Can't figure out how to rationalize your way through? Did I pop your little delusional bubble? Is that why you're resorting to your little kiddie games? Do you really think Slashdotters are so stupid that they can't see through your kiddie games?
Honestly, I was expecting a little more of your speculative-meta-physics-eastern-philosophy-I-don' t-have-one-fucking-original-idea superstition ideas, recursively based on itself, wrapped in a paradox, digested and shit into a cardboard box.
I didn't think you would resort to kiddie games, and I didn't think I would have to resort into goading you into a real debate. (Or in your case, flinging around a bunch of random assertions you picked up while watching TV, or reading James VanPraaaaag and Silvia Browne's collaborative guide to eastern philosophy.)
Grow up and get in touch with your outer adult.
Poor Philosophy, Bad Science, Obvious Dichotomy
on
Cryptome Log Subpoenaed
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
We understand that privacy is a double edge sword, protecting both the innocent and guilty, just like due process and being prosumed innocent until proven guilty protects the innocent and guilty.
You're not breaking any "Insightful" ground.
Secondly, When will YOU and others learn that good and evil aren't a part of the fabric of reality? Good and Evil are cognitive phenomenon, meaning they primarily exist and derive from the nervous system. In other words, Good and Evil are merely phsychological reactions and projected interpretations of most likely, fairly nuetral events.
Ying and Yang is an arbitrary rule made up some guy whacked out of his skull 5,000 years, when he noticed that good thoughts and actions are usually juxtaposed with evil thoughts and actions. In other words, Ying/Yang is mere speculative bullshit which would never make it past the most elementary scientific skepticism.
In Real Science, it's not the skeptic's burden to disprove there's an invisible dragon in your bedroom. It's your burden to prove there's an invisible dragon.
So, PROVE IT... Hell, I'll even give you full credit if you can even compell me with your ying/yang bullshit.
I don't know about you, but I can't think of many other ideas which has done as much to promote freedom and improve the quality of life, other than science (not technology, the dicipline).
I forgot justice. It is abosultely essential for a thriving society. A Free Market without justice is the equivilant of South America and South East Asia.
Can't speak much for South America, but South East Asia isn't pretty (except for Singapore, where they have justice).
I'm convinced that people like yourself really don't care at all about freedom, but rather preserving the Internet and your comfortable little cocoon. If you DID care about freedom, then you would respect one's freedom to run thier website they see fit.
It was easy to respect one's freedom, when thier only other option was subscription, because you know most people won't buy subscriptions, therefore most websites won't be subscription based.
Micropayments, on the other hand, really threaten you, because you know most people won't mind paying $.05 (or some other price) for a dirty cartoon, and that would require you to pay $.05 for the cartoon.
Admit it to yourself, you really don't care about people's freedom, you're just a cheapskate hanging on the coattails of this "Free the Internet" movement.
If you REALLY cared about people's freedom, you would respect people's freedom to ask (NOT DEMAND, NOT LEGISLATE, NOT MONOPOLIZE, NOT COMMUNIZE) for compensation.
It's only the cornerstone idea of the most successful economic system to have been implemented.
I don't know about you, but I can't think of many other ideas which has done as much to promote freedom and improve the quality of life, other than science (not technology, the dicipline).
It's the propigation of unchecked stupidity, non-scientific speculation, and mis-information that really gets me.
In situations like this, you don't need to make your opponent look like an idiot, and yell in ALL CAPS WITH A GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY for people to get the point.
Instead, constrast HIS GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY, with logic. Your goal is to vindicate the reader's suspicians that your foe is stupid....but don't stop there. Follow it up with a very brief, poignantly resonate explaination of your foe's delusions.
The goal is to turn your foes opinion into an example of what NOT to do, while subtiley pushing logic and reason.
If I could program a child like I write software, I would be patting you on the back, you seem to have a hard time remembering what being a kid is like, let alone understand that people are inherantly not logical.
It's easy for you to optimally conceptualize a simplified mathematical model only because you've been repetitively exposed to all its nuances for most of your life.
