Yes, but when evaluating which bills to be looked at as a pro-technology vote, this hypothetical bill should be ignored because it's not a useful data point.
Actually, I have to disagree - the way that the system works is by having all bills that pass go into law, and all that don't, go away. The point is that if I can analyze a bill as a whole and say whether it was pro- or anti-technology, I can gauge someone's attitude towards the issue pretty well.
Of course, I'm not sure why limiting class action lawsuits is pro-technology, as opposed to pro-insurance industry, but I assume that CNET has top analysts who research and fully understand these issues, and come to a conclusion about how NASA has nothing to do with technology, and that internet gambling is a technology issue and not a legislation of morals issue (not that I'm for it...) They also understand how computer generated porn is an important technology issue, since the word computer is used, and that extra laws against spyware are bad, becuase there is already legistlation on the books. (So our representatives were punished on the scorecard for voting for the bill, since it's a data point, and we can't assume that it's a silly question whether someone voted for a unnecessary bill.)
So yes, scorecards work. And CNET is part of a half dozen astroturf campaigns, and has no grasp on which issues matter. Of course, it will be ignored by voters, so it's better than traditional news media.
The ulitimate goal of a technology is to get to a stage that it is so good, it is invisible. Then it's irrelevant, in these terms. It still matters, of course, but there is no differentiation.
There are plenty of irrelevant things with huge market shares. The point here is that operating systems have been commoditized, and are no longer important - The analogy you could use is that you don't care which brand of gasoline you use, but you care about your car. Of course, as computers evolve, new technologies become old, and then commotized. I cared about the computer architechture, then they all got to be good enough that I cared about by hardware (video card, ram, etc.) Then I stopped caring as long as everything worked.
I used to care about my OS, then they all became sufficient to get to my web browser and do the other tasks I needed done. Then I cared about my browser, but they all became good enough to use the web apps that I wanted, so I'll mostly stop caring about those as well.
I'm just noticing. This must be the first thread I've seen in a solid year where I can't find the phrase IANAL anywhere. I guess when these issues come up, the Slashdot Law community shows up.
I noticed this thread, and thought for a second (sorry, I know, Slashdotters don't do that) and here's how I figure: Since there are a limited number of domains (especially useful ones), and it was originally a publically funded system to create the DNS system, we should auction off domains like we do wireless bandwidth: the funds will go to pay for the DNS system, and computer infrastructure projects for the poorest 10% or so of the populace, or something similar (since it was our funds creating the system, we get to do this. And maybe stuff like this will give some incentive for basic research.)
Registrars get to do what they do because they are licensed to do so by a public body. Bad idea - we all know what kind of incentive that government contractors have for efficiency. So move the system to someone with incentives. Contract the entire thing out for 1% of the net proceeds, (after hosting costs) with a quality assurance audit/financial penalty, and let the money roll in. If the bid winner wants to subcontract registrars, they can. Let the market decide.
All three companies involved do so because it is beneficial to their image to be seen fighting click fraud, even though they know that the recommendations for eliminating it will be useless - it's a technology battle, and it will escalate. No matter what the recommendations are, they won't do much to stop persistant abusers of the system. But, on the other side , it doesn't matter.
The real solution here, as usual, is the free market. Advertisers will decide where to spend their ad budget, and they either think this is a problem or not. The solution will boil down to convincing these (probably technologically savvy) ad people to buy ads. That's why having a standard is useful - it looks good. And judging by Google's profits, corporate wallets are voting yes to online ads. If click fraud was a real problem, they wouldn't.
Just to be a bit of a contrarian (and ridicule others for their lack of ridiculously trivial knowledge,)
Anyone remember MSAV.exe? They never updated it, and let it die when they moved to windows 95. Kind of like when they let IE die after 6.0. Oh, and wqhen's the last time Word had a feature that wasn't wither copying a competitor, or a really stupid idea? (Like animated helpers.) What was new wasn't useful, and what was useful wasn't new...
So we'll actually say you're wrong on 2 counts - they can compete, but don't innovate or create good products - if they do what they did with IE, we'll have more bugs and viruses infecting the antivirus software than we did in the entire OS until now.
And, to paraphrase, MS Word isn't evil, it's just crappy, bloated sofware
I'm just wondering if Google can tell the court it is free to get a dump of any databases that might contain his data, but they will need to sort it - I can imagine the court being told to sort through 20 terabytes of old emails to find what is in his account.
I'm not saying anything - the parent poster was. Whether I agree is immaterial. However, the point that was being made was different than the one responded to. The logic behind what you are saying is irrefutable, but I think it may be irrelevant to the point the parent poster made. It may be perfectly fine to do so, but some people still will feel that it is not exactly the type of thing that helps anyone to hold up other's mistakes to ridicule in public. It's not about faulty patents.
