I don't doubt that a lot of cyber-spying is going on, but also note that Clarke is now CEO of Good Harbor Consulting, which coincidentally makes a boatload of money dong Cyber consulting. The more frenzy he whips up, the more money he rakes in.
Care for a $5,000 Ethernet cable? AudioQuest will be glad to sell you one of those too. Or maybe you'll spring for the $42,000 speaker cables? Fill your shopping cart using the handy price list found here:
http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/AQ-Retail-PB-2011-NOV-220d.pdf
How about every time the courts throw out a patent, the patent office sees its budget reduced by the amount of money spent by the lawyers on both sides to get that decision made? Maybe that's just a drop-in-the-bucket, but perhaps it would make the Patent office think twice about granting clearly weak or overly-broad patents and letting the court system decide the validity of said-patent.
Seems like the PTO might operate better if they had the budget to pay for their operations costs
Maybe. But the cynical economist in me sees danger. Bureaucracies, just like people, will act in their own best interest. if the Patent office becomes funded by their customers (the patent filers), then the Patent office has every incentive to make those customers happy so they'll come back for more, pay more fees and increase the budget of the Patent office. If the Patent office cracks down on weak or overly-broad patents, then their customers will be discouraged from filing more patents, and the Patent office will see a reduced budget. The incentives are all wrong.
The US Patent Trade Office FINALLY gets to keep the fees it collects..
Sounds like a disaster in-making to me. What if the Sheriff's office got to keep all the funds that it confiscated? No doubt there'd be a lot more arrests and confiscated funds. Same with the patent office. The Patent office will just issue more and more and more patents as it's now in their best interest. "Come one, come all, file your patents, On sale this week only!"
That's the intent of the law. But what if Susie's mother embeds that movie on her own web page for all her friends to see? And what if Susie's mom has a few Google Ads on that web page (private financial gain)? And then, for whatever reason that these things happen, Susie's cute video goes viral, Mom's web page gets hundreds of thousands of hits, and those ads get clicked on generating a few thousand dollars? Well guess what? Mom is now a potential felon.
OK, say a mother is recording her kid's fifth birthday party along with the whole gang singing "Happy Birthday to You!". A mishap occurs that makes it particularly funny, so the uploaded YouTube video goes viral and her personal web page with the embedded movie gets a lot of hits and ad impressions.
Doesn't sound too far-fetched huh? Oops, the song "Happy Birthday to You" is under copyright protection. Looks like Momma is heading to the Big House for a five-year stint. Don't worry, she'll be out just in time for junior's 10th!
Stallman shouldn't even be dealing with these thugs. There are much better places to push for free software. Forget computers, Cuba's a place where you can be thrown in jail for promoting reading.
"Our goal is not revolution, or even the civil toppling of any political forces. All we seek is for the people to be allowed to choose what they want to read, and to be allowed to draw their own conclusions from that reading"
If a good is significantly rare, or the need for that good is significantly high, then the transaction cannot be described as voluntary. If the transaction is not voluntary, your reasoning falls apart.
Gimme a break. I've had my eye on an original Van Gough for years now. It is significantly rare, so by your definition my attempt to purchase it is not voluntary. After all, the cost of canvas and paint should make it less than $100. Anything more is gouging! Maybe if I stamp my feet and picket the gallery, then maybe I'll get my way. Better yet, I'll get a law passed outlawing the practice of letting the market decide the price!
Plenty of places do sell them. I don't know about Wallmart, but they are available. See: This one for an example. I should know, I've written reviews for a dozen or so of these things...
I would love to see a poll asking how many people are really effected by those IE "holes".
I would bet its such a small percentage that it is laughable. Remember, the security companies get money and PR by exposing as many holes in software as they can find. In all the lifespan of using windows and its various versions and IE I have NEVER encountered any site with any of the security problems that the "experts" jump up and down about.
Millions of people have been affected by these holes. Even if they don't personally get exploited, they are recipients of the SPAM that is spewed out by the zombie machines that were taken over by the spammers use of unpatched exploits. Thousands of machines each spewing spam to untold millions of email addresses costs millions of dollars to the orginizations trying to filter the wheat from the chaf...
Slashdot Mirror
"Isn't my new baby the cutest thing ever?" - FALSE
Pure profit? More like Pure Extortion
I don't doubt that a lot of cyber-spying is going on, but also note that Clarke is now CEO of Good Harbor Consulting, which coincidentally makes a boatload of money dong Cyber consulting. The more frenzy he whips up, the more money he rakes in.
