People have VoIP in Australia with a publically accessible telephone number (inbound and outbound).
But what you're saying reminds me of mobile phone companies offering internet on 3G mobile phone networks but blocking IM clients fearing their exorbident SMS revenues will disappear.
I don't create the products I create for 'social good.' I create them to make money. If I come up with a unique and new idea, it's mine (or at least it belongs to the company I created it for.)
Perhaps this justifies the patent and copyright system; perhaps.
Pretend that the system protects innovation, granting the creator the capacity to exploit their invention, but also protects the community against monopoly. Surely then the term of protection would be closer to 5 years than 70: more than enough time to produce, not enough time to withold the invention from competitors, impinging social good.
You also do not address the issue of quality. Some have said for "social good" only. On this I am not too sure. What I do know is Amazon's 1-click patent is inappropriate. People click buttons on websites. But if your website involves (a) buying something, and (b) clicking a button once, you have violated their "innovation"! Perhaps if they invented a new kind of button! But buttons exist already exist, and you can click them once. Therefore they have not invented anything.
I'm not sick of the proponents for high profit, poorly tested artificial medicines! Neither am I sick of snake oil salesmen!
I'm sick of everybody who treats this issue as black-and-white. There are obvious cases of fraud in both camps! AND obvious cases of benefit.
For example, we "humons" have been using naturally occurring oils to sterilise open wounds or lower the blood pressure of traumatised patients.
Also, modern medicine has indeed done some marvellous things! Penacillin springs to mind as the obvious one (but cautiously contrast it with what drug companies now want to MARKET as the next-wonder-cure).
It's not 1 XOR other! Skepticism is scientific. Blind bias is ignorant.
Books attemping a discreditation of an entire class most likely falls into the latter with loose argument, "witty" dialog, and convenient groupings of loosely related "medicines".
You just aren't one of the people on one of the sides that is profiting. Not everyone on both sides of the law could profit, or it would be perpetual money motion.
I could not find the statistics but I had read that very few were downloaded, and very few were subsequently "updated" (this was poorly defined; could be a database update or software).
"One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."
I don't understand, I was told he is directly responsible for everything that is wrong with the world!
Did he donate money to George W's election fund too?
And, especially with respect to user interfaces, good developers know that they're not very good at designing interfaces: consultation with end users is essential.
I have found a way to exemplify the problem to all people, nerd U !nerd alike:
When you have a conversation at breakfast before starting your working day you may have a sensitive conversation with your partner for which you assume a private and unthreatening environment.
Why then, should you call them to discuss a sensitive matter at lunch time instead, should you not assume the same private and unthreatening environment?
The sensitive conversation could be anything:
- you may have trouble conceiving a child
- you could be thinking of changing jobs
- you might be thinking of voting for a certain political party
- you might be fighting for freedom in an oppressive regime
- your interpretation of taxation law may be a tad liberal You may also, however:
- be planning to download an mp3
- be planning to attack a free and open society (Are these the same?)
This is the best I've come up with to assert the "privacy is a right" line with colleagues.
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator. Kay: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed! Michael: Oh? Who's being naive, Kay?
Slashdot Mirror
One man's trash is another man's propaganda.
You're not supposed to eat the Ajax.
... something about public speaking: 10% content, 90% appearance.
And don't compare him to Kennedy. J.F. didn't have shit falling out of his mouth when he spoke.
Was this not paraphrased in mid-2007 by Theo of OpenBSD fame?
To paraphrase Bill Hicks: How far up your arse do his eight tentacles have to get until you realise he's fucking you?
People have VoIP in Australia with a publically accessible telephone number (inbound and outbound).
But what you're saying reminds me of mobile phone companies offering internet on 3G mobile phone networks but blocking IM clients fearing their exorbident SMS revenues will disappear.
Perhaps this justifies the patent and copyright system; perhaps.
Pretend that the system protects innovation, granting the creator the capacity to exploit their invention, but also protects the community against monopoly. Surely then the term of protection would be closer to 5 years than 70: more than enough time to produce, not enough time to withold the invention from competitors, impinging social good.
You also do not address the issue of quality. Some have said for "social good" only. On this I am not too sure. What I do know is Amazon's 1-click patent is inappropriate. People click buttons on websites. But if your website involves (a) buying something, and (b) clicking a button once, you have violated their "innovation"! Perhaps if they invented a new kind of button! But buttons exist already exist, and you can click them once. Therefore they have not invented anything.
I'm not sick of the proponents for high profit, poorly tested artificial medicines! Neither am I sick of snake oil salesmen!
I'm sick of everybody who treats this issue as black-and-white. There are obvious cases of fraud in both camps! AND obvious cases of benefit.
For example, we "humons" have been using naturally occurring oils to sterilise open wounds or lower the blood pressure of traumatised patients.
Also, modern medicine has indeed done some marvellous things! Penacillin springs to mind as the obvious one (but cautiously contrast it with what drug companies now want to MARKET as the next-wonder-cure).
It's not 1 XOR other! Skepticism is scientific. Blind bias is ignorant.
Books attemping a discreditation of an entire class most likely falls into the latter with loose argument, "witty" dialog, and convenient groupings of loosely related "medicines".
You need to learn about money creation and inflation.
I could not find the statistics but I had read that very few were downloaded, and very few were subsequently "updated" (this was poorly defined; could be a database update or software).
It is called NetAlert.
If Stephen Conroy wants an internet filter, and attempts to block speech, for what then will the filter really be used?
Is the the same guy as this Casey Jones?
Did he donate money to George W's election fund too?
You didn't get an invitation? Hmmmmm.
Another reason to run Windows servers.
Borat: My computer, it is dead!
Victim: That's terrible!
Borat: No, is OK. My friend Igor give me 386 for massage with, how you say, happy finish.
With Amazon.com book links you can:
- Remove the book title from the URL
- Remove ref=... from the URL
For your recommended book:
- http://www.amazon.com/dp/0750675438/
And, especially with respect to user interfaces, good developers know that they're not very good at designing interfaces: consultation with end users is essential.
Make an appointment with the CEO/MD with a draft of your findings. If he doesn't care, you shouldn't care.
You're being far too practical.
One day when the government outlawas porn requests for parents you will go directly to jail. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200.
I have found a way to exemplify the problem to all people, nerd U !nerd alike:
When you have a conversation at breakfast before starting your working day you may have a sensitive conversation with your partner for which you assume a private and unthreatening environment.
Why then, should you call them to discuss a sensitive matter at lunch time instead, should you not assume the same private and unthreatening environment?
The sensitive conversation could be anything:
- you may have trouble conceiving a child
- you could be thinking of changing jobs
- you might be thinking of voting for a certain political party
- you might be fighting for freedom in an oppressive regime
- your interpretation of taxation law may be a tad liberal
You may also, however:
- be planning to download an mp3
- be planning to attack a free and open society
(Are these the same?)
This is the best I've come up with to assert the "privacy is a right" line with colleagues.