"In the end, if people are stealing your stuff," Kocher said, "the technology has failed."
Remember folx, they want to make computers illegal. If you have computers, you can steal their stuff, so that's a failure of technology. Technology will be a failure until you can't use it to steal content. That will only happen once computers are illegal. Don't give them money ever again. They're just as evil as the music industry. But also don't steal their stuff. I want to see ROTK and TTT. Have I? Nope. I won't give them money and I won't steal.. (And plz don't chime in with that little "copyright infringment != stealing" "argument". I know it's not the same using big legally technical words, but it is the same in that you get to use things ithout paying for them when you should pay for them. Splitting hairs makes it look like you're trying to get away with something. And I figured out that pirating is stealing a long time before I ever heard of the RIAA or MPAA.).
I heard from someone who works at the FCC that currently they're trying to put watermarking tech into all consumer AD converters so those AD converters won't record protected content. Of course, commercial AD converters won't have these restrictions, but that's because everyone's equal, but some people (the powerful people) are more equal than others. So let's assume that they get away with this AD watermarking. What happens on Christmas when little Susie gets up on her own two feet for the first time and takes her first steps toward Daddy who's holding a little dolly as her Christmas present. Whoops.Forgot to turn off the stereo playing that protected content, I guess the watermarking will prevent the crippled camera from recording the sounds. Whoops, little Susie walked in front of a TV that someone left on. Guess the picture will cut out because we can't have people recording protected content, can we? Anyway, plz don't give them money, and plz don't steal.
Some states let you pick your own numbers on your lottery tickets. You can substantially increase your chances of not sharing the prize by picking relatively high numbers, which are less likely to be picked by others since most other people's "lucky" numbers tend to be low numbers.
Interesting. I will have to remember that if the lottery ever gets that high again. Thanks.
Ok, I'm bored, so here's how I figure out when to play the lottery. First the main principle is that of the "progressive jackpot". That means that people play some game and if nobody wins, a pot grows and grows. Normally when playing poker or something with a progressive jackpot, you can't just sit down halfway through and start playing because you didn't put any money into the game. The lottery OTOH lets you start playing after many people have put their money in and lost. I think this is the same idea behind those teams that beat video poker by waiting for a huge jackpot, then playing all of the machines for days until they win the jackpot.
If the lottery gives you a 1/N chance of winning the big prize per dollar ticket, and the jackpot is about 3N, then the tickets start getting worth it. Start with the 3N. First, they take away about 40 percent of the money if you pick the "lump sum" (you should consider this important since you pay for the tickets now and don't get to pay for your tickets over 25 years...), then you have taxes which will be about 40 percent of what's left, so you're looking at.6*.6 of the money, which is 36 percent, or roughly 1/3 of the total (About N dollars). Then you have the problem of if there's a 1/N chance of winning and 2N tickets are bought for that drawing, you will average 2 winners, and it could be more, but it could be less, so your real expected payoff is more like P(1 winner)*.36(Jackpot = J) + P(2 winners)*(.36(J)/2) + P(3 winners)*(.36(J)/3)...and so forth. It's a binomial distribution with p = 1/N, q = ((N-1)/N), so your P(X = 0) is ((N-1)/N)^2N, P(X=1) = C(2N,1)(1/N)((N-1)/N)^(2N-1), P(X=2) = C(2N,2)(1/N)^2((N-1)/N)^(2N-2).... All of the ((N-1)/N) terms are roughly the same and we can call them K, and we can simplify the combinations (By assuming that C(2N,P) is roughly (2N)^P/P!) for large N and small P to get
P(X=P) = C(2N,P)(1/N)^P((N-1)/N)^P which is approx
(2^P)(N^P)/P!(1/N)^P(K) = (2^P)/P!(K), and the K is essentially constant over all P, so we can ignore it, so the P(X=P) is proportional to (2^P)/P!.
I will ignore the 0 winners case, since then you get a chance to play again next week, But the constants for the other numbers are : C1 = 2, C2 = 4/2 = 2, C3 = 8/6 = 4/3, C4 = 16/24 = 2/3, C5 = 32/120 ~= 1/4, C6 = 64/720 ~= 1/12, and it keeps going down.
