"I went up to Doolittle in the hall today..." *snickers* *guffaws* *points and laughs* "..and I said ', Doolittle?'" "He said, ''" *laughs* "..and I said 'Well, ', and he didn't get it!" *more guffaws* *BOOP*
I think you are right in this case, even with that consideration.
Since every drive failed once within a 20-year period, then we have all of our data points on the lower half of the normal curve (with the mean of 20 being in the middle), and none above. Thus, the mean for this part of the experiment would actually be around 10 years. However, if we were to continue the experiment out to 40 years or longer, and gain more samples, then it might balance out, but those repaired drives would have to be "better than new", because they would have to make up for the large shortfall that occurred early-on.
That's why, once you look at this crap practically, the truth comes to light that one can not expect abstracts to directly represent reality. No more so than unit-less data points can be translated to to unit-ed ones.
If you are assuming that a drive is repaired and placed back into service, and then fails again after another random 1-20 year period, then you would be correct.
I think the problem is that most of the geeks think in terms of practicality, and treat the situation as MTTF ("Mean-Time-To-Failure") instead of MTBF, since we all know that MTBF is BS anyway.
As a result, I clarify the statement above, myself assuming "simple MTTF", not "simple MTBF".
First, as already pointed out above, if you have 20 drives with a simple MTBF of 20 years (as you are alluding), then a single failure of one drive each year for twenty years yields a mean of around 10 years.
Second, manufacturer-specified MTBF has nothing to do with a simple, observational mean. It is a calculated statistic based on a statistical sample and extrapolated over a normal distribution. In real-life terms, it is close to meaningless.
Basically, it does not mean "Mean Time Between observed Failures". The word "Between" is almost a dead giveaway there by itself. How many drives have YOU seen that had a failure, were repaired, and put back into service?
About the only usefulness it has is as a comparison statistic and, even then, its value is dubious at best.
Like you said, though, redundancy is the practical answer, unless you are so unlucky as to get a batch of drives that fail nearly simultaneously in a single redundant system. Then, the mantra becomes "We have backups!".
I think it has become painfully obvious that this whole SCO deal has been a poorly-veiled attempt to slam Linux and boost SCO's value so the execs can have a golden exit strategy.
I think it is time to turn the tables, and I think Linus should hire some big guns himself and sue SCO for defamation, libel, and/or whatever else a gaggle of sleazy lawyers think will fit in a suit filing. Kinda like what the German Linux group did to SCO about their spurious claims in Germany, but magnified to match the level of rhetoric that SCO is spewing.
Surely, with all the ambulance-chasing litigation going on in the US, there should be a line of lawyers just drooling at the opportunity to make an easy buck, what with SCO's market value right now. It's not like SCO is making it HARD for anyone to smack them around in court right now.
I say go for it! Time for SCO to put up or shut up. Permanently. If Linus won the case, and SCO couldn't pay, I think he should pursue the execs' personal holdings and pursue the bastards to the ends of the Earth for the rest of their worthless lives.
That's because it has been watered-down over the last century in DIRECT VIOLATION of its terms. In its original intent, it WAS meant that citizens should own and maintain arms sufficient to be effective in an uprising against the government (including "weapons of mass destruction"; in those times, cannons and such). However, there was also intended to be a balance; one which was tested in the Civil War, and ever since then, the government has made every effort to limit the scope of the 2nd amendment to prevent it from happening again.
You are also discounting several key factors:
1) That those in the military will stay loyal to the government in the next civil war; that they will willingly shoot (or order the shooting of) their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, neighbors, etc. Of course, the government already has contingencies in place to deal with that problem; they have worked out plans with the UN to bring in foreign military personnel to enforce martial law and assert control over a warring populace, in violation of the Constitution. 2) That civilians will have access to far more than simply pistols and rifles. I hate to tell ya, but Iraqis are STILL killing our soldiers right now, with "pea shooters". Plus, the vast majority of materials that can be quickly and easily converted to effective munitions is in the possession of civilians. Even today, you can easily obtain the materials to make just about any kind of explosive munition you want; the info is available, so are the materials. Nothing new here. 3) That there are FAR more ARMED civilians than military personnel in the armed forces. 4) That other countries and third parties would be willing to supply more effective weapons to the opposition.
So, forgive me for not subscribing to your guarantee, as there are more factors involved in this than simply what specific classes of weapons are currently allowed under the current perversion of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, the military CAN pull out all the stops and whip out the nukes and ueber-bombs, but I think that their use would prove the point of the opposition to the government in an armed conflict by civilians. It would make our government no better than Saddam's regime, and prove to the rest of the world that it needs to go away as well.
Yeah, I have read about Colonel Grossman before. The issue I have with his work is that he treats the "problem" from an anecdotal vantage point, based on his experiences in the military, instead of actually doing any hard scientific research on the subject. Even on his web site, none of the publications he lists are anything more than "expert opinion" pieces on the subject; it doesn't appear that a single one of them is based on the conclusions of any empirical investigations. While his experience may validate some of his assertions within the context of said experience - IE, the military, it does not automatically imply a direct correlation to the media violence situation involving kids. He also commits, in my eyes, the cardinal sin of the "media violence makes killers" group and supports the incorrect notion that the level of violence in schools is escalating. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case, as there has been a steady decline in school violence for many years. He also tends to harp on the general increase in violence in society in the last 50 years, and assigns some significant level of blame to the media violence issue, even though there are MANY more significant prime factors involved.
There is a HUGE difference between the "forced" training model in the military (which sometimes does include such things as brainwashing and propaganda), and the VOLUNTARY participatory environment involving the media. No one is forcing anyone to "conform or else" to the circumstances in the media. Even within games, which are more interactive and immersive in nature than TV/movies, there is nothing forcing anyone to accept the circumstances as real and necessary to live their lives from that point on. That is not true in the context of the military. There is very little that is voluntary when you join the military, and anything that is has been carefully crafted and orchestrated so that it maximizes your value TO the military, not to yourself.
