1. They'll be successful, and the world will benefit from their tool.
2. Some two-bit company from Podunk, Indiana, will claim that they have a patent on the technology. A lawsuit causes the court to issue an injunction against using software radio.
3. Some other two-bit company from South Podunk, Iowa, files a suit claiming that software radio diminishes trade opportunities. The US government agrees and bans the technology. They try to get the EU to ban it as well, and a tussle ensues.
4. Large corporations take over the technology and introduce a tiered system of access.
5. Microsoft says they were planning it all along.
In the end, no one benefits from the groundbreaking technology.
Or, at least, that's how these things seem to be going these days.
I saw my first emoticon back in 1987 or 1988 on an informal BBS run by my University's library. I had no idea what the little:) meant until I happened to tilt my head.
Doesn't this qualify as "prior art", or am I missing something important here?
...patents exist to promote innovation and companies exercise them to provide the best products possible in a competitive marketplace to allow consumers to purchase the products that they want most.
That's a fantasy, of course. I understand that in reality the patent system exists to ensure that vendors can lock customers in to specific technologies, regardless of the quality of the product, or to lock customers out of other technologies. And thank God for that! We can't have people willy-nilly spending money on other companies' products just because they're better!
Yes. And I recall being outraged when they did it.
Just because Clinton and Carter were better Presidents than Bush has any hope of being doesn't mean they were above being criticized when they do something wrong.
Please don't presume that I am willing to support Democrats in whatever they do just because they are Democrats. Honestly, I'm cynical about all politicians; they're all petty-minded power grabbers, and very few of them actually give a toss about what's best for the country. It's just that I find the Democrats a bit less reprehensible than the Republicans, and somewhat less likely to do something appalling (note that this is different from saying that they will never do something appalling, because I KNOW someone will interpret my statement that way).
I'm very interested to see how this goes down. My understanding of the law is that Bush's order was very likely illegal, but I'm not a lawyer and I suspect my natural (and, to my mind, very well-earned) distrust of Mr. Bush is getting in the way here.
Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if all of the new "domestic security measures" are actually any better than the pre-9/11 security measures. Those measures failed to prevent 9/11 (and I doubt that anything could have), true; but it seems likely to me that they DID prevent a good number of attacks before 9/11 anyway. The Administration says they've prevented a number of attacks since 9/11; I say (and Congress should be saying), "Show me the money."
Why would the FBI need a warrant when King George can simply bypass FISA and issue a secret and pointless decree allowing domestic spying without a warrant? Especially when, under FISA, a wiretap or other device can be requested without a pre-existing warrant (as long as a warrant comes within 72 hours)?
Well, he was offered the "whole shebang" during his time of temptation in the desert.
The hypocrisy of the priests did indeed irk him, and that's what he spoke to. The hypocrisy manifested as the materialism of the pharisees and their insistence on the letter of the law as the path to salvation (if they even had a doctrine of salvation, which is doubtful) rather than God.
I don't recall saying that Jesus shunned the rich and the powerful; in fact, it's suggested, at least in the Gospel of John, that he did have at least one very wealthy disciple. As I recall, it was frequently the rich and the powerful, though, who could not bring themselves to follow Jesus. They were too in love with their worldly possessions and their status; when one wealthy man was told that in order to follow Jesus he had to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor, that wealthy man went away discouraged. And I think that this attitude persists today, in blatant and in subtle forms. People would rather take the easy path to what they think is salvation, following the Phariseic doctrine of laws and rules and behaviors (letting their high priests do their thinking and interceding for them) rather than the truly hard work of being a true disciple of Christ. I stand by my assertion that being a true disciple means sacrificing of yourself and your worldly goods and aiding and supporting the poor and helpless in our society and around the world, and not, say, merely voting Republican (or Democrat, or Green, or Socialist, or whatever) and following some modern-day Pharisee into, say, some imaginary against "liberals" over Christmas -- what Bonheoffer called "cheap grace".
I think you're right about Diebold and the scammers, though. Even from a non-Christian perspective, there just isn't any honor in something like that.
I think that this is a fascinating discussion. Too bad it's off-topic for this particular story.;-)
He rarely spoke out against political leaders of the day. He spoke out frequently against the religious leadership of the day, but usually when he did that it was to condemn their materialism or the way that they had fallen from their own faith. He certainly did not get involved in the political process of the Roman Empire, and only barely touched the Jewish leadership. His primary ministry was with the poor and the forsaken.
Buying brand new music has gotten to be such a hassle that I've decided to be content with the music in my current collection. Occasionally I'll check something out of the library, but that's as far as I'll go in acquiring new music.
If the music industry provided any sounds other than that of pure prefabricated suckage, though, I might just reconsider.