For example, you state that addition is subtraction, but you fail to see that addition is subtraction with the concept of negative numbers (a concept dependant on the concept and mechanics of subtraction). Keep in mind that in order for kids to conceptualize this, they must be intimately familiar with the mechanics, which is nessecary for mentally simulating the concepts.
I wholeheartly agree that kids should be taught more conceptual math along with thier mechanical math (when appropriate), but I think your assertions that we can substitute mechanical math with conceptual math is very naive.
In other words, you started the off on a good thought, but failed to think it through. (You should play a devil's advocate a little more)
Will you be required to wear a helmet that tracks your eye movement that zaps you when your eyes try to wander back on a paragaph you should have been reading rather than thinking about the Juggies jumping on trampolines?
Was that a run-on-sentence did it lack appropriate puncuation or did it just try to fit too much into one sentence?
Obvious to you, it's apparently not so obvious to a lot of posters, if you look at thier attempts to translate this patent abstract. I don't know how many times I've read these patent stories, only to have half the posters not even understand what was even patented, and then have the other half assuming the patent office rubberstamped an obvious piece of prior art. They might understand it wasn't prior art if they read the patent abstract.
Secondly, You brought up a great point. No questions, no answers.
You can't expect people to ask questions today. People don't give a shit about asking questions, they just want to spew off thier opinions. This is deficient because people aren't asking for the information they need to make informed opinions.
So one's options are (A)Shrug your shoulders, or (B) ask the questions for them, and give them the answers anyway. (C) One could also encourage people to ask questions.
I have nowhere near the knowledge you do about patent law, or the patent process, but if I did (I'm tying), you can bet your ass I'd be in here, clearly explaining as much as I can, the best I can.
I'd hate to say it, but you really come off a severely anti-social.
Other than anti-social people, I can't imagine anybody getting angry, because Amazon wants thier address to send them a gift? I can understand that you might object to Amazon having your address (A horrible invasion of privacy!), but other than that, what is there to get angry about?
Secondly, You obviously don't understand that there are an overwhelming number of people who don't concern themselves with petty issues like, "Do I know someone well enough to send them a gift?"
I'm not saying you're wierd, and I'm not saying you're not normal. (There are many people like you)
I'm pointing out that you shouldn't really be knocking a lot of other people when you're freak.
(NOTE: Please don't take this message personally, I'm mearly practicing the art of turning the tables and introducing arguments that don't exist. What do you think of it?)
Want to do something better than writing a letter to your representatives, or boycotting Amazon?
1. LEARN as much as you can about the patent system. Learn how to read patent abstracts, how to file a patent, and how patents are processesed. 2. LEARN about as many bogus claims as you can. LEARN EXACTLY why they are bogus. 3. EXPLAIN it to as many people as you can, as economical as you can, without putting them off... 4. Explain it to someone who can explain it back better than you can. 5. Learn how to explain it so well, that person whom you explained it to will want to explain it to someone else as good as you explained it to them. 6. Explain it to Slashdot
...AND ALWAYS...
6. Explain the TRUTH, not misconceptions and misinformation littered with fallicies.
MOST OF ALL: Do what this post is trying to do. Try to encourage as many people as you can to learn about the causes they care about, rather than just shouting opinions.
You didn't honestly think that people care about your opinions more than thiers?
Unless Sears had an automated system to email gift recipients to get thier shipping address in the 1800's, then no...
I invite you and others who obviously care about corruption in the patent system, to actually read this patent abstract. You will learn a bit of the terminology, and maybe get a little sense of what can and what can't be patented. I don't expect you guys to become patent attorneys, but if you're going to critisize a patent (let alone the patent system), atleast know what you're critisizing.
This fight to reform the patent system is rooted in influencing enough of the right people who can make the reform happen. In order to influence the people, we need to be well educated and well versed on the subjects. We can't afford these embarassing misconceptions. And I've read a lot of embarassing misconceptions.
How are we going to make everybody else easily understand our problem if we don't even understand our problem?
You want to give Uncle Jimbo a gift, but don't have his address. Rather than calling Uncle Jimbo, you give Uncle Jimbo's email and/phone number to Amazon. Amazon's automated system, will first email Uncle Jimbo for his address. When that fails, Uncle Jimbo get put on a calling list to get his address.