I also want to point out that I too believe that "life experiences make the individual". However, since media, including video games, exists and is perceived within a frame of reference completely outside of reality (no, there are not little people inside of your TV or monitor shooting each other), I do not consider it as a "shaping" or "defining" experience in peoples' lives. Sure, if you mentally condition a child that what he sees in the "box" is real/true and is what is expected of him/her in real life, then that's a problem. However, it has nothing to do with the media, as it was not intended (nor condoned!) to be used or presented in that fashion. That is entirely a brainwashing issue, and the person doing the act to the child is guilty of child abuse.
tell someone you're a cop, and they always want to tell you about the last traffic tickets they got, and why they didn't deserve them.
Who said anything about getting a traffic ticket? I'm talking about being stopped for doing NOTHING WRONG, not even getting a warning. I am talking about OBVIOUS "fishing expeditions". I am almost a complete teetotaller, yet I have been stopped several times in the last few years and been given FULL field sobriety tests on the side of the road, including "breathalyzer" tests. It's bad enough being stopped, due to the harassment factor, but then the officers just had to go and endanger my safety by having me do all sorts of mental and physical gymnastics on the side of traffic-laden thoroughfares just so they could play their little "game".
It isn't just the "local" police, either; the majority of encounters I have had with law enforcement officials, whether state, county, city, whatever, has been mostly negative. There have been shining examples of officers who go the extra mile, but these have been few and far between. Maybe it is because I am rarely in need of the "good" kind, but I am FAR less deservi
No, you (and the morons in our government) have it all wrong...
It is EXACTLY because I have freedom of speech and can arm myself, EVEN against my own government, once it proves to have become the totalitarian state that our Founding Fathers feared, that I feel "secure".
Security comes from knowing that I have certain inalienable human rights, including the absolute right to defend them, even to the detriment of my own government.
But, ssshhhhh! Don't tell anyone else! That's called "terrorism" today.
I respect your disagreement, but I think simulated violence DOES have an effect on the susceptible mind.
You have the freedom to believe whatever you want; it doesn't change the FACT that there are absolutely ZERO credible studies which support your "belief", and a plethora of ones which demonstrate that it is fallacious. First, it was books that incited people to violence, then TV/movies, and now video games. In over 50 years of examining the problem from as many angles as possible, no credible study has ever characterized the effect of media's supposed "influence" to be above that of statistical noise. ("Credible", meaning one using truly scientifically-sound methodologies to sample and analyze the data.)
By your own words, most people have great difficulty killing others, and most people have been exposed to a steady diet of violence from American media for many years. Thus, it stands to reason that anyone who is willing and capable to kill was (most likely) pre-conditioned or pre-disposed to such a mindset OUTSIDE of any "media influence" to begin with. It doesn't matter if they were trained to be that way, or are mentally impaired enough to not know the difference between right and wrong, the absolute, abject worst media can only truly serve as a catalyst, no more.
"Oh, but that's the issue, see, if someone who is mentally unstable gets ahold of violent media, it will cause them to go on a killing spree! A catalyst!". OK, so burn all the books, shred all the celluloid, smash all of the TVs, nuke Hollywood and Broadway, and then use EMP guns to fry all of the computers. Guess what? Those same mentally unstable people will still run into some catalyst in their lives which will set them off and go onto that dreaded "killing spree". Worse, there may even be more of them, as then there will be no creative fictional outlet for their urges that curbs a need to go through the motions in the non-fiction realm.
Most cops I've known try very hard to catch the bad guys; it can be a real thrill to lay hands on a serious felon... it makes you feel good, like you're making a difference. I think, however, that you're kicking the little guy when you blame the urban cop who's running from call to call for the department's poor response time. Most urban police officers are as busy on their shifts as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest; they are not Barney Fife hanging out at the station all day, waiting for something to happen.
Maybe that's part of the problem with police; they're too busy getting their jollies with adrenaline rushes in car chases (and killing innocent bystanders as a result) to actually MAKE a positive difference at times. Harassing inncocent citizens, because they are looking too hard for that next "big bust". Don't give me that "it's the department's/dispatcher's fault" crapola, either. I've consulted with the local authorities before, working in the local E911 center, so I know what they are doing.
The thing that REALLY boils my blood is getting stopped by those "too busy to do real calls because they are busy harassing innocent citizens" urban cops, who then tell BALD-FACED LIES about why they stopped you (because they were OBVIOUSLY fishing). "Uh, you were going over the white line". Bollocks. My mother (who is in her late 50s) has been stopped THREE TIMES in the last 6 months and told lies as to why she was stopped EACH TIME, because she just "fit the profile" of some teenage kid, as she drives an older model Nissan 300ZX that just so happens to be RED. Each time, she rolls down the window to an officer who dons a surprised look on his face when he sees some fifty-something chick sitting behind the wheel, instead of some high-schooler/college brat whom he could bully around.
If the police want to command respect (which I think that they ultimately should) they NEED to stop doing stupid bullshit which causes them to lose it in the eyes of the public. It is to the point where I am planning to rig up my vehicle completely for "cop-avoi
Then why, when I read Slashdot, do I so often come upon accusations of putting forth a "straw man" argument? Is it because Slashdot "is of very low class"?
Asked and answered in the same question... nice!
This begs the next obvious question: Why do we do it? Because, even us "geniuses" have to go slummin' every once in a while..:P
>I think One Click was original. >I think Amazon's discussion system is original.
Not sure what your litmus test for "originality" is, but it is irrelevant anyway, since the litmus tests for patentability are NOT based on originality alone.
"Useful" and "non-obvious to anyone with ordinary skill in the art" are tests that are as important as that for originality.
Let's take Amazon's One-Click absurdity out for a spin in the REAL patent-litmus-test-mobile:
I am a person with at least "ordinary skill in the art". Note that I have little to no knowledge of Amazon's specific implementation that they claim, and it has been some time since I tried to decipher the spurious claims made in their patent.
