Isn't it just playing with words to differentiate between "stealing" (physical theft) and "depriving someone of money" (through fraud, not paying royalties or whatever).
If you throw a rock and break my window, I can not have you arrested for murder. What you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
If I leave my front door unlocked and you come into my home unwanted and uninvited, I can not charge you with rape, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
If you infringe on my right to limit the copying of a work (under copyright) I can not charge you with theft, AS WHAT YOU DID DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE CHARGE.
If you created (say) a piece of software that you could sell for $100,000 a pop and I just copied it and used it, surely you would not be happy and you would expect to be able to sue me?
Of course, if I had a copyright on the software and you infringed that copyright, then I could sue you and expect to recoup the lost income. I just could not charge you with theft, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
It wouldn't make much difference whether it was called theft or software piracy or copyright infringement, I'd still have done you out of $100,000.
If you broke into my home and took $100,000 in cash then I would be out the money and you would be guilty of theft. You would NOT, however, be guilty of software piracy or copyright infringement.
If you broke into my home and took a CD with software worth $100,000 then I would be out the CD, and out the use of the software, and you would be guilty of theft, but not of software piracy or copyright infringement.
If I were selling the software for $100,000 and you broke into my shop and took a CD with the software on it, then you would be guilty of theft but not guilty of software piracy or copyright infringement.
If you COPIED that software and distributed it without a license from me (as the copyright holder), THEN you are guilty of copyright infringement - but unless you actually took a physical item from me you ARE NOT guilty of theft. You have not taken anything of value from me, you have only usurped my POTENTIAL PROFIT MAKING ability, a monopoly granted under copyright.
You have infringed on my legal rights, and I can sue you under CIVIL law for redress, but you have not violated CRIMINAL LAW relating to theft.
Same point, in a slightly different wording: If I LEGALLY obtain a copyrighted work under a license that restricts copying of that work then there have been no laws broken or infringed. If I then MAKE A COPY (or copies) without proper licensure, THEN I HAVE NOW BROKEN A LAW OR INFRINGED ON A LEGAL RIGHT. Based on the situation as given in this paragraph, I have not committed assult, libel, slander, carjacking, theft, barratry, loitering, littering, manslaughter, or any number of other actions that are illegal. Therefore, talking about what I did and calling it assult, libel, slander, carjacking, theft, barratry, loitering, littering, manslaughter, or any of the number of other actions that are illegal is wrong. I didn't do any of those things.
I think the post you are replying to is more correct.
Yes, the user interface in a car is simple, but the user is limited to only doing simple things.
Want to change the idle speed from 1000 RPM to 750 RPM? There is no easy way for an end user to make that change. Change the RPM shift point? Show me how you would do it.
There are some complex tasks that are possible, but the simplistic user interface does not allow them.
The computer has a fairly simple user interface as well - keyboard or pointing device (or a combination of the two - shift/click for example). Hard to get much simpler than that! But the activities that simplistic interface allow can be extreamly complex.
Using the very simplistic interface to the computer, I can do word processing, photo editing, audio recording, and other very complex tasks, assuming I had the education and skills as well as the software (and a computer, of course!).
Using the simplistic interface to the car, I can drive in LA traffic, or (perhaps the same thing?;} ) the Daytona 500, or go off roading, or other complex tasks - assuming I had the education and skills as well as a car capable of doing those things.
Navigating a browser to cruise the WWW gives more options than navigating a Ford to cruise to StarBucks. The first task is more complex than the second.
At one time, acronyms were ONLY those that could be pronounced as a word.
SCUBA, NASA, and so forth were proper acronyms.
SCSI, SQL, and their ilk would not have been considered an acronym as they could not be pronounced as a word.
By use, some of the unpronouncable combinations have made it into mainstream use as 'acronyms', while others are still just initials - for example, FBI, CIA, USA.
Just curious, but why did SCSI become "scuzzy" when IDE is just IDE?
Why is SQL "Sequel" but iSQL is just ISQL?
GUI is "gooey", but WYSIWYG is just that?
Probably my most favorite, though, is Tanstaafl - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - I pronounce it "tan staff el".
I read the article, but have not read any of the replies, so this may be a "Me Too!" posting.
The author of the article seems to be one of the people who think everything should be spoon feed to them, and be done so just because they "deserve it".
The first freedom they quote is the freedom to run. their implied statement is that the software should be free to run EFFECTIVELY, and therefore the software should be dumbed down to the level of the least able user.
If the user is not smart enough or motivated enough to learn the required skills and steps to use the software effectively, they are still free to run the software (first FOSS freedom), they just will not get good results (not addressed in the FOSS freedoms).
I have never wanted or used Adobe PhotoShop or any of the FOSS photo manipulation offerings. I would not expect GIMP to be made so non-complex that I could just install it and start cranking out professional quality images. There is no expectation on my part that I would not have a fairly steep learning curve - with either PhotoShop or GIMP.
The first FOSS freedom is lack of restrictions on the user as to when, where, how, who, etc can run the software. Are you a gay alien wanting to build landing strips for Martians (mangled on purpose;} )and need GIMP for producing photos for the proper permits? Oh, and you only have a Ti-99? FINE!! Here is the original code for free (as in beer), you are free (as in speach) to get it working on your hardware, or to have someone else get it working for you.
Back to the article - If you want to do complex things with software, there are some irreducible complexities you will have to learn, FOSS or Windows (or other non-FOSS) software.
