Perhaps I was not clear. My tree inherently did not have any concept of time or patents in it, just developments and, I should have included, work effort. Edges were effort, vertices developments. Since we seem to have a misunderstanding, I can't really address your question well. My statement was that only by traversing at least 2 edge lengths could one achive something patentable (e.g., it could not just be the "next step").
I agree, but it only stifles innovation in the macroscopic sense. For each individual business, patents have no downside, only benefits. Prisoner's Dilemna.
First, patents have nothing to do with the ability to enforce, unless two giants are going head to head. Rather, they can be used merely to produce settlements, since a smaller entity could not defend itself in court.
Second, why do you think it's not good business in the long term?
The effect is legal minefields, and blockage of development. The inability to create non-trivial technology without infringing on a patent-collecting conglomerate such as IBM.
As another poster has pointed out, patents are indeed used to entirely stifle a lines of development.
There is a description which I feel describes where patents are valid. Imagine a directed graph that is a tree. Advancing along tree's paths implies technological progress. A vertex stands for a point at which new developments can be made given the developments made to that point. The radiating edges from a vertex lead to the next step in progress. If we are technologically progressing and are at vertex V, then only developments which are at least 2 edge-lengths away from vertex V can be considered potentially patentable. Any vertex (development) adjacent to V cannot.
My point is that many patents are not 'deep'. If there are a million developmenets we can make from our current situation, merely finding one that noone else has seen is not worthy of a patent. A patent must show considereable progress, and not just be the next stepping stone.
Patents do not promote innovation; most inventions would have been created regardless of the concept of patents existing. Patents' microscopic value is in their ability to impede the progress of others; this hindering is not healthy for macroscopic technological development.
Listen to one of the speeches Stallman has made on the topic of patents.
Have your domain's mailserver listen on something other than port 25. Additionally, there are legitimate services out there that will let you forward mail through them for a fee. I know of one which has an SMTP server listening on a non-standard port.
P.S. Part of your argument is that "the solution is bad because Cox Cable is bad." That doesn't point to a problem in the solution.
And I'll continue to respect your copyright: I just won't buy your cripple-ware.
Just out of curiosity, which copyright do you 'respect'? The length of copyright that was in the US 100 years ago, the one 60 years ago, the one 40 years ago, the one 6 years ago, or the one today?
Everything is not about terrorism, but it's blazingly obvious to me that a machine that could transfer cash internationally, anonymously, and instantaneously would be a huge help to terrorists.
This is an extremely poor argument. Your argument would apply the same if we did not have privacy laws, and all of a sudden people proposed having privacy. Using the same logic, because privacy laws helps the boogey-man terrorist immensely, we shouldn't implement them.
I have seen people wiring money for very fraudulent puposes, so I don't really share people's feelings that wiring money should be anonymous.
Do you have problems with people exchanging cash anonymously? If not, please explain how putting this transaction over a wire should make a difference.
Common carrier status, which is applied to airlines, requires that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against.
If British Airways was an American company, they would have broken the law by violating their common carrier status. Just like if telephone companies started to censor your communications.
ATI may not support your 9000 well, but the 8500 (and by implication, 9100 and above) is well supported in XFree86 4.3 and above. I should know; I have one. I actually specifically bought a Radeon 9100, replacing my GeForce2, so I wouldn't need to have a tained kernel to get direct rendering.
Additionally, for XFree85 4.2 and earlier, you might want to check the DRI project.
By the way, if you didn't know, the Radeon 9000 is well known to be a worse card than the 8500. The 9100 is actually the 8500 relabeled.
If you meant what you said, you believe that it is illegal for you to download Linux for free. Or to read my comment. Or to read any webpage. Or to receive email. All such things are copyrighted, and by your statement, are "not right and rightfully illegal to acquire... without paying for it."
If you or anyone else can find attacks Freenet's protection of anonymitythat an entity such as the RIAA would be capable of carrying out and that could provide enough evidence for a lawsuit, I'd be much surprised.
It is not right and rightfully illegal to acquire copyrighted material without paying for it.
What a bunch of misleading BS. What you probably meant to say is "It is not legal to copy copyrighted material without license unless such copying falls under fair use." I left out your trolling words "paying" and "rightfully", which are completely out in left field.
That's a good argument. I even extend the same argument to closed-source code. If your product is closed source, then you don't get copyright protection on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I was not clear. My tree inherently did not have any concept of time or patents in it, just developments and, I should have included, work effort. Edges were effort, vertices developments. Since we seem to have a misunderstanding, I can't really address your question well. My statement was that only by traversing at least 2 edge lengths could one achive something patentable (e.g., it could not just be the "next step").