Premise: Create an online shopping system which minimizes extraneous effort that a customer must undergo to order a product from an online catalog and keep it simple for the company to implement and support on the back-end.
Considerations: 1) What comprises customer "effort", so we know what we are intending to minimize? Extraneous customer effort is moving the mouse, clicking, typing, scrolling the window, changing pages, etc. 2) How do people normally go about reducing extraneous efforts? Through elimination of redundancy, consolidation of information, and proper/consistent presentation. Ideally, placing an order for any particular item or group of items in a catalog would be reduced to a SINGLE action, since no other method of inferring intent to purchase has been discovered in history without at least a SINGLE action (even subtle means of bidding in a live auction requires some expression of intent or denial to the auctioneer so that the auction can continue). 3) What is the normal, established business process for retail sales? A customer "enters" a place of business, browses the items displayed, along with pricing and any other relevant information, chooses items to purchase (thus making an "order"), collects the items (or has the retailer collect them prepare them for shipment if they are not physically present), provides the necessary personal and payment information to the retailer to complete the transaction, and leaves the "premises". Obviously, any extraneous and redundant steps must be eliminated and extra effort imposed only if necessary to provide the requisite features offered by the solution.
Solution: 1) Store redundant information, requiring the user to only enter it one time, and refer to that stored information whenever it is needed in the future. (IE, Customer name, address, payment info, etc) 2) In the catalog, place some sort of control in plain view, and within "easy reach", minimizing user effort to locate and activate the control. Once activated, place the item into an "open order", using the stored info from #1 above to fill out the requisite fields for the order. 3) In order to consolidate and reduce effort and redundancy on the back-end, combine separate, individual items ordered into a larger group by waiting some amount of time for the shopper to finish shopping, like after an hour of inactivity, or proceed based on some specific deadline, like all pending orders shipped by XX:XX o'clock. (Also known as "Order Consolidation", a process used to reduce shipping charges on multiple orders placed by a specific customer on the same day by millions of businesses over the world for many years).
I believe that you will find that this is the core of the stupid "one-click" patent, in a nutshell. The problem is that it is SO obvious to not only people skilled in the "art", but LAYMEN as well. It is 99% common sense, logic, reasoning, etc.
Finally, just because the problem did not exist to be solved before a certain point in time does NOT mean that the solution is non-obvious and, thus, patent-worthy. There are millions of new problems being exposed for the first time all over the world every day, and there are many more millions of people working on their solutions every day. Does that mean that every new solu
Well, we don't have a whole lot on the surplus front.
There's Austin Electronics over off of Jimmy Carter Blvd, just east of I-85, NE of I-285. Also, Delta Computers used to be Delta Electronics, which did mostly electronics surplus long ago, but sticks mainly to newer computer equipment, though they tend to get in a lot of PC surplus stuff that is unique.
Outside of those two, there are other electronics supply stores, but they don't do a lot of surplus.
Well, maybe you are right. If so, I am sorry if I seemed harsh. To me, looks like everything you've said in this set of subtopics looks like it flows form the same vein.
In actuality, neither the parent nor your post specifically referred to patents, in general or otherwise, so it seemed to naturally flow from the overall topic. But, going this route, we get into the ugliness that is a semantics argument.
Suffice it so say that if we share the same points, then I apologize. If not, then my statements stand.
Sounds an awful lot to me like you are making an implied justification FOR the validity of the patent because "in the real world, you gotta make money to pay real bills".
Then, in another branch, you rant about the sterotypical slashdotters in agreement with another poster.
So, tell me, are you just trolling, or did *you* have a point?
Like anyone is going to be successful at out-g**gling G**gle any time soon, EVEN using the technology outlined in this stupid, frivolous patent. G**gle is G**gle for the huge search database that they created AS WELL AS the technology, and the brand-bulding they've been doing for the last 5-6 years. ANY entity hoping to outdo G**gle will have to go beyond what G**gle has done, with more advanced technology, or via a better search database. That, AND they will have to do all the brand-building, which will take YEARS. Effectively, this patent will never be much more than a minor nuisance to anyone seriously intent on building a better search engine service. However, for the rest of us, when G**gle starts losing money to other competitors, that patent becomes a weapon of revenue extortion, a la BT, Unisys, et al, and they will wield it indiscriminantly against everyone in order to survive...and don't hand me that "slashdotters are geeks who don't understand the concepts of real life outside of their parents' basement" stereotype bullshit, either. I have a mortgage, and PLENTY of real-world bills to pay, and I STILL call bullshit on the need to patent the obvious "to make money".
I am getting SO SICK of the patent system abuse. NO, G**gle gets no quarter from me; they are just as wrong to abuse the system as the government is WRONG to allow the system to become and STAY broken.
They've got my thoughts and feelings on the matter in email.
Oh well, and it was such a nice search engine; it is too bad that I have to find another one and recommend to everyone I know to switch to it. After five years and TENS of THOUSANDS of referrals (conservative estimate), I knew it couldn't last forever. Eventually, greed and corruption kill anything worthwhile; for me, at least.
>It's about as idiotic and nonsensical as deciding that because a store has put items on a table on the sidewalk that you should be able to take them because they're not in the store.
No, it is idiotic and nonsensical to represent an incomplete analogy as the real situation. Hence:
If a store decides to put their products in MY HOME, WITHOUT my permission, hoping to entice me to purchase them, then I have NO SYMPATHY for them if I decide to take the objects that are occupying space in my home and use them like they are mine.
It is a flawed societal model that needs to be kicked out of common circulation. That, somehow, businesses are ENTITLED to have their business models and profits ENABLED and PROTECTED by governmental decree.
We should never have allowed this with the cell phone companies, and we should have never allowed it with the satellite companies. We, collectively, should have told them "your business model is in your own hands; we're not going to criminalize people for your incompetence". Of all things, using the EM spectrum for the communication of information, encrypted or not, should be the least regulated in this regard, because you CANNOT prevent people from accessing it, because it automatically makes itself accessible by its pervasiveness.
