Because the ruling class of which he is a member is scared.
The house of cards that is big business finance is starting to topple (e.g. Enron, WorldCom)
Third world countries are starting to say no to unfair trade agreements.
The internet allows much easier communication between those who oppose the ruling class.
People are wising up about using the law to keep the actions of the government in check.
Some of the facts about the support of the US and European ruling class for Bad People such as Pinochet, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are coming out.
There are major troubles coming our way, caused in part by the actions of the ruling class (e.g. Global Warming, The exhaustion of fossil fuels, chemical poisoning of the ocean)
I think that what we have is a case of some people doing some bad things and then covering them up and continuing to do worse and worse things in order to stay in power.
There actions make perfect sense from their point of view (assuming you take ethics out of the equation). There are more of us than there are of them, so they need to use a range of dirty tricks to prevent us from removing them from power.
"but the previous administration had spy planes flying directly over the camps where Bin Ladin was at. And didn't kill him then. "
Do you think that killing someone who may or may not have been Osama Bin Laden(we've all seen the spyplane pictures - can you be sure it was him?) at that point would have been legal?
Just how much can you spin a situation where someone is being banned from even revealing what information government agents are allowed to demand?
Surely the one kind of government information that should always be made available to everyone ahead of any other is the laws which we are expected to live by?
I see no reason to block this information aside from preventing honest and open debate of the law.
The fact a law has been violated does not stop it from being censorship - most governments who engage in censorship do it by passing laws that allow them to do it.
Its not just important to recognise when someone is spinning you - you also need to look at what has actually happened (usually by comparing multiple reports or looking at accounts that have not been challenged) and come to your own conclusion.
In this case, I'd say the word censorship was pretty appropriate.
"The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Planning a plot? That's only the tip of the iceberg! What if he is plotting a scheme or scheming a plan?
I see no problem with such a request being investigated. It does sound like they asked the guy some pretty stupid questions though (do they really think that long hair is significant when it comes to identifying terrorists? or membership of the ACLU?) OTOH, those questions may well have been filler to pad out the real questions they wanted to ask.
If they find no evidence during their investigation, they really should grant his further information requests though. Once they are satisfied that he's not a terrorist, they'll have no reason not to let him see all the files relating to his case, surely?
The rest of the world (outside of America) loves America, but loves to hate us at the same time.
I love most Americans but I hate lots of things about America because of what a few Americans have turned it into.
I love what America should (could?) be, based on its founding principles. I hate the fact that those principles have been eroded to the point where they might as well not exist.
I love the can-do spirit that Americans have. I hate the way Americans give up their democratic power so easily.
America is a land of contradictions (mostly in the way that laudable concepts have become a horrible reality) so it is no suprise that the rest of the world has a love/hate relationship with the USA.
How can you be absolutely certain that you remember everything 100% accurately?
There is plenty of evidence that the degree of certainty with which we think we have remembered something is often not an absolute guide to how accurately we remember something.
For example, a researcher questioned some students soon after the Challenger disater about what they were doing at the time. A year later he asked them again. They were still certain that they remembered accurately, but many of them tolda different story than they had the first time. Similar experiments have been conducted numerous times and got similar results. (Sources: http://www.gpc.peachnet.edu/~bbrown/psyc1501/memor y/memoryaccuracy.htm, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm)
What other evidence do you have for your memories being 100% correct, aside from your certainty that they are?
But the prior art doesn't exist on another media player. That's why I used the VCR->Steering wheel example.
Yes, I understood that, but what I really want to know is - do you think that a media player is sufficiently different to a computer that your analogy of taking a steering wheel from a car to a VCR is really fitting?
To me, media players are just really stripped down, ultra portable computers. I don't think anyone desevres to get exlusivity on a particular user interfgace model just because they ported it over from larger computers first.
The ultimate decider for me on patents is whether the person who wants the patent has had to make a big investment/risk in order to develop the innovation they are applying for a patent on. That's the whole idea of patents, isn't it - to encourage people to invest in developing new ideas by reassuring them that they will be able to benefit from them.
Now, there are some elements of the IPod which Apple clearly does derserve to beenfit from having developed. However, I don't think this menu system is one of them - the yahve simply taken an idea that works in one application (computers) and applied it to another very similar application (media players) I don't think that is enough investment/risk to warrant exclusivity. They'll get the benefits of being first which should be enough for them in this case I think.
The drag-drop experience you mention works perfectly fine with the windows explorer treeview - you just have to go to the source folder then drag the files to where you want them, keeping the mouse button held down as you move it over each folder in the tree to open it. The whole area around the folder icon and the folder name is the target - not just the icon.
Lucky nooone has patented "method for tranfering files between folders using a single drag action" isn't it?;)
Is a portable music device really so far from a desktop computer to make your car -> VCR analogy more apropriate than my car -> hover car analogy?
