First of all, there's no reason to insult anyone's intelligence here -- literacy has nothing to do with anyone's apparent hate for either Signal or Katz.
Secondly: I find it decidedly ridiculous that anyone would dislike someone else simply based on what they've posted (or the stories they've written). I imagine that you [delmoi] must dislike me, based on your response to my "Bruce Perens." posts. I think people here take this forum a little too seriously. It's just not that important.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You know what? I've got major Karma to burn here, so I'm just going to say it: CmdrTaco is a huge dork. He's also pretty ugly. Hemos, on the other hand, is kind of good looking -- and CowboyNeal is just a fatty.
But, back on topic here, Rob really is a dork. I mean, seriously, this is the kind of guy that I normally make fun of -- he doesn't even have a stage presence, so why the heck did they put him up there?? It's ridiculous...
Anyway, mark me down fuckers - 'cause I don't care anymore!! HAHAHAHHAHAH!
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
There's no reason to think that Borland's RAD IDE could not be ported to work with GCC. The IDE is essentially the same with C++ Builder, and that works just fine as a C++ frontend.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Traffic does not, as a rule, take the weirdest routes. Packets with neither a source or destination in Russia will probably not go through Russian routers. That's not to say that they couldn't, if the Russian router happened to be the nearest working path, but if your ISP is in Alabama and the computer you're connecting to is in Massachusetts, then chances are pretty strong that no machine in Russia is going to see the data.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Microsoft is massive. Compaq is massive. AOL and IBM are massive. VA Linux is not massive. It's got a real pretty stock going, but it's not massive. No offense to VA, because you're right - they are a legit company.
But why would this (now) be a time for them to step in for DeCSS? Are you just suggesting this because they happen to have a lot of money?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That's the silliest class I've ever heard of. Do you really need a course to tell you that Television is all about selling ads? What did you think -- they were entertaining/informing you out of the sheer goodwill of the networks??
Guess what? Most internet sites work the same way. Why do you think Slashdot has an ad-banner at the top of the screen? Andover didn't buy them to be nice guys; they bought them because it was profitable, and in their interests.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
To be fair to the "mindless sheep", even if they did RTFM (as you so nicely suggested) they would not have known that AOL was going to disable all their other connections. All 5.0 asks is "Do you want AOL to be your default connection to the Internet?" -- I don't know anyone who would expect it to do what it does, based on that sentence.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It would be negligent of them not to report on this, certainly. I said almost because, as their editorial freedom, they don't have to report on anything. It would be unethical of them to report inaccurate or biased information about the lawsuit.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That's not funny. It would be funny if they didn't report on it. MSNBC shows talk about Microsoft's woes, and it would be almost unethical (almost) of them to ignore such things.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Y'know, at first I was starting to get annoyed with you and your Don Knotts garbarge. But then I realized that you're actually being fairly civil about it -- all of your links have the letters "DK" prominently displayed in them, so that I can easily filter it out. Thanks (sort of).
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
A groundhog is kind of like a... Well, it's sort of like one of those... Um... A groundhog is brown.
And Groundhog Day is an old superstition of ours that tries to tell how much longer Winter will last, based on whether or not a small mammal is frightened of his own shadow.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Not that I totally disagree with what you're saying, but that's sort of silly. Imagine if people had said that about Linux... Actually, that is one of the bigger criticisms about Linux - that it doesnt's support as much hardware as Windows.
Besides, the code is all there - it would just need to be ported to the Hurd spec.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You oversimplify. To violate a technology patent you need to do more than just have an idea. You need to implement that idea. Moreover, you wouldn't be violating it unless you profitted from implementing that idea.
The actual definition of a patent (from the patent office) is "Any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." So, while you say that the Patent Office needs to stop patenting discoveries, and focus on inventions, I think you are missing the point. There's no reason why a "discovery" cannot be one of the listed (patentable) objects. Most software patents relate exclusively to a "process".
I am greatly disturbed by the number of people who seem to think that all patents do is stifle innovation. This is absurd. Patents stifle copying, and nothing more. If one is truly going to *innovate* then they won't be in violation of a patent law, will they? Remember the line "improvement thereof" -- inventors are encouraged to build a better mouse-trap. It can even work on the same principals as the original mouse-trap, so long as it improves on the model in some non-obvious way. That's why patents (once they are fully filed) are PUBLIC. So that every inventor has access to how they function and can work without hinderance to improve on existing technology/inventions/processes/etc...
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly: I find it decidedly ridiculous that anyone would dislike someone else simply based on what they've posted (or the stories they've written). I imagine that you [delmoi] must dislike me, based on your response to my "Bruce Perens." posts. I think people here take this forum a little too seriously. It's just not that important.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
But, back on topic here, Rob really is a dork. I mean, seriously, this is the kind of guy that I normally make fun of -- he doesn't even have a stage presence, so why the heck did they put him up there?? It's ridiculous...
Anyway, mark me down fuckers - 'cause I don't care anymore!! HAHAHAHHAHAH!
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
But why would this (now) be a time for them to step in for DeCSS? Are you just suggesting this because they happen to have a lot of money?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Guess what? Most internet sites work the same way. Why do you think Slashdot has an ad-banner at the top of the screen? Andover didn't buy them to be nice guys; they bought them because it was profitable, and in their interests.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
And Groundhog Day is an old superstition of ours that tries to tell how much longer Winter will last, based on whether or not a small mammal is frightened of his own shadow.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Besides, the code is all there - it would just need to be ported to the Hurd spec.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The actual definition of a patent (from the patent office) is "Any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." So, while you say that the Patent Office needs to stop patenting discoveries, and focus on inventions, I think you are missing the point. There's no reason why a "discovery" cannot be one of the listed (patentable) objects. Most software patents relate exclusively to a "process".
I am greatly disturbed by the number of people who seem to think that all patents do is stifle innovation. This is absurd. Patents stifle copying, and nothing more. If one is truly going to *innovate* then they won't be in violation of a patent law, will they? Remember the line "improvement thereof" -- inventors are encouraged to build a better mouse-trap. It can even work on the same principals as the original mouse-trap, so long as it improves on the model in some non-obvious way. That's why patents (once they are fully filed) are PUBLIC. So that every inventor has access to how they function and can work without hinderance to improve on existing technology/inventions/processes/etc...
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."