To illustrate this with a ridiculously extreme example, let's say that I invent a better mouse trap, and want to patent it. I find a relatively cheap patent lawyer to file the patent for me, and he does a almost acceptable job. Not knowing patent law, I begin selling my product and making money to support my wife, who then decides with me that we are going to have a child, since we can now support one, assuming that everything is OK. 6 Months later, a book comes out with examples of patents that have technical problems that may render them invalid. I am not informed, but someone decides they might be able to make a buck, applies for a patent covering essentially what I patented, and challenges my patent as invalid, screwing me over. Even if I can fix the problem, it now becomes a major patent dispute, instead of simply re-filing, or submitting some minor form to apply change the patent. I, of course, am pissed off. Why? become some unscrupulous jerk did something he shouldn't have, based on what is public record, pointed out to _no-one's gain_ in some other person's book. That person is not legally culpable, and may not even be morally responsible, but it wasn't the nicest thing to have done.
The point that was being made was that if something that invalidated a patent for a technical reason was made public, instead of simply informing the holder of the patent, it might have significant consequences for the patent holder.
Instead of attacking immediately, try to understand what was said. A little bit more thinking, and a little bit less sniping on everyone's part would do us all huge amounts of good.
The only problem with this idea is that many US missiles also use image recognition to guide them... GPS blocking can help, but certainly isn't sufficient defense!
It's interesting, but I think the key to understanding this problem is something called "extrinsic costs." The credit card companies get stuck with no bill if the bar has your card stolen - you get stuck with a hassle, and the store that accepted your card not from you gets no money for the purchase. Why would the card company care?
On the other hand, all of the time microsoft spent discrediting linux as a stupid choice, and a non-option is suddely reversed; they ARE admitting that it's not ridiculous to think linux is a better option. That could play very well with big exec's who still think of linux as a fad or a 2nd rate hippy alternative for people without any money.
And damnit, stop with the google posts too. It's getting ridiculous that every time that stupid tech company has a new online service, every geek in the world is supposed to stand up and clap.
Also get rid of all of these stupid technical scientific posts, since nobody normal understands it anyways, and just leave the gaming stuff. Windows gaming. That's all anyone has a computer for, right?
Since the other two retarded satements have already been picked, I get the leftovers. Oh well.
"Marketing people always prefer the complex to the simple -- it gives them more features to boast about." I assume that the apple marketing people, then, are miserable about the iPod. It's got one scroll tool, and looks streamlined. Its really been hell selling it. They can barely get them off the shelves.
And yes, the point of the mouse is that it has multiple buttons, clearly, not that there is anything new about the product. I mean, damn, when will PCs catch up to the Mac's new and improved multi-button mouse? Someday, who knows, people may even have a THIRD mouse button, possible in the middle, for use in truly complex, UNIX OS's.
It doesn't need to be the best availible; it may, however, mean that you don't have to break the law. Some people see a value in living within the limits set by the law, even if it's not something you will ever get caught doing; it's a little thing called morals, and no, people in the US don't seem to know what they are. (See Enron, The Last Dozen Whitehouse Administrations, and Almost Any Large Corporation for examples)
Yes. you're magna cum laude degree MAY mean you are smart, but it sure as hell doesn't mean you learned as much as someone graduating with a 3.0 GPA overseas. The "huge bill," of course, is because you, as opposed to them, are able to pay it off, eventually at least.
I'm abroad, in Israel; I RARELY see a legal copy of Windows; no-one has a CD, and it "just came on the computer" they bought from a local, small company that puts computers together.
They aren't targeting the tech savvy people you happen to know, that's all.
The point is that the CRIA (the ACTUAL Canadian RIAA) has not managed to sucessfully even get the download of music to stop; Canadians can download all they want, and possibly even host music, according to one federal Canadian judge.
The CPCC is a completely seperate company; it's like saying that SCO is microsoft, just because we don't like them... well, bad example, but you know what I mean. It's like saying that stealing and piracy are the same thing. OK, another bad example on slashdot. OK, like the difference between free beer and free love. Wait, that's not a good example for slashdotters either. Maybe like saying that... OK, so using slashdot logic, I guess they ARE the same. Nevermind.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they have an understanding of what effects inflation has on an economy.
Your right to speak has been revoked. Go Away.
Yes, but when evaluating which bills to be looked at as a pro-technology vote, this hypothetical bill should be ignored because it's not a useful data point.
