For all the good that Google is supposedly trying to do, this begs a question I've been wondering for quite a while.
Why don't they implement a Payment API for developers? People could then use all sorts of services, from PayPal to BitCoin to pay to Google, and be paid by them.
An API is inappropriate because standardization is more important than flexibility. Imagine going to a mall where merchants decide what payment options they want to provide. Store one accepts only cash. Store two, cash and visa. Store three, MasterCard only. Store four - BitCoin only. It's a bad customer experience.
What developers see as a freedom of choice becomes a plethora of different payment *requirements* to customers. As a consumer, I want a standard guaranteeing that whatever payment option I use is applicable to all apps in the market place.
When one company controls the source (and hence official version) of an API, then they have a competitive advantage over *anyone* else using that API. I would wager that Slashdotters younger than 30 (please stay out of my yard, etc...) never followed the software scene in the 1990's pre-Linux, pre-Google, pre-Firefox. At the time a serious question for *anyone* developing PC software was was whether it was worth it since Microsoft had such a huge competitive advantage due to owning the OS (and hence controlling) the Windows APIs. Microsoft killed Netscape, killed almost all competing Office products (remember Word Perfect and Ami Pro anyone?) partly because Microsoft app teams had access no one else had to Windows OS developments and enhancements.
Thankfully the Internet happened and the standard API is no longer Win32 but HTML, XML Javascript, CSS, etc. We need to be aware of the same competitive advantage Google, Facebook, Amazon have internally and keep in mind that "OpenAPIs" at this time still amount to vendor lock-in and an inherent competitive advantage for the company owning the API.
This opinion is bolstered by the observation that discrete mathematics (the Z transform, difference equations, discrete Fourier transforms, and the like) and continuous mathematics really are not that different if taught properly. If an individual can't master continuous and discrete mathematics, then they are not going to be an outstanding programmer, because they can't think sufficiently abstractly.
We live in a world that is filled with less than "outstanding" programmers. You rely daily on programming by less than outstanding programmers.
Outstanding programmers can do system architecture, data structure design, algorithmic development. No one who can design and understand a Fibonacci heap is going to have problems with dx/dt.
... as well as learn to juggle five objects simultaneously, solve the Rubik's cube, and speak fluent Klingon. The point is, in the majority of the software engineering challenges we face today, none of these skills are relevant.
Proficiency in Greek and Latin used to be threshold skills for higher level learning and entry into college. Smart, outstanding people can learn Latin and Greek relatively easily compared to less outstanding people. No one argues today (well, very few people) that we need to bring back Latin and Greek into the core curricula.
However, if it is not relevant to 95% of software engineering, then why keep it as a requirement? Put another way, calculus and continuous mathematics are clearly not part of the critical path to creating a competent programmer or software engineer. By keeping calculus in the curriculum, we are wasting time and resources of the vast majority of future programmers and software engineers out there. Those outstanding computer scientists out there who actually *need* to learn calculus will, as you contend, have no problem picking it up outside of the core curriculum.
You never have understood this because you never really gave it much thought. You certainly didn't giving much quality thought today (modded insightful -- really moderators?).
First, ComputerGeek01, I challenge you to come up with an actual example of a student who dropped out of school simply because they got an "F" grade instead of a "D".
Secondly, There is no such "definition" for which some students must receive below a passing grade. A "C" grade is determined by the instructor, and most of the time is *not* a strict curve. In fact, in many classes it is possible for the majority of students to get "A" and "B"s. For most schools there is no requirement to grade on a curve and it is in fact possible for all students in a course to pass.
Thirdly, a critical problem with the "D" grade is that in many schools, a "D" grade allows a student technically "passes" the class, but the D-grade student has not really learned enough or demonstrated the skills necessary to learn in the next class. Often a "D" is an excuse to have the student slide into the next class, whereas an "F" might mean they need to retake the course. The whole idea of eliminating the "D" grade is to improve accountability -- to stop this train of migrating essentially failing students from one class to the next and then out the door with a substandard education.
An "F" grade is a clear warning or signal that the student is not prepared to continue with their education. If a student is getting "F" grades it's the role of school educators, parents and the community to figure out why (ADD, dyslexia, family problems) -- chances are it has nothing to do with the student's inherent ability to learn.
What a student should learn (and I dont' know what the capital of Nebraska is FWIW) is a matter of debate. And certainly every adult, even those with severe learning disabilities should have a chance to find a job that suits their strengths. But handing out diplomas to high-school students with less than a 2.0 GPA who are essentially illiterate is unfair both to employers and the students.
Big surprise for disappointed people?
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Anyone who's ever seen TV writers at work should have recognized from the start that Lost was basically a shaggy dog story.
What's amazed me as someone very outside the show (I half-watched one episode) is the longevity of the show - that the writers were able to weave a story over five seasons in order keep audience interest this long.
Bottom line: to the writers, producers: - kudos, you earned the recognition, $$$.
To anyone who expected a payoff involving a truly cohesive meaningful meaning. You're looking in the wrong place - this is and was never a "Babylon Five". For Lost, the journey *was* the destination, and if you had some fun trying to dissect the meaning with friends and peers then that is the reward.
With Lost being so successful, there *will* be successors. Where will the writers go? What will be "Lost II" and will it be better/worse? Will it attract an audience or will people who have watched Lost never watch a similar show again? Those questions are bound to be more interesting than the finale.
Mr. Ebert is incorrect for the very reason that the medium does not determine art.
Writing is often used with an objective - to communicate inventory, describe an actual scene, give orders.
Rhythm and rhyming may be used to aid in memorization, to aid in oral recollection.
Pictures, video are used for documentation, recorded evidence.
Wood, marble, steel is shaped to create buildings, stairs, chairs, eating utensils or religious relics.
Bodies move with precision in order to build, cook, or fight.
Interactive computer programs and simulations exist to educate, train, provide guided assistance on tasks, or obtain information.
At some point we get art out of all these mediums. We decorate the urn, make our religious icons more elaborate, tweak our oral histories to make them more fun to listen to, arrange our photo shots, play with the beats, create a more elaborate melody. The medium changes from straight functionality more and more to creation for aesthetics, to elicit an emotional response rather than a strict material/practical goal.
For me this point in video games (interactive computer programs and simulations), was definitely reached when playing "Planescape: Torment" back in the early 2000's. Yes, ostensibly you have a clear goal, and you can win the game. But the dialog and overall plot elements are such that I was immersed in thought, absorbed by the characterization and concepts. For others in my rough age group (cutting our teeth in the mid 80's to 90's) it may be games like "Myst" or "Psychonauts", Infocom's "Trinity", "Grim Fandango", or even a silly satire like Mystery Science Theater 3000 Presents "Detective" (http://www.wurb.com/if/game/146); more modern might be Katamari Damacy. Yes, please get off my lawn all you newfangled Xbox360 and Nintendo DS gamers.
If someone's never had an aesthetic moment with a video game it simply means that they haven't found that game yet.
Per the cease and desist order, it appears that the lawyers on behalf of Kraupthing are doing their job.