The only other interface before the iPod that displayed this hierarchical navigation method was Apple's OS X Finder's column view, or NeXTStep's Workspace column view.
How is that for prior art?
Well, any example of the idea previously being in circulation is enough for prior art, so I'd say that this idea is not novel enough to justfy a patent.
Looking at the Finder Column view: http://astcomm.net/~chris/osx/screenshots/p hoto_to ur/Pages/Image3.html
I have to say that I don't see what all the fuss is about. It reminds me quite a lot of the Windows Start menu (which is, ultimatley a folder browsing tool - just limited to one folder tree)
I think I would rather have a Windows-style treeview explorer, so I can have different branches of the folder tree expanded and drag stuff between them.
I can see that this approach would work well on a media player, but I don't think that spotting that an existing approach will work well in a certain area is enough to grant someone exclusivity on using that approach.
Please don't read the summary. The summary doesn't get any legal protection and is just there to give a general idea what the patent is about. If you want to know what they are trying to patent READ THE CLAIMS!!
I did read through the claims (although i don't have time to digest them fully - there are a a fair few in that patent;) )
I didn't see anything in the claims that seemd to do anything other than detail, in excruciating detail, how the basic system described in the summary could be implemented. I quoted the summary because I thought it represented pretty well the oeveral patent.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out where in the patent there is anything that is really novel enough to justify a patent.
I don't classify allowing access to music by playlist, artist and a list of all songs to be something so inspired that it deserves protection.
It doesn't mean that they're _eliminating_ the competition; they're just FORCING the competition to make something _better_ instead of copying what Apple already has.
errr.. have you read the patent application.
Here is the summary:
In a portable multimedia device, a method, apparatus, and system for providing user supplied configuration data are described. In one embodiment, a hierarchically ordered graphical user interface are provided. A first order, or home, interface provides a highest order of user selectable items each of which, when selected, results in an automatic transition to a lower order user interface associated with the selected item. In one of the described embodiments, the lower order interface includes other user selectable items associated with the previously selected item from the higher order user interface.
That sounds an awful lot like a menu system to me.
I don't have an IPod. Could someone with some experience of them fill me in - is there anything especially clever and non-obvious about the design of the menu system that warrants patent protection?
For example, when terorists are called "freedom fighters"
Palestinian Terrorists are consistently refered to as terrorists in the UK media. I have never heard them refered to as 'freedom fighters'
or a government is condemned for killed a mass murderer, something that does not happen anywhere else
The summary execution without a trial of someone accused of crimes, no matter how bad those crimes might be and how compelling the evidence, would be condemned no matter where it might happen. Imagine if Britain had decided to use air power against leaders of the IRA?
Additionally, I think a large part of the critism had to do with the fact that the killing can only enflame the situation further. It just adds fuel to the people who want to whip Arabs up into an anti-israel fervour. Creating more 'martyrs' makes their job easier, not harder.
There is no denying what is going on right now all over the EU against Jews.
Agree completely. That's exactly why I think it is important to draw a distinction between the true anti-semites (those who hate the Jews as a religion and as a race) and those who criticise the nation of Israel. Throwing accusations of anti-semitism around as a debating tool, as some people do, reduces the shock and revulsion that we should all quite rightly feel when there is a case of true anti-semitism.
I do not say they cannot defend themselves, or condemn them for self-preservation.
Have I?
The text books used by the Arabs living in Israel don't even show Israel on their map,it just has a fictitous country called "Palestine" over all of Israel!
The textbook issue certainly is a problem.
As shown here: http://www.edume.org/reports/11/34.htm The PA is doing the children it should be serving a huge disservice in the books it is providing them with.
Israel has much improved its textbooks in recent years. They used to be pretty bad in their stereotyping of Arabs but now they are much better.
For the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rule very likely applies in cases where human life is at stake. Which is unfortunately the case in Israel.
That's my whole point. Me critising Israel in certain ways does not mean I am against Israel. I think it would actually be for the best for Israel for it to change its behavior in some ways. I think that the people who are driving Israel towards a more hard-line confrontational stance are not acting in the best interests of Israel
One, the Arabs have little to no method of unbiased opinion with their controlled media. Two, the state controlled media is full of anti-Jewish remarks. This is not true of all Arab states, but certainly a great deal of them.
I agree with that, but I don't see how that means that most arguments against Israeli policy are based on Arab propaganda. I read information from both sides of the argument and often end up basing my negative opinions of Israeli policies on Israeli documents (and conversly, my negative opinons of Arab leaders have mainly come from reading their statements)
There are a lot of reasonable critcisms of Israeli government policies that are based on the facts as provided by the israeli government itself. Writing off critism of israel as being based on Arab propaganda smacks of side-stepping uncomfortable questions.
That won't happen with the current Arab terrorist regime. Perhaps when they all pass on, there will be a real chance for peace.