Add those numbers up and make the last one a 1/10 or so to take care of the other numbers, and you see that the total is about 6.5 or 7. You have essentially a 2/7 chance of being the sole winner, a 2/7 chance of being a half winner, and so on, so your real expected value will look more like
which is approx ((2+1+4/9+1/6+1/20...)/7)*J ~= (1/2)*J, so you're looking at about half the jackpot being yours (ignoring the 0 winner case which lowers it even more to about.4.
So, on top of the taxes and persent value which eat away about 2/3 of the value of the jackpot, the other winners make your jackpot about half or less of its value beyond that, so we're looking at about a 15-18 percent return on the actual "dollar value" of the jackpot. I tend to play when the jackpot is 3N where the chance of winning is 1/N, since I like poker and this situation only comes up every few years, but to take everything into account, you should wait until the jackpot is about 6N,. The only problem is that I was assuming 2N tickets bought for the current drawing, and if those numbers go way up, then the expected size of the jackpot keeps going down due to more players. So, I guess it will never be perfect, but it's nice to have better odds if you're going to play and the little prizes increase the expected value, as well, so it might be worth playing once in a while. And no I never won except for the little stuff.
> but didn't have much to say about Hitler did they?
> >and devout Christians hate rape.
>wow, such high principles. doesn't apply to not getting 14 year olds pregnant with the "son of God" though...
You forgot about the
UDAP.
Uniform Distribution of Assholes Principle: Assholes are distributed uniformly throughout the population.
Therefore, given a large enough group, that group will have some assholes. Assholes are generally louder and more obnoxious and try to troll people who aren't part of the group, so you notice them more when you're not in the group. Most fundamentalist Christians are perfectly ok. There are some assholes, simply because there are lots of fundamentalist Christians.
Not understanding the UDAP is the reason why so many people attacked Islam and Muslims in the US after Sept 11. They think that because some Muslims are assholes, all Muslims are assholes. When in reality, it's just that some of the Muslim assholes are now coming after the western world instead of causing trouble at home. It would be like saying that all Americans are evil if people like Timothy McVeigh had gone overseas to attack other countries as private citizens.
The UDAP can also be generalized to the UDFP: Uniform Distribution of Flaws Principle, which states that flaws in the human character are uniformly distributed throughout the population. Therefore, stereotyping works because given the statement "All (Group) are (Flaw)." There will be a member of group Group that has flaw Flaw, and in fact the listener may have observed this on one occasion (since flaws are pretty common.:)) and may be more likely to believe the stereotype.
Wow, we all knew Disney was Evil for trying to cripple computers, but man, they're even screwing over one of their best partners. How greedy and shortsighted can you get?:P
I find the true irony, however, is the fact that in this particular case, the FSF has no copyright interest. The copyrights on all GNU software is assigned to the FSF so they can encorce the GPL for them. On the other hand, linux is distinct from GNU, as RMS likes to point out from time to time.
Is this true though? Isn't the whole point of RMS' "It's 'GNU/Linux', not just 'Linux'" crusade that Linux contains significant pieces of GNU code and that Linus "just" added the kernel? Couldn't they lay claim to the other tools and programs that SCO distributes along with the kernel? I think they're just biding their time, and they WILL get into it if SCO does get the GPL invalidated in any way.
I don't steal music. I never have used Napster or P2P. OTOH, I do think this is a shakedown racket because they're willing to settle instead of bankrupting people and destroying them. Also, as for SCO, please. If they win a lawsuit and Linux is deemed to be tainted and the courts say that there's no way to remove the infringing code, then I'm willing to go back to whatever the last ok version of linux is.
And as for the BIOS comment, ok you got me on a technicality Mr. Smartypants. But while I'm at it, I also paid for a copyrighted linux distro earlier this year. So you got me, I will give the BIOS industry money when I buy a computer and I will give Linux distro companies money when I buy distros. But I won't be giving the movie or music industry any money. I will also buy real books. And I also won't be stealing or sharing or whatever euphamism people use for stealing their stuff either.