And I was diagnosed with Aspergers (a form of autism - rather "a range on the autism continuum") at 45.
'Course I had the signs and symptoms as well as the effects (and affects) and mannerisms before then, they just were not put together as a diagnosis until then.
Not neccessarily weakened. Most frequently it is DEAD virus or even PARTS of a dead virus (Purified Protein Coat method springs to mind) that is used to make the vaccine.
It isn't so much of a 'practice run against a weakened opponent' as a chace to recognize the surface pattern and create (and remember) the corresponding 'key' for the next time that surface configuration is found.
Remember, the first vaccinations were for smallpox (frequently fatal) and were achieved by giving cowpox (rarely fatal). The surface configuration of cowpox is "Close Enough" to the surface configuration of smallpox for the body to recognize the smallpox invader as cowpox and fight it off using the cowpox antibodies.
I am not a doctor, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night! (and worked as an ER nurse for over 10 years...)
I actively refuse to read his 'articles', and he makes a really screwed up keyboard (I can't touchtype on his keyboard, all the letters are wrong!), but I like his music...
Microsoft bundles IE with Windows because you have to put some sort of web browser there... In order for the general consumer to be able to make the choice between available free and non free web browsers, something has to be bundled with Windows to allow them to obtain whatever they choose.
Wrong, and you even got modded up. Way to go, stupid moderators!
Remember the AOL coasters that were ubiquitious? THEY INCLUDED A BROWSER!
I was on a BBS that gave away the client to allow you to connect. Just call or mail and get a browser in the mail.
You could order FREE versions delivered by mail from a variety of sources - I got Netscape 1.something in the mail that way.
You could use terminal software to connect to network sources for browsers - even Windows 3.1 had hyper-terminal!
The fact that the average consumer will quite happily sit with IE because it's already there isn't Microsofts fault.
Not their fault, but it IS something they count on. They give a crappy, broken, non-standards compliant, insecure product with every OS, and count on everyone staying with that crappy, broken, non-standards compliant, insecure browser - in fact, they INSIST on it by breaking downloads of OS patches and upgrades from other browsers and by using that browser for the OS to communicate with the user.
Yes, I do. I remember GEnie, CompuServe, and BBS software. I remember Gopher, Veronica, and Archie. I remember xmodem to get files, and how Kermit was so impressive in its' ability to RESUME an interupted download, instead of restarting. I remeber upgrading to a 1200 baud modem and being amazed at the speed increase over my old 300 baud modem.
Back then browsers weren't free and you didn't have much choice.
Wrong. When the HTTP protocol was proposed, there were many implementations available, many for free. Remember that the protocol was being developed at public institutions and was almost always dependent on government support so was REQUIRED to be public domain. Some took the PD material and incorporated it into propriatary software (from the information contained in IE6.0 - "NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.")
without MS having a web strategy then the web as we know it today would still be a hobbyist toy and would not have gained the momentum it did.
You see it half full, I see it half empty. The World Wide Web was a rock pushed off a cliff; it had momentum and impetus of its own BEFORE MS got involved in trying to hijack it for MS's profit. MS was a Johnny-come-lately to the web party, and only was able to join the dance by fairly underhanded means - they "licensed" a product from Spyglass (Mosaic) on a percentage-of-each-perchase-price basis then BUNDLED it with their OS - so Spyglass got a percentage of ZERO and went out of business.
You are correct, MS had a web strategy; take over the internet so distributed computing and Java programming could not interfere with their OS monopoly. I would not say that there was a vision of the future they were trying to attain, rather a potential future they saw but were trying to block off.
I would maintain that the web-as-we-know-it exists DESPITE MS's efforts to derail it.
If it was running slower then ti would still be right twice a day.
You aren't right even once a day.
A NON-RUNNING clock is correct twice a day, a slow clock is right only when the degree of slowness is an even multiple of 12 hours.
A clock that loses 1 second per minute (i.e., takes 61 seconds to indicate one minute elapsed) will be one second off at one minuts, two seconds off at two minutes, etc.
The number of seconds in 12 hours is 43200, so it would take that number of minutes for the actual time to match the indicated time. that is 43200 minutes, or 720 hours, or 30 days before a clock that lost one second per minute would again indicate the correct time.
A clock with an AM/PM indicator would take twice as long, or 60 days to again indicate the correct time.
Big Oil would not start making cars, they would start LICENSING THE CARBURETOR to car makers.
If a car has an effective lifetime of 200,000 miles and gets 30 MPG, the car would use 6,667 gallons in its' lifetime (plus for idleing, etc). Assuming Big Oil gets $1 profit (not revenue) per gallon, that is an expected $6,667 from that one car.
That same car, with a 100 MPG carb would only require 2,000 gallons over its' lifetime, for a Big Oil profit of only $2000 - a difference of $4,667 over the lifetime of the car.
If Big Oil licensed the patented carb for $5000 they would make MORE PROFIT by having the carb and making it available than by NOT having the carb, or having it and not making it available.
Big Oil is ruthless and profit motivated, which, to me, shows that they DON'T have such a carb, or they would have marketed it heavily. I am sure they can see which is more, $55.56 per month over 10 years (total of $6,667.20), or $5000 lump sum now, PLUS $16.67 per month for the next 10 years (total of $2000 + $5000 = $7,000).
In addition, when a car is driven there is a chance for accidents that might kill the vehicle before the expected lifetime - so the 200,000 miles might never be reached. With the $5000 up-front payment, the first 90 mothes are 'pre-paid' and if the vehicle dies before the 200,000 mile mark, Big Oil's profit from that car goes WAY up.