It's just a superflous system for getting someone's address...
While you're description is very accurate, your assuming the person knows what the COM+ framework J2EE, BEA, Runtime Layers, Frameworks, and Web Services are...
To put it simply and all semantics aside,.NET is basically a Java clone. Like Java,.NET runs all of it's programs in a virtual machine. Unlike Java, you can write.NET programs in 20 programming languages (now including Java). All of these languages can talk to each other pretty seamlessly..NET also has a lot of new tools to make your programs connecting/communicating with other programs on the net a lot easier using a technology called SOAP.
First of all, I couldn't agree more with your post. However, when the original poster said...
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
I'm assumed he means: If we let these grubby oligopolies use the government and FCC to regulate PVR's and other liberating technologies (P2P, wireless networking), THEN it will be the death of western civilization.
You have to remember that today's (Demo)/(Republi)crats don't give a shit about the free market or smaller government.
Below is an interpretation of the overall joke my post tried to present.
He was a bigger geek than we were. He pronounced DOS, dose, despite constant correction! His statement sounds so stupid! It was stupid! ha ha ha ha ha! It was stupid!
He should have said, "I heared of a guy who memoried pi up to the 30,000th decimal."
Not, "I heared of a guy who memoried 30,000 numbers!"
That's so stupid!!! Don't you get it??? It's so stupid!!!
He was inferior, thus we rediculed him like we were ridiculed by the football team.
This concludes the interpretation. Further layers of humor will not be interpreted...
This story reminds me of conversation we had in High School at the computer club about guys memorizing pi up to the 10 thousandth decimal. At which point, one of the less cool geeks, who happened to pronounce DOS, dose, chimmed in enthousiastically, "I once hear of a guy who memorized 30,000 numbers!"
You can bet your ass the room filled up with Louis Skolnick type laughter, along with ribbing along the lines of, "Once I hit 30,000 I stop counting..."
This is what I get for being nice and using bold to emphasis my main points? (I had a lot of points)
If you want to stop that sort of silly comment, you should note that you can specify a score penalty for short comments, so you can ignore them instead of reaming them out. ...but that doesn't make an example out of anybody! Our friend may not raise his standards, but I can almost guaranttee that it will make others consider.
Seriously, If you think this is mean, you should have seen my first draft. It was funny too...
Keep using those PERIODs as a lazy substitution for an otherwise truly poignant and resonating idea, and you'll can make every other idea the rest of us value (Freedom of Expression, Due Process, etc.) seem trite. I'm serious. Every thoughtless regurgitation of an idea wears down the effect of that idea.
You might as well scream, "Information wants to be Free!"
If you want to be the next Richard Stallman hardliner, you should note that Richard Stallman always puts the effort into explaining his vision rather than simply asserting it with cheap dramatics.
...and could you moderators please raise your standards a little?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it funny that while RADAR was invented in Cambridge, Enlgish it was perfected in Cambridge, Massachusetts?
Isn't it also suspicious that Loomis's secretary's name was Watson-Watts, and Watson-Watts secretary's name was Loomis?
Coincidence, or just a freak event of the statistically unlikely?
blah blah blah blah blah blah something intelligent blah blah blah period here, blah blah blah prove this...
' t-have-one-fucking-original-idea superstition ideas, recursively based on itself, wrapped in a paradox, digested and shit into a cardboard box.
Fine, you don't leave me a choice...
Can't figure out how to rationalize your way through? Did I pop your little delusional bubble? Is that why you're resorting to your little kiddie games? Do you really think Slashdotters are so stupid that they can't see through your kiddie games?
Honestly, I was expecting a little more of your speculative-meta-physics-eastern-philosophy-I-don
I didn't think you would resort to kiddie games, and I didn't think I would have to resort into goading you into a real debate. (Or in your case, flinging around a bunch of random assertions you picked up while watching TV, or reading James VanPraaaaag and Silvia Browne's collaborative guide to eastern philosophy.)
Grow up and get in touch with your outer adult.