Actually, I have to disagree - the way that the system works is by having all bills that pass go into law, and all that don't, go away. The point is that if I can analyze a bill as a whole and say whether it was pro- or anti-technology, I can gauge someone's attitude towards the issue pretty well.
Of course, I'm not sure why limiting class action lawsuits is pro-technology, as opposed to pro-insurance industry, but I assume that CNET has top analysts who research and fully understand these issues, and come to a conclusion about how NASA has nothing to do with technology, and that internet gambling is a technology issue and not a legislation of morals issue (not that I'm for it...) They also understand how computer generated porn is an important technology issue, since the word computer is used, and that extra laws against spyware are bad, becuase there is already legistlation on the books. (So our representatives were punished on the scorecard for voting for the bill, since it's a data point, and we can't assume that it's a silly question whether someone voted for a unnecessary bill.)
So yes, scorecards work. And CNET is part of a half dozen astroturf campaigns, and has no grasp on which issues matter. Of course, it will be ignored by voters, so it's better than traditional news media.
Ummm.. notice the difference between a solicitation and a call. Different terms, this does not apply to what is above. Sorry.
Wait a second...
The ulitimate goal of a technology is to get to a stage that it is so good, it is invisible. Then it's irrelevant, in these terms. It still matters, of course, but there is no differentiation.
There are plenty of irrelevant things with huge market shares. The point here is that operating systems have been commoditized, and are no longer important - The analogy you could use is that you don't care which brand of gasoline you use, but you care about your car. Of course, as computers evolve, new technologies become old, and then commotized. I cared about the computer architechture, then they all got to be good enough that I cared about by hardware (video card, ram, etc.) Then I stopped caring as long as everything worked.
I used to care about my OS, then they all became sufficient to get to my web browser and do the other tasks I needed done. Then I cared about my browser, but they all became good enough to use the web apps that I wanted, so I'll mostly stop caring about those as well.
I'm just noticing. This must be the first thread I've seen in a solid year where I can't find the phrase IANAL anywhere. I guess when these issues come up, the Slashdot Law community shows up.
I noticed this thread, and thought for a second (sorry, I know, Slashdotters don't do that) and here's how I figure:
Since there are a limited number of domains (especially useful ones), and it was originally a publically funded system to create the DNS system, we should auction off domains like we do wireless bandwidth: the funds will go to pay for the DNS system, and computer infrastructure projects for the poorest 10% or so of the populace, or something similar (since it was our funds creating the system, we get to do this. And maybe stuff like this will give some incentive for basic research.)
Registrars get to do what they do because they are licensed to do so by a public body. Bad idea - we all know what kind of incentive that government contractors have for efficiency. So move the system to someone with incentives. Contract the entire thing out for 1% of the net proceeds, (after hosting costs) with a quality assurance audit/financial penalty, and let the money roll in. If the bid winner wants to subcontract registrars, they can. Let the market decide.
This article is actually an interview with someone involved, and brings up substantially more issues than the previous post.
Not that Zonk, out wonderful poster, noticed this, as we can see from the fact that it isn't mentioned in the post.
All three companies involved do so because it is beneficial to their image to be seen fighting click fraud, even though they know that the recommendations for eliminating it will be useless - it's a technology battle, and it will escalate. No matter what the recommendations are, they won't do much to stop persistant abusers of the system. But, on the other side , it doesn't matter.
The real solution here, as usual, is the free market. Advertisers will decide where to spend their ad budget, and they either think this is a problem or not. The solution will boil down to convincing these (probably technologically savvy) ad people to buy ads. That's why having a standard is useful - it looks good. And judging by Google's profits, corporate wallets are voting yes to online ads. If click fraud was a real problem, they wouldn't.
Just to be a bit of a contrarian (and ridicule others for their lack of ridiculously trivial knowledge,)
Anyone remember MSAV.exe? They never updated it, and let it die when they moved to windows 95. Kind of like when they let IE die after 6.0. Oh, and wqhen's the last time Word had a feature that wasn't wither copying a competitor, or a really stupid idea? (Like animated helpers.) What was new wasn't useful, and what was useful wasn't new...
So we'll actually say you're wrong on 2 counts - they can compete, but don't innovate or create good products - if they do what they did with IE, we'll have more bugs and viruses infecting the antivirus software than we did in the entire OS until now.
And, to paraphrase, MS Word isn't evil, it's just crappy, bloated sofware
I'm just wondering if Google can tell the court it is free to get a dump of any databases that might contain his data, but they will need to sort it - I can imagine the court being told to sort through 20 terabytes of old emails to find what is in his account.
I don't know, but I'm gonna keep my sound system volume low - I can't afford to get sued for illegally sharing the music.