Do you think that the current Israeli leadership is conducive to peace? (Sharon being the main example)
Personally, I hope that the current leaderships on both sides will give way to fresh people who are prepared to move forward, rather than being perpetually stuck in revenge upon revenge.
I think I am going to have to give up trying to get you to consider a more balanced viewpoint on this. Clearly you ha
So anyone who critises the behavior of those in power in any way is Anti-semitic?
Do you really believe that Israel as a state has never done anything worthy of critism?
Why does critising Israel have to be the same as siding with Arab extremeists?
I think that Israel has a right to exist. I think that the people of Israel have a right to live in peace, free from terrorist attacks.
I also think that the Arabs who live in Gaza and the West Bank have a right to live free from danger. I think they have a right not to have their houses knocked down by military bulldozers.
When you say: those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong
You are illustrating why it is so hard to find a settlement to the problems of the Middle East. Any sensible person knows that to label an entire group of people as 'completely in the wrong' is a silly thing to do. It is just never the case. There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of any conflicts.
Do you really think that: The whole world condemns Israel when the USA is providing Israel with huge amounts of funding, military and otherwise?
The main reason why so mant countries are trying to put pressure on Israel to change its policy towards the troubles in the Middle East is that it is felt that Israel is in a position to be able to move towards a settlement.
I totally agree with you that many Arab leaders most certainly do display anti-semitism. I'm not denying the existance of anti-semism. That would be stupid.
However, I think it is equally stupid to label me anti-semtic because I disagree with some of the polcies of the current Israeli government.
I know Jews, even Israeli Jews who disagree with some of the policties of the current Israeli government - are they anti-semitic too?
I also agree with you that there is lots of anti-semitic propaganda both in the Arab world and the world at large. That doesn't mean that any argument against policies of the current Israeli government is rooted in anti-semitic propaganda.
No government is perfect. No issue is totally black and white. Trying to polarise the whole world into two sides - those who support everything that the state of Israel does and those who are anti-semitic is not helpful to anyone.
Why do you insist on doing it?
(To be fair to you, I have exactly the same sort of argument with ardently pro-palestinian people, who will take any critism of arab leaders as racism against Arabs. With so many deeply-rooted predjudices and such hard opinions of 'we're right, they're wrong' I have little hope that anyone in the Middle East will know any peace any time soon
Since any nationality is really an arbitary defintion (in the same way that 'Palestinian' is a term resurrected from history for political purposes, so is 'Israeli') I am talking about people who come from the areas where the people are commonly refered to as the Palestinians. (The 'Gaza Strip' and the 'West Bank') I assume these are the people that you are refering to when you talk about Palestinians.
I am talking about several families who now live in the UK who came here from Gaza City. Everything they have said to me has indicated that they have no religious desire to kill all Jews or anything so stupid. They are people whose families got caught in in a nasty situation driven by extremeists on both sides. They did not choose to be born in Gaza. They did not choose for the Arab political leaders to drive Israel to capture the place where they lives in a premptive strike. They did not choose to live under 35 years of occupation. When they got an opportunity to get out of it, they took it. They say that a lot of other people from Gaza would do the same given the chance. They also say that the almost constant destruction of homes and the building of new Israeli settlements that force the people into smaller and smaller areas is doing more to drive the recruitment of extreme Palestinian militant organisations than anything the politically inept Palestinain 'leaders' can manage.
So what is the Status of the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank?
You could argue that the land that Israel captured in the 6 day war is now legitimately part of Israel (although Israel has never been willing to official annex the lands) If this were the case then the people who live there would be Israeli citizens, subject to Israeli law but also entitled to rights as Israeli citizens.
If the occupied areas are not part of Israel then Israel has a responsibility to withdraw from them as quickly as is feasable.
At the moment, Israel is making itself look really bad by doing neither of these things. It won't announce the annexing of the land but at the same time, its actions are preventing a move towards the lands moving out of its control.
It is clear from the way you speak that you are not willing to try to see both sides of the problem. I really wish you would. If only more people would realise that there are good and bad people on both sides of the conflict, and an awful lot of normal people stuck in the middle, maybe we might be able to move towards a solution. While everyone insists on using the sort of language and arguments that you employ, there is no hope of a solution.
The history of the Middle East is long, complicated and full of mistakes and wrong-doing on all sides.
It is impossible to define any one group as having a particular right to particular land in the area - it has changes hands so many times in the last 200 years (Ottoman Empire -> British Mandate Palestine -> Split Between Jewish and Arab Militias -> Israel)
All factions have used tactics that should be described as 'terrorism' and 'represssion' The British treated both Jews and Arabs very badly (through sins of both omission and commission). Early Jewish settlers used a campaign of terrorist attacks to put pressure on the British to grant land for the formation of a Jewish state. At the same time, the Arabas attempted to do all they could to prevent the formation of Israel.