So, no, I don't buy the "stealing" argument. You can't steal something that is already in your possession. The electrons carrying the information were already as much mine as anyone's, and if I want to perceive the information they are carrying to me PHYSICALLY, then NO ONE should have any thing to say against it. I am not saying that I should be able to "own" the information I can perceive (since that is another completely nutty concept in and of itself), but there should not be ANY reason to deprive me of right to perceive it.
Anyway, I have been a DirecTV customer in the past, and have done research on the various methods of getting the signals for free, but only out of curiosity in my security research. It really isn't worth the effort with all the drivel that they call "programming" to bother "stealing" it anyway. As such, I don't think the laws or the case have any merit, and will continue to dissent against this abuse until it goes away.
IANA and the RIRs are pretty much the last vestiges of the "independent Internet" authorities as we know them. Once ICANN gets their grubby hands on IANA, I think the final nail is in the coffin of the "free (as in speech) Internet".
What part of this does anyone NOT see as hideously WRONG?! Every day, another domino falls, and I feel more and more like a slave to the Pharoahs of Washington D.C. Is there nothing left for us to do except just sit the hell down and accept our yoke of submission like a good little peon?
What banner do we have that the vast majority of us can rally under to stop this stupidity? I mean, we all pay lip service to "supporting the cause", but action is pretty thin right now. I'm one to talk, too.:(
No and yes. This is simply a way for the INDUSTRY to track what the hell they are selling. Like the article says, it is akin to a UPC code. UPC codes are not unique across all boxes of cereal, but only across specific SKUs, like between 20 oz Cheerios, 40oz Cheerios, and 16oz Count Chocula, for example.
For you geeks out there, it is a CLASS_ID, not an OBJECT_ID, meaning that the number will be the same across all instances of the class.
For example, when a consumer goes to hoohaa.com and purchases an audio track from the latest Hoodies album, hoohaa.com's product database will contain an SKU number to track the PURCHASE so that they can report to the vendor how many tracks of that song were sold so that the artists (the "manufacturer") can get their money. It MAY be included in the track itself, but it would make it easier to automate the process, since the product itself can be polled when they put the track up for sale online, and no one has to manually enter the number. The number should not vary from track to track of the SAME EXACT song. They may put in a serial number in the download, but that would be something completely different than what they are talking about here (and easily foiled for piracy tracking purposes).
All they are doing is Standardizing the domain of these ID numbers across the entire industry so that the money from the sale goes into the right pocket. This is ESPECIALLY important where there is no tangible object being sold, and thus, no purchasing audit trail from the reseller to the vendor.
Sounds like a smart system to me, and one that has nothing to do with our "online rights"; at least no moreso than the computer industry standardizing on Tech Data's SKU numbers for ordering computer parts. Hmm. Wouldn't that be cool?
I've been doing this stuff for 25 years already. I always saw myself doing electronics and computers from a young age (I was born with a soldering iron in one hand and a keyboard in the other, you see), and I find it hard to see myself doing anything else. It is my job as well as my hobby, and I love doing it. I wish I just was more successful financially with it than I have been the last few years. I guess that, though being an entrepreneur and geek/nerd/techie/whatever is in my blood, I have just not been that good of a businessman overall. I'm getting better, though. There's really very little in the IT field that I cannot already do or pick up in an amazingly short time to an expert level (not meant to be a brag; after doing one thing for 25 years, you build up a large, solid foundation that allows you plenty of latitude and the ability to pick up related topics very quickly).
However, the growing politicalization of my field concerns and confounds me. It is the curse of popularization, and old timers like me tend to yearn for the early hobby days (Oh how I miss that Altair 8800). The influx of money and power into my profession and hobby has been, as with all other things, a double-edged sword. There's the plus side of all the growth and advancement of the Art (and, yes, I do consider the greater part of it an Art as well as a Science; Art represents skill, Science represents tools), and the negative side of all the damn lawyers and politicians getting involved via patents, the DMCA, etc. Some people will say "Well, guy, that's just tough; you gotta take the good with the bad."; maybe, but I don't see a reason why the bad always has to override the good, as it definitely has in my field.
Ever since my college days, I have been tinkering with an OS and language of my own. I hope I will get some time soon to get back to work on one again. I mainly want it for me, but I wouldn't mind seeing it get wide circulation to the point of dethroning MS (and maybe even Linux, har!) once and for all.;)
Even as far back as 1994-1995, I told a friend of mine (Shivetya here on/.) that Microsoft would not be dethroned by the product of another company, but by a "grass-roots" movement of the people (both developers AND users alike) creating an alternative that Microsoft could not assail because any attempt to do so would rebound back on them and hasten the revolution. Even though I personally detest *nix (no more than I detest Windows, though), I am happy to see and participate in the burgeoning revolution that I have wanted to see for so long.
I also am an avid gamer, and I have plans to turn my talents towards game development this year. I'm in the process of putting together an association of independent (and neophyte) developers, whose main goal is to just make games that we want to play, as those are most often, simply, and by far the best games that come out.
I guess that, in later years, I would also like to become more of a writer, probably a number of CompSci works, but I do so love Fantasy and Science Fiction, and I have no end of ideas for books in those genres. I already have started on a few stories, but until I get a few free months, I will have to let them sit a while longer.
Anyway, to close, yes, I am a career IT Pro. It may not be with one company or in any one specific area, and my retirement will come from my own savings, but it doesn't matter. I'll be doing this stuff until the day they unplug the life support.
Slashdot Mirror
"I went up to Doolittle in the hall today..." *snickers* *guffaws* *points and laughs*
"..and I said ', Doolittle?'"
"He said, ''" *laughs*
"..and I said 'Well, ', and he didn't get it!" *more guffaws* *BOOP*
Anthony,
I think you are right in this case, even with that consideration.