There is a 100 mpg carburetor patent that an oil company is sitting on.
1) I don't find it in the patent database, 2) if there was such a thing, the government could appropriate it as 'vital to national security' and use it on government vehicles - not happening 3) 'big oil' would be able to SET THE LICENSE FEE high enough to recoup the cost of any oil saved by the hardware. They would not care if it existed or not, they would only care that it did not reduce their (currently obscene) profits.
If I invented such a carburetor, the oil companies would not care about the hardware, they would care that their profits were going to me instead of to them. Buying the patent would get the profits going back to them, and they would be back at the status quo ante.
Proctor and Gamble has bought out some organic companies and then dissolved them overnite to protect their non-organic trade secrets
Name names if you can, I can't find any examples that fit your claim. And, again, there would not be any need to 'disolve' the companies to protect trade secrets, just a NDA and keep on trucking. If the company makes widgets at a profit and also knows how to make thingamies, and I don't want them making thingamies, I would not buy them out and make them quit producing (at a profit) the widgets just so that they could not (potentially, at some future time) start making thingamies.
Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong, based on the link _you_ provided.
"Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means;
Proper means include:
1. Discovery by independent invention; 2. Discovery by "reverse engineering", that is, by starting with the known product and working backward to find the method by which it was developed. The acquisition of the known product must, of course, also be by a fair and honest means, such as purchase of the item on the open market for reverse engineering to be lawful;
3. Discovery under a license from the owner of the trade secret; 4. Observation of the item in public use or on public display; 5. Obtaining the trade secret from published literature.
So the parent poster is correct, in that someone who "happens to discover" the process has just as much right to use the process as anyone else if the only protection is "trade secrets".
You are correct if someone TAKES the secret from you without your knowledge or permission ("theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means"), but completely wrong if someone DISCOVERS the secret - 'independent invention','reverse engineering','license from the owner','Observation of the item in public use or on public display',or from published literature.
From your link, the parent poster is correct that there is "no special legal protection" for trade secrets but there is special legal protection against improper taking of trade secrets.
There are a bunch of things you have wrong, and some contradictory as well.
First, the courts are not "awarding legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature", they are being asked to award fees sustained in running an successful legal suit.
The result of the suit is that the law is shown to be unconstitutional and the state is enjoined from enforcing that law, but that is the proper procedure for overturning unconstitutional laws.
In addition, according to TFA, "But the State has left little choice, and this petition is consistent with the rules of the federal courts regarding award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties." so ESA is asking for WHAT THE FEDERAL COURT RULES ALLOW for the winning side of a law suit.
I don't follow where you are getting 'following the rules to get rid of a bad rule is good, but continuing to follow the rules is bad.'
From TFA: "From the day Governor Blagojevich announced that he would seek anti-video game legislation, it was clear to everyone that the proposal would be found unconstitutional and would waste taxpayers dollars in a protracted legal fight that would leave parents no better off," [Kennedy] said.
So it is not ESA gaming the system, it is the governor. And the governor should be held accountable for his stupidity in this matter.
From TFA:
"Unfortunately, while it was clear we could agree on the amount of fees to be reimbursed, the state made other demands which we could not accept. Accordingly, consistent with our belief that the public has a right to know how much of their tax dollars were spent defending a statute that everyone knew from the start was unconstitutional, we have proceeded with this filing."
So the state is not even asking that ESA NOT get the fees, they are asking for ADDITIONAL demands - even though the state LOST the suit and have NO legal standing to make additional demands of ESA.
Looks to me like the state is being a total ass - passing an uncostitutional law, refusing to back down when confronted, then refusing to pay the winning sides fees without adding some demands THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADD to the condition of payment.
From TFA:
As we said from the outset, we would have preferred to spend our resources on cooperative programs to help parents ensure their kids play appropriate games, rather than divert money to respond to politically motivated attacks on video games.
So ESA used funds from "cooperative programs" to fight this law, and they should not be required to just eat the loss of funds.
That's bad for democracy.
Not proven, and I feel that it is totally wrong.
If you mean bad for the democratic process, then you are wrong. The people, throught the democratic process, organized the system the way it is, so NOT FOLLOWING the system as it is (including lawsuits against bad laws and winner petitioning for payment of their fees) is bad for the democratic process.
Note that the USA has three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial. The purpose of the legislative branch is to pass laws - good laws, bad laws, stupid laws, anything they want. The purpose of the judicial branch is to throw out the bad laws, the stupid laws, and pretty much anything that is not a 'good' law, based on the Constitution. Note that the judicial branch does not operate by itself. Unless someone brings suit, the laws are not examined. By bringing suit, ESA forced the examination of this law by the judicial branch o four 'democracy'.
If you mean bad for the supposed democracy in place, I fail to see how one branch of the government overturning a law passed by by another branch EXACTLY AS INTENDED can be bad for our 'democracy'.
Personally, I think all laws should be considered BAD until they have been paraded before a judicial representative and validated as 'NOT BAD' before going into effect. That makes the asshats (like most - all? - politicians) create laws that
So far all I have heard from you and the OP can be summed up as "Smart people know what's best for the group".
What I have been posting is NOT what you are claiming I am saying or meaning. I have responded multiple times to you with the implied and STATED position that THE GROUP can know what is best FOR THE GROUP, but the goals of THE GROUP are thwarted by a minority putting their interests above the good of the group.