If everyone followed the "if you give them anything, it is voctory for terrorism', we would not have a ceasefire in Northern Ireland, South Africa would not have thrown of Appartheid and Israel would never have been formed in the first place. Sometimes you just have to get beyond the current atrocities and try to find a solution.
I truly think that a solution starts with everyone acknowledging that there have been worngs committed on both sides (and that wrong continue to be committed on both sides). Th
The ones that I have met didn't seem to want anyone dead, of any religion.
The vast majority (at least in my experience) are just normal people who desperately want to do all the things that normal people do. They are afraid of the hardcore Palestinian militants in the same way that they are afraid of the IDF. The older people are worried that their children are being turned to militancy because what they see and hear about week by week is IDF troops and tanks knocking down houses and killing people. These kids do not have the opportunity to see the devastating effects that Paelstinian terrorism is having on Israeli citizens.
I really think you need to stop taking the actions of a small minority of Palestinians and using it to form an opinion of over 3 million people (that's a 2001 figure so probably higher now)
There are Israelis who hate Arabs with the same religious fevour that you are attributing to the Palestinians. Do I think that all Israelis think like that? No, of course I don't - I have taken the time to talk to some real Israelis and find out what they really think.
i>The worst nuclear incident of all time? Hiroshima?
Shhh! We don't talk about the two times that nuclear weapons were deployed in anger. We'd just spedn all our time worrying about the fact that the country that used them has a lot more of them nowerdays.
then it becomes clear that being anti-Israel (against the Jewish state) is being anti-Semitic (against the descendents of Israel).
How is that the case? That's like saying that being against the American State is being against all Americans.
I truly think that it would be for the best of the decendents of Israel for Israel(the state) to change its policies in some areas, just as I think it would be for the best of Americans for America(the state) to change its policies in some areas.
I consider myself neither anti-American not Anti-semitic.
Furthermore, to label anyone who critises the state of Israel in any way as anti-semitic (which seems to be getting increasingly common) is a really good way to weaken the word anti-semitic. We need to act against those are truly anti-semitic but that becomes harder to do when anyone who speaks out against Israeli policy is branded anti-semitic.
Of course, there is a similar problem with commenting about Islamic nations as well. It is easy to get branded an 'islamophobe' for critising the behavior of Islamic states.
I think the problem is that it is easier to roll out 'anti-semitic' or 'islamophobe' than it is to actually address the criticisms.
One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets. The other group is religious, a theocracy (in practice, not on paper), racist, homophobic, etc, and intentionally targets civilians. Who really is the bad guy in this scenario?
The real problem with this issue is that everyone has to take such extreme viewpoints.
Either Israel is the colonial power, trying to take what it can and the Palestinians are simply defending theier homes, or the Palestinans are anti-semitic religious zealots who what to destroy Israel while Israel is simply defending itself against terrorism.
While everyone insists on thinking along either of those two lines,we can't expect a solution to be found.
There are good and bad people on both sides.
I have heard Israelis talk about 'the Palestinian Problem' in terms which are worryingly familiar from European History. I have heard Palestinians talk about Israelis in terms that give no hope that they could ever come to a compromise.
I have met Israelis who are desperate to find a solution that will be best for both them and the Palestinians. I have met Palestinians who just want to lead a normal life.
There are elements of Israeli policy which are clearly driven by an unwillingness to compromise. The same is true on the Palestinian side.
There are people in power in Israel who have been responsible for some terrible things. There are people in power in the Palestinian Authority who have been responsible for terrible things too.
There have been atrocities commited on both sides. Lots of civillians have died and continue to die on both sides. Lots of families who just want to live in peace keep losing loved ones.
A solution is not going to be found until it is recognised that both sides have done bad things in the past and that policies of both sides are currently preventing a solution.
What is really required is a change of leadership on both sides, with people coming into power who are not rooted in the problems of the last fifty years and who are prepared to do what is best for the people, on both sides.
According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel.
It may well be the case that, according to certain readings of international law, Israel is not defined as occupying the areas where the Palestinians live.
In which case, the Palestinians are long-time residents of Israel and should be given full citizenship and voting rights. Israel is a democratic state, right?
Slashdot Mirror
"Our society can be changed (for better or for worse) through the use of four boxes. Soap, ballot, jury, and ammo."
i like the usual corrolory to that:
"Use them in that order."
Because the ruling class of which he is a member is scared.
The house of cards that is big business finance is starting to topple (e.g. Enron, WorldCom)
Third world countries are starting to say no to unfair trade agreements.
The internet allows much easier communication between those who oppose the ruling class.
People are wising up about using the law to keep the actions of the government in check.
Some of the facts about the support of the US and European ruling class for Bad People such as Pinochet, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are coming out.
There are major troubles coming our way, caused in part by the actions of the ruling class (e.g. Global Warming, The exhaustion of fossil fuels, chemical poisoning of the ocean)
I think that what we have is a case of some people doing some bad things and then covering them up and continuing to do worse and worse things in order to stay in power.