The laws themselves appear to be there to protect the client's confidential information. Paraphrasing (IANAL, IANAL, IANAL!) they are:
58. Banks are not suppose to disclose their customer's financial information. 59. Exception #1 - if there is a risk to a parent company 60. Exception #2 - if the customer(s) say it is okay to disclose the information.
So basically the bank and the bank lawyers are doing the job they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their customers.
It's infuriating to see the the semi-luddite rantings of the parent post got modded insightful. Makes me wonder why I even read Slashdot anymore.
Clearly the parent poster believes that monitoring devices are for ninnies and the weak. I assume that he follows his logic to it's logical conclusion and
- carefully disables all monitoring and warning devices on all/any vehicles he drives - after all engine check lights are for sissies! - removes any and all air quality detectors (smoke/carbon monoxide/radon) from his homes (not to mention any security systems) - if a sysadmin, avoids the use of any and all alterts, alarms, and carefully avoids the instalation of monitoring systems
The fact is that if this was about managing a server farm or a commercial jetliner instead of a person's body there wouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind that recieving timely accurate information about system health and integrity is a *good* thing.
Ignorance is *not* bliss, and having more information doesn't mean that you necessarily turn into a hypochondriac. It *does* mean you have the knowledge to make responsible, informed choices -- and/or not to.
Pre-emptive monitoring for signs of heart attacks and strokes are no joking matter and detecting these early on mean the difference between mild and serious, life-altering damage or death. But apparently ignorance will be bliss for the parent poster until the "surprise" stroke, adult-onset-diabetes, heart-attack, or too-late cancer diagnosis.
Nothing is true just because you can verify that someone else thinks it is true.
Analogously, no food you buy in the supermarket is guaranteed to be edible. Do you put your everyday food through stringent chemical analysis?
Just because you deem yourself clever enough not to treat Wikipedia as a reliable source of information does not mean that millions of people are as aware or vigilant as Lanier's experience clearly shows.
It's not that the mutants survive, it's that everyone survives, so there's no basis for any one mutant having a better chance of survival. Which means we'll just have a lot of mutants.
Evolution can't work if "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of everyone".
Evolution is survival *and* (since everyone dies eventually) propagation of the genetic line. It is not enough to survive - an individual must survive and reproduce (and their children must reproduce, etc, etc.). If you and I are alive 50 years from now - but you have 20 grandchildren and I have none - then it is pretty clear whose is more "fit" from a genetic perspective.
This viewpoint could also be extended to larger cultural, religious, or ethnic groups. Populations that promote population growth will have an upper hand on societies that do not. An extreme example is the Shaker community whose beliefs (celibacy) have doomed it to a dead end.
Because of it's zero-sum/violent nature we tend not to recognize when natural selection is at work in the human population. But don't fool yourself. Natural selection of the human population is still going on all over the world (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/17/opinion/edheinsohn.php).
"Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.
Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.
That is my whole point. They made the first copiers and the people responded by using the corporate name Xerox to describe that very act. It is just as valid as anything else. The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact. Language is constantly evolving and they add new words all the time. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this should not be construed as legal advice.
Edlll,
Cloud computing aside, your comments about Xerox photocopying are wrong and misleading. In the future, please make sure to provide the standard IANAL disclaimer as you are clearly without clue about trademark law.
No one sells Xerox photocopiers but Xerox; Cannon, Ricoh, Sharp sell photocopiers. Kinkos provides photocopy services, not "xeroxing" services.
Similarly, no one but Kleenex sells Kleenex brand facial tissues and you and I brush our teeth with toothpaste and do not "Crest" them. In the South, all sodas are colloquially called "coke" (e.g. "I'll have an orange coke") -- however, no one actually sells Coke(tm) brand products -- including colas -- but the Coca Cola Company.
Should you advertise that your photocopier is a "Xeroxing" machine or provide a professional "Xeroxing" service, Xerox has the legal right (and obligation) to defend the violation of its trademark, and you can and would get sued for trademark infringement.
But who says the unconscious decision process isn't an exercise of free will? The big assumption in the article is that free will cannot exist in the subconscious. I think that free will is a property of the whole mind, and all they're doing is demonstrating that they can predict decisions by reading the choices already made within the brain.. A good point. Free will is not disproved by this study all it does is remove the conscious brain from the discussion (argument appended below).
However, it used to be free will was thought to be conscious. Now we have clear evidence to doubt that. Science has taken another step forward to shrinking the possible area for "free will" to exist. The trend is clear and where it is heading is (1) to increasing insight and predictability of decision making and by extension(2) to the point that the area where "free will" might exist is vanishingly small and eventually irrelevant to rational discussion. You think free will is in the unconscious? Fine -- now it's time to refine our understanding of the human brain and to figure out (based on previous decisions) how a human will react to stimuli. As the models, sensors, computing power and algorithms improve (and assuming society continues to provide resources to work on this question), it is only a matter of time.
Of course many people react with fear, disgust (related to fear), or anger (which is another side of fear) to this kind of thinking. Why? Because they (unconsiously!) make several critical errors/assumptions/mistaken associations which are the source of their fear.
#1 - that without "free will" they may continue to make the same bad decisions and be unable to change their bad decisions by force of will
#2 - That without "free will" they have lost some sort of "magic totem" or "spark" or whatever that will allow them to overcome the pain and obstacles in their lives
#3 - No "free will" means no "good" and no "evil". If people's choices can fundamentally (with enough computing power, resources, etc.) be pre-determined then we cannot them accountable for their actions.
#4 - The idea that "free will" is fundamentally tied to the concept of spirituality.
I personally feel this "in my gut" when talking about the "loss" of free will. At the end of the day I realize that these concerns are irrelevant because:
- how I make "good" choices (and in particular whether or not someone could predict them) is ultimately irrelevant to me - what matters is that I continue to learn how to make good choices
- Whether or not it can be predetermined, humans can and do learn how to improve their choices
- That spirituality has been shown scientifically to be wired into our brains and that therefore the pursuit of "sacred moments", spiritual states and the general effects of spirituality is not tied in any way to "free will".
So I shrug my shoulders, take a few deep breaths, and trust in my genetically and evironmentally developed brain to make the correct decisions (including those built-in tendencies for compassion, empathy, love) as I travel along the path of life.
----
Reason why conscious decision is not part of free will:
Assume this definition of free will:
"The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will"
Then free will is (by definition) unconstrained.
But conscious decision (according to this study) can be determined (and is therefore constrained by) the unconscious brain processes prior the "conscious choice". Therefore the conscious choice cannot be part of free will.
Prior art was out there (including from the company I worked for), but neither Desire2Learn nor the educational community provided enough organizational will and competence to find it and kill this patent lawsuit. I personally spent hours of my time gathering prior art evidence as well as soliciting teachers and developers to help fight this. After tepid responses from both sides (including a form-letter sent one month later from Desire2Learn), I shrugged and walked away.
Hopefully this doesn't affect open source LMSes such as Moodle or Sakai, but if it does then the EDU community has only itself to blame for not stepping up to the plate.
