This comment was just a nice partisan rant until it nose-dived into troll land with that last paragraph. I don't have any clue how it was moderated insightful.
Re:the whole IP issue is invalid
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
"Copying in itself hurts no one."
the whole IP issue is invalid
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.
The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Of course, the people dying on the Eastern German borders were trying to get out of the "bad orwellian Tyranny" while the people dying on the American-Mexican boarder or trying to get in the "bad orwellian Tyranny." I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to see what a difference that makes.
I was trying to get a setup going with T-bird under Windows checking multiple IMAP servers at once and it was having a very hard time doing it. I could never get it work well at all. Does anyone know if the newer versions of T-bird have fixed that problem?
This is not a broad patent AT ALL. IT IS AN EXTREMELY NARROW PATENT. For once, I wish that people on Slashdot would stop trying to characterize how broad or narrow a patent is without even having any idea about what makes a patent broad or narrow.
Here is a primer, just so that you won't look like a fool next time you post. First, look at the date the patent was filed, so you have an understanding of when prior art must have existed to beat it. Next, skip down to the section labeled "Claims". The claims of a patent are the bounds of what the patent protects. Next, read the independant claims of the patent. Independant claims are ones that are not directly based upon other listed claims. The independant claims will be the broadest claims in the patent. The claims only cover things that are covered by ALL of the things listed in the claim. Thus, this patent only covers systems that include all of the following:
--------
A method for filtering unwanted electronic mail messages, comprising:
receiving electronic mail messages;
filtering the electronic mail messages that are unwanted utilizing:
compound filters,
paragraph hashing by hashing a plurality of paragraphs and utilizing a database of hashes of paragraphs, wherein the paragraph hashing excludes at least one of a first paragraph and a last paragraph of content of the electronic mail messages wherein a plurality of hashes each has a level associated therewith, and the hashes having a higher level associated therewith are applied to the electronic mail messages prior to the hashes having a lower level associated therewith, and
Bayes rules; and
categorizing the electronic mail messages that are filtered as being unwanted;
wherein the utilization of the Bayes rules includes identifying words of the electronic mail messages;
wherein the utilization of the Bayes rules further includes identifying a probability associated with each of the words;
wherein the probability associated with each of the words is identified using a Bayes rules database;
wherein the electronic mail messages are filtered as being unwanted based on a comparison involving the probability and a Bayes rules threshold;
wherein the threshold is user-defined
---------
Does that mean that I can go into the War room underneath the Whitehouse anytime I want?
Re:These are all lies
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Too bad it's stupid and your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything, least of all to do with what I said about Bush in particular.
And here is what you said:
The nutter has this idea in his head that he's taking orders from Jesus. He's never said it directly, but he's alluded to it via the "I talk to a higher power" sort of tripe.
So I list quotes from some of the most famous presidents in the history of the United States saying things similar to the "I talk to a higher power". In my line of logic, I find it relevant. I think it shows how stupid your argument is. I never said that because there were lots of other good Christian presidents that Bush was a good president because he is christian. What I am saying is that, just because Bush is a Christian who is outspoken about he beliefs in God does not make him a bad president.
Re:These are all lies
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Nothing like presidents who think that America is blessed by God. We would have been so much better without them...
----------
George Washington - In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
Herbert Hoover - It is a dedication and consecration under God to the highest office in service of our people. I assume this trust in the humility of knowledge that only through the guidance of Almighty Providence can I hope to discharge its ever-increasing burdens.
James Monroe - with my feverent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection that he has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.
William Harrison - I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness.
John Adams - And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue his blessing upon this nation and its government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
Calvin Coolridge - America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.
Dwight Eisenhower - This is the hope that beckons us onward in this century of trial. This is the work that awaits us all, to be done with bravery, with charity, and with prayer to Almighty God.
Teddy Roosovelt - No people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit of boastfulness in our own strength, but with gratitude to the Giver of Good who has blessed us with the conditions which have enabled us to achieve so large a measure of well-being and of happiness.
Woodrow Wilson - I summon all honest men, all patriotic, all forward-looking men, to my side. God helping me, I will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me.
FDR - The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world. So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.
Abe Lincoln - Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
If each platinum piece on Everquest == 1 cent real life, then the programmers should create 1,000,000,000,000 platinum pieces in the game and give it to themselves. Then they would be rich!!!
Replace every time they mention guns and replace it with speech. See if the ACLU's position would be the same. The ACLU supports extremely broad rights in terms of freedom of speech (1st Amendment), unreasonable search (4,5,6th amendment) and right of privacy ("the tone of the bill of rights" amendment). However, they employ an extremely strict reading to the 2nd amendment.
