I think the main thing is that you should love software and technology, not just as a career but as a way of life. That doesn't mean you can't have other interests. But you have to be interested in programming as more than just a way to make a living. Unfortunately this often translates as "no life, willing to work long hours for no extra pay". But not always.
You can build a system that will "make" value judgements based on an analysis of data through the filter of certain programmed assumptions. With a complex enough algorithm and enough input of the right kinds, you can get a sense of world opinion on something. With a robust and mature network of trust in the mix, you can be reasonably certain that the information you get has been tested and should be of use. Especially if it is able to take into account complex contextual input to adjust the information to fit your situation.
In that sense, with those and other tools in place, such a system can advance human knowledge the same way humans do: by analysing and synthesizing existing knowledge. Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. In a sense his intuitive guesses were based on disregarding prevalent assumptions while still taking into account existing information.
The main problem I can see with the idea of a system that can just create a new scientific theory is that thorough science involves experimental verification, refinement and reinterpretation of theory. This could be automated and sped up too, I suppose, but it would involve a lot more resources to build than a system that can just make new non-scientific knowledge. And either system would be a lot more difficult to build than one that just provides opinion, nuance and interpretation as useful meta-data for existing knowledge.
This is a tempting vision, but the problem is that while Google has certainly built a nice big database and a lot of useful algorithms for interpreting search queries, they still need a lot more components to build something like what you suggest. And building these components is, to say the least, not trivial. I'm pretty sure they are thinking about at least some of these, probably all of them. That doesn't mean they're on the verge of making it happen.
A few of the components are, in no particular order:
A better interface Limiting search queries to text strings isn't going to cut it. They need an interface that allows more complex input, and dynamic interaction with the results. They also need algorithms to handle searches based on that input. Complex input would include video, audio and other media types, individually and in combination. They would need the ability to form complex connections between different types of information. You should be able to show Google a scene from a movie and have it answer questions about that movie and anything related to it, within the context of the movie. Unless of course you change the context, whether explicitly or subtly. Basically you should be able to have a conversation with it just like you would talk to a trusted friend or colleague - one who just happens to have perfect recall and a huge store of knowledge.
Better identification and categorization (grouping) of results They have this to some extent, of course. But it needs be more sophisticated by many orders of magnitude. One approach which I believe they are already using is to have trusted people provide feedback on automated categorization, kind of like meta-moderating on Slashdot only the original moderation is done by software. But this is barely beginning. One obstacle to this is that many sources of information on the web are actively mislabeled or "over labeled" by their creators, maintainers and/or third parties (a.k.a. Search Engine Optimization). The opposite is also true of many other data sources: they aren't properly labeled or categorized and so they get overlooked. Google should be able to know whether a piece of information is relevant as easily as would an (open minded) expert who looked at it. And it should be able to tell you things like "this piece of information is related to what you're asking about, and it's sort of interesting, but it might be a little crackpot because..." and so forth.
Digital limits At any point in time there are limits to what information can be acquired, stored and accessed in digital form. Assuming Google is limiting itself to dealing with information in digital form, these limits will apply. Some classes of information are not available to Google for reasons of personal privacy or proprietary business interest. Other information is simply beyond the ability of current technology to capture in digital form, like unexpressed or uncaptured human thought and emotion. This includes nuance. It's not a minor thing to lack nuance, either, because something like 90% or more of human communication is estimated to consist of things like vocal tone and facial expression.
Anyhow, I'm no expert, but I would say your vision is far from reality. Like I said, I suspect Google is moving towards something like what you suggest, but I don't think it is forthcoming in the near future. More likely is that progress in these areas will lead to better techniques for capturing opinion, nuance and subtlety that is related to "hard" information. These are things that will still require vast amounts of human input, networks of trust, etc. But Google will hopefully help automate a lot of the "legwork" in that process. If not, someone else probably will, because the result will be an incredibly valuable (and therefore lucrative) tool for business and personal advantage.
The article mentions that JPL doesn't want to run Linux on servers because Solaris has a longer, more reliable and stable life cycle. But Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a comparable life cycle. They should be honest and just admit that they're more comfortable with Solaris because they've traditionally been a Solaris shop. If they had said that they rely on a lot of closed source applications that only run on Solaris, or in-house proprietary code that would be difficult to port, that I could buy. Otherwise it's just a comfort zone thing for the admins, managers and/or users. Which doesn't seem like a good reason to continue wasting tax payer dollars on overpriced hardware and support.