We understand that privacy is a double edge sword, protecting both the innocent and guilty, just like due process and being prosumed innocent until proven guilty protects the innocent and guilty.
You're not breaking any "Insightful" ground.
Secondly, When will YOU and others learn that good and evil aren't a part of the fabric of reality? Good and Evil are cognitive phenomenon, meaning they primarily exist and derive from the nervous system. In other words, Good and Evil are merely phsychological reactions and projected interpretations of most likely, fairly nuetral events.
Ying and Yang is an arbitrary rule made up some guy whacked out of his skull 5,000 years, when he noticed that good thoughts and actions are usually juxtaposed with evil thoughts and actions. In other words, Ying/Yang is mere speculative bullshit which would never make it past the most elementary scientific skepticism.
In Real Science, it's not the skeptic's burden to disprove there's an invisible dragon in your bedroom. It's your burden to prove there's an invisible dragon.
So, PROVE IT... Hell, I'll even give you full credit if you can even compell me with your ying/yang bullshit.
I don't know about you, but I can't think of many other ideas which has done as much to promote freedom and improve the quality of life, other than science (not technology, the dicipline).
I forgot justice. It is abosultely essential for a thriving society. A Free Market without justice is the equivilant of South America and South East Asia.
Can't speak much for South America, but South East Asia isn't pretty (except for Singapore, where they have justice).
Free the web...free the internet...
I'm convinced that people like yourself really don't care at all about freedom, but rather preserving the Internet and your comfortable little cocoon. If you DID care about freedom, then you would respect one's freedom to run thier website they see fit.
It was easy to respect one's freedom, when thier only other option was subscription, because you know most people won't buy subscriptions, therefore most websites won't be subscription based.
Micropayments, on the other hand, really threaten you, because you know most people won't mind paying $.05 (or some other price) for a dirty cartoon, and that would require you to pay $.05 for the cartoon.
Admit it to yourself, you really don't care about people's freedom, you're just a cheapskate hanging on the coattails of this "Free the Internet" movement.
If you REALLY cared about people's freedom, you would respect people's freedom to ask (NOT DEMAND, NOT LEGISLATE, NOT MONOPOLIZE, NOT COMMUNIZE) for compensation.
It's only the cornerstone idea of the most successful economic system to have been implemented.
I don't know about you, but I can't think of many other ideas which has done as much to promote freedom and improve the quality of life, other than science (not technology, the dicipline).
It's the propigation of unchecked stupidity, non-scientific speculation, and mis-information that really gets me.
...but don't stop there. Follow it up with a very brief, poignantly resonate explaination of your foe's delusions.
In situations like this, you don't need to make your opponent look like an idiot, and yell in ALL CAPS WITH A GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY for people to get the point.
Instead, constrast HIS GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY, with logic. Your goal is to vindicate the reader's suspicians that your foe is stupid.
The goal is to turn your foes opinion into an example of what NOT to do, while subtiley pushing logic and reason.
Irony is also relative from person to person. One man's irony is another man's common sense.
Many people also believe that Sen. Hollings and George W. are decent folk just trying to save the world from pirates and evil-doers.
Just because I see through the horse-shit, you see through the horse-shit, doesn't mean the rest of these people see through the horse-shit.
Traditional expectations would rule it's ironic.
insofar as we usually don't expect corporate whores calling other corporate whores, a corporate whore.
Hypocrisy is usually ironic.
Any OS can be written to connect to the web, has nothing to do with open source.
He wasn't saying it did. He was suggesting that open source usually facilitates ports to many operating systems.
It still costs money to connect to the web even when using OSS - bandwidth isn't free, even if the software is.
We're not discussing whether a Free model is good for connectivity, we're talking about whether a Free Software model would make a bad monopoly.
And OSS can still get patented - hell, Amazon works on a version of Apache and they still have patents.
While Amazon's software is written USING OSS software, Amazon's software is NOT OSS. Any other examples?
His, "So Shut up" comment was stupid, but you're "Stop Bullshitting" coupled with your irrelivant points was a lot worse.
If I could program a child like I write software, I would be patting you on the back, you seem to have a hard time remembering what being a kid is like, let alone understand that people are inherantly not logical.