I agree, but it only stifles innovation in the macroscopic sense. For each individual business, patents have no downside, only benefits. Prisoner's Dilemna.
First, patents have nothing to do with the ability to enforce, unless two giants are going head to head. Rather, they can be used merely to produce settlements, since a smaller entity could not defend itself in court.
Second, why do you think it's not good business in the long term?
The effect is legal minefields, and blockage of development. The inability to create non-trivial technology without infringing on a patent-collecting conglomerate such as IBM.
As another poster has pointed out, patents are indeed used to entirely stifle a lines of development.
There is a description which I feel describes where patents are valid. Imagine a directed graph that is a tree. Advancing along tree's paths implies technological progress. A vertex stands for a point at which new developments can be made given the developments made to that point. The radiating edges from a vertex lead to the next step in progress. If we are technologically progressing and are at vertex V, then only developments which are at least 2 edge-lengths away from vertex V can be considered potentially patentable. Any vertex (development) adjacent to V cannot.
My point is that many patents are not 'deep'. If there are a million developmenets we can make from our current situation, merely finding one that noone else has seen is not worthy of a patent. A patent must show considereable progress, and not just be the next stepping stone.
Patents do not promote innovation; most inventions would have been created regardless of the concept of patents existing. Patents' microscopic value is in their ability to impede the progress of others; this hindering is not healthy for macroscopic technological development.
Listen to one of the speeches Stallman has made on the topic of patents.
As with many things, the intention has little to do with the effect.
Another solution would be to simply use a port-forwarding ssh tunnel.
Then simply have your mailer connect to localhost port 25.
Have your domain's mailserver listen on something other than port 25. Additionally, there are legitimate services out there that will let you forward mail through them for a fee. I know of one which has an SMTP server listening on a non-standard port.
P.S. Part of your argument is that "the solution is bad because Cox Cable is bad." That doesn't point to a problem in the solution.
Just out of curiosity, which copyright do you 'respect'? The length of copyright that was in the US 100 years ago, the one 60 years ago, the one 40 years ago, the one 6 years ago, or the one today?
Not necessarily. It is perfectly reasonable to have a substance which is toxic to one life form (rats) but not another (humans).
Judicial use of ln(1), procmail(1), and an MUA with good search filters will provide the same result. I've been doing it for years.
Why not just reverse sort?
alias recent='ls -lrt'
The idea of having a file in multiple locations is nothing new use maildir format and learn the value of ln(1).
As your CEO if he is willing to put up the money to install a proprietary OS + applications on all the machines that are currently running Linux.
Your example presumes an international cash exchange. What about intranational, where you won't have to go through checks such as customs.
This is an extremely poor argument. Your argument would apply the same if we did not have privacy laws, and all of a sudden people proposed having privacy. Using the same logic, because privacy laws helps the boogey-man terrorist immensely, we shouldn't implement them.
Do you have problems with people exchanging cash anonymously? If not, please explain how putting this transaction over a wire should make a difference.
You are either a troll, or ignorant of law.
Common carrier status, which is applied to airlines, requires that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against.
If British Airways was an American company, they would have broken the law by violating their common carrier status. Just like if telephone companies started to censor your communications.
ATI may not support your 9000 well, but the 8500 (and by implication, 9100 and above) is well supported in XFree86 4.3 and above. I should know; I have one. I actually specifically bought a Radeon 9100, replacing my GeForce2, so I wouldn't need to have a tained kernel to get direct rendering.
Additionally, for XFree85 4.2 and earlier, you might want to check the DRI project.
By the way, if you didn't know, the Radeon 9000 is well known to be a worse card than the 8500. The 9100 is actually the 8500 relabeled.
If you meant what you said, you believe that it is illegal for you to download Linux for free. Or to read my comment. Or to read any webpage. Or to receive email. All such things are copyrighted, and by your statement, are "not right and rightfully illegal to acquire ... without paying for it."
If you or anyone else can find attacks Freenet's protection of anonymity that an entity such as the RIAA would be capable of carrying out and that could provide enough evidence for a lawsuit, I'd be much surprised.
Simply put, dead-on.
What a bunch of misleading BS. What you probably meant to say is "It is not legal to copy copyrighted material without license unless such copying falls under fair use." I left out your trolling words "paying" and "rightfully", which are completely out in left field.
Personally, I use the Tab key instead of arrows.
That's a good argument. I even extend the same argument to closed-source code. If your product is closed source, then you don't get copyright protection on it.
That's for a natural market to find out on its own.