As far as MS is concerned, IE is not about web browsing. The web browser view of IE is just the sugar coating to get regular consumers to use it. IE's primary purpose is to be a client interface to applications written in ActiveX, VBscript, etc. That's why it is so popular in businesses, even those who use custom Windows desktop builds and/or software distribution and could easily put Firefox on every PC in their organization.
If it was about which web browser is the best, Firefox would easily dominate the market, especially in corporations where security is important. But MS has locked people into IE by convincing them to use their proprietary platform for web applications. If Opera (or any other browser) could access all of those applications (by default - I know there are plugins and such for this) then they might be able to replace IE, since like I said the web browsing portion is secondary to MS. But they've put a lot of work into 'optimizing' IE to be a client for those apps, so I don't see them throwing that away. Besides which, any security advantage in using the rendering engine and UI from Opera would be wiped out by adding in ActiveX and VBscript support.
Dvorak doesn't understand this aspect of IE, it seems, which is the only reason I can think of for his suggestion that Opera could replace IE. It's not about the web browsing, it's about the application platform. IE is an integral part of the MS proprietary web platform and that's not likely to change so easily.
Let's not forget Clusty. I already use them a lot for relatively basic searches. Maybe I'll be using them even more now.
Re:Is Opera Google's doorway to beating Microsoft?
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 1
Funny thing is, Opera doesn't work with Google Maps too well, compared to Firefox. And it didn't work at all until Opera grudingly added the non-standard XmlHTTPRequest function. Sadly, being on the cutting edge of web applications usually means paying more attention to real-world de facto "standards" created by IE and Firefox, as opposed to what's codified in the official standards documents.
Funny, most Blackberry lovers look at it in exactly the opposite way - that their devices are lean, functional, stable machines for doing real work. The Palm and Windows Mobile devices are "pretty" and have lots of useless gadgety features that make them unstable and unsuitable for critical applications.
Why do you think government, police and financial companies are some of the biggest die-hard Blackberry users? It's because they live and die by e-mail, and the Blackberry is the only device that is really reliable and has full e-mail functionality.
Half of the posts I read by Treo and Windows Mobile users say something like "sure it crashes or has weird error messages sometimes, but it plays MP3s and videos and has a camera and wi-fi and and and!!!". The Blackberry fits the opposite niche: sure it doesn't play MP3s or videos or have a camera or wi-fi, but it Just Works(tm).
BTW, to preempt nitpickers, I should say that there is a Wi-Fi BlackBerry with SIP VoIP capability, which it has in lieu of a GSM/GPRS or CDMA radio, not in addition to. It's called the 7270.
upon further review of TFA:...Mr. Negroponte, after meeting with Mr. Gates, now says, "The machine will run anything, including Windows."...and OSX x86. Unless they leave the platform-locking DRM in. Oops!
Also, in reference to the "OS that can be tinkered with" bit, obviously they're not suggesting that every poor kid in Nigeria will want to hack the kernel. But then again, wouldn't it be ironic if those kids ended up turning Lagos into a Bangalore-style software powerhouse because they were allowed to dig into the code instead of being passive users at the mercy of Apple? And not having to worry about Apple changing their mind and charging outrageous fees for minor service packs?
Why not allow people to choose? Do poor people have to have their decisions made for them, unlike the lucky wealthy people? Do we know what's best for them? Imperial hubris.
So who's saying Apple can't come out with a competing $100 laptop running OSX? The people putting up the money for MIT's $100 laptop chose Linux. They get to make that choice because it's their money funding the project. If Apple wants to offer a different choice they should do it on their dime. I think a lot of people would love to have a cheap OSX box if it was actually useful.
They want to be a solutions provider - hardware, software and support. But their Kool-Aid is getting pretty stale. Their own platforms (Solaris and SPARC) are increasingly viewed as legacy stuff.
They need to reinvent themselves as an end-to-end solutions provider for Linux and dump (or at least really heavily de-emphasize) the rest. Forget about OpenSolaris - salvage what little is still worth anything in Solaris, GPL it and help integrate it into Linux. Stop designing, making and selling new SPARC hardware - give the platform to Fujitsu or Toshiba or whoever is stupid enough to want it. Focus entirely on making the best AMD64-based servers money can buy. Become the new high end of the Linux server market. Be the vendor that can sell you the complete package. Have support techs that know more about Red Hat than Red Hat.