I don't know if you're trolling, but you want to take away computers. That's a big nono. The same ability to modify and copy copyrighted materials is the same power that lets computers perform computations. And it's the same power that lets computers promote the progress of science. You can't use IP to hinder the progress of science. Since I don't see how to have strong DRM and computers, I have made the decision to not give the copyright industry money. I won't and don't steal things, but I won't be giving you all my money because you're going to try to take away something that's been a great boon for this country and the whole world. Ask yourself this: If you had to choose between strong protection for computers or copyright, and you couldn't have both and you couldn't split hairs when answering this question, which would you choose? Computers or copyright?
slashdot won't rise above anything than the geek prole
Do you think you're better than "the geek prole"? If so, why bother coming here and reading the comments? I've never gotten why people go to a place and then insult it. I know that there are out-and-out trolls and a-holes on/., but I like most of the discussions here because I don't mind messy, unfiltered conversation. That doesn't make it a bad conversation, just a different one, and one where you find out what people are really thinking, rather than only getting the neat and tidy version that they let out from behind their public personas.
Oh bleh. I was being sarcastic...in the sense of when someone says they're "doing it for the children", then they're usually not. Same here, "doing it for the artists", and yet the artists are not happy with it...:)
Lemme put it this way. Anything is patentable. It may not look like it, but it is.
There's a reason why the words "technical innovation" and "computer implemented invention" appear. It's because people suck at math.
Seriously. Bear with me for a moment.
Remember back in elementary school when you got math problems, and after a little while manipulating those numbers, you got those "word problems" that used the same math you were just doing with abstract numbers? Except this time, the numbers represented "real-world values"? Remember how you knew that were _EXACTLY_THE_SAME_KINDS_OF_PROBLEMS_, just with some words, and how you understood this:
"word problems" are the same as "regular math problems".
Remember how most of the other people in the class went. "OMFG WORD PROBLEMS....WAAAAAH THIS ISN'T FAIR, THESE AREN'T *MATH* PROBLEMS! I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT!"
Well, that's the problem. Some people who understand math decided that they wanted to get (illegal) patents on math, and so they figured out how to lie to the people who suck at math by using words like "technical innovation" and "computer implemented invention". Even though most of you reading this post understand that word problems are the same as regular math problems and realize that it's a false distinction. Math is math is math. Whether or not the numbers being put into and taken out of the formulas and equations are given real-world meaning or not.
So, a "technical innovation" or "computer implemented invention" can mean "doing a math problem on a computer where the numbers have some kind of real-world meaning". That covers just about all software.
So, that's what it is. Greedy people telling lies to innumerate people to get patents on things they shouldn't be able to get patents on.
I was wondering about this, too, but I think it will reduce to the level of the lightest user. So, if you have someone who never gets viruses and worms, and never surfs, but only reads email a few days a week, you have the LCD.
Actually, dummy me. THIS is the page I wanted. There's a form in the middle of the page you can fill out if you feel that MS is trying to take away your software choices. I wouldn't do it right now, but it's damn fishy to me that MS wasn't on Darl's list of tainted OSes, and yet MS still bought a big license for a short period of time.
System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond-AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003.
Well, that settles it for me. I didn't know about this quote before now. If McBride excluded Windows from his list of tainted OSes, there's no reason for MS to buy a 1-year UNIX license unless they're just out to screw over Linux.
Oh well, this is an interesting form you might want to fill out if SCO comes after you.
you *do* remember the proviso that "any attempt to invoke Godwin's Law in any specific attempt to end a given argument are null and void?"
You have not invoked Godwin's until and unless you do so in a way that is *not* intended to terminate the argument.
I read it as the first person to involuntarily invoke Nazis leads to a situation where you can invoke Godwin's Law. (OTOH, the FAQ the parent had said that the thread may devolve into arguments over what Godwin's Law means...so eh:P)
I invision that building being a bunch of yes men and raid attack lawers who have the combigned morals of Stalin, Goering, and Ghengis Kahn all rolled up into one.
Finally. I invoke Godwin's Law. Now we can dispense with the SCO stories since no useful further debate is possible.
Now Eolas is in a position to release the only browser that displays flash, vivo, etc, etc, without prompting the user each and every time.