That is NOT autocracy, that is NOT democracy, that is NOT "communisim[sic]", that is NOT technocracy, that is NOT 'market forces.'
What that IS, is 'dog in the manger', NIMBY, 'what's in it for me' SELFISHNESS.
...perhaps you should do some reading of your own.
Interesting suggestion from someone who evidently IS NOT READING and UNDERSTANDING the posts you are responding to.
So far all I have heard from you and the OP can be summed up as "Smart people know what's best for the group".
As you have DEMONSTRATED that you are not a member of that group, I can see your frustration with that position - EVEN THOUGHT IT IS NOT MY (stated or implied) POSITION.
If you are not willing to READ what I am posting, then I have nothing more to say to you.
"[Y]ou are in fact arguing in favour of the anti-thesis to democratic rule. ie: You are saying that there exists a "best" solution that an arbritary minority should be imposing on the majority because "they know what's best". (ie: born to rule, thus my comment on intellectual snobbery).
Now who is putting words in others mouths??:)
My point is not what you stated, but that I first posted. No, there does not exist a "best" solution that a "minority should be imposing on the majority because "they know what's best" ". I never said that, and I don't believe it. What I said was:
"Therefore it is in the best interest of the group to construct more electricity generating facilities. The group agrees with this conclusion."
Note the bolded part. And I also wrote:
"So the self interest of each INDIVIDUAL member of a majority of the members of the group PREVENTS achieving the 'best interests' of the group.
So I am saying that, in real life, AN ARBITRARY MINORITY IS IMPOSING ON THE MAJORITY for purely selfish reasons.
Point I am trying to make is that, no matter the cost to society or the possibility of a better situation, the original poster had it correct in that the INDIVIDUAL members of a society will not ALLOW the implementation of a "best" solution if it is not perceived as a "best" solution for each individual member of the society.
Whether or not it is ACTUALLY best to support more funding for teaching 'smart' kids or less money for the 'dumb' ones, if the parents of the kids not in the selected benefit group put the interests of their kids ahead of the good of society (and that is definitely human nature), it won't happen.
And it won't happen, not because that is a good thing, but because of the SELFISHNESS evidenced - not a good thing.
Denying a minimum education to a portion of the population will only create more ignorant fools to vote for people who promise Nirvana for "us" at the expense of "them".
Agreed, which is why I never stated that, nor did the original parent poster.
_I_ think the optimum would be the method advocated by the ancient Greeks - a teacher on one of a log and a student on the other. I.e., one-on-one instruction, with the instruction tailored to each individual student. I can't see that this is feasible in any way with human teachers.
But I also think that the current method of massing kids together and 'teaching' (or is it babysitting) at the lowest common level is BAD! BAD! BAD!
Will it ever change? Not as long as parents put the welfare of THEIR OWN kids ahead of the welfare of the group, and as long as the status quo is seen as better than the alternative BY A MAJORITY of the individuals of the group, no matter the conclusion of the group.
Real world example? How about a campaign finance reform law in the USA. Most people feel it would be a good idea, and most elected officials are seen to be FOR it, but it will never pass because EACH ONE of the elected officials who could pass the law have a SELFISH reason NOT to pass the law. The MINORITY is ARBITRARILY imposing their will on the MAJORITY.
So how do you define "best interests of the group", if it is not the self interest of the majority?
This deserves a thread of its own, but here goes.
More electric generating capacity would reduce the price of electricity, reducing monthly bills for residential customers, making production less costly and therefore possibly reducing costs for consumer goods resulting in lower prices, and, with newer technology being more efficient and more clean, would allow the older, more polluting, less efficient facilities to be shutdown with the resources then able to be diverted to more worthwhile possibilities.
Therefore it is in the best interest of the group to construct more electricity generating facilities. The group agrees with this conclusion.
However, having a power generating complex in the neighborhood is generally considered to lower property values and have possible safety issues.
Therefore, it is, in the SELF INTEREST of the members of the group to oppose the construction of power generating facilities IN THEIR IMMEDIATE VICINITY. Thus NIMBY - Not In My BackYard.
So the self interest of each INDIVIDUAL member of a majority of the members of the group PREVENTS achieving the 'best interests' of the group.
[T]o be more blunt, the world does not owe you a living simply because someone thinks your[sic] smart.
Agreed. But the world also does not owe anyone an education or a living FOR ANY REASON - someone thinking you're smart or 'dumb' or because you are American, or you're of a race that was oppressed at some point in time (American Indian, Negro, Irish, you-pick-it), or because your parents were rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it just playing with words to differentiate between "stealing" (physical theft) and "depriving someone of money" (through fraud, not paying royalties or whatever).
If you throw a rock and break my window, I can not have you arrested for murder. What you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
If I leave my front door unlocked and you come into my home unwanted and uninvited, I can not charge you with rape, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
If you infringe on my right to limit the copying of a work (under copyright) I can not charge you with theft, AS WHAT YOU DID DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE CHARGE.
If you created (say) a piece of software that you could sell for $100,000 a pop and I just copied it and used it, surely you would not be happy and you would expect to be able to sue me?
Of course, if I had a copyright on the software and you infringed that copyright, then I could sue you and expect to recoup the lost income. I just could not charge you with theft, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
It wouldn't make much difference whether it was called theft or software piracy or copyright infringement, I'd still have done you out of $100,000.
If you broke into my home and took $100,000 in cash then I would be out the money and you would be guilty of theft. You would NOT, however, be guilty of software piracy or copyright infringement.