There actions make perfect sense from their point of view (assuming you take ethics out of the equation). There are more of us than there are of them, so they need to use a range of dirty tricks to prevent us from removing them from power.
Dan.
errr...
It was you who said:
"but the previous administration had spy planes flying directly over the camps where Bin Ladin was at. And didn't kill him then. "
Do you think that killing someone who may or may not have been Osama Bin Laden(we've all seen the spyplane pictures - can you be sure it was him?) at that point would have been legal?
Dan.
Just how much can you spin a situation where someone is being banned from even revealing what information government agents are allowed to demand?
Surely the one kind of government information that should always be made available to everyone ahead of any other is the laws which we are expected to live by?
I see no reason to block this information aside from preventing honest and open debate of the law.
The fact a law has been violated does not stop it from being censorship - most governments who engage in censorship do it by passing laws that allow them to do it.
Its not just important to recognise when someone is spinning you - you also need to look at what has actually happened (usually by comparing multiple reports or looking at accounts that have not been challenged) and come to your own conclusion.
In this case, I'd say the word censorship was pretty appropriate.
Dan.
The beauty of the american system is that we can screw up and the ill effects won't harm us incredibly much.
The problem is that when Americans screw up the ill effects do harm the rest of the world incredibly much.
Darl, this is the fan. It's what your sh*t is about to land on.
Surely Darl dumped enough of his stock already to ensure comes out of SCO wityh a big pot of cash.
If not then he is the worst pump and dumper in the world.
Dan.
I enjoyed this part:
"The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Planning a plot? That's only the tip of the iceberg! What if he is plotting a scheme or scheming a plan?
I see no problem with such a request being investigated. It does sound like they asked the guy some pretty stupid questions though (do they really think that long hair is significant when it comes to identifying terrorists? or membership of the ACLU?) OTOH, those questions may well have been filler to pad out the real questions they wanted to ask.
If they find no evidence during their investigation, they really should grant his further information requests though. Once they are satisfied that he's not a terrorist, they'll have no reason not to let him see all the files relating to his case, surely?
Dan.
The rest of the world (outside of America) loves America, but loves to hate us at the same time.
I love most Americans but I hate lots of things about America because of what a few Americans have turned it into.
I love what America should (could?) be, based on its founding principles. I hate the fact that those principles have been eroded to the point where they might as well not exist.
I love the can-do spirit that Americans have. I hate the way Americans give up their democratic power so easily.
America is a land of contradictions (mostly in the way that laudable concepts have become a horrible reality) so it is no suprise that the rest of the world has a love/hate relationship with the USA.
Dan.
How can you be absolutely certain that you remember everything 100% accurately?
There is plenty of evidence that the degree of certainty with which we think we have remembered something is often not an absolute guide to how accurately we remember something.
For example, a researcher questioned some students soon after the Challenger disater about what they were doing at the time. A year later he asked them again. They were still certain that they remembered accurately, but many of them tolda different story than they had the first time. Similar experiments have been conducted numerous times and got similar results.
(Sources: http://www.gpc.peachnet.edu/~bbrown/psyc1501/memo
What other evidence do you have for your memories being 100% correct, aside from your certainty that they are?
Dan.
But the prior art doesn't exist on another media player. That's why I used the VCR->Steering wheel example.
;)
Yes, I understood that, but what I really want to know is - do you think that a media player is sufficiently different to a computer that your analogy of taking a steering wheel from a car to a VCR is really fitting?
To me, media players are just really stripped down, ultra portable computers. I don't think anyone desevres to get exlusivity on a particular user interfgace model just because they ported it over from larger computers first.
The ultimate decider for me on patents is whether the person who wants the patent has had to make a big investment/risk in order to develop the innovation they are applying for a patent on. That's the whole idea of patents, isn't it - to encourage people to invest in developing new ideas by reassuring them that they will be able to benefit from them.
Now, there are some elements of the IPod which Apple clearly does derserve to beenfit from having developed. However, I don't think this menu system is one of them - the yahve simply taken an idea that works in one application (computers) and applied it to another very similar application (media players) I don't think that is enough investment/risk to warrant exclusivity. They'll get the benefits of being first which should be enough for them in this case I think.
The drag-drop experience you mention works perfectly fine with the windows explorer treeview - you just have to go to the source folder then drag the files to where you want them, keeping the mouse button held down as you move it over each folder in the tree to open it. The whole area around the folder icon and the folder name is the target - not just the icon.
Lucky nooone has patented "method for tranfering files between folders using a single drag action" isn't it?
Dan.
Is a portable music device really so far from a desktop computer to make your car -> VCR analogy more apropriate than my car -> hover car analogy?
p hoto_to ur/Pages/Image3.html
The only other interface before the iPod that displayed this hierarchical navigation method was Apple's OS X Finder's column view, or NeXTStep's Workspace column view.
How is that for prior art?