Since every drive failed once within a 20-year period, then we have all of our data points on the lower half of the normal curve (with the mean of 20 being in the middle), and none above. Thus, the mean for this part of the experiment would actually be around 10 years. However, if we were to continue the experiment out to 40 years or longer, and gain more samples, then it might balance out, but those repaired drives would have to be "better than new", because they would have to make up for the large shortfall that occurred early-on.
That's why, once you look at this crap practically, the truth comes to light that one can not expect abstracts to directly represent reality. No more so than unit-less data points can be translated to to unit-ed ones.
Actually, let me clarify that.
If you are assuming that a drive is repaired and placed back into service, and then fails again after another random 1-20 year period, then you would be correct.
I think the problem is that most of the geeks think in terms of practicality, and treat the situation as MTTF ("Mean-Time-To-Failure") instead of MTBF, since we all know that MTBF is BS anyway.
As a result, I clarify the statement above, myself assuming "simple MTTF", not "simple MTBF".
First, as already pointed out above, if you have 20 drives with a simple MTBF of 20 years (as you are alluding), then a single failure of one drive each year for twenty years yields a mean of around 10 years.
;)
Second, manufacturer-specified MTBF has nothing to do with a simple, observational mean. It is a calculated statistic based on a statistical sample and extrapolated over a normal distribution. In real-life terms, it is close to meaningless.
Basically, it does not mean "Mean Time Between observed Failures". The word "Between" is almost a dead giveaway there by itself. How many drives have YOU seen that had a failure, were repaired, and put back into service?
About the only usefulness it has is as a comparison statistic and, even then, its value is dubious at best.
Like you said, though, redundancy is the practical answer, unless you are so unlucky as to get a batch of drives that fail nearly simultaneously in a single redundant system. Then, the mantra becomes "We have backups!".
You do have a backup, right?
I think it has become painfully obvious that this whole SCO deal has been a poorly-veiled attempt to slam Linux and boost SCO's value so the execs can have a golden exit strategy.
I think it is time to turn the tables, and I think Linus should hire some big guns himself and sue SCO for defamation, libel, and/or whatever else a gaggle of sleazy lawyers think will fit in a suit filing. Kinda like what the German Linux group did to SCO about their spurious claims in Germany, but magnified to match the level of rhetoric that SCO is spewing.
Surely, with all the ambulance-chasing litigation going on in the US, there should be a line of lawyers just drooling at the opportunity to make an easy buck, what with SCO's market value right now. It's not like SCO is making it HARD for anyone to smack them around in court right now.
I say go for it! Time for SCO to put up or shut up. Permanently. If Linus won the case, and SCO couldn't pay, I think he should pursue the execs' personal holdings and pursue the bastards to the ends of the Earth for the rest of their worthless lives.
HEHEHE! That pretty much made my day right there.
:P
I especially like the creative translations of SCO.
Someone give ms some damn mod points so I can mod that up.
Thanks for the laughs.
That's because it has been watered-down over the last century in DIRECT VIOLATION of its terms. In its original intent, it WAS meant that citizens should own and maintain arms sufficient to be effective in an uprising against the government (including "weapons of mass destruction"; in those times, cannons and such). However, there was also intended to be a balance; one which was tested in the Civil War, and ever since then, the government has made every effort to limit the scope of the 2nd amendment to prevent it from happening again.
You are also discounting several key factors:
1) That those in the military will stay loyal to the government in the next civil war; that they will willingly shoot (or order the shooting of) their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, neighbors, etc. Of course, the government already has contingencies in place to deal with that problem; they have worked out plans with the UN to bring in foreign military personnel to enforce martial law and assert control over a warring populace, in violation of the Constitution.
2) That civilians will have access to far more than simply pistols and rifles. I hate to tell ya, but Iraqis are STILL killing our soldiers right now, with "pea shooters". Plus, the vast majority of materials that can be quickly and easily converted to effective munitions is in the possession of civilians. Even today, you can easily obtain the materials to make just about any kind of explosive munition you want; the info is available, so are the materials. Nothing new here.
3) That there are FAR more ARMED civilians than military personnel in the armed forces.
4) That other countries and third parties would be willing to supply more effective weapons to the opposition.
So, forgive me for not subscribing to your guarantee, as there are more factors involved in this than simply what specific classes of weapons are currently allowed under the current perversion of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, the military CAN pull out all the stops and whip out the nukes and ueber-bombs, but I think that their use would prove the point of the opposition to the government in an armed conflict by civilians. It would make our government no better than Saddam's regime, and prove to the rest of the world that it needs to go away as well.
Yeah, I have read about Colonel Grossman before. The issue I have with his work is that he treats the "problem" from an anecdotal vantage point, based on his experiences in the military, instead of actually doing any hard scientific research on the subject. Even on his web site, none of the publications he lists are anything more than "expert opinion" pieces on the subject; it doesn't appear that a single one of them is based on the conclusions of any empirical investigations. While his experience may validate some of his assertions within the context of said experience - IE, the military, it does not automatically imply a direct correlation to the media violence situation involving kids. He also commits, in my eyes, the cardinal sin of the "media violence makes killers" group and supports the incorrect notion that the level of violence in schools is escalating. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case, as there has been a steady decline in school violence for many years. He also tends to harp on the general increase in violence in society in the last 50 years, and assigns some significant level of blame to the media violence issue, even though there are MANY more significant prime factors involved.
There is a HUGE difference between the "forced" training model in the military (which sometimes does include such things as brainwashing and propaganda), and the VOLUNTARY participatory environment involving the media. No one is forcing anyone to "conform or else" to the circumstances in the media. Even within games, which are more interactive and immersive in nature than TV/movies, there is nothing forcing anyone to accept the circumstances as real and necessary to live their lives from that point on. That is not true in the context of the military. There is very little that is voluntary when you join the military, and anything that is has been carefully crafted and orchestrated so that it maximizes your value TO the military, not to yourself.