So... basically, 27 years ago this guy had a drug case, and more than 40 years ago had an aggravated assault and burglary charge. From this they were supposed to deduce that this guy was going to logic bomb them?
I'll probably be modded down for this, but either you are a microfocused moron or you are disingenuously filtering the facts to make you point.
Not only was he convicted in the 1960's but he had charges filed against him every decade since then. Either he was incredibly unlucky or there's a good chance this guy couldn't keep from making trouble.
I understand why companies feel the need to do criminal background checks to absolve themselves of a possible lawsuit.
A lawsuit? Because of Paine Webber's lack of due diligence, they lost more than a day's worth of trading and over three million dollars in trying to recover the damage done. It borders on imbecility to try and argue that they did the right thing by not performing a background check.
One of the engineers I hired had a drug conviction...
Good for you to hire her. Nevertheless, the ex-drug-addled employee you trot out is hardly a counter story. Clearly you knew she had a problem before your hired her (probably, and ironically, because of a background check). You assessed the risks and decided to make a choice. Furthermore, your employee knew that you knew, which I'm sure had no small influence on her decisions not to abuse while under your watch. Yet for some idiotic reason you want to deprive other managers of having this very same sort of information when hiring.
Talk about 2nd class citizens. Do they understand that over 2% of the population is in prison and a considerable portion of people living today have been in prison or convicted of some offense at one point or another?
I can't tell if this is parody or you're genuinely being stupid. Hiring managers abuse all sorts of criteria. Don't have your master's degree? Sorry, we're not interested. Don't have five years of experience in technology X? Not qualified. In hiring people in the tech industry, a criminal record is hardly the only arbitrary filter. Life is full of petty idiocies (like your mod up, for example). Live with it.
Thanks for responding -- that's as diplomatic F-U as I've seen in a long time. I tried to type a nasty rebuttal, but for some reason Firefox wouldn't let me. Nevertheless, actions speak louder than words. When you I.P.O. (not if) and you make your first significant philanthropic donation, I'll be more than happy to print out and eat this thread.
"This has nothing to do with fame or fortune; it's about improving the experience for things we do everyday."
Oh really?
IEE Spectrum Articles, Blog, Wired Articles == attention whoring (e.g. fame) For-profit business model == money grubbing (e.g. fortune)
Nothing wrong with wanting recognition and some $$$ in pocket for your hard work. Not everyone's an introvert or RMS. Plenty wrong for trying to pretend otherwise.
You're doing plenty good work. Don't taint it by spewing out blatant lies.
When John Milan says "the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps" - he is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons given.
The writing is on the wall people -- we're already seeing a demand for hybrid applications.
Example from my work area -- online education:
Teachers publish their course materials online, create online tests, grade assignments, lead discussion forums online. So far, so good. Now they want ways work on their materials offline, superior editing tools, vastly improved performance, the ability to save materials off the server, and significantly improved control of the student's test taking environment.
A web-only application cannot provide (all) of this. Conversely, developing a pure client-server application throws away the marvelous (and growing) cross-platform infrastructure (HTML, Javascript, Flash) provided by IE and Firefox, the ability to access the course from any computer with a browser, and an internet connection and default data synchronization with a highly accessible server (i.e. you don't have to "sync" gmail - it does it for you).
One potential answer as well as upcoming buzzphrase is the "offline client", and companies such as IBM and Adobe are taking this seriously.
There of course are questions about who's going to implement the most successful online/offline application suites and development environments. But I it's good bet that -- within the next 15 years -- anyone who builds an application without both significant functionality on the browser side *and* a featureful offline client will be in the same boat of someone trying to build an GUI-less application today.
As Miller says, it would be foolish for Microsoft and Google not to try to capitalize on this trend. Look for Microsoft Studio 2010 to tout its "offline client wizard" capabilities.
"The days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps."
No "all web apps or web based OS" mentioned here.
In other words, parent topic's rant about pure-web based apps, while interesting, is off topic, not to mention boring. The article's author is looking beyond Web 2.0 - why don't you give it a try as well?
I can't believe parent was modded up. Oh wait, this is slashdot.
There is no such thing as [being] addicted to the internet, or a video game, or anything except for a chemically addictive substance
According to the Wikipedia, "Addiction is characterized by the repeated use of substances or behaviors despite clear evidence of morbidity secondary to such use."
If someone is repeatedly spending time online despite the clear harm they recognize it does, then they are, by Wikipedia's definition, addicted to being online. Such people exist. Therefore there are people addicted to the the internet.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary:"Compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal."
So, according to M-W, if someone is repeatedly spending time online despite the clear harm they recognize it does, it is not an addiction, because it does not involve ingesting/using a physical substance.
Unfortunately, since you never pick a clear definition, your argument takes the form of mushy emotional crap rather than anything of substance.
There are no addictions, just addicts.
Can't really argue with you SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF ADDICTION. But assuming you agree either with M-W or Wikipedia's definition, you are wrong. There are people with physiological addictions to heroin, satisfying both the Wikipedia and M-W definition.
These people have an addictive personality and will be addicted to anything to pass the time
So according to you, people who are addicted (but not really since it's not chemical!) are just "passing time".
If I personally am doing something to pass the time, then it is something I am doing because there is no way to do the things I really want to do (e.g. stuck at a bus station) and is completely optional (e.g. I can choose between twiddling my thumbs, pacing back and forth, playing with a yo-yo). I don't see how either a heroin addict or person who continues to play 30 hours/week online to the detriment of work, school, physical health, or social life is doing either of these activities just to pass the time. I certainly don't see how "passing the time" fits in either with M-W or Wikipedia's definitions of addiction either.
Unless it has something to do with a chemically addictive substance, please stop posting these inane flame bait articles.
But please do keep writing these half-brained posts! Apparently people are eating them like chips around here!
Most of the claims in Blackboard's patent are for concepts many LMSes had at the time (assignments, tests, lectures, grading, announcements, login, discussion area, chat). I was working with a competitive company at the time the patent was filed. The system we worked on was already in use by many colleges on the West Coast, with most of the features listed by June 30th, 2000, so most of the claims can be shown to be prior art.
This patent will not matter much. I don't see any particular reason to worry about it and here's why (IANAL!):
1. The patent relies on 44 claims, most of which can easily be shown to be prior art. (Ironically, WebCT, which was bought out by BlackBoard might be used as a counterexample of prior art). 3. To violate the Patent you would have to be substantially equivalent. Essentially this means someone would have to substantially rely on Blackboard's look and feel for providing LMS services. 4. The patent heavily relies on the concept of "files" - like our old system, which used flat files for information management (no, we did not and could not develop for the then popular (1998-1999) Sun + Oracle combo -- too big and too expensive for us and most schools at the time). An LMS using a Relational Database may be sufficiently different enough in implementation. 5. The patent differention seems to be at this part:
"The present invention also enhances the prior art by providing a flexible infrastructure for colleges, universities, and other institutions wishing to facilitate on-line registration and tuition payment. More specifically, the present invention can accommodate different billing methods, including, but not limited to, billing on a per-credit-hour basis, and billing on a per-registrant basis."