Well, any example of the idea previously being in circulation is enough for prior art, so I'd say that this idea is not novel enough to justfy a patent.
Looking at the Finder Column view:
http://astcomm.net/~chris/osx/screenshots/
I have to say that I don't see what all the fuss is about. It reminds me quite a lot of the Windows Start menu (which is, ultimatley a folder browsing tool - just limited to one folder tree)
I think I would rather have a Windows-style treeview explorer, so I can have different branches of the folder tree expanded and drag stuff between them.
I can see that this approach would work well on a media player, but I don't think that spotting that an existing approach will work well in a certain area is enough to grant someone exclusivity on using that approach.
Dan.
So I can pick some random UI elements that are already found in other appliances or in PC software and patent them for use in portable media players?
If this is really possible then it is more proof that the Patent system is completely off the rails.
When hover cars are invented, will there be a rush to patent various existing elements of wheeled vehicles in the context of the new type of vehicle?
"Method for steering the vehicle by means of a rotational direction selection device"
"Method for enabling the driver to observe to rear of vehicle while driving by means of optically reflective device"
"Method for entering and exiting vehicle by means of hinged element of body-shell assembly"
Dan.
Please don't read the summary. The summary doesn't get any legal protection and is just there to give a general idea what the patent is about. If you want to know what they are trying to patent READ THE CLAIMS!!
;) )
I did read through the claims (although i don't have time to digest them fully - there are a a fair few in that patent
I didn't see anything in the claims that seemd to do anything other than detail, in excruciating detail, how the basic system described in the summary could be implemented. I quoted the summary because I thought it represented pretty well the oeveral patent.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out where in the patent there is anything that is really novel enough to justify a patent.
I don't classify allowing access to music by playlist, artist and a list of all songs to be something so inspired that it deserves protection.
Dan.
if it's an "old idea from NeXT" then how can it also be a new idea?
Dan.
errr.. have you read the patent application.
Here is the summary:
That sounds an awful lot like a menu system to me.
I don't have an IPod. Could someone with some experience of them fill me in - is there anything especially clever and non-obvious about the design of the menu system that warrants patent protection?
Dan.
For example, when terorists are called "freedom fighters"
Palestinian Terrorists are consistently refered to as terrorists in the UK media. I have never heard them refered to as 'freedom fighters'
or a government is condemned for killed a mass murderer, something that does not happen anywhere else
The summary execution without a trial of someone accused of crimes, no matter how bad those crimes might be and how compelling the evidence, would be condemned no matter where it might happen. Imagine if Britain had decided to use air power against leaders of the IRA?
Additionally, I think a large part of the critism had to do with the fact that the killing can only enflame the situation further. It just adds fuel to the people who want to whip Arabs up into an anti-israel fervour. Creating more 'martyrs' makes their job easier, not harder.
There is no denying what is going on right now all over the EU against Jews.
Agree completely. That's exactly why I think it is important to draw a distinction between the true anti-semites (those who hate the Jews as a religion and as a race) and those who criticise the nation of Israel. Throwing accusations of anti-semitism around as a debating tool, as some people do, reduces the shock and revulsion that we should all quite rightly feel when there is a case of true anti-semitism.
I do not say they cannot defend themselves, or condemn them for self-preservation.
Have I?
The text books used by the Arabs living in Israel don't even show Israel on their map,it just has a fictitous country called "Palestine" over all of Israel!
The textbook issue certainly is a problem.
As shown here:
http://www.edume.org/reports/11/34.htm
The PA is doing the children it should be serving a huge disservice in the books it is providing them with.
Israel has much improved its textbooks in recent years. They used to be pretty bad in their stereotyping of Arabs but now they are much better.
For the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rule very likely applies in cases where human life is at stake. Which is unfortunately the case in Israel.
That's my whole point. Me critising Israel in certain ways does not mean I am against Israel. I think it would actually be for the best for Israel for it to change its behavior in some ways. I think that the people who are driving Israel towards a more hard-line confrontational stance are not acting in the best interests of Israel
One, the Arabs have little to no method of unbiased opinion with their controlled media. Two, the state controlled media is full of anti-Jewish remarks. This is not true of all Arab states, but certainly a great deal of them.
I agree with that, but I don't see how that means that most arguments against Israeli policy are based on Arab propaganda. I read information from both sides of the argument and often end up basing my negative opinions of Israeli policies on Israeli documents (and conversly, my negative opinons of Arab leaders have mainly come from reading their statements)
There are a lot of reasonable critcisms of Israeli government policies that are based on the facts as provided by the israeli government itself. Writing off critism of israel as being based on Arab propaganda smacks of side-stepping uncomfortable questions.
That won't happen with the current Arab terrorist regime. Perhaps when they all pass on, there will be a real chance for peace.
Do you think that the current Israeli leadership is conducive to peace? (Sharon being the main example)
Personally, I hope that the current leaderships on both sides will give way to fresh people who are prepared to move forward, rather than being perpetually stuck in revenge upon revenge.
