What worries me most is that political discourse in the US is diluted down to a series of maxims, which are largely not only incorrect, but actively damaging to the nation. Cutting taxes is not always good, nor is regulation always bad. It's time people should think about the issues in a more nuanced manner and start to appreciate (and understand) the amount of complexity and difficulty in these issues.
And this division of power is implemented as.. wait for it... regulation.
What worries me most is that political discourse in the US has been diluted down to a set of maxims, which are not just useless, but actively damaging to the governing of the nation. Cutting taxes is not always good, nor is regulation always bad.
The law views this as one and the same. Form follows function. For example, the whole area of Contract law is basically on how to apply legal principles onto day-to-day business transactions. The law tries to make legal sense out of everyday actions. If the end result is that Bing copies Googles search results, then Bing is coping Google's search results. As I said earlier, Google can potentially bring action in EU courts as this is against the database right directive.
I can see that if this escalates, Google could pursue action in EU member state courts. It doesn't matter if the copying of information is indirect. Collecting information in a database, eg. a list of links related to a specific search term, is protected under Directive 96/9/EC. You can re-collect this information, but copying someone else's collection is against the directive (which has already been transposed in most EU member states).
When this first started, Google stated very clearly that they want this to stop. Now that MS countering with nonsensical spin, it's obvious that we should see a lawsuit coming soon.
No, it shows that the data the Bing software that is being sent back is (indirectly) derived from the information sent to and being sent back from Google.
Did you actually follow the experiment? They associated a (made-up) search term to a obsure singleton web-page which does not mention the search term at all. How would Bing's geniuses be able to write a spider that would be able to associate the artificial search term with the web page? The answer is that they can't. It was due to Google's association that they indirectly copied.
The only thing Google actually proved is that in situations where Bing is unaware of the link in the user-supplied data, they will index it. This is a completely reasonable, and logical thing to do, and any programmer tasked with the job would do the same.
And how did the "user" find out about the link? Ah, that's right, via Google!
It's driving me nuts that supposedly intelligent people can not look pass technical detailsls to understand the issue at hand is that Bing is using the users of their software to unknowingly collect Google's search results.
I guess you didn't RTFA? What Microsoft did was to basically indirectly copy Google's search results, by "taking notes" on which terms the user searched for (on Google search), and which link he clicked on from the result subsequently.
There are also such things as database rights (at least in the EU), which Microsoft will likely be infringing. They are in effect, infringing on Google's ordering of web URLs for a particular search term. There is case law precedent and I suspect you will see an escalation in this matter shortly.
You can complain about it all you want, but the courts takes proportionality and intent into account. You're arguing it from a black and white perspective, but the real questions we should be asking is whether there was any harm done, and whether there was intent to case harm.
They could very well flourished in the US *in spite* of the patent system.
You also have to consider that all of the examples of start-ups that you named have major players backing them before they were as well known as they are now.
And when you think about it, is Facebook really innovation? It's just a rehash of six degrees and friendster, just "positioned" differently to appeal to consumers differently?
As for Groupon... Well it's actually a KIRF import of the "Team Buying" concept that was pioneered in China on the consumer scale... hardly the shining example of innovation that you are trying to put forward.
It's not the number of patents, but the likelihood of a patent being actionable, and/or enforcible.
In any case, if there is a court judgement that sufficiently harms innovation because of the escalating war in software patents, you will be sure that there will be a change in the direction in jurisprudence with regards to these "soft" patents. You have to remember that most of hte world don't have software patents, and many places (like Europe) would like to keep it that way.
Small government may be the correct approach before the widespread adoption as corporations being the main driver of the private sector.
The power void left by a retreating public sector would most likely be taken up these corporations. They are not accountable to anyone but their shareholders (until they fail financially of course), and are much less transparent than government by almost all measures.
Some people like to point out that you have choice in the private sector unlike the public sector. This is not strictly true. Free markets left to their own devices tend towards the more stable oligopoly and monopoly states. This is because of economies of scale and barriers of entry imposed by a market participant that has a disproportionate amount of market influence. I've covered this is previous posts but unless that is a major change in the environment of the market (regulatory, technological, etc), it is not economically feasible for new entrants to compete. By the time the market environment has changed, the harm has already been done.
The idealogical war between the two opposing sides - corporatist against the socialist, have been fought in and between various nation-states over the past 90 years. It has been established that neither a pure corporatist (ie. fascist) nor a pure socialist (ie. communist) ideology came out ahead. In the end, fascist states were defeated, but then so was communism. The only states that survived are those that mixed in laissez-faire capitalism with a socialist welfare system. And that's not a bad thing. The system is about balance, and unaccountable power within the system leads to abuses whether it is in the public or private sector. The state needs to be big enough the provide the services to its citizenry that the public sector does best, and also big enough to provide regulatory oversight to keep corporations in check.
Contributing to building a research facility is not the same as doing R&D. The R&D he was talking about was already done - over decades of jet engine research. What they are in effect doing is buying that expertise for a measly $700 million.