I also want to point out that I too believe that "life experiences make the individual". However, since media, including video games, exists and is perceived within a frame of reference completely outside of reality (no, there are not little people inside of your TV or monitor shooting each other), I do not consider it as a "shaping" or "defining" experience in peoples' lives. Sure, if you mentally condition a child that what he sees in the "box" is real/true and is what is expected of him/her in real life, then that's a problem. However, it has nothing to do with the media, as it was not intended (nor condoned!) to be used or presented in that fashion. That is entirely a brainwashing issue, and the person doing the act to the child is guilty of child abuse.
Oh, since you've provided one reference, here's one of mine: Free Expression Policy Project.
tell someone you're a cop, and they always want to tell you about the last traffic tickets they got, and why they didn't deserve them.
Who said anything about getting a traffic ticket? I'm talking about being stopped for doing NOTHING WRONG, not even getting a warning. I am talking about OBVIOUS "fishing expeditions". I am almost a complete teetotaller, yet I have been stopped several times in the last few years and been given FULL field sobriety tests on the side of the road, including "breathalyzer" tests. It's bad enough being stopped, due to the harassment factor, but then the officers just had to go and endanger my safety by having me do all sorts of mental and physical gymnastics on the side of traffic-laden thoroughfares just so they could play their little "game".
It isn't just the "local" police, either; the majority of encounters I have had with law enforcement officials, whether state, county, city, whatever, has been mostly negative. There have been shining examples of officers who go the extra mile, but these have been few and far between. Maybe it is because I am rarely in need of the "good" kind, but I am FAR less deservi
No, you (and the morons in our government) have it all wrong...
It is EXACTLY because I have freedom of speech and can arm myself, EVEN against my own government, once it proves to have become the totalitarian state that our Founding Fathers feared, that I feel "secure".
Security comes from knowing that I have certain inalienable human rights, including the absolute right to defend them, even to the detriment of my own government.
But, ssshhhhh! Don't tell anyone else! That's called "terrorism" today.
Bastards.
You're only 20 years late, but that's only double-plus ungood.
Feh.
I respect your disagreement, but I think simulated violence DOES have an effect on the susceptible mind.
You have the freedom to believe whatever you want; it doesn't change the FACT that there are absolutely ZERO credible studies which support your "belief", and a plethora of ones which demonstrate that it is fallacious. First, it was books that incited people to violence, then TV/movies, and now video games. In over 50 years of examining the problem from as many angles as possible, no credible study has ever characterized the effect of media's supposed "influence" to be above that of statistical noise. ("Credible", meaning one using truly scientifically-sound methodologies to sample and analyze the data.)
By your own words, most people have great difficulty killing others, and most people have been exposed to a steady diet of violence from American media for many years. Thus, it stands to reason that anyone who is willing and capable to kill was (most likely) pre-conditioned or pre-disposed to such a mindset OUTSIDE of any "media influence" to begin with. It doesn't matter if they were trained to be that way, or are mentally impaired enough to not know the difference between right and wrong, the absolute, abject worst media can only truly serve as a catalyst, no more.
"Oh, but that's the issue, see, if someone who is mentally unstable gets ahold of violent media, it will cause them to go on a killing spree! A catalyst!". OK, so burn all the books, shred all the celluloid, smash all of the TVs, nuke Hollywood and Broadway, and then use EMP guns to fry all of the computers. Guess what? Those same mentally unstable people will still run into some catalyst in their lives which will set them off and go onto that dreaded "killing spree". Worse, there may even be more of them, as then there will be no creative fictional outlet for their urges that curbs a need to go through the motions in the non-fiction realm.
Most cops I've known try very hard to catch the bad guys; it can be a real thrill to lay hands on a serious felon... it makes you feel good, like you're making a difference. I think, however, that you're kicking the little guy when you blame the urban cop who's running from call to call for the department's poor response time. Most urban police officers are as busy on their shifts as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest; they are not Barney Fife hanging out at the station all day, waiting for something to happen.
Maybe that's part of the problem with police; they're too busy getting their jollies with adrenaline rushes in car chases (and killing innocent bystanders as a result) to actually MAKE a positive difference at times. Harassing inncocent citizens, because they are looking too hard for that next "big bust". Don't give me that "it's the department's/dispatcher's fault" crapola, either. I've consulted with the local authorities before, working in the local E911 center, so I know what they are doing.
The thing that REALLY boils my blood is getting stopped by those "too busy to do real calls because they are busy harassing innocent citizens" urban cops, who then tell BALD-FACED LIES about why they stopped you (because they were OBVIOUSLY fishing). "Uh, you were going over the white line". Bollocks. My mother (who is in her late 50s) has been stopped THREE TIMES in the last 6 months and told lies as to why she was stopped EACH TIME, because she just "fit the profile" of some teenage kid, as she drives an older model Nissan 300ZX that just so happens to be RED. Each time, she rolls down the window to an officer who dons a surprised look on his face when he sees some fifty-something chick sitting behind the wheel, instead of some high-schooler/college brat whom he could bully around.
If the police want to command respect (which I think that they ultimately should) they NEED to stop doing stupid bullshit which causes them to lose it in the eyes of the public. It is to the point where I am planning to rig up my vehicle completely for "cop-avoi
..that MS pirates had to run their damned computers on in hell.
"Now I want you to implement a Hades-wide CRM/Accounting/Supply-Chain Management app on this platform. You have six days." -- The Devil
Then why, when I read Slashdot, do I so often come upon accusations of putting forth a "straw man" argument? Is it because Slashdot "is of very low class"?
:P
Asked and answered in the same question... nice!
This begs the next obvious question: Why do we do it? Because, even us "geniuses" have to go slummin' every once in a while..
Yeah, well. Whaddya expect? This IS Slashdot, after all. :O)
>I think One Click was original.
>I think Amazon's discussion system is original.
Not sure what your litmus test for "originality" is, but it is irrelevant anyway, since the litmus tests for patentability are NOT based on originality alone.
"Useful" and "non-obvious to anyone with ordinary skill in the art" are tests that are as important as that for originality.