But it won't happen, or it'll happen too little too late, because they have too much money, pride and identity invested in the legacy crap. What a waste.
Re:Looks... pretty much the same as everything els
on
Review: Darkwatch
·
· Score: 1
This will either not get used much and be easily ignored, or it will cause a wave of dissent and defection among Tivo viewers which will lead to it getting yanked. It either forces the issue or it's irrelevant. Either one is fine with me. Let's rumble.
Your tinfoil-hat kung fu is the best. I bow to your superior breed of paranoia. All previous rants will be wiped away, and a new order of trolling shall arise from the ashes.
It's one thing for Dvorak to predict the Apple move to Intel; that's a meat and potatoes hardware business prediction that lots of other (non zealotous) people made as well.
But he doesn't have a freakin' clue about open source development. It's not an either/or proposition. People will continue to write software that can be targeted to OS X and Linux and [insert favorite *NIX OS here].
Yes, it may hurt Linux on the desktop somewhat, if Apple's Intel-based hardware is cheap and/or running OS X on generic hardware isn't a big PITA. But that's no real skin off my potatos as long as it helps hurt M$.
Seriously though, Stern is an enemy of the FCC and Clear Channel, which makes him a friend in my book. He drives conservative politicians and religious freaks nuts, too, which is just gravy. If he were on all day I'd listen to him, especially when he starts talking about the people who hate him and how hypocritical and ridiculous they are.
The second part of your statement is impossible in linear time. If a show is on once and your recorder fails, be it MCE, Myth, TiVo, DVDR, VCR, whatever, it is impossible to recover the signal which is no longer available.
I think the original poster was referring to the fact that if you tell MCE to record only a single episode of a show which is on at a particular time, and it fails to do so, it will try to record a later showing of the same episode. Of course this is of limited usefulness, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics or anything.
Did you really think that as you typed? It is impossible for any tuner to record more than one channel at a time. Padding extends the recording of a channel beyond the match in the schedule data. MCE most certainly is NOT capable of somehow recording multiple channels per tuner concurrently, nor can it record linearly temporal broadcasts in a non-linear manner.
OK, again, I don't think the original poster is ignorant of basic concepts such as linear time. I think the point is that if you pad a recording in MCE, it doesn't count that as extending the timeslot of the show, so it doesn't create a conflict that prevents the recording of another show that comes on right after the timeslot of the padded recording ends. So after it's done with the padded recording, it starts recording the second show, even if that show's timeslot has already begun. Again, this is of limited usefulness - especially with dual tuners. But it won't cause a tear in the fabric of spacetime.
A cooler feature, BTW, would be to let you schedule recordings with overlapping timeslots on different channels, then decide which program takes precedence during the overlap or particular slices of the overlap. This would let you (well, more importantly, me) schedule CSI and ER normally even though ER technically begins at 8:59PM and CSI doesn't end until 9PM. I could tell it to just record CSI until its slot ends and then start recording ER. Of course with a dual tuner DTiVo model it's not really an issue anyway.
Do you mean video overlay? It's not that difficult to inhibit playback of the looping backgrounds on a TiVo. That's been available for more than a year.
I think this means a PIP style view of the show, which I believe DTiVo has but not standalones.
By the way, just how long is Barlow going to coast on co-writing some Grateful Dead lyrics forty years ago? Isn't there a statute of limitations or something?
Yeah, you're right, it's not as if he co-founded the EFF or has a fellowship at Harvard Law or anything like that.
Stan Lee had a contract with Marvel entitling him to a percentage of profits. So it's not really an intellectual property issue, it's basic contract law.
I'm no expert, but I think the character Spider-Man is protected by a trademark, and a movie like "Spider-Man" is protected by copyright, whereas something like a desktop metaphor for a computer interface would be covered by a patent.
I think the issue here is that Stan Lee had a contract with Marvel which entitled him to 10% of profits from TV, movie and merchandising deals (at least involving characters he created - not sure about others). Marvel tried to say that the contract didn't really say that, Stan disagreed and sued, and he won.
Unless this is meant to be a joke, it's stupid. The winner of this bid process won't have that level of control over.net. The only real issue is whether the winner will be able to keep.net up and running, because as the article mentions sites like walmart.com rely on that infrastructure. All of their nameservers are in.net, so if the.net gTLD servers were to go down people might have to actually go to the store to buy things or make a phone call or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the main thing is that you should love software and technology, not just as a career but as a way of life. That doesn't mean you can't have other interests. But you have to be interested in programming as more than just a way to make a living. Unfortunately this often translates as "no life, willing to work long hours for no extra pay". But not always.