The ad buyer chose to ask Google to show it to only specific demographics. This can be one ore more demographic group, and does not identify you individually.
You lose more privacy by going out shopping at the local mall. Those people that give out free samples of new products are likely targeting a specific demographic too, but you don't complain about that do you?
Have you ever considered that most states (including the US) is effectively run by the rich and powerful? If you have, then you would be a lot more measured in your reply, rather than babbling off absolute nonsense.
The EU can severely limit any "business" that Twitter conducts in the EU. That means, they will not be able to market their services, nor will they be able to derive income, in the EU until they sort out this mess.
You are twisting logic to fit your cynicism. There are frauds in the public sector, but there are even more frauds in the private sector. And I'm talking about real frauds, those that cheat people out of their money by fraudulent misrepresentation, not just the dishonest market-power leveraging industries such as finance.
You can't even understand the difference between being overly passionate and dangerous rhetoric. GP was abrasive, but not violent. No mention of a "second amendment solution", no mention of "reload", no.. well you get the idea...
Let's take murder for example. Looking at it from a purely utilitarian point-of-view, guns enable those that have the motive (or placed in the right situation as the mens rea does not require a strict motive). Assuming those that are willing to commit murder as W, we can state that the total number of attempted murders at M = W*X, where X is the factor, between 0 and 1, expressing the rate at which willing to commit turns into an attempt.
Gun control mainly deals with the X factor, whereas demographics and economic outlook deals with the W factor. Actual homicide rates are a little more complex as they deal with the success of the attempt (which is further influenced by guns), but it is clear that homicide rates are in part influenced by how easy one is to attempt the homicide.
If you state that gun availability in the general population is not closely linked with the intention to commit homicide, then that's a separate discussion altogether (and gets into this "culture of crime" thing which I refuse to comment on).
AFAIK, previous studies into this has been proved unreliable into establishing whether concealed carry laws are the causative factor in reducing violent crime. Violent crime has established causative and inverse correlative relationships with income, education and police presence. Changing economic outlook in the city, police presence and changing demographics should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions.
The increase in gun ownership in the general population also is not the same as having implemented concealed carry laws. Increasing gun ownership in the general population may make it easier for some to defend themselves (which may in turn have an effect of deterring crime), but it may overall have the effect of enabling more of those with the motive to harm to action it.
Slashdot Mirror
What worries me most is that political discourse in the US is diluted down to a series of maxims, which are largely not only incorrect, but actively damaging to the nation. Cutting taxes is not always good, nor is regulation always bad. It's time people should think about the issues in a more nuanced manner and start to appreciate (and understand) the amount of complexity and difficulty in these issues.
And this division of power is implemented as.. wait for it... regulation.
What worries me most is that political discourse in the US has been diluted down to a set of maxims, which are not just useless, but actively damaging to the governing of the nation. Cutting taxes is not always good, nor is regulation always bad.
The law views this as one and the same. Form follows function. For example, the whole area of Contract law is basically on how to apply legal principles onto day-to-day business transactions. The law tries to make legal sense out of everyday actions. If the end result is that Bing copies Googles search results, then Bing is coping Google's search results. As I said earlier, Google can potentially bring action in EU courts as this is against the database right directive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_legal_protection_of_databases
I can see that if this escalates, Google could pursue action in EU member state courts. It doesn't matter if the copying of information is indirect. Collecting information in a database, eg. a list of links related to a specific search term, is protected under Directive 96/9/EC. You can re-collect this information, but copying someone else's collection is against the directive (which has already been transposed in most EU member states).
When this first started, Google stated very clearly that they want this to stop. Now that MS countering with nonsensical spin, it's obvious that we should see a lawsuit coming soon.
No, it shows that the data the Bing software that is being sent back is (indirectly) derived from the information sent to and being sent back from Google.
Did you actually follow the experiment? They associated a (made-up) search term to a obsure singleton web-page which does not mention the search term at all. How would Bing's geniuses be able to write a spider that would be able to associate the artificial search term with the web page? The answer is that they can't. It was due to Google's association that they indirectly copied.
The only thing Google actually proved is that in situations where Bing is unaware of the link in the user-supplied data, they will index it. This is a completely reasonable, and logical thing to do, and any programmer tasked with the job would do the same.
And how did the "user" find out about the link? Ah, that's right, via Google!
It's driving me nuts that supposedly intelligent people can not look pass technical detailsls to understand the issue at hand is that Bing is using the users of their software to unknowingly collect Google's search results.
There is this little something called "database rights". Maybe you can even Google it if you're not familiar.
Did you even read the article? They're doing specifically that (screen-scraping, albeit indirectly).
I guess you didn't RTFA? What Microsoft did was to basically indirectly copy Google's search results, by "taking notes" on which terms the user searched for (on Google search), and which link he clicked on from the result subsequently.
There are also such things as database rights (at least in the EU), which Microsoft will likely be infringing. They are in effect, infringing on Google's ordering of web URLs for a particular search term. There is case law precedent and I suspect you will see an escalation in this matter shortly.