So, unless you are looking to build a Blackboard clone using a flat-file data management system including an integrated payment system, I really don't see anything to fret about.
(Disclaimer - As I said above, I am not a lawyer, and I certainly would love to see a more sophisticated legal analysis).
A market economy where the government's only function is to protect the individual rights of its citizen and nothing else is the best form of governance. This is the only way to bring about the greatest innovations, in the shortest time. This brings about fastest progress and hence benefits all the members of such a society the most.
In other words, Anarcho-Capitalism. If it's such a great idea, why not just shout it out in the first place? Possibly because anarcho-capitalism has already been refuted?
A democracy neither ensures that citizen are given only individual rights, nor that they are ensured. Also democracies allow inferior candidates to become presidents. And even worse, allows them to make spurious laws, and even more spurious laws setting back Amreican and human progress by many years.
Ironically, I'm 99.9% certain that you wrote this statement from a democratically governed state, and 95% sure that it's the United States. In the links you cherry-picked, you apparently you choose to willfully ignore the Constitutional amendments (Bill of Rights, 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and the 19th Amendments) that expanded the rights of United States residents (not just citizens) to levels unprecidented in human history. Without child labor laws, you may not have had the opportunity to pick up the education and time to write your arguments. Without the laws enacted after the great depression
You are absolutely right that democracy does sometime depress individual rights and choices, nor does it alway ensure indvidiual rights, and it allows people to make bad laws -- because it all involved human people making decisions, and humans will make mistakes. Yet Anarcho capitalism gives people even *more* freedom to make mistakes, and relies even more heavily on individual choices on governance. Your implicitly assume that under Anarcho-Capitalism everyone will magically make the correct decisions, yet you undercut that very argument by showing how dumb people can be.
Wrong. In a market economy there can never be a monopoly "by definition". There can only be very very good competitors who have deservedly got a very high proportion of market
Okay, time for a mirror argument: "Wrong. In an unfettered market economy, monopolies inevitably occur. Furthermore, since being mean, unethical, and a cheater makes a market entity more efficient, there can only be mean, unethical competitors who have lied, cheated and stolen to undiservedly get and maintain a very high proportion of the market."
Do you think if Microsoft prices its Windows software at 2000$, that any customer would still not get Ubuntu on their machines?
Uh, yes. Have you been to your local Fry's/Best Buy/Circuit City lately? Microsoft office currently retails for ~$350.00, and Windows XP Professional costs ~$200.00. That's no $2000, but $500.00 is significantly more than what Ubuntu's retail price is (free). I have yet to see a mass migration to Ubuntu, so I fail to see where you are making a significant argument.
Furthermore, I reject your implicit assumption that all markets behave like the software market (low initial resources and capital required). There are numerous markets (water, electricity) that lend themselves to natural monopolies....Or should we rather give the sprinters (even if there is only one) to run full steam ahead towards the ribbon, and let other people who are cannot compete in sprinting with Olympic sprinters, to do whatever they can do best.
Absolutely. Which is why we don't have a rule to allow the person who wins the shot-put event to get a head-start in the 100-meter dash. Through bundling and other market advantages monopolies gain a similar unfair advantage that ultimately stymies comp
Anti-trust laws are the biggest impediment to the growth of progress
I disagree. In fact, anti-trust laws are necessary to maintain a democracy. Are you against democracy, sir?
on the basis that they stifle competition
A monopoly by definition has no competition. Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Furthermore monopolies often use unfair and anti-competitive practices to squash competition that have absolutely no benefit to the consumer. For example, Standard Oil used train agreements and other unfair business practices against competitors. Microsoft specifically putin instructions to prevent DR-DOS from being used with Windows 3.1. Both practices relied on the dominance of Standard Oil and Microsoft in their respective markets.
and create unnecessary burden on companies and the judicial system.
I disagree that it unncessary. Anti-trust laws, by regulating unfair business practices a necessary burden on the few companies large enough to become a monopoly. I would guess that the proportion of anti-trust cases and thus their "burden" to all legal cases in the U.S. to be minimal (probably less than 1%).
There is and was no-one stopping Netscape to giveaway a whole operating system (Linux - Suse?) in competition to MS giving away only a browser for free.
A horrible argument. If I'm competing with you in creating a product in market A, why should your standing in market B influence this? This is anti-competitive. To make an analogy, suppose we are to run a race (100 meter dash), but the condition is that I have to do a series of sommersaults and cartwheels before I can leave the starting line. The relative merit of our products (our ability to complete the 100 meter dash) is obscured by the fact you have an unfair advantage. My product may be superior and of better benefit to the customers, but you still "win".
a default monopoly market (Windows operating system) are corrected by...more innovative players (Apple Mac OSX)
Your example of MacOSX is also not a valid example. Apple's OS market share is still less than 4% worldwide, despite its innovations. In addition Microsoft has (1) given funding to Apple and (2) continued to make Microsoft Office products for Apple. Why? It's not from the goodness of Bill Gate's heart. Microsoft provided funding and continued Office support for Apple precisely to prevent further anti-trust litigation. If there were no anti-trust laws, there would have been no further funding, nor further work on the Microsoft Office line for the Macintosh, and the Mac line would have gone the way of the Commodore Amiga.
Then why should humans create unrealistic market conditions by means of highly subjective laws like Anti-trust
Anti-trust laws exist in actual law and are part of the market conditions here in the United States. You can't get much more "realistic" than fact. Perhaps you live in another dimension?
As to the claim of subjectivity, my knowledge of anti-trust law is not sufficient to give a definitive argument on how subjective it is. But more to the point, you provide no evidence or argument as to why objectivity would automatically be superior.
Fundamentally, the problem with monopolies is the abuse of "bundling". For example, suppose you have a system of toll roads. Company A, through acquesitions, acquires a monopoly (or even a substantial, say 60%) of the toll roads. Company A keeps the prices competitive with other companies in regards to toll pricing. So far so good.
Now suppose Company A is competing with Company B in supplying and manufacturing cars. Company A adds as a "feature" that every car created by Company A automatically gets a 25% discount on the tolls. This creates a competitive advantage for Company A, and stifles the potential advantage for C
Thats's funny, I thought the government had to pay you for your property if they take it from you?
You're missing the point. Read the parent post again.
"Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose".
This is factually incorrect.
1) Eminent domain prevents the owner from selling at whatever price they choose to the government 2) Anti-Trust law prevents the owner from selling to any consenting party
This is not even getting into zoning laws and other laws regarding sales (guns, tarrifs, etc).
Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose
Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States.
and that right is an inalienable freedom.
Wrong again. The universe has no concept of this fiction you call inalienable or natural rights. If you don't believe me, then go provoke a grizzly bear and then attempt to argue with him/her about your rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
As a consolation, I'm sure Kenneth Lay (posthumously) and British Petroleum would be interested in promoting your point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
For all the good that Google is supposedly trying to do, this begs a question I've been wondering for quite a while.