If you broke into my home and took a CD with software worth $100,000 then I would be out the CD, and out the use of the software, and you would be guilty of theft, but not of software piracy or copyright infringement.
If I were selling the software for $100,000 and you broke into my shop and took a CD with the software on it, then you would be guilty of theft but not guilty of software piracy or copyright infringement.
If you COPIED that software and distributed it without a license from me (as the copyright holder), THEN you are guilty of copyright infringement - but unless you actually took a physical item from me you ARE NOT guilty of theft. You have not taken anything of value from me, you have only usurped my POTENTIAL PROFIT MAKING ability, a monopoly granted under copyright.
You have infringed on my legal rights, and I can sue you under CIVIL law for redress, but you have not violated CRIMINAL LAW relating to theft.
Same point, in a slightly different wording: If I LEGALLY obtain a copyrighted work under a license that restricts copying of that work then there have been no laws broken or infringed. If I then MAKE A COPY (or copies) without proper licensure, THEN I HAVE NOW BROKEN A LAW OR INFRINGED ON A LEGAL RIGHT. Based on the situation as given in this paragraph, I have not committed assult, libel, slander, carjacking, theft, barratry, loitering, littering, manslaughter, or any number of other actions that are illegal. Therefore, talking about what I did and calling it assult, libel, slander, carjacking, theft, barratry, loitering, littering, manslaughter, or any of the number of other actions that are illegal is wrong. I didn't do any of those things.
No, he didn't.
Granny knot (left over right, left over right) slips and comes untied.
Square knot (left over right, right over left) resists slipping, stays tied.
WAAAAAY to subtle for me.
Did you just call the parent poster a finger-poker, an assgrabber, or an idiot? I can't tell which one you meant...
MICROSOFT: No, no, don't move to Linux, it is different and you will have to retrain everyone!
EVERYONE: But what about the new Office? It is totally different, and will require retraining everyone.
MICROSOFT: Well...Uh...that is...uh...maybe so, but at least it isn't Linux!
To all those who say the post office doesn't have to deliver it, you are wrong.
Yes, I did read straightdope.com.
Tape the label to a brick, and the Post office doesn't have to deliver it.
Tape the label to a "Brick (wrapped in shipping paper)" and the Post Office DOES have to deliver it.
In the first case it is obvious you are sending a brick, in the second you are sending a wrapped package that meets all the postal requirements.
I worked as a mail carrier for the Post Office for several years in the 80s, I don't think I ever delivered any bricks.
I MetaModerate you as UNFAIR
;} ) the Daytona 500, or go off roading, or other complex tasks - assuming I had the education and skills as well as a car capable of doing those things.
I think the post you are replying to is more correct.
Yes, the user interface in a car is simple, but the user is limited to only doing simple things.
Want to change the idle speed from 1000 RPM to 750 RPM? There is no easy way for an end user to make that change. Change the RPM shift point? Show me how you would do it.
There are some complex tasks that are possible, but the simplistic user interface does not allow them.
The computer has a fairly simple user interface as well - keyboard or pointing device (or a combination of the two - shift/click for example). Hard to get much simpler than that! But the activities that simplistic interface allow can be extreamly complex.
Using the very simplistic interface to the computer, I can do word processing, photo editing, audio recording, and other very complex tasks, assuming I had the education and skills as well as the software (and a computer, of course!).
Using the simplistic interface to the car, I can drive in LA traffic, or (perhaps the same thing?
Navigating a browser to cruise the WWW gives more options than navigating a Ford to cruise to StarBucks. The first task is more complex than the second.
At one time, acronyms were ONLY those that could be pronounced as a word.
SCUBA, NASA, and so forth were proper acronyms.
SCSI, SQL, and their ilk would not have been considered an acronym as they could not be pronounced as a word.
By use, some of the unpronouncable combinations have made it into mainstream use as 'acronyms', while others are still just initials - for example, FBI, CIA, USA.
Just curious, but why did SCSI become "scuzzy" when IDE is just IDE?
Why is SQL "Sequel" but iSQL is just ISQL?
GUI is "gooey", but WYSIWYG is just that?
Probably my most favorite, though, is Tanstaafl - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - I pronounce it "tan staff el".
I read the article, but have not read any of the replies, so this may be a "Me Too!" posting.
;} )and need GIMP for producing photos for the proper permits? Oh, and you only have a Ti-99? FINE!! Here is the original code for free (as in beer), you are free (as in speach) to get it working on your hardware, or to have someone else get it working for you.
The author of the article seems to be one of the people who think everything should be spoon feed to them, and be done so just because they "deserve it".
The first freedom they quote is the freedom to run. their implied statement is that the software should be free to run EFFECTIVELY, and therefore the software should be dumbed down to the level of the least able user.
If the user is not smart enough or motivated enough to learn the required skills and steps to use the software effectively, they are still free to run the software (first FOSS freedom), they just will not get good results (not addressed in the FOSS freedoms).
I have never wanted or used Adobe PhotoShop or any of the FOSS photo manipulation offerings. I would not expect GIMP to be made so non-complex that I could just install it and start cranking out professional quality images. There is no expectation on my part that I would not have a fairly steep learning curve - with either PhotoShop or GIMP.
The first FOSS freedom is lack of restrictions on the user as to when, where, how, who, etc can run the software. Are you a gay alien wanting to build landing strips for Martians (mangled on purpose
Back to the article - If you want to do complex things with software, there are some irreducible complexities you will have to learn, FOSS or Windows (or other non-FOSS) software.