The + sign is your friend.
Searching for 'Google Query Operators' return you this (which explains everything) -
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861
Your free to choose between the options you're presented with. Who gets to choose that?
You can complain about it all you want, but the courts takes proportionality and intent into account. You're arguing it from a black and white perspective, but the real questions we should be asking is whether there was any harm done, and whether there was intent to case harm.
They could very well flourished in the US *in spite* of the patent system.
You also have to consider that all of the examples of start-ups that you named have major players backing them before they were as well known as they are now.
And when you think about it, is Facebook really innovation? It's just a rehash of six degrees and friendster, just "positioned" differently to appeal to consumers differently?
As for Groupon... Well it's actually a KIRF import of the "Team Buying" concept that was pioneered in China on the consumer scale... hardly the shining example of innovation that you are trying to put forward.
It's not the number of patents, but the likelihood of a patent being actionable, and/or enforcible.
In any case, if there is a court judgement that sufficiently harms innovation because of the escalating war in software patents, you will be sure that there will be a change in the direction in jurisprudence with regards to these "soft" patents. You have to remember that most of hte world don't have software patents, and many places (like Europe) would like to keep it that way.
Small government may be the correct approach before the widespread adoption as corporations being the main driver of the private sector.
The power void left by a retreating public sector would most likely be taken up these corporations. They are not accountable to anyone but their shareholders (until they fail financially of course), and are much less transparent than government by almost all measures.
Some people like to point out that you have choice in the private sector unlike the public sector. This is not strictly true. Free markets left to their own devices tend towards the more stable oligopoly and monopoly states. This is because of economies of scale and barriers of entry imposed by a market participant that has a disproportionate amount of market influence. I've covered this is previous posts but unless that is a major change in the environment of the market (regulatory, technological, etc), it is not economically feasible for new entrants to compete. By the time the market environment has changed, the harm has already been done.
The idealogical war between the two opposing sides - corporatist against the socialist, have been fought in and between various nation-states over the past 90 years. It has been established that neither a pure corporatist (ie. fascist) nor a pure socialist (ie. communist) ideology came out ahead. In the end, fascist states were defeated, but then so was communism. The only states that survived are those that mixed in laissez-faire capitalism with a socialist welfare system. And that's not a bad thing. The system is about balance, and unaccountable power within the system leads to abuses whether it is in the public or private sector. The state needs to be big enough the provide the services to its citizenry that the public sector does best, and also big enough to provide regulatory oversight to keep corporations in check.
Contributing to building a research facility is not the same as doing R&D. The R&D he was talking about was already done - over decades of jet engine research. What they are in effect doing is buying that expertise for a measly $700 million.
The ad buyer chose to ask Google to show it to only specific demographics. This can be one ore more demographic group, and does not identify you individually.
You lose more privacy by going out shopping at the local mall. Those people that give out free samples of new products are likely targeting a specific demographic too, but you don't complain about that do you?
Have you ever considered that most states (including the US) is effectively run by the rich and powerful? If you have, then you would be a lot more measured in your reply, rather than babbling off absolute nonsense.
No, it's the other way around. The ad buyer chooses which demographic to show it to.
The EU can severely limit any "business" that Twitter conducts in the EU. That means, they will not be able to market their services, nor will they be able to derive income, in the EU until they sort out this mess.
You are twisting logic to fit your cynicism. There are frauds in the public sector, but there are even more frauds in the private sector. And I'm talking about real frauds, those that cheat people out of their money by fraudulent misrepresentation, not just the dishonest market-power leveraging industries such as finance.
You can't even understand the difference between being overly passionate and dangerous rhetoric. GP was abrasive, but not violent. No mention of a "second amendment solution", no mention of "reload", no.. well you get the idea...
Let's take murder for example. Looking at it from a purely utilitarian point-of-view, guns enable those that have the motive (or placed in the right situation as the mens rea does not require a strict motive). Assuming those that are willing to commit murder as W, we can state that the total number of attempted murders at M = W*X, where X is the factor, between 0 and 1, expressing the rate at which willing to commit turns into an attempt.
Gun control mainly deals with the X factor, whereas demographics and economic outlook deals with the W factor. Actual homicide rates are a little more complex as they deal with the success of the attempt (which is further influenced by guns), but it is clear that homicide rates are in part influenced by how easy one is to attempt the homicide.
If you state that gun availability in the general population is not closely linked with the intention to commit homicide, then that's a separate discussion altogether (and gets into this "culture of crime" thing which I refuse to comment on).
AFAIK, previous studies into this has been proved unreliable into establishing whether concealed carry laws are the causative factor in reducing violent crime. Violent crime has established causative and inverse correlative relationships with income, education and police presence. Changing economic outlook in the city, police presence and changing demographics should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions.
The increase in gun ownership in the general population also is not the same as having implemented concealed carry laws. Increasing gun ownership in the general population may make it easier for some to defend themselves (which may in turn have an effect of deterring crime), but it may overall have the effect of enabling more of those with the motive to harm to action it.