Why don't they implement a Payment API for developers? People could then use all sorts of services, from PayPal to BitCoin to pay to Google, and be paid by them.
An API is inappropriate because standardization is more important than flexibility. Imagine going to a mall where merchants decide what payment options they want to provide. Store one accepts only cash. Store two, cash and visa. Store three, MasterCard only. Store four - BitCoin only. It's a bad customer experience.
What developers see as a freedom of choice becomes a plethora of different payment *requirements* to customers. As a consumer, I want a standard guaranteeing that whatever payment option I use is applicable to all apps in the market place.
When one company controls the source (and hence official version) of an API, then they have a competitive advantage over *anyone* else using that API. I would wager that Slashdotters younger than 30 (please stay out of my yard, etc...) never followed the software scene in the 1990's pre-Linux, pre-Google, pre-Firefox. At the time a serious question for *anyone* developing PC software was was whether it was worth it since Microsoft had such a huge competitive advantage due to owning the OS (and hence controlling) the Windows APIs. Microsoft killed Netscape, killed almost all competing Office products (remember Word Perfect and Ami Pro anyone?) partly because Microsoft app teams had access no one else had to Windows OS developments and enhancements.
Thankfully the Internet happened and the standard API is no longer Win32 but HTML, XML Javascript, CSS, etc. We need to be aware of the same competitive advantage Google, Facebook, Amazon have internally and keep in mind that "OpenAPIs" at this time still amount to vendor lock-in and an inherent competitive advantage for the company owning the API.
This opinion is bolstered by the observation that discrete mathematics (the Z transform, difference equations, discrete Fourier transforms, and the like) and continuous mathematics really are not that different if taught properly. If an individual can't master continuous and discrete mathematics, then they are not going to be an outstanding programmer, because they can't think sufficiently abstractly.
We live in a world that is filled with less than "outstanding" programmers. You rely daily on programming by less than outstanding programmers.
Outstanding programmers can do system architecture, data structure design, algorithmic development. No one who can design and understand a Fibonacci heap is going to have problems with dx/dt.
... as well as learn to juggle five objects simultaneously, solve the Rubik's cube, and speak fluent Klingon. The point is, in the majority of the software engineering challenges we face today, none of these skills are relevant.
Proficiency in Greek and Latin used to be threshold skills for higher level learning and entry into college. Smart, outstanding people can learn Latin and Greek relatively easily compared to less outstanding people. No one argues today (well, very few people) that we need to bring back Latin and Greek into the core curricula.
However, if it is not relevant to 95% of software engineering, then why keep it as a requirement? Put another way, calculus and continuous mathematics are clearly not part of the critical path to creating a competent programmer or software engineer. By keeping calculus in the curriculum, we are wasting time and resources of the vast majority of future programmers and software engineers out there. Those outstanding computer scientists out there who actually *need* to learn calculus will, as you contend, have no problem picking it up outside of the core curriculum.
You never have understood this because you never really gave it much thought. You certainly didn't giving much quality thought today (modded insightful -- really moderators?).
First, ComputerGeek01, I challenge you to come up with an actual example of a student who dropped out of school simply because they got an "F" grade instead of a "D".
Secondly, There is no such "definition" for which some students must receive below a passing grade. A "C" grade is determined by the instructor, and most of the time is *not* a strict curve. In fact, in many classes it is possible for the majority of students to get "A" and "B"s. For most schools there is no requirement to grade on a curve and it is in fact possible for all students in a course to pass.
Thirdly, a critical problem with the "D" grade is that in many schools, a "D" grade allows a student technically "passes" the class, but the D-grade student has not really learned enough or demonstrated the skills necessary to learn in the next class. Often a "D" is an excuse to have the student slide into the next class, whereas an "F" might mean they need to retake the course. The whole idea of eliminating the "D" grade is to improve accountability -- to stop this train of migrating essentially failing students from one class to the next and then out the door with a substandard education.
An "F" grade is a clear warning or signal that the student is not prepared to continue with their education. If a student is getting "F" grades it's the role of school educators, parents and the community to figure out why (ADD, dyslexia, family problems) -- chances are it has nothing to do with the student's inherent ability to learn.
What a student should learn (and I dont' know what the capital of Nebraska is FWIW) is a matter of debate. And certainly every adult, even those with severe learning disabilities should have a chance to find a job that suits their strengths. But handing out diplomas to high-school students with less than a 2.0 GPA who are essentially illiterate is unfair both to employers and the students.
Anyone who's ever seen TV writers at work should have recognized from the start that Lost was basically a shaggy dog story.
What's amazed me as someone very outside the show (I half-watched one episode) is the longevity of the show - that the writers were able to weave a story over five seasons in order keep audience interest this long.
Bottom line: to the writers, producers: - kudos, you earned the recognition, $$$.
To anyone who expected a payoff involving a truly cohesive meaningful meaning. You're looking in the wrong place - this is and was never a "Babylon Five". For Lost, the journey *was* the destination, and if you had some fun trying to dissect the meaning with friends and peers then that is the reward.
With Lost being so successful, there *will* be successors. Where will the writers go? What will be "Lost II" and will it be better/worse? Will it attract an audience or will people who have watched Lost never watch a similar show again? Those questions are bound to be more interesting than the finale.
Mr. Ebert is incorrect for the very reason that the medium does not determine art.
Writing is often used with an objective - to communicate inventory, describe an actual scene, give orders.
Rhythm and rhyming may be used to aid in memorization, to aid in oral recollection.
Pictures, video are used for documentation, recorded evidence.
Wood, marble, steel is shaped to create buildings, stairs, chairs, eating utensils or religious relics.
Bodies move with precision in order to build, cook, or fight.
Interactive computer programs and simulations exist to educate, train, provide guided assistance on tasks, or obtain information.
At some point we get art out of all these mediums. We decorate the urn, make our religious icons more elaborate, tweak our oral histories to make them more fun to listen to, arrange our photo shots, play with the beats, create a more elaborate melody. The medium changes from straight functionality more and more to creation for aesthetics, to elicit an emotional response rather than a strict material/practical goal.
For me this point in video games (interactive computer programs and simulations), was definitely reached when playing "Planescape: Torment" back in the early 2000's. Yes, ostensibly you have a clear goal, and you can win the game. But the dialog and overall plot elements are such that I was immersed in thought, absorbed by the characterization and concepts. For others in my rough age group (cutting our teeth in the mid 80's to 90's) it may be games like "Myst" or "Psychonauts", Infocom's "Trinity", "Grim Fandango", or even a silly satire like Mystery Science Theater 3000 Presents "Detective" (http://www.wurb.com/if/game/146); more modern might be Katamari Damacy. Yes, please get off my lawn all you newfangled Xbox360 and Nintendo DS gamers.
If someone's never had an aesthetic moment with a video game it simply means that they haven't found that game yet.
Per the cease and desist order, it appears that the lawyers on behalf of Kraupthing are doing their job.