Face it. If there's any activity which is truly steeped in human sin, vanity, arrogance, and utter foolishness, it's politics. There is nothing divine about it. Why would God have anything to do with politics at all? Didn't someone once say something like, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"?
Be a disciple of Christ, and go out and feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, and visit the imprisoned. Christianity has everything to do with serving the poor, and nothing to do with politics.
Wait! Wasn't the Internet supposed to have collapsed by now in a flurry of competition between the US and Europe? Wasn't there supposed to be a full-blown civil war in Iraq by now? Wasn't there supposed to have been a dirty bomb exploded somewhere in the US by now?
Or are these yet more examples of sensationalist journalism?
Wasn't there an episode of Futurama that featured a plot very similar to Mr. Knight's? Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was; a rip in time caused people to find themselves in surprising situations with no memory of having gotten there, but realizing that they'd led perfectly normal lives in the meantime. In fact, that episode was on Adult Swim just last night.
I don't have anything against web advertising in general, but too many flashy and colorful ads detract from the content of a page that I'm viewing. Plus, on my older Linux box, loading a page into Firefox with a bunch of Flash-based ads can really cause the rendering time to drag, so as a matter of practice I just block anything with a.swf extension. I use the "Adblock" extension to Firefox.
When they can safely be taken into the bathtub, or pulled out of my pocket after four or five days of hiking with no recharging. Or I can leave it on the back seat of my car in hot weather during the day at work with no ill effects.
In short, e-books will become mainstream when you can treat them as horribly as you can treat paper books. In the meantime, there exists an alternative which is much cheaper and a lot more durable.
Has anyone come up with a patent for bringing down a website by posting a link to it on another website and counting on thousands and thousands of people to click through, thus generating high but perfectly legal traffic?
If not, I'm filling out my forms right now, and someone around here's gonna owe me a lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
If this article were linked to on Fark, it would be given the "obvious" tag.
It's easy to see where this will go.
1. They'll be successful, and the world will benefit from their tool.
2. Some two-bit company from Podunk, Indiana, will claim that they have a patent on the technology. A lawsuit causes the court to issue an injunction against using software radio.
3. Some other two-bit company from South Podunk, Iowa, files a suit claiming that software radio diminishes trade opportunities. The US government agrees and bans the technology. They try to get the EU to ban it as well, and a tussle ensues.
4. Large corporations take over the technology and introduce a tiered system of access.
5. Microsoft says they were planning it all along.
In the end, no one benefits from the groundbreaking technology.
Or, at least, that's how these things seem to be going these days.
Did I mention the patent infringement lawsuit?
Between this and their rootkit ("Oopsie!"), seems that Sony's really batting 1000 lately, doesn't it?
Yeah, I think my grandma could do that for me.
Oh, wait. No she can't. In fact, I'm not sure I could, either.
I saw my first emoticon back in 1987 or 1988 on an informal BBS run by my University's library. I had no idea what the little :) meant until I happened to tilt my head.
Doesn't this qualify as "prior art", or am I missing something important here?
Next they'll find out that the jocks are getting all the girls, too!
...patents exist to promote innovation and companies exercise them to provide the best products possible in a competitive marketplace to allow consumers to purchase the products that they want most.
That's a fantasy, of course. I understand that in reality the patent system exists to ensure that vendors can lock customers in to specific technologies, regardless of the quality of the product, or to lock customers out of other technologies. And thank God for that! We can't have people willy-nilly spending money on other companies' products just because they're better!
Um. Okay. Whatever.
I've heard these allegations before, but I haven't seen any citations or references that were thoroughly convincing. Do you have access to any?
Yes. And I recall being outraged when they did it.
Just because Clinton and Carter were better Presidents than Bush has any hope of being doesn't mean they were above being criticized when they do something wrong.
Please don't presume that I am willing to support Democrats in whatever they do just because they are Democrats. Honestly, I'm cynical about all politicians; they're all petty-minded power grabbers, and very few of them actually give a toss about what's best for the country. It's just that I find the Democrats a bit less reprehensible than the Republicans, and somewhat less likely to do something appalling (note that this is different from saying that they will never do something appalling, because I KNOW someone will interpret my statement that way).
I'm very interested to see how this goes down. My understanding of the law is that Bush's order was very likely illegal, but I'm not a lawyer and I suspect my natural (and, to my mind, very well-earned) distrust of Mr. Bush is getting in the way here.
Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if all of the new "domestic security measures" are actually any better than the pre-9/11 security measures. Those measures failed to prevent 9/11 (and I doubt that anything could have), true; but it seems likely to me that they DID prevent a good number of attacks before 9/11 anyway. The Administration says they've prevented a number of attacks since 9/11; I say (and Congress should be saying), "Show me the money."