It'll never happen. They will have to violate hundreds or thousands of other software patents to make and sell the product. And if any one of those patent holders doesn't want Eolas to succeed, they can stop Eolas. And, I guarantee by taking away all the cool fun shit on the WWW, Eolas has made a lot of enemies. And I'm fairly certain that MS either owns at least one of these necessary patents, or will be willing to buy one of them to use to fuck over Eolas.:)
That's why SW pats are bad. Most inventions in other industries are covered by a few patents, but when making software, you use lots of algorithms and many are patented, so you can't write software without infringing. They're good if you're not writing software since then you can leech money off people who are writing software, and they can't get back at you. But, once you start trying to write software you have to infringe on other patents, and if you piss people off, you don't get to write software.(Patents don't let you create something, they only let you stop other people from creating something...so you need permission from everyone who solved part of your problem to actually implement your problem... This is a BAD loophole since it encourages extortion rackets like the Eolas scheme.)
Call me an optimist, but I have a strong feel in my right gut that Eolas will provide dual licensure for the patent, similar to Trolltech and Qt, where free software (BSD, GPL, Artistic license) gains free use and closed-source has to pay a "reasonable" fee.
Software patents are absolutely, unequivocally evil.Never support them in any way. If this "Mike Doyle" from UC ever wants to be part of anything to do with FLOSS (which I doubt) tell him to go fuck himself.
And remember if YOU want to write software, you have to violate tons of these software patents, and if you are a little nobody like me, the only reason you haven't been sued is that you're not worth it, and your software isn't worth stopping. I hope he doesn't give FLOSS a free pass, because if he does, he will be inviting other software patent holders to take a look at FLOSS to punish us.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the end, if people are stealing your stuff," Kocher said, "the technology has failed."
Remember folx, they want to make computers illegal. If you have computers, you can steal their stuff, so that's a failure of technology. Technology will be a failure until you can't use it to steal content. That will only happen once computers are illegal. Don't give them money ever again. They're just as evil as the music industry. But also don't steal their stuff. I want to see ROTK and TTT. Have I? Nope. I won't give them money and I won't steal.. (And plz don't chime in with that little "copyright infringment != stealing" "argument". I know it's not the same using big legally technical words, but it is the same in that you get to use things ithout paying for them when you should pay for them. Splitting hairs makes it look like you're trying to get away with something. And I figured out that pirating is stealing a long time before I ever heard of the RIAA or MPAA.).
I heard from someone who works at the FCC that currently they're trying to put watermarking tech into all consumer AD converters so those AD converters won't record protected content. Of course, commercial AD converters won't have these restrictions, but that's because everyone's equal, but some people (the powerful people) are more equal than others. So let's assume that they get away with this AD watermarking. What happens on Christmas when little Susie gets up on her own two feet for the first time and takes her first steps toward Daddy who's holding a little dolly as her Christmas present. Whoops.Forgot to turn off the stereo playing that protected content, I guess the watermarking will prevent the crippled camera from recording the sounds. Whoops, little Susie walked in front of a TV that someone left on. Guess the picture will cut out because we can't have people recording protected content, can we? Anyway, plz don't give them money, and plz don't steal.
Some states let you pick your own numbers on your lottery tickets. You can substantially increase your chances of not sharing the prize by picking relatively high numbers, which are less likely to be picked by others since most other people's "lucky" numbers tend to be low numbers.
Interesting. I will have to remember that if the lottery ever gets that high again. Thanks.
Ok, I'm bored, so here's how I figure out when to play the lottery. First the main principle is that of the "progressive jackpot". That means that people play some game and if nobody wins, a pot grows and grows. Normally when playing poker or something with a progressive jackpot, you can't just sit down halfway through and start playing because you didn't put any money into the game. The lottery OTOH lets you start playing after many people have put their money in and lost. I think this is the same idea behind those teams that beat video poker by waiting for a huge jackpot, then playing all of the machines for days until they win the jackpot.