I think I am going to have to give up trying to get you to consider a more balanced viewpoint on this. Clearly you ha
So anyone who critises the behavior of those in power in any way is Anti-semitic?
Do you really believe that Israel as a state has never done anything worthy of critism?
Why does critising Israel have to be the same as siding with Arab extremeists?
I think that Israel has a right to exist. I think that the people of Israel have a right to live in peace, free from terrorist attacks.
I also think that the Arabs who live in Gaza and the West Bank have a right to live free from danger. I think they have a right not to have their houses knocked down by military bulldozers.
When you say:
those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong
You are illustrating why it is so hard to find a settlement to the problems of the Middle East. Any sensible person knows that to label an entire group of people as 'completely in the wrong' is a silly thing to do. It is just never the case. There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of any conflicts.
Do you really think that:
The whole world condemns Israel
when the USA is providing Israel with huge amounts of funding, military and otherwise?
The main reason why so mant countries are trying to put pressure on Israel to change its policy towards the troubles in the Middle East is that it is felt that Israel is in a position to be able to move towards a settlement.
I totally agree with you that many Arab leaders most certainly do display anti-semitism. I'm not denying the existance of anti-semism. That would be stupid.
However, I think it is equally stupid to label me anti-semtic because I disagree with some of the polcies of the current Israeli government.
I know Jews, even Israeli Jews who disagree with some of the policties of the current Israeli government - are they anti-semitic too?
I also agree with you that there is lots of anti-semitic propaganda both in the Arab world and the world at large. That doesn't mean that any argument against policies of the current Israeli government is rooted in anti-semitic propaganda.
No government is perfect. No issue is totally black and white. Trying to polarise the whole world into two sides - those who support everything that the state of Israel does and those who are anti-semitic is not helpful to anyone.
Why do you insist on doing it?
(To be fair to you, I have exactly the same sort of argument with ardently pro-palestinian people, who will take any critism of arab leaders as racism against Arabs. With so many deeply-rooted predjudices and such hard opinions of 'we're right, they're wrong' I have little hope that anyone in the Middle East will know any peace any time soon
Dan.
A wrong on the the PA side does not justify a wrong on the Israeli side.
I don't think that the PA is helpful to the people it claims to represent. I think those people would be much better off without it.
That doesn't mean that I think it is okay for Israel to treat some of its citizens badly.
Israel is not held to a higher standard as far as I am concerned.
Dan.
Where do these "Palestinians" live?
Okay, let me explain who I am talking about.
Since any nationality is really an arbitary defintion (in the same way that 'Palestinian' is a term resurrected from history for political purposes, so is 'Israeli') I am talking about people who come from the areas where the people are commonly refered to as the Palestinians. (The 'Gaza Strip' and the 'West Bank') I assume these are the people that you are refering to when you talk about Palestinians.
I am talking about several families who now live in the UK who came here from Gaza City. Everything they have said to me has indicated that they have no religious desire to kill all Jews or anything so stupid. They are people whose families got caught in in a nasty situation driven by extremeists on both sides. They did not choose to be born in Gaza. They did not choose for the Arab political leaders to drive Israel to capture the place where they lives in a premptive strike. They did not choose to live under 35 years of occupation. When they got an opportunity to get out of it, they took it. They say that a lot of other people from Gaza would do the same given the chance. They also say that the almost constant destruction of homes and the building of new Israeli settlements that force the people into smaller and smaller areas is doing more to drive the recruitment of extreme Palestinian militant organisations than anything the politically inept Palestinain 'leaders' can manage.
So what is the Status of the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank?
You could argue that the land that Israel captured in the 6 day war is now legitimately part of Israel (although Israel has never been willing to official annex the lands) If this were the case then the people who live there would be Israeli citizens, subject to Israeli law but also entitled to rights as Israeli citizens.
If the occupied areas are not part of Israel then Israel has a responsibility to withdraw from them as quickly as is feasable.
At the moment, Israel is making itself look really bad by doing neither of these things. It won't announce the annexing of the land but at the same time, its actions are preventing a move towards the lands moving out of its control.
It is clear from the way you speak that you are not willing to try to see both sides of the problem. I really wish you would. If only more people would realise that there are good and bad people on both sides of the conflict, and an awful lot of normal people stuck in the middle, maybe we might be able to move towards a solution. While everyone insists on using the sort of language and arguments that you employ, there is no hope of a solution.
The history of the Middle East is long, complicated and full of mistakes and wrong-doing on all sides.
It is impossible to define any one group as having a particular right to particular land in the area - it has changes hands so many times in the last 200 years (Ottoman Empire -> British Mandate Palestine -> Split Between Jewish and Arab Militias -> Israel)
All factions have used tactics that should be described as 'terrorism' and 'represssion' The British treated both Jews and Arabs very badly (through sins of both omission and commission). Early Jewish settlers used a campaign of terrorist attacks to put pressure on the British to grant land for the formation of a Jewish state. At the same time, the Arabas attempted to do all they could to prevent the formation of Israel.