Why would the FBI need a warrant when King George can simply bypass FISA and issue a secret and pointless decree allowing domestic spying without a warrant? Especially when, under FISA, a wiretap or other device can be requested without a pre-existing warrant (as long as a warrant comes within 72 hours)?
Yes it is interesting, isn't it?
Well, he was offered the "whole shebang" during his time of temptation in the desert.
;-)
The hypocrisy of the priests did indeed irk him, and that's what he spoke to. The hypocrisy manifested as the materialism of the pharisees and their insistence on the letter of the law as the path to salvation (if they even had a doctrine of salvation, which is doubtful) rather than God.
I don't recall saying that Jesus shunned the rich and the powerful; in fact, it's suggested, at least in the Gospel of John, that he did have at least one very wealthy disciple. As I recall, it was frequently the rich and the powerful, though, who could not bring themselves to follow Jesus. They were too in love with their worldly possessions and their status; when one wealthy man was told that in order to follow Jesus he had to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor, that wealthy man went away discouraged. And I think that this attitude persists today, in blatant and in subtle forms. People would rather take the easy path to what they think is salvation, following the Phariseic doctrine of laws and rules and behaviors (letting their high priests do their thinking and interceding for them) rather than the truly hard work of being a true disciple of Christ. I stand by my assertion that being a true disciple means sacrificing of yourself and your worldly goods and aiding and supporting the poor and helpless in our society and around the world, and not, say, merely voting Republican (or Democrat, or Green, or Socialist, or whatever) and following some modern-day Pharisee into, say, some imaginary against "liberals" over Christmas -- what Bonheoffer called "cheap grace".
I think you're right about Diebold and the scammers, though. Even from a non-Christian perspective, there just isn't any honor in something like that.
I think that this is a fascinating discussion. Too bad it's off-topic for this particular story.
He rarely spoke out against political leaders of the day. He spoke out frequently against the religious leadership of the day, but usually when he did that it was to condemn their materialism or the way that they had fallen from their own faith. He certainly did not get involved in the political process of the Roman Empire, and only barely touched the Jewish leadership. His primary ministry was with the poor and the forsaken.
*grin* Most of the folks you identify as Christians, unfortunately, are anything but.
Buying brand new music has gotten to be such a hassle that I've decided to be content with the music in my current collection. Occasionally I'll check something out of the library, but that's as far as I'll go in acquiring new music.
If the music industry provided any sounds other than that of pure prefabricated suckage, though, I might just reconsider.
*snort* That's rich.
Face it. If there's any activity which is truly steeped in human sin, vanity, arrogance, and utter foolishness, it's politics. There is nothing divine about it. Why would God have anything to do with politics at all? Didn't someone once say something like, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"?
Be a disciple of Christ, and go out and feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, and visit the imprisoned. Christianity has everything to do with serving the poor, and nothing to do with politics.
Someone needs to have their sense of humor upgraded.
Wait! Wasn't the Internet supposed to have collapsed by now in a flurry of competition between the US and Europe? Wasn't there supposed to be a full-blown civil war in Iraq by now? Wasn't there supposed to have been a dirty bomb exploded somewhere in the US by now?
Or are these yet more examples of sensationalist journalism?
Wasn't there an episode of Futurama that featured a plot very similar to Mr. Knight's? Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was; a rip in time caused people to find themselves in surprising situations with no memory of having gotten there, but realizing that they'd led perfectly normal lives in the meantime. In fact, that episode was on Adult Swim just last night.
But that's okay, because half the world is going to die of the bird flu anyway, and then the terrorists will explode whoever's left.
See, I believe all of the doomsday scenarios that the media spreads. Surely they wouldn't deliberately engage in misleading fearmongering, would they?
I don't have anything against web advertising in general, but too many flashy and colorful ads detract from the content of a page that I'm viewing. Plus, on my older Linux box, loading a page into Firefox with a bunch of Flash-based ads can really cause the rendering time to drag, so as a matter of practice I just block anything with a .swf extension. I use the "Adblock" extension to Firefox.
When they can safely be taken into the bathtub, or pulled out of my pocket after four or five days of hiking with no recharging. Or I can leave it on the back seat of my car in hot weather during the day at work with no ill effects.
In short, e-books will become mainstream when you can treat them as horribly as you can treat paper books. In the meantime, there exists an alternative which is much cheaper and a lot more durable.
Has anyone come up with a patent for bringing down a website by posting a link to it on another website and counting on thousands and thousands of people to click through, thus generating high but perfectly legal traffic?
If not, I'm filling out my forms right now, and someone around here's gonna owe me a lot of money.