The laws themselves appear to be there to protect the client's confidential information. Paraphrasing (IANAL, IANAL, IANAL!) they are:
58. Banks are not suppose to disclose their customer's financial information.
59. Exception #1 - if there is a risk to a parent company
60. Exception #2 - if the customer(s) say it is okay to disclose the information.
So basically the bank and the bank lawyers are doing the job they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their customers.
If you had RTFA'd you might have gone to http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-case-of-quant-trading-industrial.html and read the affidavit - http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/Complaint_--_Aleynikov.pdf, you would see that (a) they have proof that the file was transfered (b) they know *exactly* which server the files were uploaded to and (c) Sergey Aleynikov has already confessed to copying the files.
Should be interesting to see how the police "generate" and prove the evidence on this one.
It's all there in the affidavit.
It's infuriating to see the the semi-luddite rantings of the parent post got modded insightful. Makes me wonder why I even read Slashdot anymore.
Clearly the parent poster believes that monitoring devices are for ninnies and the weak. I assume that he follows his logic to it's logical conclusion and
- carefully disables all monitoring and warning devices on all/any vehicles he drives - after all engine check lights are for sissies!
- removes any and all air quality detectors (smoke/carbon monoxide/radon) from his homes (not to mention any security systems)
- if a sysadmin, avoids the use of any and all alterts, alarms, and carefully avoids the instalation of monitoring systems
The fact is that if this was about managing a server farm or a commercial jetliner instead of a person's body there wouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind that recieving timely accurate information about system health and integrity is a *good* thing.
Ignorance is *not* bliss, and having more information doesn't mean that you necessarily turn into a hypochondriac. It *does* mean you have the knowledge to make responsible, informed choices -- and/or not to.
Pre-emptive monitoring for signs of heart attacks and strokes are no joking matter and detecting these early on mean the difference between mild and serious, life-altering damage or death. But apparently ignorance will be bliss for the parent poster until the "surprise" stroke, adult-onset-diabetes, heart-attack, or too-late cancer diagnosis.
Nothing is true just because you can verify that someone else thinks it is true.
Analogously, no food you buy in the supermarket is guaranteed to be edible. Do you put your everyday food through stringent chemical analysis?
Just because you deem yourself clever enough not to treat Wikipedia as a reliable source of information does not mean that millions of people are as aware or vigilant as Lanier's experience clearly shows.
It's not that the mutants survive, it's that everyone survives, so there's no basis for any one mutant having a better chance of survival. Which means we'll just have a lot of mutants.
Evolution can't work if "survival of the fittest" really means "survival of everyone".
Evolution is survival *and* (since everyone dies eventually) propagation of the genetic line. It is not enough to survive - an individual must survive and reproduce (and their children must reproduce, etc, etc.). If you and I are alive 50 years from now - but you have 20 grandchildren and I have none - then it is pretty clear whose is more "fit" from a genetic perspective.
This viewpoint could also be extended to larger cultural, religious, or ethnic groups. Populations that promote population growth will have an upper hand on societies that do not. An extreme example is the Shaker community whose beliefs (celibacy) have doomed it to a dead end.
Because of it's zero-sum/violent nature we tend not to recognize when natural selection is at work in the human population. But don't fool yourself. Natural selection of the human population is still going on all over the world (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/17/opinion/edheinsohn.php).
Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.
That is my whole point. They made the first copiers and the people responded by using the corporate name Xerox to describe that very act. It is just as valid as anything else. The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact. Language is constantly evolving and they add new words all the time. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this should not be construed as legal advice.
Edlll,
Cloud computing aside, your comments about Xerox photocopying are wrong and misleading. In the future, please make sure to provide the standard IANAL disclaimer as you are clearly without clue about trademark law.
No one sells Xerox photocopiers but Xerox; Cannon, Ricoh, Sharp sell photocopiers. Kinkos provides photocopy services, not "xeroxing" services.
Similarly, no one but Kleenex sells Kleenex brand facial tissues and you and I brush our teeth with toothpaste and do not "Crest" them. In the South, all sodas are colloquially called "coke" (e.g. "I'll have an orange coke") -- however, no one actually sells Coke(tm) brand products -- including colas -- but the Coca Cola Company.
Should you advertise that your photocopier is a "Xeroxing" machine or provide a professional "Xeroxing" service, Xerox has the legal right (and obligation) to defend the violation of its trademark, and you can and would get sued for trademark infringement.
However, it used to be free will was thought to be conscious. Now we have clear evidence to doubt that. Science has taken another step forward to shrinking the possible area for "free will" to exist. The trend is clear and where it is heading is (1) to increasing insight and predictability of decision making and by extension(2) to the point that the area where "free will" might exist is vanishingly small and eventually irrelevant to rational discussion. You think free will is in the unconscious? Fine -- now it's time to refine our understanding of the human brain and to figure out (based on previous decisions) how a human will react to stimuli. As the models, sensors, computing power and algorithms improve (and assuming society continues to provide resources to work on this question), it is only a matter of time.
Of course many people react with fear, disgust (related to fear), or anger (which is another side of fear) to this kind of thinking. Why? Because they (unconsiously!) make several critical errors/assumptions/mistaken associations which are the source of their fear.
#1 - that without "free will" they may continue to make the same bad decisions and be unable to change their bad decisions by force of will
#2 - That without "free will" they have lost some sort of "magic totem" or "spark" or whatever that will allow them to overcome the pain and obstacles in their lives
#3 - No "free will" means no "good" and no "evil". If people's choices can fundamentally (with enough computing power, resources, etc.) be pre-determined then we cannot them accountable for their actions.
#4 - The idea that "free will" is fundamentally tied to the concept of spirituality.
I personally feel this "in my gut" when talking about the "loss" of free will. At the end of the day I realize that these concerns are irrelevant because:
- how I make "good" choices (and in particular whether or not someone could predict them) is ultimately irrelevant to me - what matters is that I continue to learn how to make good choices
- Whether or not it can be predetermined, humans can and do learn how to improve their choices
- That spirituality has been shown scientifically to be wired into our brains and that therefore the pursuit of "sacred moments", spiritual states and the general effects of spirituality is not tied in any way to "free will".
So I shrug my shoulders, take a few deep breaths, and trust in my genetically and evironmentally developed brain to make the correct decisions (including those built-in tendencies for compassion, empathy, love) as I travel along the path of life.
----
Reason why conscious decision is not part of free will:
Assume this definition of free will:
"The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will"
Then free will is (by definition) unconstrained.
But conscious decision (according to this study) can be determined (and is therefore constrained by) the unconscious brain processes prior the "conscious choice". Therefore the conscious choice cannot be part of free will.
Well, my prediction back in 2006 was way off.
Prior art was out there (including from the company I worked for), but neither Desire2Learn nor the educational community provided enough organizational will and competence to find it and kill this patent lawsuit. I personally spent hours of my time gathering prior art evidence as well as soliciting teachers and developers to help fight this. After tepid responses from both sides (including a form-letter sent one month later from Desire2Learn), I shrugged and walked away.
Hopefully this doesn't affect open source LMSes such as Moodle or Sakai, but if it does then the EDU community has only itself to blame for not stepping up to the plate.