And I was diagnosed with Aspergers (a form of autism - rather "a range on the autism continuum") at 45.
'Course I had the signs and symptoms as well as the effects (and affects) and mannerisms before then, they just were not put together as a diagnosis until then.
Not neccessarily weakened. Most frequently it is DEAD virus or even PARTS of a dead virus (Purified Protein Coat method springs to mind) that is used to make the vaccine.
It isn't so much of a 'practice run against a weakened opponent' as a chace to recognize the surface pattern and create (and remember) the corresponding 'key' for the next time that surface configuration is found.
Remember, the first vaccinations were for smallpox (frequently fatal) and were achieved by giving cowpox (rarely fatal). The surface configuration of cowpox is "Close Enough" to the surface configuration of smallpox for the body to recognize the smallpox invader as cowpox and fight it off using the cowpox antibodies.
I am not a doctor, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night! (and worked as an ER nurse for over 10 years...)
Reye's syndrome.
KILLS PEOPLE.
Can't get much more damage than that!
What an ass.
RIMM had Income of $361.2 Million on sales of $1.9 Billion in the last 12 months.
Of that $361.2 Million, they paid out $612 Million in the last litigation, plus how much in future licensing fees? Now another hyena is sniffing.
Yeah, I just bet the shareholders are happy to be going in that direction!
Really hard to figure out why you'll never run a major corporation.
Somehow I have the same feeling about you.
I actively refuse to read his 'articles', and he makes a really screwed up keyboard (I can't touchtype on his keyboard, all the letters are wrong!), but I like his music...
Microsoft bundles IE with Windows because you have to put some sort of web browser there ... In order for the general consumer to be able to make the choice between available free and non free web browsers, something has to be bundled with Windows to allow them to obtain whatever they choose.
Wrong, and you even got modded up. Way to go, stupid moderators!
Remember the AOL coasters that were ubiquitious? THEY INCLUDED A BROWSER!
I was on a BBS that gave away the client to allow you to connect. Just call or mail and get a browser in the mail.
You could order FREE versions delivered by mail from a variety of sources - I got Netscape 1.something in the mail that way.
You could use terminal software to connect to network sources for browsers - even Windows 3.1 had hyper-terminal!
The fact that the average consumer will quite happily sit with IE because it's already there isn't Microsofts fault.
Not their fault, but it IS something they count on. They give a crappy, broken, non-standards compliant, insecure product with every OS, and count on everyone staying with that crappy, broken, non-standards compliant, insecure browser - in fact, they INSIST on it by breaking downloads of OS patches and upgrades from other browsers and by using that browser for the OS to communicate with the user.
I don't know if people remember the pre IE days.
Yes, I do. I remember GEnie, CompuServe, and BBS software. I remember Gopher, Veronica, and Archie. I remember xmodem to get files, and how Kermit was so impressive in its' ability to RESUME an interupted download, instead of restarting. I remeber upgrading to a 1200 baud modem and being amazed at the speed increase over my old 300 baud modem.
Back then browsers weren't free and you didn't have much choice.
Wrong. When the HTTP protocol was proposed, there were many implementations available, many for free. Remember that the protocol was being developed at public institutions and was almost always dependent on government support so was REQUIRED to be public domain. Some took the PD material and incorporated it into propriatary software (from the information contained in IE6.0 - "NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.")
without MS having a web strategy then the web as we know it today would still be a hobbyist toy and would not have gained the momentum it did.
You see it half full, I see it half empty. The World Wide Web was a rock pushed off a cliff; it had momentum and impetus of its own BEFORE MS got involved in trying to hijack it for MS's profit. MS was a Johnny-come-lately to the web party, and only was able to join the dance by fairly underhanded means - they "licensed" a product from Spyglass (Mosaic) on a percentage-of-each-perchase-price basis then BUNDLED it with their OS - so Spyglass got a percentage of ZERO and went out of business.
You are correct, MS had a web strategy; take over the internet so distributed computing and Java programming could not interfere with their OS monopoly. I would not say that there was a vision of the future they were trying to attain, rather a potential future they saw but were trying to block off.
I would maintain that the web-as-we-know-it exists DESPITE MS's efforts to derail it.
If it was running slower then ti would still be right twice a day.
You aren't right even once a day.
A NON-RUNNING clock is correct twice a day, a slow clock is right only when the degree of slowness is an even multiple of 12 hours.
A clock that loses 1 second per minute (i.e., takes 61 seconds to indicate one minute elapsed) will be one second off at one minuts, two seconds off at two minutes, etc.
The number of seconds in 12 hours is 43200, so it would take that number of minutes for the actual time to match the indicated time. that is 43200 minutes, or 720 hours, or 30 days before a clock that lost one second per minute would again indicate the correct time.
A clock with an AM/PM indicator would take twice as long, or 60 days to again indicate the correct time.
Agreed that that is a ridiculous statement.
Big Oil would not start making cars, they would start LICENSING THE CARBURETOR to car makers.
If a car has an effective lifetime of 200,000 miles and gets 30 MPG, the car would use 6,667 gallons in its' lifetime (plus for idleing, etc). Assuming Big Oil gets $1 profit (not revenue) per gallon, that is an expected $6,667 from that one car.
That same car, with a 100 MPG carb would only require 2,000 gallons over its' lifetime, for a Big Oil profit of only $2000 - a difference of $4,667 over the lifetime of the car.