If everyone followed the "if you give them anything, it is voctory for terrorism', we would not have a ceasefire in Northern Ireland, South Africa would not have thrown of Appartheid and Israel would never have been formed in the first place. Sometimes you just have to get beyond the current atrocities and try to find a solution.
I truly think that a solution starts with everyone acknowledging that there have been worngs committed on both sides (and that wrong continue to be committed on both sides). Th
There are 120 members of the Knesset. If one fifth of the population of Israel is Arab, why is only one twenty-fourth of the Knesset Arab?
9 4. htm
This report by the US State Department makes interesting reading if you think that Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as Jewish citizens:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/7
How many Palestinians have you actually met?
The ones that I have met didn't seem to want anyone dead, of any religion.
The vast majority (at least in my experience) are just normal people who desperately want to do all the things that normal people do. They are afraid of the hardcore Palestinian militants in the same way that they are afraid of the IDF. The older people are worried that their children are being turned to militancy because what they see and hear about week by week is IDF troops and tanks knocking down houses and killing people. These kids do not have the opportunity to see the devastating effects that Paelstinian terrorism is having on Israeli citizens.
I really think you need to stop taking the actions of a small minority of Palestinians and using it to form an opinion of over 3 million people (that's a 2001 figure so probably higher now)
There are Israelis who hate Arabs with the same religious fevour that you are attributing to the Palestinians. Do I think that all Israelis think like that? No, of course I don't - I have taken the time to talk to some real Israelis and find out what they really think.
Dan.
my day job relates to getting people not to be affraid of radiation
;)
Intriguing...
Is it something to do with learning to love the bomb?
Dan.
i>The worst nuclear incident of all time? Hiroshima?
Shhh! We don't talk about the two times that nuclear weapons were deployed in anger. We'd just spedn all our time worrying about the fact that the country that used them has a lot more of them nowerdays.
Dan.
then it becomes clear that being anti-Israel (against the Jewish state) is being anti-Semitic (against the descendents of Israel).
How is that the case? That's like saying that being against the American State is being against all Americans.
I truly think that it would be for the best of the decendents of Israel for Israel(the state) to change its policies in some areas, just as I think it would be for the best of Americans for America(the state) to change its policies in some areas.
I consider myself neither anti-American not Anti-semitic.
Furthermore, to label anyone who critises the state of Israel in any way as anti-semitic (which seems to be getting increasingly common) is a really good way to weaken the word anti-semitic. We need to act against those are truly anti-semitic but that becomes harder to do when anyone who speaks out against Israeli policy is branded anti-semitic.
Of course, there is a similar problem with commenting about Islamic nations as well. It is easy to get branded an 'islamophobe' for critising the behavior of Islamic states.
I think the problem is that it is easier to roll out 'anti-semitic' or 'islamophobe' than it is to actually address the criticisms.
Dan.
One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets. The other group is religious, a theocracy (in practice, not on paper), racist, homophobic, etc, and intentionally targets civilians. Who really is the bad guy in this scenario?
,we can't expect a solution to be found.
The real problem with this issue is that everyone has to take such extreme viewpoints.
Either Israel is the colonial power, trying to take what it can and the Palestinians are simply defending theier homes, or the Palestinans are anti-semitic religious zealots who what to destroy Israel while Israel is simply defending itself against terrorism.
While everyone insists on thinking along either of those two lines
There are good and bad people on both sides.
I have heard Israelis talk about 'the Palestinian Problem' in terms which are worryingly familiar from European History. I have heard Palestinians talk about Israelis in terms that give no hope that they could ever come to a compromise.
I have met Israelis who are desperate to find a solution that will be best for both them and the Palestinians. I have met Palestinians who just want to lead a normal life.
There are elements of Israeli policy which are clearly driven by an unwillingness to compromise. The same is true on the Palestinian side.
There are people in power in Israel who have been responsible for some terrible things. There are people in power in the Palestinian Authority who have been responsible for terrible things too.
There have been atrocities commited on both sides. Lots of civillians have died and continue to die on both sides. Lots of families who just want to live in peace keep losing loved ones.
A solution is not going to be found until it is recognised that both sides have done bad things in the past and that policies of both sides are currently preventing a solution.
What is really required is a change of leadership on both sides, with people coming into power who are not rooted in the problems of the last fifty years and who are prepared to do what is best for the people, on both sides.
Dan.
According to international law (which I loathe to cite), it is not occupied by Israel.
It may well be the case that, according to certain readings of international law, Israel is not defined as occupying the areas where the Palestinians live.
In which case, the Palestinians are long-time residents of Israel and should be given full citizenship and voting rights. Israel is a democratic state, right?