So... basically, 27 years ago this guy had a drug case, and more than 40 years ago had an aggravated assault and burglary charge. From this they were supposed to deduce that this guy was going to logic bomb them?
I'll probably be modded down for this, but either you are a microfocused moron or you are disingenuously filtering the facts to make you point.
Not only was he convicted in the 1960's but he had charges filed against him every decade since then. Either he was incredibly unlucky or there's a good chance this guy couldn't keep from making trouble.
I understand why companies feel the need to do criminal background checks to absolve themselves of a possible lawsuit.
A lawsuit? Because of Paine Webber's lack of due diligence, they lost more than a day's worth of trading and over three million dollars in trying to recover the damage done. It borders on imbecility to try and argue that they did the right thing by not performing a background check.
One of the engineers I hired had a drug conviction...
Good for you to hire her. Nevertheless, the ex-drug-addled employee you trot out is hardly a counter story. Clearly you knew she had a problem before your hired her (probably, and ironically, because of a background check). You assessed the risks and decided to make a choice. Furthermore, your employee knew that you knew, which I'm sure had no small influence on her decisions not to abuse while under your watch. Yet for some idiotic reason you want to deprive other managers of having this very same sort of information when hiring.
Talk about 2nd class citizens. Do they understand that over 2% of the population is in prison and a considerable portion of people living today have been in prison or convicted of some offense at one point or another?
I can't tell if this is parody or you're genuinely being stupid. Hiring managers abuse all sorts of criteria. Don't have your master's degree? Sorry, we're not interested. Don't have five years of experience in technology X? Not qualified. In hiring people in the tech industry, a criminal record is hardly the only arbitrary filter. Life is full of petty idiocies (like your mod up, for example). Live with it.
Thanks for responding -- that's as diplomatic F-U as I've seen in a long time. I tried to type a nasty rebuttal, but for some reason Firefox wouldn't let me. Nevertheless, actions speak louder than words. When you I.P.O. (not if) and you make your first significant philanthropic donation, I'll be more than happy to print out and eat this thread.
"This has nothing to do with fame or fortune; it's about improving the experience for things we do everyday."
Oh really?
IEE Spectrum Articles, Blog, Wired Articles == attention whoring (e.g. fame)
For-profit business model == money grubbing (e.g. fortune)
Nothing wrong with wanting recognition and some $$$ in pocket for your hard work. Not everyone's an introvert or RMS. Plenty wrong for trying to pretend otherwise.
You're doing plenty good work. Don't taint it by spewing out blatant lies.
When John Milan says "the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps" - he is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons given.
The writing is on the wall people -- we're already seeing a demand for hybrid applications.
Example from my work area -- online education:
Teachers publish their course materials online, create online tests, grade assignments, lead discussion forums online. So far, so good. Now they want ways work on their materials offline, superior editing tools, vastly improved performance, the ability to save materials off the server, and significantly improved control of the student's test taking environment.
A web-only application cannot provide (all) of this. Conversely, developing a pure client-server application throws away the marvelous (and growing) cross-platform infrastructure (HTML, Javascript, Flash) provided by IE and Firefox, the ability to access the course from any computer with a browser, and an internet connection and default data synchronization with a highly accessible server (i.e. you don't have to "sync" gmail - it does it for you).
One potential answer as well as upcoming buzzphrase is the "offline client", and companies such as IBM and Adobe are taking this seriously.
There of course are questions about who's going to implement the most successful online/offline application suites and development environments. But I it's good bet that -- within the next 15 years -- anyone who builds an application without both significant functionality on the browser side *and* a featureful offline client will be in the same boat of someone trying to build an GUI-less application today.
As Miller says, it would be foolish for Microsoft and Google not to try to capitalize on this trend. Look for Microsoft Studio 2010 to tout its "offline client wizard" capabilities.
Quote from the article:
"The days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps."
No "all web apps or web based OS" mentioned here.
In other words, parent topic's rant about pure-web based apps, while interesting, is off topic, not to mention boring. The article's author is looking beyond Web 2.0 - why don't you give it a try as well?
I can't believe parent was modded up. Oh wait, this is slashdot.
There is no such thing as [being] addicted to the internet, or a video game, or anything except for a chemically addictive substance
According to the Wikipedia, "Addiction is characterized by the repeated use of substances or behaviors despite clear evidence of morbidity secondary to such use."
If someone is repeatedly spending time online despite the clear harm they recognize it does, then they are, by Wikipedia's definition, addicted to being online. Such people exist. Therefore there are people addicted to the the internet.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary:"Compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal."
So, according to M-W, if someone is repeatedly spending time online despite the clear harm they recognize it does, it is not an addiction, because it does not involve ingesting/using a physical substance.
Unfortunately, since you never pick a clear definition, your argument takes the form of mushy emotional crap rather than anything of substance.
There are no addictions, just addicts.
Can't really argue with you SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF ADDICTION. But assuming you agree either with M-W or Wikipedia's definition, you are wrong. There are people with physiological addictions to heroin, satisfying both the Wikipedia and M-W definition.
These people have an addictive personality and will be addicted to anything to pass the time
So according to you, people who are addicted (but not really since it's not chemical!) are just "passing time".
If I personally am doing something to pass the time, then it is something I am doing because there is no way to do the things I really want to do (e.g. stuck at a bus station) and is completely optional (e.g. I can choose between twiddling my thumbs, pacing back and forth, playing with a yo-yo). I don't see how either a heroin addict or person who continues to play 30 hours/week online to the detriment of work, school, physical health, or social life is doing either of these activities just to pass the time. I certainly don't see how "passing the time" fits in either with M-W or Wikipedia's definitions of addiction either.
Unless it has something to do with a chemically addictive substance, please stop posting these inane flame bait articles.
But please do keep writing these half-brained posts! Apparently people are eating them like chips around here!
Most of the claims in Blackboard's patent are for concepts many LMSes had at the time (assignments, tests, lectures, grading, announcements, login, discussion area, chat). I was working with a competitive company at the time the patent was filed. The system we worked on was already in use by many colleges on the West Coast, with most of the features listed by June 30th, 2000, so most of the claims can be shown to be prior art.
This patent will not matter much. I don't see any particular reason to worry about it and here's why (IANAL!):
1. The patent relies on 44 claims, most of which can easily be shown to be prior art. (Ironically, WebCT, which was bought out by BlackBoard might be used as a counterexample of prior art).
3. To violate the Patent you would have to be substantially equivalent. Essentially this means someone would have to substantially rely on Blackboard's look and feel for providing LMS services.
4. The patent heavily relies on the concept of "files" - like our old system, which used flat files for information management (no, we did not and could not develop for the then popular (1998-1999) Sun + Oracle combo -- too big and too expensive for us and most schools at the time). An LMS using a Relational Database may be sufficiently different enough in implementation.
