want to reconsider your hashing skills, you obviously didn't put a lot of thought into your argument.
You're apathy is really admirable. I wish I gave a shit as much as you do about large corporations exploiting the incompetence of the Patent system while also leveraging the high legal costs of nullifying patents to extort cash out of smaller legitimate companies.
Maybe you don't understand the purpose behind making this alarmist? It's the only was to get people to actually care about issues like this, and it does a lot more to inform people about the problems with the USPTO than you apathetic "Nothing to see here" idiotic stance.
Those of us who understand the issue know that NCR isn't going to sue the entire Internet, but that's a much better way of explaining the scope of thier patents than your useless insight.
Let this sink in:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
You may want to note that the dicipline of science puts the burden of evidence on the person making claims, just like most judicial systems put the burden of evidence on the accuser, rather than the defendant.
By default, this is snake oil.
Should somebody investigate it? Sure. Is it our burden to prove it's unbreakable? No.
If truely lives up to it's claim, the academic community will be giving out nobel prizes to our Isreali friends, every tech journal and business magazine will have an article on it, and the news will resonate across the Internet, because these guys have proved the smartest minds wrong.
I will salute them if they did it, however it's thier burden to prove it, just like it's Silvia Browne's burden to prove she's psychic.
Isn't there supposed to be a novel, non-obvious criteria.
It seems to me, when a patent clerk fucks up, we should have a fast track system for throwing out obvious patents, where it doesn't cost lots of $$$ in legal fees.
Keep this in mind at all times: The Patent system has been designed to make Patent lawyers rich. It doesn't matter if David or Goliath wins, the lawyers ALWAYS win. You will ALWAYS lose.
Good reform should focus on making it easy to invalidate patents, giving the burdon to the patent holder. That's the price for having a monopoly on an idea.