You can build a system that will "make" value judgements based on an analysis of data through the filter of certain programmed assumptions. With a complex enough algorithm and enough input of the right kinds, you can get a sense of world opinion on something. With a robust and mature network of trust in the mix, you can be reasonably certain that the information you get has been tested and should be of use. Especially if it is able to take into account complex contextual input to adjust the information to fit your situation.
In that sense, with those and other tools in place, such a system can advance human knowledge the same way humans do: by analysing and synthesizing existing knowledge. Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. In a sense his intuitive guesses were based on disregarding prevalent assumptions while still taking into account existing information.
The main problem I can see with the idea of a system that can just create a new scientific theory is that thorough science involves experimental verification, refinement and reinterpretation of theory. This could be automated and sped up too, I suppose, but it would involve a lot more resources to build than a system that can just make new non-scientific knowledge. And either system would be a lot more difficult to build than one that just provides opinion, nuance and interpretation as useful meta-data for existing knowledge.
This is a tempting vision, but the problem is that while Google has certainly built a nice big database and a lot of useful algorithms for interpreting search queries, they still need a lot more components to build something like what you suggest. And building these components is, to say the least, not trivial. I'm pretty sure they are thinking about at least some of these, probably all of them. That doesn't mean they're on the verge of making it happen.
A few of the components are, in no particular order:
A better interface
Limiting search queries to text strings isn't going to cut it. They need an interface that allows more complex input, and dynamic interaction with the results. They also need algorithms to handle searches based on that input. Complex input would include video, audio and other media types, individually and in combination. They would need the ability to form complex connections between different types of information. You should be able to show Google a scene from a movie and have it answer questions about that movie and anything related to it, within the context of the movie. Unless of course you change the context, whether explicitly or subtly. Basically you should be able to have a conversation with it just like you would talk to a trusted friend or colleague - one who just happens to have perfect recall and a huge store of knowledge.
Better identification and categorization (grouping) of results
They have this to some extent, of course. But it needs be more sophisticated by many orders of magnitude. One approach which I believe they are already using is to have trusted people provide feedback on automated categorization, kind of like meta-moderating on Slashdot only the original moderation is done by software. But this is barely beginning. One obstacle to this is that many sources of information on the web are actively mislabeled or "over labeled" by their creators, maintainers and/or third parties (a.k.a. Search Engine Optimization). The opposite is also true of many other data sources: they aren't properly labeled or categorized and so they get overlooked. Google should be able to know whether a piece of information is relevant as easily as would an (open minded) expert who looked at it. And it should be able to tell you things like "this piece of information is related to what you're asking about, and it's sort of interesting, but it might be a little crackpot because..." and so forth.
Digital limits
At any point in time there are limits to what information can be acquired, stored and accessed in digital form. Assuming Google is limiting itself to dealing with information in digital form, these limits will apply. Some classes of information are not available to Google for reasons of personal privacy or proprietary business interest. Other information is simply beyond the ability of current technology to capture in digital form, like unexpressed or uncaptured human thought and emotion. This includes nuance. It's not a minor thing to lack nuance, either, because something like 90% or more of human communication is estimated to consist of things like vocal tone and facial expression.
Anyhow, I'm no expert, but I would say your vision is far from reality. Like I said, I suspect Google is moving towards something like what you suggest, but I don't think it is forthcoming in the near future. More likely is that progress in these areas will lead to better techniques for capturing opinion, nuance and subtlety that is related to "hard" information. These are things that will still require vast amounts of human input, networks of trust, etc. But Google will hopefully help automate a lot of the "legwork" in that process. If not, someone else probably will, because the result will be an incredibly valuable (and therefore lucrative) tool for business and personal advantage.
The article mentions that JPL doesn't want to run Linux on servers because Solaris has a longer, more reliable and stable life cycle. But Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a comparable life cycle. They should be honest and just admit that they're more comfortable with Solaris because they've traditionally been a Solaris shop. If they had said that they rely on a lot of closed source applications that only run on Solaris, or in-house proprietary code that would be difficult to port, that I could buy. Otherwise it's just a comfort zone thing for the admins, managers and/or users. Which doesn't seem like a good reason to continue wasting tax payer dollars on overpriced hardware and support.
