However, claiming that NK is a more pressing issue is just uninformed. It's a big deal, yes, but not one that we can do much about right now, especially given how quiet they've been since China's new leader was installed. Until China believes diplomacy has failed with NK, us moving on NK would likely cause China to move in on thier side, if only to assure that no democratic government was installed. And that is something that we really can't risk happening right now.
You're not arguing the North Korea isn't a more pressing issue - but rather it is easier to deal with Iraq.
I don't disagree with you claims - you are correct...it would be very dangerous to engage North Korea without buy in from China. However your conclusion doesn't follow. Your argument doesn't show North Korea to be a less pressing issue. Just one that would have greater political and possibly military fall out than engaging Iraq. Claiming that North Korea is a more pressing international security issue than Iraq is not misinformed. You have not made the case to claim otherwise.
I don't think the author of the review is making this claim at all...in fact he begins by disclosing that the Craftmanship school of thought is close to his heart.
The kaisyain claims that McBreen did not make a sufficient case in his book to distinguish between or successfully argue the case for Software Craftmanship over Software Engineering. kaisyain doesn't address the issue of differences between software craftmanship and software engineering at all.
So...any lawyers out there care to comment on this?
To me, the letter is a request that has no direct legal demands or implications, other than perhaps showing due diligence for an impending C&D. Sure it has a chilling effect, and we all know what this kind of letter means, but does this meet the legal defn of a C&D order?
Am I incorrect in my understanding that a C&D actually requires the offending party to be ordered to cease and desist or risk further legal action?
A concept may be easier to express in Chinese, but you don't see many novels written in English with Chinese added here and there.
I don't know about that...I think the common usage of words from other languages in English writing provides a certain je ne sais quoi. Admittedly, use of other languages in English writing can be confusing. Especially when it is done to showboat, attempting to project the ersatz impression one is a member of the intelligentsia, when in fact they are little more than a schmuck, a putz, et cetera...in any case they deserve a good kick in the tokhis. If this gets out of hand things could run amuck. Capice?
Now, the problem of when to use a foreign word in your writing could be the source of considerable angst. How do you know when its the appropriate moment for a bon mot. Are you expected to be some kind of polyglot!? It could drive you loco!
I think your choice of metaphor is excellent - unfortunately it comes close to proving the opposite of your conclusion. Using the best tool at the right time can be very efficient. Even quickly throwing something together can be very effective, just making it up on the spot to fit your need...ad hoc, so to speak, e.g. the word television (although half Greek and half Latin...well you know...)
English itself is a lower Germanic language that has been infused/hybridized with Scandanavian, French, Latin and Greek, to name just the most significant influences. In fact most of our grammar is latinate by custom, imported omnibus by pompous scholars who thought English 'ought' to be like Latin, not by need and certainly not because that's the most useful place for our language to be at. (Reminds me of how every language seems to read like C these days...)
I don't disagree that uniformity often leads to quality, but it isn't a precondition. Standards are important - but ultimatly those standards are in place to affect cost savings and if a "script" can provide a real efficiency than it's a good bet that it would be beneficial to use.
Anyways, I don't claim to be any kind of guru or sensei about this stuff. But from where I stand, just like the struggle between providing security and providing features that is seen when designing an application, the tension between standards and specialized tools when choosing what coding platform to use is all part of a balance.
Indeed, a patent provides exclusive rights to an expression of an idea, to allow the creator to benefit from the sale of their innovation. This protection is intended to encourage investment in R&D, by ensuring that such work can be profitable.
However, this does not mean that this point should not be argued. Firstly, whether this benefit outweighs the costs of a patent system can be called into question. Patents do serve the function of creating a temporary monopoly; whether doing so for software is desirable or not is not something which should be assumed. (Really, this question could/should be be asked in general for all industries, and has been for a very long time).
I think it is crucial to keep firmly in mind that patents are intended, and created for the exclusive purpose of the betterment of the public good. Patents are justified by claiming, "Without protecting profits, no one would innovate. If we desire innovation, we must protect those who innovate and ensure they can profit from their innovations, so we may all benefit from them. We must have innovation." One might argue that patents and trademarks stifle the free market.
Moreover, this idea of the patent system as a useful and justified mechanism for protecting the innovator, is entire predicated on the granted monolopy being temporary and limited. If, like we have witnessed in the entertainment sector, intellectual property rights are continually extended, the purpose and implementation of patents, copyright and trademarks will be betrayed and the justification of them will become unsupportable.
Your point is accurate, however, I do not think that it supports your conclusion. Patents by design grant monopolies. However, patents can be and are anti-competitive when abused, and may be argued to be anti-competitive in any form. Monopolies cannot be said to be conducive to competition. The limited form of granted monopolies used by the patent system may salvage a type of competitive system. Legitimate arguement for both sides of this debate can be made in a compelling manner. This point is germane to the discussion, and should not be excluded on the basis of the inherently monopolistic nature of patents.
Please read the source material and not just the/. posts
I must agree with the court and Monsanto - I really don't think pollen flow can account for the presence of Round-Up Ready canola is the Mr. Schmeiser's field.
90% of the grain in his field was Monsanto. Pollen flow cannot reasonably account for that kind of distribution. I don't believe it was blown from a neighbouring field or that it blew off a truck.
If, as a farmer, you find RUR growth in your field, Monsanto claims they will come in and remove it for you at no cost to you. Since I haven't heard contrary to this, I think that is a reasonable position.
The more important issue for me is questioning the ethics and impact of patenting DNA, and why no one is talking about Monsanto's strategy to fundamentally alter the agricultural industry by selling seeds that are one-use-only.