The idea that the Second Amendment was only a state's right has been abandoned by pretty much everyone. The current way that most gun control advocates support their position is by citing to the preservation of a militia. However, they are wrong there as well. For a good law review article on it, read http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =420981
Yes I realize that recent laws have allowed this, but that doest make it right.
Recent? You could be criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement under the 1909 Copyright Act. Don't believe everything you hear on Slashdot (especially regarding the law).
You need to read up a little more on your history of Israel/Palestine. Check out: http://www.palestinefacts.org/ for a very good history of conflict with footnotes to the sources.
He can pay up for my loyalty or spend millions finding someone who knows how to find out the cert expired on an internal connection.
And then he can get you arrested for extortion and thrown in jail.
Enjoy!
P.S. Setting up straw man arguments on behalf of those opposed to you doesn't advance the debate.
I totally agree. It is just like comparing Israel to South Africa without putting any justification behind your statements.
As long as you make sure that your "apparatus" has length, width, and depth, you are safe from this patent.
BZZT! When using the predicate word "comprising" the patent limitations are closed-ended. Thus, as long as the body portion has a length and a width, you are covered. The existance of other elements, such as depth, does not effect the patent coverage.
The current state of copyright is getting out of hand; when I download, it is an act of civil disobedience. FIGHT THE POWER! We all should download every song that we could find because that will teach those guys at the RIAA what we feel. Of course, we are not going to listen to any of the music because then it would make us seem like we only are copying the songs because we are too cheap to actually buy them ourselves.
True having an expired Visa is against the law. However it does not entitle the government to put in in leg irons, push you against a wall and slug you, keep you from contacting a lawyer or even your own wife and detain you for six months. The truth is the current administration cannot claim or prove that they have adverted any terrorist attacks with these tactics.
Breaking the law doesn't allow them to arrest you. And entering the country illegally doesn't allow them to send you back? Actually it does. Also, you can't prove that they didn't stop any terrorist attacks, so nanny-nanny boo-boo back to you.
A democracy is not a system where just citizens have rights.
First, I am glad that I live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Second, being a democracy/republic has nothing to do with the rights of non-citizens. Also note that the Declaration of Independance is not our governing law, our constitution is. A constitution is the governing contract between all of the citizens. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Please note who is creating the Constitution: "We the Peopleof these United States"
Maybe you're the one that needs a history lesson. In that case do a Google search on "Japanese Interment Camps During WW II" or maybe on "How the Nazi's increased their power base by suspending the German Constitution (sound familiar)" which by the way was very similar to ours. And all of that happened because people didn't "bitch".
Wow, I guess the Supreme Court has left the building and the US Constitution has been suspended. Little did I know. Of course you know that the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII held US Citizens. That was the major issue. If we were holding foreign nationals, it wouldn't have been a big deal. Nice Bush/Ashcroft = Hitler comparison. I love how the facist, socialist, and/or nationalist dictators who murder their own citizens by the hundreds on a daily basis are not the ones who are equated with Hitler.
A lot of people understand how our government works on paper, however it rarely works that way in practice because people don't "bitch".
Well, you have the bitching part down, now work on the understanding part.
Cases where the Government was accused of attacking regular citizens without just cause. Well, surprise, the government can now do that and its legal.
I have read most of the Patriot Act. Please tell me where it says that the Government can attack regular citizens without just cause. Personally, I agreed with arresting the Branch Davidians and sending back Elian Gonzales, but I think that Janet Reno approached both of them in a pretty piss poor manner.
Now back to you "ignoring what the hell is really going on" attitude.
That particular study was completely based around typical conservative misunderstandings about current affairs ("Is there definate proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?"). It did not ask any of the typical liberal misunderstadings of current events ("Did Bush say that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States?")
No they haven't. The Patent office routinely rejects patents based on the examiner's own knowledge, printed publications, and competitors products. Heck, I have even had a patent rejected because the software (to the examiners eyes) worked like a simple algorithm that he found in a old computer science book. The main problem with the patent office is that they do not have enough knowledgable staff to comprehensively review computer science patent applications. They routinely reject patents using stupid rejections that are easy to overcome, as opposed to spending the time necessary to fully research the prior art. This could be fixed if the patent office was allowed to keep all the money the received in fees and hire more examiners (and pay the ones they have more).
The Patent system in the US is much more complicated than people on/. make it out to be. People should read up a little more on how the system actually works, rather than the rumors and FUD that is spread here.