As far as MS is concerned, IE is not about web browsing. The web browser view of IE is just the sugar coating to get regular consumers to use it. IE's primary purpose is to be a client interface to applications written in ActiveX, VBscript, etc. That's why it is so popular in businesses, even those who use custom Windows desktop builds and/or software distribution and could easily put Firefox on every PC in their organization.
If it was about which web browser is the best, Firefox would easily dominate the market, especially in corporations where security is important. But MS has locked people into IE by convincing them to use their proprietary platform for web applications. If Opera (or any other browser) could access all of those applications (by default - I know there are plugins and such for this) then they might be able to replace IE, since like I said the web browsing portion is secondary to MS. But they've put a lot of work into 'optimizing' IE to be a client for those apps, so I don't see them throwing that away. Besides which, any security advantage in using the rendering engine and UI from Opera would be wiped out by adding in ActiveX and VBscript support.
Dvorak doesn't understand this aspect of IE, it seems, which is the only reason I can think of for his suggestion that Opera could replace IE. It's not about the web browsing, it's about the application platform. IE is an integral part of the MS proprietary web platform and that's not likely to change so easily.
Clusty is based on the Vivisimo Velocity engine
Let's not forget Clusty. I already use them a lot for relatively basic searches. Maybe I'll be using them even more now.
Funny thing is, Opera doesn't work with Google Maps too well, compared to Firefox. And it didn't work at all until Opera grudingly added the non-standard XmlHTTPRequest function. Sadly, being on the cutting edge of web applications usually means paying more attention to real-world de facto "standards" created by IE and Firefox, as opposed to what's codified in the official standards documents.
Funny, most Blackberry lovers look at it in exactly the opposite way - that their devices are lean, functional, stable machines for doing real work. The Palm and Windows Mobile devices are "pretty" and have lots of useless gadgety features that make them unstable and unsuitable for critical applications.
Why do you think government, police and financial companies are some of the biggest die-hard Blackberry users? It's because they live and die by e-mail, and the Blackberry is the only device that is really reliable and has full e-mail functionality.
Half of the posts I read by Treo and Windows Mobile users say something like "sure it crashes or has weird error messages sometimes, but it plays MP3s and videos and has a camera and wi-fi and and and!!!". The Blackberry fits the opposite niche: sure it doesn't play MP3s or videos or have a camera or wi-fi, but it Just Works(tm).
BTW, to preempt nitpickers, I should say that there is a Wi-Fi BlackBerry with SIP VoIP capability, which it has in lieu of a GSM/GPRS or CDMA radio, not in addition to. It's called the 7270.
Yeah, you're right, no one gives a shit about comments posted on a web site. Except yours, of course.
Uhh, OK.
upon further review of TFA: ...Mr. Negroponte, after meeting with Mr. Gates, now says, "The machine will run anything, including Windows." ...and OSX x86. Unless they leave the platform-locking DRM in. Oops!
Also, in reference to the "OS that can be tinkered with" bit, obviously they're not suggesting that every poor kid in Nigeria will want to hack the kernel. But then again, wouldn't it be ironic if those kids ended up turning Lagos into a Bangalore-style software powerhouse because they were allowed to dig into the code instead of being passive users at the mercy of Apple? And not having to worry about Apple changing their mind and charging outrageous fees for minor service packs?
Imperialism indeed.
Why not allow people to choose? Do poor people have to have their decisions made for them, unlike the lucky wealthy people? Do we know what's best for them? Imperial hubris.
So who's saying Apple can't come out with a competing $100 laptop running OSX? The people putting up the money for MIT's $100 laptop chose Linux. They get to make that choice because it's their money funding the project. If Apple wants to offer a different choice they should do it on their dime. I think a lot of people would love to have a cheap OSX box if it was actually useful.
They want to be a solutions provider - hardware, software and support. But their Kool-Aid is getting pretty stale. Their own platforms (Solaris and SPARC) are increasingly viewed as legacy stuff.
They need to reinvent themselves as an end-to-end solutions provider for Linux and dump (or at least really heavily de-emphasize) the rest. Forget about OpenSolaris - salvage what little is still worth anything in Solaris, GPL it and help integrate it into Linux. Stop designing, making and selling new SPARC hardware - give the platform to Fujitsu or Toshiba or whoever is stupid enough to want it. Focus entirely on making the best AMD64-based servers money can buy. Become the new high end of the Linux server market. Be the vendor that can sell you the complete package. Have support techs that know more about Red Hat than Red Hat.