It's easy for you to optimally conceptualize a simplified mathematical model only because you've been repetitively exposed to all its nuances for most of your life.
For example, you state that addition is subtraction, but you fail to see that addition is subtraction with the concept of negative numbers (a concept dependant on the concept and mechanics of subtraction). Keep in mind that in order for kids to conceptualize this, they must be intimately familiar with the mechanics, which is nessecary for mentally simulating the concepts.
I wholeheartly agree that kids should be taught more conceptual math along with thier mechanical math (when appropriate), but I think your assertions that we can substitute mechanical math with conceptual math is very naive.
In other words, you started the off on a good thought, but failed to think it through. (You should play a devil's advocate a little more)
I wouldn't call it turning tables as much as sitting at a completly different table only half catching the conversation.
That pretty much sums it up...
Will you be required to wear a helmet that tracks your eye movement that zaps you when your eyes try to wander back on a paragaph you should have been reading rather than thinking about the Juggies jumping on trampolines?
Was that a run-on-sentence did it lack appropriate puncuation or did it just try to fit too much into one sentence?
Obvious to you, it's apparently not so obvious to a lot of posters, if you look at thier attempts to translate this patent abstract. I don't know how many times I've read these patent stories, only to have half the posters not even understand what was even patented, and then have the other half assuming the patent office rubberstamped an obvious piece of prior art. They might understand it wasn't prior art if they read the patent abstract.
Secondly, You brought up a great point. No questions, no answers.
You can't expect people to ask questions today. People don't give a shit about asking questions, they just want to spew off thier opinions. This is deficient because people aren't asking for the information they need to make informed opinions.
So one's options are (A)Shrug your shoulders, or (B) ask the questions for them, and give them the answers anyway. (C) One could also encourage people to ask questions.
I have nowhere near the knowledge you do about patent law, or the patent process, but if I did (I'm tying), you can bet your ass I'd be in here, clearly explaining as much as I can, the best I can.
I'd hate to say it, but you really come off a severely anti-social.
Other than anti-social people, I can't imagine anybody getting angry, because Amazon wants thier address to send them a gift? I can understand that you might object to Amazon having your address (A horrible invasion of privacy!), but other than that, what is there to get angry about?
Secondly, You obviously don't understand that there are an overwhelming number of people who don't concern themselves with petty issues like, "Do I know someone well enough to send them a gift?"
I'm not saying you're wierd, and I'm not saying you're not normal. (There are many people like you)
I'm pointing out that you shouldn't really be knocking a lot of other people when you're freak.
(NOTE: Please don't take this message personally, I'm mearly practicing the art of turning the tables and introducing arguments that don't exist. What do you think of it?)
Want to do something better than writing a letter to your representatives, or boycotting Amazon?
...AND ALWAYS...
1. LEARN as much as you can about the patent system. Learn how to read patent abstracts, how to file a patent, and how patents are processesed.
2. LEARN about as many bogus claims as you can. LEARN EXACTLY why they are bogus.
3. EXPLAIN it to as many people as you can, as economical as you can, without putting them off...
4. Explain it to someone who can explain it back better than you can.
5. Learn how to explain it so well, that person whom you explained it to will want to explain it to someone else as good as you explained it to them.
6. Explain it to Slashdot
6. Explain the TRUTH, not misconceptions and misinformation littered with fallicies.
MOST OF ALL: Do what this post is trying to do. Try to encourage as many people as you can to learn about the causes they care about, rather than just shouting opinions.
You didn't honestly think that people care about your opinions more than thiers?
Unless Sears had an automated system to email gift recipients to get thier shipping address in the 1800's, then no...
I invite you and others who obviously care about corruption in the patent system, to actually read this patent abstract. You will learn a bit of the terminology, and maybe get a little sense of what can and what can't be patented. I don't expect you guys to become patent attorneys, but if you're going to critisize a patent (let alone the patent system), atleast know what you're critisizing.
This fight to reform the patent system is rooted in influencing enough of the right people who can make the reform happen. In order to influence the people, we need to be well educated and well versed on the subjects. We can't afford these embarassing misconceptions. And I've read a lot of embarassing misconceptions.