If Big Oil licensed the patented carb for $5000 they would make MORE PROFIT by having the carb and making it available than by NOT having the carb, or having it and not making it available.
Big Oil is ruthless and profit motivated, which, to me, shows that they DON'T have such a carb, or they would have marketed it heavily. I am sure they can see which is more, $55.56 per month over 10 years (total of $6,667.20), or $5000 lump sum now, PLUS $16.67 per month for the next 10 years (total of $2000 + $5000 = $7,000).
In addition, when a car is driven there is a chance for accidents that might kill the vehicle before the expected lifetime - so the 200,000 miles might never be reached. With the $5000 up-front payment, the first 90 mothes are 'pre-paid' and if the vehicle dies before the 200,000 mile mark, Big Oil's profit from that car goes WAY up.
DNC, dude, DNC.
There is a 100 mpg carburetor patent that an oil company is sitting on.
1) I don't find it in the patent database,
2) if there was such a thing, the government could appropriate it as 'vital to national security' and use it on government vehicles - not happening
3) 'big oil' would be able to SET THE LICENSE FEE high enough to recoup the cost of any oil saved by the hardware. They would not care if it existed or not, they would only care that it did not reduce their (currently obscene) profits.
If I invented such a carburetor, the oil companies would not care about the hardware, they would care that their profits were going to me instead of to them. Buying the patent would get the profits going back to them, and they would be back at the status quo ante.
Proctor and Gamble has bought out some organic companies and then dissolved them overnite to protect their non-organic trade secrets
Name names if you can, I can't find any examples that fit your claim. And, again, there would not be any need to 'disolve' the companies to protect trade secrets, just a NDA and keep on trucking. If the company makes widgets at a profit and also knows how to make thingamies, and I don't want them making thingamies, I would not buy them out and make them quit producing (at a profit) the widgets just so that they could not (potentially, at some future time) start making thingamies.
Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong, based on the link _you_ provided.
"Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means;
Proper means include:
1. Discovery by independent invention;
2. Discovery by "reverse engineering", that is, by starting with the known product and working backward to find the method by which it was developed. The acquisition of the known product must, of course, also be by a fair and honest means, such as purchase of the item on the open market for reverse engineering to be lawful;
3. Discovery under a license from the owner of the trade secret;
4. Observation of the item in public use or on public display;
5. Obtaining the trade secret from published literature.
So the parent poster is correct, in that someone who "happens to discover" the process has just as much right to use the process as anyone else if the only protection is "trade secrets".
You are correct if someone TAKES the secret from you without your knowledge or permission ("theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means"), but completely wrong if someone DISCOVERS the secret - 'independent invention','reverse engineering','license from the owner','Observation of the item in public use or on public display',or from published literature.
From your link, the parent poster is correct that there is "no special legal protection" for trade secrets but there is special legal protection against improper taking of trade secrets.
Laws are strange, it is legal for a non-monopolist company to do some things that it is NOT legal for a monopolist company to do.
VMWare taking profits from a higher end product to subsidize a lower end product is legal (the first taste is free, then we start charging!)
Microsoft taking profits from their OS monopoly to invade another area is NOT legal - and it is not legal BECAUSE they are a monopoly in the OS area.
IANAL
There are a bunch of things you have wrong, and some contradictory as well.
First, the courts are not "awarding legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature", they are being asked to award fees sustained in running an successful legal suit.
The result of the suit is that the law is shown to be unconstitutional and the state is enjoined from enforcing that law, but that is the proper procedure for overturning unconstitutional laws.
In addition, according to TFA, "But the State has left little choice, and this petition is consistent with the rules of the federal courts regarding award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties." so ESA is asking for WHAT THE FEDERAL COURT RULES ALLOW for the winning side of a law suit.
I don't follow where you are getting 'following the rules to get rid of a bad rule is good, but continuing to follow the rules is bad.'
From TFA: "From the day Governor Blagojevich announced that he would seek anti-video game legislation, it was clear to everyone that the proposal would be found unconstitutional and would waste taxpayers dollars in a protracted legal fight that would leave parents no better off," [Kennedy] said.
So it is not ESA gaming the system, it is the governor. And the governor should be held accountable for his stupidity in this matter.
From TFA:
"Unfortunately, while it was clear we could agree on the amount of fees to be reimbursed, the state made other demands which we could not accept. Accordingly, consistent with our belief that the public has a right to know how much of their tax dollars were spent defending a statute that everyone knew from the start was unconstitutional, we have proceeded with this filing."
So the state is not even asking that ESA NOT get the fees, they are asking for ADDITIONAL demands - even though the state LOST the suit and have NO legal standing to make additional demands of ESA.
Looks to me like the state is being a total ass - passing an uncostitutional law, refusing to back down when confronted, then refusing to pay the winning sides fees without adding some demands THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADD to the condition of payment.
From TFA:
As we said from the outset, we would have preferred to spend our resources on cooperative programs to help parents ensure their kids play appropriate games, rather than divert money to respond to politically motivated attacks on video games.
So ESA used funds from "cooperative programs" to fight this law, and they should not be required to just eat the loss of funds.
That's bad for democracy.
Not proven, and I feel that it is totally wrong.
If you mean bad for the democratic process, then you are wrong. The people, throught the democratic process, organized the system the way it is, so NOT FOLLOWING the system as it is (including lawsuits against bad laws and winner petitioning for payment of their fees) is bad for the democratic process.