Bringing the nightly Canadian news to/. since 3.30.2001
Slashdot Mirror
You're not arguing the North Korea isn't a more pressing issue - but rather it is easier to deal with Iraq.
I don't disagree with you claims - you are correct...it would be very dangerous to engage North Korea without buy in from China. However your conclusion doesn't follow. Your argument doesn't show North Korea to be a less pressing issue. Just one that would have greater political and possibly military fall out than engaging Iraq. Claiming that North Korea is a more pressing international security issue than Iraq is not misinformed. You have not made the case to claim otherwise.
Just as the Bush administration has not made a case for war in Iraq.
I don't think the author of the review is making this claim at all...in fact he begins by disclosing that the Craftmanship school of thought is close to his heart.
The kaisyain claims that McBreen did not make a sufficient case in his book to distinguish between or successfully argue the case for Software Craftmanship over Software Engineering. kaisyain doesn't address the issue of differences between software craftmanship and software engineering at all.
So...any lawyers out there care to comment on this?
To me, the letter is a request that has no direct legal demands or implications, other than perhaps showing due diligence for an impending C&D. Sure it has a chilling effect, and we all know what this kind of letter means, but does this meet the legal defn of a C&D order?
Am I incorrect in my understanding that a C&D actually requires the offending party to be ordered to cease and desist or risk further legal action?
A concept may be easier to express in Chinese, but you don't see many novels written in English with Chinese added here and there.
I don't know about that...I think the common usage of words from other languages in English writing provides a certain je ne sais quoi. Admittedly, use of other languages in English writing can be confusing. Especially when it is done to showboat, attempting to project the ersatz impression one is a member of the intelligentsia, when in fact they are little more than a schmuck, a putz, et cetera...in any case they deserve a good kick in the tokhis. If this gets out of hand things could run amuck. Capice?
Now, the problem of when to use a foreign word in your writing could be the source of considerable angst. How do you know when its the appropriate moment for a bon mot. Are you expected to be some kind of polyglot!? It could drive you loco!
I think your choice of metaphor is excellent - unfortunately it comes close to proving the opposite of your conclusion. Using the best tool at the right time can be very efficient. Even quickly throwing something together can be very effective, just making it up on the spot to fit your need...ad hoc, so to speak, e.g. the word television (although half Greek and half Latin...well you know...)
English itself is a lower Germanic language that has been infused/hybridized with Scandanavian, French, Latin and Greek, to name just the most significant influences. In fact most of our grammar is latinate by custom, imported omnibus by pompous scholars who thought English 'ought' to be like Latin, not by need and certainly not because that's the most useful place for our language to be at. (Reminds me of how every language seems to read like C these days...)
I don't disagree that uniformity often leads to quality, but it isn't a precondition. Standards are important - but ultimatly those standards are in place to affect cost savings and if a "script" can provide a real efficiency than it's a good bet that it would be beneficial to use.
Anyways, I don't claim to be any kind of guru or sensei about this stuff. But from where I stand, just like the struggle between providing security and providing features that is seen when designing an application, the tension between standards and specialized tools when choosing what coding platform to use is all part of a balance.
It's sort of a...yin-yang kind of thing....
Erm...hasn't there *always* been a "world's smallest computer"...since "smallest" is a relative measurement.
At the time, the Harvard Mark I was the smallest computer...
Cheers
Sean
Indeed, a patent provides exclusive rights to an expression of an idea, to allow the creator to benefit from the sale of their innovation. This protection is intended to encourage investment in R&D, by ensuring that such work can be profitable.
However, this does not mean that this point should not be argued. Firstly, whether this benefit outweighs the costs of a patent system can be called into question. Patents do serve the function of creating a temporary monopoly; whether doing so for software is desirable or not is not something which should be assumed. (Really, this question could/should be be asked in general for all industries, and has been for a very long time).
I think it is crucial to keep firmly in mind that patents are intended, and created for the exclusive purpose of the betterment of the public good. Patents are justified by claiming, "Without protecting profits, no one would innovate. If we desire innovation, we must protect those who innovate and ensure they can profit from their innovations, so we may all benefit from them. We must have innovation." One might argue that patents and trademarks stifle the free market.
Moreover, this idea of the patent system as a useful and justified mechanism for protecting the innovator, is entire predicated on the granted monolopy being temporary and limited. If, like we have witnessed in the entertainment sector, intellectual property rights are continually extended, the purpose and implementation of patents, copyright and trademarks will be betrayed and the justification of them will become unsupportable.
Your point is accurate, however, I do not think that it supports your conclusion. Patents by design grant monopolies. However, patents can be and are anti-competitive when abused, and may be argued to be anti-competitive in any form. Monopolies cannot be said to be conducive to competition. The limited form of granted monopolies used by the patent system may salvage a type of competitive system. Legitimate arguement for both sides of this debate can be made in a compelling manner. This point is germane to the discussion, and should not be excluded on the basis of the inherently monopolistic nature of patents.
Please read the source material and not just the /. posts
I must agree with the court and Monsanto - I really don't think pollen flow can account for the presence of Round-Up Ready canola is the Mr. Schmeiser's field.
90% of the grain in his field was Monsanto. Pollen flow cannot reasonably account for that kind of distribution. I don't believe it was blown from a neighbouring field or that it blew off a truck.
If, as a farmer, you find RUR growth in your field, Monsanto claims they will come in and remove it for you at no cost to you. Since I haven't heard contrary to this, I think that is a reasonable position.
The more important issue for me is questioning the ethics and impact of patenting DNA, and why no one is talking about Monsanto's strategy to fundamentally alter the agricultural industry by selling seeds that are one-use-only.
/. since 3.30.2001
Bringing the nightly Canadian news to