How are we going to make everybody else easily understand our problem if we don't even understand our problem?
The basic idea behind this invention is:
You want to give Uncle Jimbo a gift, but don't have his address. Rather than calling Uncle Jimbo, you give Uncle Jimbo's email and/phone number to Amazon. Amazon's automated system, will first email Uncle Jimbo for his address. When that fails, Uncle Jimbo get put on a calling list to get his address.
It's just a superflous system for getting someone's address...
Why not just call Uncle Jimbo yourself, and ask?
While you're description is very accurate, your assuming the person knows what the COM+ framework J2EE, BEA, Runtime Layers, Frameworks, and Web Services are...
.NET is basically a Java clone. Like Java, .NET runs all of it's programs in a virtual machine. Unlike Java, you can write .NET programs in 20 programming languages (now including Java). All of these languages can talk to each other pretty seamlessly. .NET also has a lot of new tools to make your programs connecting/communicating with other programs on the net a lot easier using a technology called SOAP.
To put it simply and all semantics aside,
First of all, I couldn't agree more with your post. However, when the original poster said...
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
I'm assumed he means: If we let these grubby oligopolies use the government and FCC to regulate PVR's and other liberating technologies (P2P, wireless networking), THEN it will be the death of western civilization.
You have to remember that today's (Demo)/(Republi)crats don't give a shit about the free market or smaller government.
Were you laughing at his grammar?
Below is an interpretation of the overall joke my post tried to present.
He was a bigger geek than we were. He pronounced DOS, dose, despite constant correction! His statement sounds so stupid! It was stupid! ha ha ha ha ha! It was stupid!
He should have said, "I heared of a guy who memoried pi up to the 30,000th decimal."
Not, "I heared of a guy who memoried 30,000 numbers!"
That's so stupid!!! Don't you get it??? It's so stupid!!!
He was inferior, thus we rediculed him like we were ridiculed by the football team.
This concludes the interpretation. Further layers of humor will not be interpreted...
This story reminds me of conversation we had in High School at the computer club about guys memorizing pi up to the 10 thousandth decimal. At which point, one of the less cool geeks, who happened to pronounce DOS, dose, chimmed in enthousiastically, "I once hear of a guy who memorized 30,000 numbers!"
You can bet your ass the room filled up with Louis Skolnick type laughter, along with ribbing along the lines of, "Once I hit 30,000 I stop counting..."
That was BEFORE we had beowulf cluster jokes!
This is what I get for being nice and using bold to emphasis my main points? (I had a lot of points)
...but that doesn't make an example out of anybody! Our friend may not raise his standards, but I can almost guaranttee that it will make others consider.
If you want to stop that sort of silly comment, you should note that you can specify a score penalty for short comments, so you can ignore them instead of reaming them out.
Seriously, If you think this is mean, you should have seen my first draft. It was funny too...
Keep using those PERIODs as a lazy substitution for an otherwise truly poignant and resonating idea, and you'll can make every other idea the rest of us value (Freedom of Expression, Due Process, etc.) seem trite. I'm serious. Every thoughtless regurgitation of an idea wears down the effect of that idea.
...and could you moderators please raise your standards a little?
You might as well scream, "Information wants to be Free!"
If you want to be the next Richard Stallman hardliner, you should note that Richard Stallman always puts the effort into explaining his vision rather than simply asserting it with cheap dramatics.
I'm sorry I had to be tough...
Feel free to give whatever money you want to Fat Wallet, but I personally think the reason they are going through with this is twofold.
1. Walmart is threatening thier business
2. Fighting Walmart will generate A LOT of publicity
I never heard of them before, but you can bet I'm going to check them out now.
Seriously, The press loves David and Goliath stories like these, and I'm sure it will be picked up beyond Slashdot.
I hope FatWallet milks this situation for what it's worth.
Communist system has one hypnotizer...
Free Market system put hypnotizers in direct competition with each other!
I take your 2c, now you senseless!!! HA! HA! HA! Old Hong Kong Joke!