.6*.6 of the money, which is 36 percent, or roughly 1/3 of the total (About N dollars). Then you have the problem of if there's a 1/N chance of winning and 2N tickets are bought for that drawing, you will average 2 winners, and it could be more, but it could be less, so your real expected payoff is more like P(1 winner)*.36(Jackpot = J) + P(2 winners)*(.36(J)/2) + P(3 winners)*(.36(J)/3)...and so forth. It's a binomial distribution with p = 1/N, q = ((N-1)/N), so your P(X = 0) is ((N-1)/N)^2N, P(X=1) = C(2N,1)(1/N)((N-1)/N)^(2N-1), P(X=2) = C(2N,2)(1/N)^2((N-1)/N)^(2N-2).... All of the ((N-1)/N) terms are roughly the same and we can call them K, and we can simplify the combinations (By assuming that C(2N,P) is roughly (2N)^P/P!) for large N and small P to get
) +( 1/10)*(J/6)...)/7
.4.
If the lottery gives you a 1/N chance of winning the big prize per dollar ticket, and the jackpot is about 3N, then the tickets start getting worth it. Start with the 3N. First, they take away about 40 percent of the money if you pick the "lump sum" (you should consider this important since you pay for the tickets now and don't get to pay for your tickets over 25 years...), then you have taxes which will be about 40 percent of what's left, so you're looking at
P(X=P) = C(2N,P)(1/N)^P((N-1)/N)^P which is approx
(2^P)(N^P)/P!(1/N)^P(K) = (2^P)/P!(K), and the K is essentially constant over all P, so we can ignore it, so the P(X=P) is proportional to (2^P)/P!.
I will ignore the 0 winners case, since then you get a chance to play again next week, But the constants for the other numbers are : C1 = 2, C2 = 4/2 = 2, C3 = 8/6 = 4/3, C4 = 16/24 = 2/3, C5 = 32/120 ~= 1/4, C6 = 64/720 ~= 1/12, and it keeps going down.
Add those numbers up and make the last one a 1/10 or so to take care of the other numbers, and you see that the total is about 6.5 or 7. You have essentially a 2/7 chance of being the sole winner, a 2/7 chance of being a half winner, and so on, so your real expected value will look more like
(2*J+2*(J/2)+(4/3)*(J/3)+(2/3)*(J/4)+(1/4)*(J/5
which is approx ((2+1+4/9+1/6+1/20...)/7)*J ~= (1/2)*J, so you're looking at about half the jackpot being yours (ignoring the 0 winner case which lowers it even more to about
So, on top of the taxes and persent value which eat away about 2/3 of the value of the jackpot, the other winners make your jackpot about half or less of its value beyond that, so we're looking at about a 15-18 percent return on the actual "dollar value" of the jackpot. I tend to play when the jackpot is 3N where the chance of winning is 1/N, since I like poker and this situation only comes up every few years, but to take everything into account, you should wait until the jackpot is about 6N,. The only problem is that I was assuming 2N tickets bought for the current drawing, and if those numbers go way up, then the expected size of the jackpot keeps going down due to more players. So, I guess it will never be perfect, but it's nice to have better odds if you're going to play and the little prizes increase the expected value, as well, so it might be worth playing once in a while. And no I never won except for the little stuff.
Part of Whole
Proper Use
Wrapup
I think I've made myself clear.
>>For example devout Christians hate murder,
:)) and may be more likely to believe the stereotype.
> but didn't have much to say about Hitler did they?
> >and devout Christians hate rape.
>wow, such high principles. doesn't apply to not getting 14 year olds pregnant with the "son of God" though...
You forgot about the
UDAP.
Uniform Distribution of Assholes Principle: Assholes are distributed uniformly throughout the population.
Therefore, given a large enough group, that group will have some assholes. Assholes are generally louder and more obnoxious and try to troll people who aren't part of the group, so you notice them more when you're not in the group. Most fundamentalist Christians are perfectly ok. There are some assholes, simply because there are lots of fundamentalist Christians.
Not understanding the UDAP is the reason why so many people attacked Islam and Muslims in the US after Sept 11. They think that because some Muslims are assholes, all Muslims are assholes. When in reality, it's just that some of the Muslim assholes are now coming after the western world instead of causing trouble at home. It would be like saying that all Americans are evil if people like Timothy McVeigh had gone overseas to attack other countries as private citizens.