Let's take Amazon's One-Click absurdity out for a spin in the REAL patent-litmus-test-mobile:
I am a person with at least "ordinary skill in the art". Note that I have little to no knowledge of Amazon's specific implementation that they claim, and it has been some time since I tried to decipher the spurious claims made in their patent.
Premise:
Create an online shopping system which minimizes extraneous effort that a customer must undergo to order a product from an online catalog and keep it simple for the company to implement and support on the back-end.
Considerations:
1) What comprises customer "effort", so we know what we are intending to minimize? Extraneous customer effort is moving the mouse, clicking, typing, scrolling the window, changing pages, etc.
2) How do people normally go about reducing extraneous efforts? Through elimination of redundancy, consolidation of information, and proper/consistent presentation. Ideally, placing an order for any particular item or group of items in a catalog would be reduced to a SINGLE action, since no other method of inferring intent to purchase has been discovered in history without at least a SINGLE action (even subtle means of bidding in a live auction requires some expression of intent or denial to the auctioneer so that the auction can continue).
3) What is the normal, established business process for retail sales? A customer "enters" a place of business, browses the items displayed, along with pricing and any other relevant information, chooses items to purchase (thus making an "order"), collects the items (or has the retailer collect them prepare them for shipment if they are not physically present), provides the necessary personal and payment information to the retailer to complete the transaction, and leaves the "premises". Obviously, any extraneous and redundant steps must be eliminated and extra effort imposed only if necessary to provide the requisite features offered by the solution.
Solution:
1) Store redundant information, requiring the user to only enter it one time, and refer to that stored information whenever it is needed in the future. (IE, Customer name, address, payment info, etc)
2) In the catalog, place some sort of control in plain view, and within "easy reach", minimizing user effort to locate and activate the control. Once activated, place the item into an "open order", using the stored info from #1 above to fill out the requisite fields for the order.
3) In order to consolidate and reduce effort and redundancy on the back-end, combine separate, individual items ordered into a larger group by waiting some amount of time for the shopper to finish shopping, like after an hour of inactivity, or proceed based on some specific deadline, like all pending orders shipped by XX:XX o'clock. (Also known as "Order Consolidation", a process used to reduce shipping charges on multiple orders placed by a specific customer on the same day by millions of businesses over the world for many years).
I believe that you will find that this is the core of the stupid "one-click" patent, in a nutshell. The problem is that it is SO obvious to not only people skilled in the "art", but LAYMEN as well. It is 99% common sense, logic, reasoning, etc.
Finally, just because the problem did not exist to be solved before a certain point in time does NOT mean that the solution is non-obvious and, thus, patent-worthy. There are millions of new problems being exposed for the first time all over the world every day, and there are many more millions of people working on their solutions every day. Does that mean that every new solu
Well, we don't have a whole lot on the surplus front.
There's Austin Electronics over off of Jimmy Carter Blvd, just east of I-85, NE of I-285. Also, Delta Computers used to be Delta Electronics, which did mostly electronics surplus long ago, but sticks mainly to newer computer equipment, though they tend to get in a lot of PC surplus stuff that is unique.
Outside of those two, there are other electronics supply stores, but they don't do a lot of surplus.
Well, maybe you are right. If so, I am sorry if I seemed harsh. To me, looks like everything you've said in this set of subtopics looks like it flows form the same vein.
In actuality, neither the parent nor your post specifically referred to patents, in general or otherwise, so it seemed to naturally flow from the overall topic. But, going this route, we get into the ugliness that is a semantics argument.
Suffice it so say that if we share the same points, then I apologize. If not, then my statements stand.
Sounds an awful lot to me like you are making an implied justification FOR the validity of the patent because "in the real world, you gotta make money to pay real bills".
Then, in another branch, you rant about the sterotypical slashdotters in agreement with another poster.
So, tell me, are you just trolling, or did *you* have a point?
Like anyone is going to be successful at out-g**gling G**gle any time soon, EVEN using the technology outlined in this stupid, frivolous patent. G**gle is G**gle for the huge search database that they created AS WELL AS the technology, and the brand-bulding they've been doing for the last 5-6 years. ANY entity hoping to outdo G**gle will have to go beyond what G**gle has done, with more advanced technology, or via a better search database. That, AND they will have to do all the brand-building, which will take YEARS. Effectively, this patent will never be much more than a minor nuisance to anyone seriously intent on building a better search engine service. However, for the rest of us, when G**gle starts losing money to other competitors, that patent becomes a weapon of revenue extortion, a la BT, Unisys, et al, and they will wield it indiscriminantly against everyone in order to survive. ..and don't hand me that "slashdotters are geeks who don't understand the concepts of real life outside of their parents' basement" stereotype bullshit, either. I have a mortgage, and PLENTY of real-world bills to pay, and I STILL call bullshit on the need to patent the obvious "to make money".
Bullshit. There, I called it.
No, it isn't. Maybe you missed the word "PENDING" in the older article.
In this one it is no longer "PENDING".
I am getting SO SICK of the patent system abuse. NO, G**gle gets no quarter from me; they are just as wrong to abuse the system as the government is WRONG to allow the system to become and STAY broken.
They've got my thoughts and feelings on the matter in email.
Oh well, and it was such a nice search engine; it is too bad that I have to find another one and recommend to everyone I know to switch to it. After five years and TENS of THOUSANDS of referrals (conservative estimate), I knew it couldn't last forever. Eventually, greed and corruption kill anything worthwhile; for me, at least.
>It's about as idiotic and nonsensical as deciding that because a store has put items on a table on the sidewalk that you should be able to take them because they're not in the store.
No, it is idiotic and nonsensical to represent an incomplete analogy as the real situation. Hence:
If a store decides to put their products in MY HOME, WITHOUT my permission, hoping to entice me to purchase them, then I have NO SYMPATHY for them if I decide to take the objects that are occupying space in my home and use them like they are mine.