Note that the USA has three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial. The purpose of the legislative branch is to pass laws - good laws, bad laws, stupid laws, anything they want. The purpose of the judicial branch is to throw out the bad laws, the stupid laws, and pretty much anything that is not a 'good' law, based on the Constitution. Note that the judicial branch does not operate by itself. Unless someone brings suit, the laws are not examined. By bringing suit, ESA forced the examination of this law by the judicial branch o four 'democracy'.
If you mean bad for the supposed democracy in place, I fail to see how one branch of the government overturning a law passed by by another branch EXACTLY AS INTENDED can be bad for our 'democracy'.
Personally, I think all laws should be considered BAD until they have been paraded before a judicial representative and validated as 'NOT BAD' before going into effect. That makes the asshats (like most - all? - politicians) create laws that
What I have been posting is NOT what you are claiming I am saying or meaning. I have responded multiple times to you with the implied and STATED position that THE GROUP can know what is best FOR THE GROUP, but the goals of THE GROUP are thwarted by a minority putting their interests above the good of the group.
That is NOT autocracy, that is NOT democracy, that is NOT "communisim[sic]", that is NOT technocracy, that is NOT 'market forces.'
What that IS, is 'dog in the manger', NIMBY, 'what's in it for me' SELFISHNESS.
Interesting suggestion from someone who evidently IS NOT READING and UNDERSTANDING the posts you are responding to.
So far all I have heard from you and the OP can be summed up as "Smart people know what's best for the group".
As you have DEMONSTRATED that you are not a member of that group, I can see your frustration with that position - EVEN THOUGHT IT IS NOT MY (stated or implied) POSITION.
If you are not willing to READ what I am posting, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Have a day.
"[Y]ou are in fact arguing in favour of the anti-thesis to democratic rule. ie: You are saying that there exists a "best" solution that an arbritary minority should be imposing on the majority because "they know what's best". (ie: born to rule, thus my comment on intellectual snobbery).
:)
Now who is putting words in others mouths??
My point is not what you stated, but that I first posted. No, there does not exist a "best" solution that a "minority should be imposing on the majority because "they know what's best" ". I never said that, and I don't believe it. What I said was:
"Therefore it is in the best interest of the group to construct more electricity generating facilities. The group agrees with this conclusion. "
Note the bolded part. And I also wrote:
"So the self interest of each INDIVIDUAL member of a majority of the members of the group PREVENTS achieving the 'best interests' of the group.
So I am saying that, in real life, AN ARBITRARY MINORITY IS IMPOSING ON THE MAJORITY for purely selfish reasons.
Point I am trying to make is that, no matter the cost to society or the possibility of a better situation, the original poster had it correct in that the INDIVIDUAL members of a society will not ALLOW the implementation of a "best" solution if it is not perceived as a "best" solution for each individual member of the society.
Whether or not it is ACTUALLY best to support more funding for teaching 'smart' kids or less money for the 'dumb' ones, if the parents of the kids not in the selected benefit group put the interests of their kids ahead of the good of society (and that is definitely human nature), it won't happen.
And it won't happen, not because that is a good thing, but because of the SELFISHNESS evidenced - not a good thing.
Denying a minimum education to a portion of the population will only create more ignorant fools to vote for people who promise Nirvana for "us" at the expense of "them".
Agreed, which is why I never stated that, nor did the original parent poster.
_I_ think the optimum would be the method advocated by the ancient Greeks - a teacher on one of a log and a student on the other. I.e., one-on-one instruction, with the instruction tailored to each individual student. I can't see that this is feasible in any way with human teachers.
But I also think that the current method of massing kids together and 'teaching' (or is it babysitting) at the lowest common level is BAD! BAD! BAD!
Will it ever change? Not as long as parents put the welfare of THEIR OWN kids ahead of the welfare of the group, and as long as the status quo is seen as better than the alternative BY A MAJORITY of the individuals of the group, no matter the conclusion of the group.
Real world example? How about a campaign finance reform law in the USA. Most people feel it would be a good idea, and most elected officials are seen to be FOR it, but it will never pass because EACH ONE of the elected officials who could pass the law have a SELFISH reason NOT to pass the law. The MINORITY is ARBITRARILY imposing their will on the MAJORITY.
So how do you define "best interests of the group", if it is not the self interest of the majority?
This deserves a thread of its own, but here goes.
More electric generating capacity would reduce the price of electricity, reducing monthly bills for residential customers, making production less costly and therefore possibly reducing costs for consumer goods resulting in lower prices, and, with newer technology being more efficient and more clean, would allow the older, more polluting, less efficient facilities to be shutdown with the resources then able to be diverted to more worthwhile possibilities.
Therefore it is in the best interest of the group to construct more electricity generating facilities. The group agrees with this conclusion.
However, having a power generating complex in the neighborhood is generally considered to lower property values and have possible safety issues.
Therefore, it is, in the SELF INTEREST of the members of the group to oppose the construction of power generating facilities IN THEIR IMMEDIATE VICINITY. Thus NIMBY - Not In My BackYard.
So the self interest of each INDIVIDUAL member of a majority of the members of the group PREVENTS achieving the 'best interests' of the group.
[T]o be more blunt, the world does not owe you a living simply because someone thinks your[sic] smart.
Agreed. But the world also does not owe anyone an education or a living FOR ANY REASON - someone thinking you're smart or 'dumb' or because you are American, or you're of a race that was oppressed at some point in time (American Indian, Negro, Irish, you-pick-it), or because your parents were rich.