The UDAP can also be generalized to the UDFP: Uniform Distribution of Flaws Principle, which states that flaws in the human character are uniformly distributed throughout the population. Therefore, stereotyping works because given the statement "All (Group) are (Flaw)." There will be a member of group Group that has flaw Flaw, and in fact the listener may have observed this on one occasion (since flaws are pretty common.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. So stop whining 639622.
Companies will start claiming that they own all of Linux and Unix and will expect everyone to pay up or get sued. :P
Been tried before. Probably still not a good idea.
It would be interesting to see "normal" animations generated with computers,
:)
Like South Park?
Wow, we all knew Disney was Evil for trying to cripple computers, but man, they're even screwing over one of their best partners. How greedy and shortsighted can you get? :P
I find the true irony, however, is the fact that in this particular case, the FSF has no copyright interest. The copyrights on all GNU software is assigned to the FSF so they can encorce the GPL for them. On the other hand, linux is distinct from GNU, as RMS likes to point out from time to time.
Is this true though? Isn't the whole point of RMS' "It's 'GNU/Linux', not just 'Linux'" crusade that Linux contains significant pieces of GNU code and that Linus "just" added the kernel? Couldn't they lay claim to the other tools and programs that SCO distributes along with the kernel? I think they're just biding their time, and they WILL get into it if SCO does get the GPL invalidated in any way.
I don't steal music. I never have used Napster or P2P. OTOH, I do think this is a shakedown racket because they're willing to settle instead of bankrupting people and destroying them. Also, as for SCO, please. If they win a lawsuit and Linux is deemed to be tainted and the courts say that there's no way to remove the infringing code, then I'm willing to go back to whatever the last ok version of linux is.
And as for the BIOS comment, ok you got me on a technicality Mr. Smartypants. But while I'm at it, I also paid for a copyrighted linux distro earlier this year. So you got me, I will give the BIOS industry money when I buy a computer and I will give Linux distro companies money when I buy distros. But I won't be giving the movie or music industry any money. I will also buy real books. And I also won't be stealing or sharing or whatever euphamism people use for stealing their stuff either.
I don't know if you're trolling, but you want to take away computers. That's a big nono. The same ability to modify and copy copyrighted materials is the same power that lets computers perform computations. And it's the same power that lets computers promote the progress of science. You can't use IP to hinder the progress of science. Since I don't see how to have strong DRM and computers, I have made the decision to not give the copyright industry money. I won't and don't steal things, but I won't be giving you all my money because you're going to try to take away something that's been a great boon for this country and the whole world. Ask yourself this: If you had to choose between strong protection for computers or copyright, and you couldn't have both and you couldn't split hairs when answering this question, which would you choose? Computers or copyright?
slashdot won't rise above anything than the geek prole
/., but I like most of the discussions here because I don't mind messy, unfiltered conversation. That doesn't make it a bad conversation, just a different one, and one where you find out what people are really thinking, rather than only getting the neat and tidy version that they let out from behind their public personas.
Do you think you're better than "the geek prole"? If so, why bother coming here and reading the comments? I've never gotten why people go to a place and then insult it. I know that there are out-and-out trolls and a-holes on
Oh bleh. I was being sarcastic...in the sense of when someone says they're "doing it for the children", then they're usually not. Same here, "doing it for the artists", and yet the artists are not happy with it... :)
Jack's doing it for the artists. That's what he's been saying all along. Don't these directors care about the artists?
Lemme put it this way. Anything is patentable. It may not look like it, but it is.
There's a reason why the words "technical innovation" and "computer implemented invention" appear. It's because people suck at math.
Seriously. Bear with me for a moment.
Remember back in elementary school when you got math problems, and after a little while manipulating those numbers, you got those "word problems" that used the same math you were just doing with abstract numbers? Except this time, the numbers represented "real-world values"? Remember how you knew that were _EXACTLY_THE_SAME_KINDS_OF_PROBLEMS_, just with some words, and how you understood this:
"word problems" are the same as "regular math problems".