I'm not saying anything - the parent poster was. Whether I agree is immaterial. However, the point that was being made was different than the one responded to. The logic behind what you are saying is irrefutable, but I think it may be irrelevant to the point the parent poster made. It may be perfectly fine to do so, but some people still will feel that it is not exactly the type of thing that helps anyone to hold up other's mistakes to ridicule in public. It's not about faulty patents.
To illustrate this with a ridiculously extreme example, let's say that I invent a better mouse trap, and want to patent it. I find a relatively cheap patent lawyer to file the patent for me, and he does a almost acceptable job. Not knowing patent law, I begin selling my product and making money to support my wife, who then decides with me that we are going to have a child, since we can now support one, assuming that everything is OK. 6 Months later, a book comes out with examples of patents that have technical problems that may render them invalid. I am not informed, but someone decides they might be able to make a buck, applies for a patent covering essentially what I patented, and challenges my patent as invalid, screwing me over. Even if I can fix the problem, it now becomes a major patent dispute, instead of simply re-filing, or submitting some minor form to apply change the patent. I, of course, am pissed off. Why? become some unscrupulous jerk did something he shouldn't have, based on what is public record, pointed out to _no-one's gain_ in some other person's book. That person is not legally culpable, and may not even be morally responsible, but it wasn't the nicest thing to have done.
The point that was made has nothing to do with legal recourse.
The point that was being made was that if something that invalidated a patent for a technical reason was made public, instead of simply informing the holder of the patent, it might have significant consequences for the patent holder.
Instead of attacking immediately, try to understand what was said. A little bit more thinking, and a little bit less sniping on everyone's part would do us all huge amounts of good.
The only problem with this idea is that many US missiles also use image recognition to guide them... GPS blocking can help, but certainly isn't sufficient defense!
It's interesting, but I think the key to understanding this problem is something called "extrinsic costs." The credit card companies get stuck with no bill if the bar has your card stolen - you get stuck with a hassle, and the store that accepted your card not from you gets no money for the purchase. Why would the card company care?
It's funny, because you can't spell slaughter without laughter.
On the other hand, all of the time microsoft spent discrediting linux as a stupid choice, and a non-option is suddely reversed; they ARE admitting that it's not ridiculous to think linux is a better option. That could play very well with big exec's who still think of linux as a fad or a 2nd rate hippy alternative for people without any money.
And damnit, stop with the google posts too. It's getting ridiculous that every time that stupid tech company has a new online service, every geek in the world is supposed to stand up and clap.
Also get rid of all of these stupid technical scientific posts, since nobody normal understands it anyways, and just leave the gaming stuff. Windows gaming. That's all anyone has a computer for, right?
Since the other two retarded satements have already been picked, I get the leftovers. Oh well.
"Marketing people always prefer the complex to the simple -- it gives them more features to boast about."
I assume that the apple marketing people, then, are miserable about the iPod. It's got one scroll tool, and looks streamlined. Its really been hell selling it. They can barely get them off the shelves.
And yes, the point of the mouse is that it has multiple buttons, clearly, not that there is anything new about the product. I mean, damn, when will PCs catch up to the Mac's new and improved multi-button mouse? Someday, who knows, people may even have a THIRD mouse button, possible in the middle, for use in truly complex, UNIX OS's.
It doesn't need to be the best availible; it may, however, mean that you don't have to break the law. Some people see a value in living within the limits set by the law, even if it's not something you will ever get caught doing; it's a little thing called morals, and no, people in the US don't seem to know what they are. (See Enron, The Last Dozen Whitehouse Administrations, and Almost Any Large Corporation for examples)
Yes. you're magna cum laude degree MAY mean you are smart, but it sure as hell doesn't mean you learned as much as someone graduating with a 3.0 GPA overseas.
The "huge bill," of course, is because you, as opposed to them, are able to pay it off, eventually at least.
I'm abroad, in Israel; I RARELY see a legal copy of Windows; no-one has a CD, and it "just came on the computer" they bought from a local, small company that puts computers together.
They aren't targeting the tech savvy people you happen to know, that's all.
The point is that the CRIA (the ACTUAL Canadian RIAA) has not managed to sucessfully even get the download of music to stop; Canadians can download all they want, and possibly even host music, according to one federal Canadian judge.
The CPCC is a completely seperate company; it's like saying that SCO is microsoft, just because we don't like them... well, bad example, but you know what I mean. It's like saying that stealing and piracy are the same thing. OK, another bad example on slashdot. OK, like the difference between free beer and free love. Wait, that's not a good example for slashdotters either. Maybe like saying that...
OK, so using slashdot logic, I guess they ARE the same. Nevermind.