Yeah, there is nothing in those duties about ensuring that the patent is "first art"... EXCEPT THE DEFINITION OF A PATENT. "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. 101. That is the statutory authority for the USPTO to grant patents.
It doesn't matter. You only have a conflict if you have an interest in a party you are against. Why would a court matter if a law firm has an interest in their own client? The only thing that means is that the law firm might work harder to win the case. Do you think it would be OK for a company to have its in-house attorneys represent it in court? What makes that attorney's conflicts any less than an attorney who works for a firm?
Slashdot Mirror
This comment was just a nice partisan rant until it nose-dived into troll land with that last paragraph. I don't have any clue how it was moderated insightful.
Spam filter sucks. Spam filter sucks. Spam filter sucks. Spam filter sucks.
"Copying in itself hurts no one."
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.
The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Of course, the people dying on the Eastern German borders were trying to get out of the "bad orwellian Tyranny" while the people dying on the American-Mexican boarder or trying to get in the "bad orwellian Tyranny." I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to see what a difference that makes.
For a still shot of a nuclear detonation occuring in space, check out this picture.
I was trying to get a setup going with T-bird under Windows checking multiple IMAP servers at once and it was having a very hard time doing it. I could never get it work well at all. Does anyone know if the newer versions of T-bird have fixed that problem?
This is not a broad patent AT ALL. IT IS AN EXTREMELY NARROW PATENT. For once, I wish that people on Slashdot would stop trying to characterize how broad or narrow a patent is without even having any idea about what makes a patent broad or narrow. Here is a primer, just so that you won't look like a fool next time you post. First, look at the date the patent was filed, so you have an understanding of when prior art must have existed to beat it. Next, skip down to the section labeled "Claims". The claims of a patent are the bounds of what the patent protects. Next, read the independant claims of the patent. Independant claims are ones that are not directly based upon other listed claims. The independant claims will be the broadest claims in the patent. The claims only cover things that are covered by ALL of the things listed in the claim. Thus, this patent only covers systems that include all of the following: -------- A method for filtering unwanted electronic mail messages, comprising: receiving electronic mail messages; filtering the electronic mail messages that are unwanted utilizing: compound filters, paragraph hashing by hashing a plurality of paragraphs and utilizing a database of hashes of paragraphs, wherein the paragraph hashing excludes at least one of a first paragraph and a last paragraph of content of the electronic mail messages wherein a plurality of hashes each has a level associated therewith, and the hashes having a higher level associated therewith are applied to the electronic mail messages prior to the hashes having a lower level associated therewith, and Bayes rules; and categorizing the electronic mail messages that are filtered as being unwanted; wherein the utilization of the Bayes rules includes identifying words of the electronic mail messages; wherein the utilization of the Bayes rules further includes identifying a probability associated with each of the words; wherein the probability associated with each of the words is identified using a Bayes rules database; wherein the electronic mail messages are filtered as being unwanted based on a comparison involving the probability and a Bayes rules threshold; wherein the threshold is user-defined ---------
Does that mean that I can go into the War room underneath the Whitehouse anytime I want?
----------
George Washington - In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
Herbert Hoover - It is a dedication and consecration under God to the highest office in service of our people. I assume this trust in the humility of knowledge that only through the guidance of Almighty Providence can I hope to discharge its ever-increasing burdens.
James Monroe - with my feverent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection that he has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.
William Harrison - I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness.
John Adams - And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue his blessing upon this nation and its government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
Calvin Coolridge - America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.
Dwight Eisenhower - This is the hope that beckons us onward in this century of trial. This is the work that awaits us all, to be done with bravery, with charity, and with prayer to Almighty God.
Teddy Roosovelt - No people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit of boastfulness in our own strength, but with gratitude to the Giver of Good who has blessed us with the conditions which have enabled us to achieve so large a measure of well-being and of happiness.
Woodrow Wilson - I summon all honest men, all patriotic, all forward-looking men, to my side. God helping me, I will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me.
FDR - The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world. So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.
Abe Lincoln - Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
If each platinum piece on Everquest == 1 cent real life, then the programmers should create 1,000,000,000,000 platinum pieces in the game and give it to themselves. Then they would be rich!!!