5. The patent differention seems to be at this part:
"The present invention also enhances the prior art by providing a flexible infrastructure for colleges, universities, and other institutions wishing to facilitate on-line registration and tuition payment. More specifically, the present invention can accommodate different billing methods, including, but not limited to, billing on a per-credit-hour basis, and billing on a per-registrant basis."
So, unless you are looking to build a Blackboard clone using a flat-file data management system including an integrated payment system, I really don't see anything to fret about.
(Disclaimer - As I said above, I am not a lawyer, and I certainly would love to see a more sophisticated legal analysis).
A market economy where the government's only function is to protect the individual rights of its citizen and nothing else is the best form of governance. This is the only way to bring about the greatest innovations, in the shortest time. This brings about fastest progress and hence benefits all the members of such a society the most.
...Or should we rather give the sprinters (even if there is only one) to run full steam ahead towards the ribbon, and let other people who are cannot compete in sprinting with Olympic sprinters, to do whatever they can do best.
In other words, Anarcho-Capitalism. If it's such a great idea, why not just shout it out in the first place? Possibly because anarcho-capitalism has already been refuted?
A democracy neither ensures that citizen are given only individual rights, nor that they are ensured. Also democracies allow inferior candidates to become presidents. And even worse, allows them to make spurious laws, and even more spurious laws setting back Amreican and human progress by many years.
Ironically, I'm 99.9% certain that you wrote this statement from a democratically governed state, and 95% sure that it's the United States. In the links you cherry-picked, you apparently you choose to willfully ignore the Constitutional amendments (Bill of Rights, 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and the 19th Amendments) that expanded the rights of United States residents (not just citizens) to levels unprecidented in human history. Without child labor laws, you may not have had the opportunity to pick up the education and time to write your arguments. Without the laws enacted after the great depression
You are absolutely right that democracy does sometime depress individual rights and choices, nor does it alway ensure indvidiual rights, and it allows people to make bad laws -- because it all involved human people making decisions, and humans will make mistakes. Yet Anarcho capitalism gives people even *more* freedom to make mistakes, and relies even more heavily on individual choices on governance. Your implicitly assume that under Anarcho-Capitalism everyone will magically make the correct decisions, yet you undercut that very argument by showing how dumb people can be.
Wrong. In a market economy there can never be a monopoly "by definition". There can only be very very good competitors who have deservedly got a very high proportion of market
Okay, time for a mirror argument: "Wrong. In an unfettered market economy, monopolies inevitably occur. Furthermore, since being mean, unethical, and a cheater makes a market entity more efficient, there can only be mean, unethical competitors who have lied, cheated and stolen to undiservedly get and maintain a very high proportion of the market."
Do you think if Microsoft prices its Windows software at 2000$, that any customer would still not get Ubuntu on their machines?
Uh, yes. Have you been to your local Fry's/Best Buy/Circuit City lately? Microsoft office currently retails for ~$350.00, and Windows XP Professional costs ~$200.00. That's no $2000, but $500.00 is significantly more than what Ubuntu's retail price is (free). I have yet to see a mass migration to Ubuntu, so I fail to see where you are making a significant argument.
Furthermore, I reject your implicit assumption that all markets behave like the software market (low initial resources and capital required). There are numerous markets (water, electricity) that lend themselves to natural monopolies.
Absolutely. Which is why we don't have a rule to allow the person who wins the shot-put event to get a head-start in the 100-meter dash. Through bundling and other market advantages monopolies gain a similar unfair advantage that ultimately stymies comp
Anti-trust laws are the biggest impediment to the growth of progress
...more innovative players (Apple Mac OSX)
I disagree. In fact, anti-trust laws are necessary to maintain a democracy. Are you against democracy, sir?
on the basis that they stifle competition
A monopoly by definition has no competition. Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Furthermore monopolies often use unfair and anti-competitive practices to squash competition that have absolutely no benefit to the consumer. For example, Standard Oil used train agreements and other unfair business practices against competitors. Microsoft specifically putin instructions to prevent DR-DOS from being used with Windows 3.1. Both practices relied on the dominance of Standard Oil and Microsoft in their respective markets.
and create unnecessary burden on companies and the judicial system.
I disagree that it unncessary. Anti-trust laws, by regulating unfair business practices a necessary burden on the few companies large enough to become a monopoly. I would guess that the proportion of anti-trust cases and thus their "burden" to all legal cases in the U.S. to be minimal (probably less than 1%).
There is and was no-one stopping Netscape to giveaway a whole operating system (Linux - Suse?) in competition to MS giving away only a browser for free.
A horrible argument. If I'm competing with you in creating a product in market A, why should your standing in market B influence this? This is anti-competitive. To make an analogy, suppose we are to run a race (100 meter dash), but the condition is that I have to do a series of sommersaults and cartwheels before I can leave the starting line. The relative merit of our products (our ability to complete the 100 meter dash) is obscured by the fact you have an unfair advantage. My product may be superior and of better benefit to the customers, but you still "win".
a default monopoly market (Windows operating system) are corrected by
Your example of MacOSX is also not a valid example. Apple's OS market share is still less than 4% worldwide, despite its innovations. In addition Microsoft has (1) given funding to Apple and (2) continued to make Microsoft Office products for Apple. Why? It's not from the goodness of Bill Gate's heart. Microsoft provided funding and continued Office support for Apple precisely to prevent further anti-trust litigation. If there were no anti-trust laws, there would have been no further funding, nor further work on the Microsoft Office line for the Macintosh, and the Mac line would have gone the way of the Commodore Amiga.
Then why should humans create unrealistic market conditions by means of highly subjective laws like Anti-trust
Anti-trust laws exist in actual law and are part of the market conditions here in the United States. You can't get much more "realistic" than fact. Perhaps you live in another dimension?
As to the claim of subjectivity, my knowledge of anti-trust law is not sufficient to give a definitive argument on how subjective it is. But more to the point, you provide no evidence or argument as to why objectivity would automatically be superior.
Fundamentally, the problem with monopolies is the abuse of "bundling". For example, suppose you have a system of toll roads. Company A, through acquesitions, acquires a monopoly (or even a substantial, say 60%) of the toll roads. Company A keeps the prices competitive with other companies in regards to toll pricing. So far so good.
Now suppose Company A is competing with Company B in supplying and manufacturing cars. Company A adds as a "feature" that every car created by Company A automatically gets a 25% discount on the tolls. This creates a competitive advantage for Company A, and stifles the potential advantage for C
Thats's funny, I thought the government had to pay you for your property if they take it from you?
You're missing the point. Read the parent post again.
"Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose".
This is factually incorrect.
1) Eminent domain prevents the owner from selling at whatever price they choose to the government
2) Anti-Trust law prevents the owner from selling to any consenting party
This is not even getting into zoning laws and other laws regarding sales (guns, tarrifs, etc).
Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose
Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States.
and that right is an inalienable freedom.
Wrong again. The universe has no concept of this fiction you call inalienable or natural rights. If you don't believe me, then go provoke a grizzly bear and then attempt to argue with him/her about your rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
As a consolation, I'm sure Kenneth Lay (posthumously) and British Petroleum would be interested in promoting your point of view.