It is a flawed societal model that needs to be kicked out of common circulation. That, somehow, businesses are ENTITLED to have their business models and profits ENABLED and PROTECTED by governmental decree.
We should never have allowed this with the cell phone companies, and we should have never allowed it with the satellite companies. We, collectively, should have told them "your business model is in your own hands; we're not going to criminalize people for your incompetence". Of all things, using the EM spectrum for the communication of information, encrypted or not, should be the least regulated in this regard, because you CANNOT prevent people from accessing it, because it automatically makes itself accessible by its pervasiveness.
So, no, I don't buy the "stealing" argument. You can't steal something that is already in your possession. The electrons carrying the information were already as much mine as anyone's, and if I want to perceive the information they are carrying to me PHYSICALLY, then NO ONE should have any thing to say against it. I am not saying that I should be able to "own" the information I can perceive (since that is another completely nutty concept in and of itself), but there should not be ANY reason to deprive me of right to perceive it.
Anyway, I have been a DirecTV customer in the past, and have done research on the various methods of getting the signals for free, but only out of curiosity in my security research. It really isn't worth the effort with all the drivel that they call "programming" to bother "stealing" it anyway. As such, I don't think the laws or the case have any merit, and will continue to dissent against this abuse until it goes away.
IANA and the RIRs are pretty much the last vestiges of the "independent Internet" authorities as we know them. Once ICANN gets their grubby hands on IANA, I think the final nail is in the coffin of the "free (as in speech) Internet".
:(
What part of this does anyone NOT see as hideously WRONG?! Every day, another domino falls, and I feel more and more like a slave to the Pharoahs of Washington D.C. Is there nothing left for us to do except just sit the hell down and accept our yoke of submission like a good little peon?
What banner do we have that the vast majority of us can rally under to stop this stupidity? I mean, we all pay lip service to "supporting the cause", but action is pretty thin right now. I'm one to talk, too.
No and yes. This is simply a way for the INDUSTRY to track what the hell they are selling. Like the article says, it is akin to a UPC code. UPC codes are not unique across all boxes of cereal, but only across specific SKUs, like between 20 oz Cheerios, 40oz Cheerios, and 16oz Count Chocula, for example.
For you geeks out there, it is a CLASS_ID, not an OBJECT_ID, meaning that the number will be the same across all instances of the class.
For example, when a consumer goes to hoohaa.com and purchases an audio track from the latest Hoodies album, hoohaa.com's product database will contain an SKU number to track the PURCHASE so that they can report to the vendor how many tracks of that song were sold so that the artists (the "manufacturer") can get their money. It MAY be included in the track itself, but it would make it easier to automate the process, since the product itself can be polled when they put the track up for sale online, and no one has to manually enter the number. The number should not vary from track to track of the SAME EXACT song. They may put in a serial number in the download, but that would be something completely different than what they are talking about here (and easily foiled for piracy tracking purposes).
All they are doing is Standardizing the domain of these ID numbers across the entire industry so that the money from the sale goes into the right pocket. This is ESPECIALLY important where there is no tangible object being sold, and thus, no purchasing audit trail from the reseller to the vendor.
Sounds like a smart system to me, and one that has nothing to do with our "online rights"; at least no moreso than the computer industry standardizing on Tech Data's SKU numbers for ordering computer parts. Hmm. Wouldn't that be cool?
I've been doing this stuff for 25 years already. I always saw myself doing electronics and computers from a young age (I was born with a soldering iron in one hand and a keyboard in the other, you see), and I find it hard to see myself doing anything else. It is my job as well as my hobby, and I love doing it. I wish I just was more successful financially with it than I have been the last few years. I guess that, though being an entrepreneur and geek/nerd/techie/whatever is in my blood, I have just not been that good of a businessman overall. I'm getting better, though. There's really very little in the IT field that I cannot already do or pick up in an amazingly short time to an expert level (not meant to be a brag; after doing one thing for 25 years, you build up a large, solid foundation that allows you plenty of latitude and the ability to pick up related topics very quickly).
;)
/.) that Microsoft would not be dethroned by the product of another company, but by a "grass-roots" movement of the people (both developers AND users alike) creating an alternative that Microsoft could not assail because any attempt to do so would rebound back on them and hasten the revolution. Even though I personally detest *nix (no more than I detest Windows, though), I am happy to see and participate in the burgeoning revolution that I have wanted to see for so long.
However, the growing politicalization of my field concerns and confounds me. It is the curse of popularization, and old timers like me tend to yearn for the early hobby days (Oh how I miss that Altair 8800). The influx of money and power into my profession and hobby has been, as with all other things, a double-edged sword. There's the plus side of all the growth and advancement of the Art (and, yes, I do consider the greater part of it an Art as well as a Science; Art represents skill, Science represents tools), and the negative side of all the damn lawyers and politicians getting involved via patents, the DMCA, etc. Some people will say "Well, guy, that's just tough; you gotta take the good with the bad."; maybe, but I don't see a reason why the bad always has to override the good, as it definitely has in my field.
Ever since my college days, I have been tinkering with an OS and language of my own. I hope I will get some time soon to get back to work on one again. I mainly want it for me, but I wouldn't mind seeing it get wide circulation to the point of dethroning MS (and maybe even Linux, har!) once and for all.
Even as far back as 1994-1995, I told a friend of mine (Shivetya here on
I also am an avid gamer, and I have plans to turn my talents towards game development this year. I'm in the process of putting together an association of independent (and neophyte) developers, whose main goal is to just make games that we want to play, as those are most often, simply, and by far the best games that come out.
I guess that, in later years, I would also like to become more of a writer, probably a number of CompSci works, but I do so love Fantasy and Science Fiction, and I have no end of ideas for books in those genres. I already have started on a few stories, but until I get a few free months, I will have to let them sit a while longer.
Anyway, to close, yes, I am a career IT Pro. It may not be with one company or in any one specific area, and my retirement will come from my own savings, but it doesn't matter. I'll be doing this stuff until the day they unplug the life support.