Replace every time they mention guns and replace it with speech. See if the ACLU's position would be the same. The ACLU supports extremely broad rights in terms of freedom of speech (1st Amendment), unreasonable search (4,5,6th amendment) and right of privacy ("the tone of the bill of rights" amendment). However, they employ an extremely strict reading to the 2nd amendment. The idea that the Second Amendment was only a state's right has been abandoned by pretty much everyone. The current way that most gun control advocates support their position is by citing to the preservation of a militia. However, they are wrong there as well. For a good law review article on it, read http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =420981
Yes I realize that recent laws have allowed this, but that doest make it right. Recent? You could be criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement under the 1909 Copyright Act. Don't believe everything you hear on Slashdot (especially regarding the law).
Also, the vast majority of the Catholic faith support the "rape and plunder" of small boys while, almost no Muslims support suicide bombing. Or not...
You need to read up a little more on your history of Israel/Palestine. Check out: http://www.palestinefacts.org/ for a very good history of conflict with footnotes to the sources.
He can pay up for my loyalty or spend millions finding someone who knows how to find out the cert expired on an internal connection. And then he can get you arrested for extortion and thrown in jail.
Enjoy!
P.S. Setting up straw man arguments on behalf of those opposed to you doesn't advance the debate .
I totally agree. It is just like comparing Israel to South Africa without putting any justification behind your statements.
BZZT! When using the predicate word "comprising" the patent limitations are closed-ended. Thus, as long as the body portion has a length and a width, you are covered. The existance of other elements, such as depth, does not effect the patent coverage.
The current state of copyright is getting out of hand; when I download, it is an act of civil disobedience.
FIGHT THE POWER! We all should download every song that we could find because that will teach those guys at the RIAA what we feel. Of course, we are not going to listen to any of the music because then it would make us seem like we only are copying the songs because we are too cheap to actually buy them ourselves.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
True having an expired Visa is against the law. However it does not entitle the government to put in in leg irons, push you against a wall and slug you, keep you from contacting a lawyer or even your own wife and detain you for six months. The truth is the current administration cannot claim or prove that they have adverted any terrorist attacks with these tactics.
Breaking the law doesn't allow them to arrest you. And entering the country illegally doesn't allow them to send you back? Actually it does. Also, you can't prove that they didn't stop any terrorist attacks, so nanny-nanny boo-boo back to you.
A democracy is not a system where just citizens have rights.
First, I am glad that I live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Second, being a democracy/republic has nothing to do with the rights of non-citizens. Also note that the Declaration of Independance is not our governing law, our constitution is. A constitution is the governing contract between all of the citizens. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Please note who is creating the Constitution: "We the Peopleof these United States"
Maybe you're the one that needs a history lesson. In that case do a Google search on "Japanese Interment Camps During WW II" or maybe on "How the Nazi's increased their power base by suspending the German Constitution (sound familiar)" which by the way was very similar to ours. And all of that happened because people didn't "bitch".
Wow, I guess the Supreme Court has left the building and the US Constitution has been suspended. Little did I know. Of course you know that the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII held US Citizens. That was the major issue. If we were holding foreign nationals, it wouldn't have been a big deal. Nice Bush/Ashcroft = Hitler comparison. I love how the facist, socialist, and/or nationalist dictators who murder their own citizens by the hundreds on a daily basis are not the ones who are equated with Hitler.
A lot of people understand how our government works on paper, however it rarely works that way in practice because people don't "bitch".
Well, you have the bitching part down, now work on the understanding part.
Cases where the Government was accused of attacking regular citizens without just cause. Well, surprise, the government can now do that and its legal.
I have read most of the Patriot Act. Please tell me where it says that the Government can attack regular citizens without just cause. Personally, I agreed with arresting the Branch Davidians and sending back Elian Gonzales, but I think that Janet Reno approached both of them in a pretty piss poor manner.
Now back to you "ignoring what the hell is really going on" attitude.
Back at ya Buckeroo!
That particular study was completely based around typical conservative misunderstandings about current affairs ("Is there definate proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?"). It did not ask any of the typical liberal misunderstadings of current events ("Did Bush say that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States?")
The Patent system in the US is much more complicated than people on /. make it out to be. People should read up a little more on how the system actually works, rather than the rumors and FUD that is spread here.
Yeah, there is nothing in those duties about ensuring that the patent is "first art" ... EXCEPT THE DEFINITION OF A PATENT. "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. 101. That is the statutory authority for the USPTO to grant patents.
It doesn't matter. You only have a conflict if you have an interest in a party you are against. Why would a court matter if a law firm has an interest in their own client? The only thing that means is that the law firm might work harder to win the case. Do you think it would be OK for a company to have its in-house attorneys represent it in court? What makes that attorney's conflicts any less than an attorney who works for a firm?