Remember how most of the other people in the class went. "OMFG WORD PROBLEMS....WAAAAAH THIS ISN'T FAIR, THESE AREN'T *MATH* PROBLEMS! I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT!"
Well, that's the problem. Some people who understand math decided that they wanted to get (illegal) patents on math, and so they figured out how to lie to the people who suck at math by using words like "technical innovation" and "computer implemented invention". Even though most of you reading this post understand that word problems are the same as regular math problems and realize that it's a false distinction. Math is math is math. Whether or not the numbers being put into and taken out of the formulas and equations are given real-world meaning or not.
So, a "technical innovation" or "computer implemented invention" can mean "doing a math problem on a computer where the numbers have some kind of real-world meaning". That covers just about all software.
So, that's what it is. Greedy people telling lies to innumerate people to get patents on things they shouldn't be able to get patents on.
What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?
To let greedy people find a legal way to lie and cheat their way into money without producing anything that people would actually pay for.
I was wondering about this, too, but I think it will reduce to the level of the lightest user. So, if you have someone who never gets viruses and worms, and never surfs, but only reads email a few days a week, you have the LCD.
Actually, dummy me. THIS is the page I wanted. There's a form in the middle of the page you can fill out if you feel that MS is trying to take away your software choices. I wouldn't do it right now, but it's damn fishy to me that MS wasn't on Darl's list of tainted OSes, and yet MS still bought a big license for a short period of time.
System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond-AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003.
Well, that settles it for me. I didn't know about this quote before now. If McBride excluded Windows from his list of tainted OSes, there's no reason for MS to buy a 1-year UNIX license unless they're just out to screw over Linux.
Oh well, this is an interesting form you might want to fill out if SCO comes after you.
you *do* remember the proviso that "any attempt to invoke Godwin's Law in any specific attempt to end a given argument are null and void?"
:P)
You have not invoked Godwin's until and unless you do so in a way that is *not* intended to terminate the argument.
I read it as the first person to involuntarily invoke Nazis leads to a situation where you can invoke Godwin's Law. (OTOH, the FAQ the parent had said that the thread may devolve into arguments over what Godwin's Law means...so eh
I invision that building being a bunch of yes men and raid attack lawers who have the combigned morals of Stalin, Goering, and Ghengis Kahn all rolled up into one.
Finally. I invoke Godwin's Law. Now we can dispense with the SCO stories since no useful further debate is possible.
Now Eolas is in a position to release the only browser that displays flash, vivo, etc, etc, without prompting the user each and every time.
:)
It'll never happen. They will have to violate hundreds or thousands of other software patents to make and sell the product. And if any one of those patent holders doesn't want Eolas to succeed, they can stop Eolas. And, I guarantee by taking away all the cool fun shit on the WWW, Eolas has made a lot of enemies. And I'm fairly certain that MS either owns at least one of these necessary patents, or will be willing to buy one of them to use to fuck over Eolas.
That's why SW pats are bad. Most inventions in other industries are covered by a few patents, but when making software, you use lots of algorithms and many are patented, so you can't write software without infringing. They're good if you're not writing software since then you can leech money off people who are writing software, and they can't get back at you. But, once you start trying to write software you have to infringe on other patents, and if you piss people off, you don't get to write software.(Patents don't let you create something, they only let you stop other people from creating something...so you need permission from everyone who solved part of your problem to actually implement your problem... This is a BAD loophole since it encourages extortion rackets like the Eolas scheme.)
Call me an optimist, but I have a strong feel in my right gut that Eolas will provide dual licensure for the patent, similar to Trolltech and Qt, where free software (BSD, GPL, Artistic license) gains free use and closed-source has to pay a "reasonable" fee.
Software patents are absolutely, unequivocally evil.Never support them in any way. If this "Mike Doyle" from UC ever wants to be part of anything to do with FLOSS (which I doubt) tell him to go fuck himself.
And remember if YOU want to write software, you have to violate tons of these software patents, and if you are a little nobody like me, the only reason you haven't been sued is that you're not worth it, and your software isn't worth stopping. I hope he doesn't give FLOSS a free pass, because if he does, he will be inviting other software patent holders to take a look at FLOSS to punish us.