But it won't happen, or it'll happen too little too late, because they have too much money, pride and identity invested in the legacy crap. What a waste.
You haven't been paying attention lately, have you?
This will either not get used much and be easily ignored, or it will cause a wave of dissent and defection among Tivo viewers which will lead to it getting yanked. It either forces the issue or it's irrelevant. Either one is fine with me. Let's rumble.
In Soviet Russia, the latest news has blogs.
But really, are we still suffering under the delusion that CNN is inherently more important than, say, Instapundit?
I'd say Hearst is laughing in his grave, but there you have it.
Your tinfoil-hat kung fu is the best. I bow to your superior breed of paranoia. All previous rants will be wiped away, and a new order of trolling shall arise from the ashes.
It's one thing for Dvorak to predict the Apple move to Intel; that's a meat and potatoes hardware business prediction that lots of other (non zealotous) people made as well.
But he doesn't have a freakin' clue about open source development. It's not an either/or proposition. People will continue to write software that can be targeted to OS X and Linux and [insert favorite *NIX OS here].
Yes, it may hurt Linux on the desktop somewhat, if Apple's Intel-based hardware is cheap and/or running OS X on generic hardware isn't a big PITA. But that's no real skin off my potatos as long as it helps hurt M$.
Seriously though, Stern is an enemy of the FCC and Clear Channel, which makes him a friend in my book. He drives conservative politicians and religious freaks nuts, too, which is just gravy. If he were on all day I'd listen to him, especially when he starts talking about the people who hate him and how hypocritical and ridiculous they are.
I think the original poster was referring to the fact that if you tell MCE to record only a single episode of a show which is on at a particular time, and it fails to do so, it will try to record a later showing of the same episode. Of course this is of limited usefulness, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics or anything.
Did you really think that as you typed? It is impossible for any tuner to record more than one channel at a time. Padding extends the recording of a channel beyond the match in the schedule data. MCE most certainly is NOT capable of somehow recording multiple channels per tuner concurrently, nor can it record linearly temporal broadcasts in a non-linear manner.
OK, again, I don't think the original poster is ignorant of basic concepts such as linear time. I think the point is that if you pad a recording in MCE, it doesn't count that as extending the timeslot of the show, so it doesn't create a conflict that prevents the recording of another show that comes on right after the timeslot of the padded recording ends. So after it's done with the padded recording, it starts recording the second show, even if that show's timeslot has already begun. Again, this is of limited usefulness - especially with dual tuners. But it won't cause a tear in the fabric of spacetime.
A cooler feature, BTW, would be to let you schedule recordings with overlapping timeslots on different channels, then decide which program takes precedence during the overlap or particular slices of the overlap. This would let you (well, more importantly, me) schedule CSI and ER normally even though ER technically begins at 8:59PM and CSI doesn't end until 9PM. I could tell it to just record CSI until its slot ends and then start recording ER. Of course with a dual tuner DTiVo model it's not really an issue anyway.
Do you mean video overlay? It's not that difficult to inhibit playback of the looping backgrounds on a TiVo. That's been available for more than a year.
I think this means a PIP style view of the show, which I believe DTiVo has but not standalones.
Yeah, you're right, it's not as if he co-founded the EFF or has a fellowship at Harvard Law or anything like that.
hmm.
Stan Lee had a contract with Marvel entitling him to a percentage of profits. So it's not really an intellectual property issue, it's basic contract law.
Thank you, come again.
I'm no expert, but I think the character Spider-Man is protected by a trademark, and a movie like "Spider-Man" is protected by copyright, whereas something like a desktop metaphor for a computer interface would be covered by a patent.
COPYRIGHT vs. TRADEMARK vs. PATENT
I think the issue here is that Stan Lee had a contract with Marvel which entitled him to 10% of profits from TV, movie and merchandising deals (at least involving characters he created - not sure about others). Marvel tried to say that the contract didn't really say that, Stan disagreed and sued, and he won.
Congratulations, Stan. This is long overdue.
Unless this is meant to be a joke, it's stupid. The winner of this bid process won't have that level of control over .net. The only real issue is whether the winner will be able to keep .net up and running, because as the article mentions sites like walmart.com rely on that infrastructure. All of their nameservers are in .net, so if the .net gTLD servers were to go down people might have to actually go to the store to buy things or make a phone call or something.