Hmmm... With some restrictions, the US Department of Defense has approved use of Android and not IOS: http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/28/pentagon-approves-android-device-for-department-of-defense-apple-still-awaits-clearance/
Care for a $5,000 Ethernet cable? AudioQuest will be glad to sell you one of those too. Or maybe you'll spring for the $42,000 speaker cables? Fill your shopping cart using the handy price list found here: http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/AQ-Retail-PB-2011-NOV-220d.pdf
How about every time the courts throw out a patent, the patent office sees its budget reduced by the amount of money spent by the lawyers on both sides to get that decision made? Maybe that's just a drop-in-the-bucket, but perhaps it would make the Patent office think twice about granting clearly weak or overly-broad patents and letting the court system decide the validity of said-patent.
Seems like the PTO might operate better if they had the budget to pay for their operations costs
Maybe. But the cynical economist in me sees danger. Bureaucracies, just like people, will act in their own best interest. if the Patent office becomes funded by their customers (the patent filers), then the Patent office has every incentive to make those customers happy so they'll come back for more, pay more fees and increase the budget of the Patent office. If the Patent office cracks down on weak or overly-broad patents, then their customers will be discouraged from filing more patents, and the Patent office will see a reduced budget. The incentives are all wrong.
The US Patent Trade Office FINALLY gets to keep the fees it collects..
Sounds like a disaster in-making to me. What if the Sheriff's office got to keep all the funds that it confiscated? No doubt there'd be a lot more arrests and confiscated funds. Same with the patent office. The Patent office will just issue more and more and more patents as it's now in their best interest. "Come one, come all, file your patents, On sale this week only!"
Reminds me of the one my brother built here except my brother's computer runs Minux.
That's the intent of the law. But what if Susie's mother embeds that movie on her own web page for all her friends to see? And what if Susie's mom has a few Google Ads on that web page (private financial gain)? And then, for whatever reason that these things happen, Susie's cute video goes viral, Mom's web page gets hundreds of thousands of hits, and those ads get clicked on generating a few thousand dollars? Well guess what? Mom is now a potential felon.
There's a good discussion of the issue below. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/23171814649/people-realizing-new-anti-streaming-criminal-copyright-bill-could-mean-jail-time-lip-synchers.shtml As usual, the broad language of a bill like this creates the possibility of many unintended consequences. Here's my comment from that discussion:
OK, say a mother is recording her kid's fifth birthday party along with the whole gang singing "Happy Birthday to You!". A mishap occurs that makes it particularly funny, so the uploaded YouTube video goes viral and her personal web page with the embedded movie gets a lot of hits and ad impressions.
Doesn't sound too far-fetched huh? Oops, the song "Happy Birthday to You" is under copyright protection. Looks like Momma is heading to the Big House for a five-year stint. Don't worry, she'll be out just in time for junior's 10th!
Why doing the filming of course. Big Fail for Microsoft...
There's a good debunking of the article here
Works for me. And you know what they say about open source and meeting your own needs.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fuse/
TV Satellite dishes point south - So when I'm lost in the wilderness, that's what I look for.
Bravo! If only I had mod-points.
Stallman shouldn't even be dealing with these thugs. There are much better places to push for free software. Forget computers, Cuba's a place where you can be thrown in jail for promoting reading.
"Our goal is not revolution, or even the civil toppling of any political forces. All we seek is for the people to be allowed to choose what they want to read, and to be allowed to draw their own conclusions from that reading"
How about installing Debian Etch on an NSLU2?
There's an interesting feasibility discusison of Blue Pill Here
If a good is significantly rare, or the need for that good is significantly high, then the transaction cannot be described as voluntary. If the transaction is not voluntary, your reasoning falls apart.
Gimme a break. I've had my eye on an original Van Gough for years now. It is significantly rare, so by your definition my attempt to purchase it is not voluntary. After all, the cost of canvas and paint should make it less than $100. Anything more is gouging! Maybe if I stamp my feet and picket the gallery, then maybe I'll get my way. Better yet, I'll get a law passed outlawing the practice of letting the market decide the price!
Plenty of places do sell them. I don't know about Wallmart, but they are available. See:
This one for an example. I should know, I've written reviews for a dozen or so of these things...
I didn't even know I had a low ID until someone else pointed it out...
Google for "googleearth.app.sit"
I would love to see a poll asking how many people are really effected by those IE "holes". I would bet its such a small percentage that it is laughable. Remember, the security companies get money and PR by exposing as many holes in software as they can find. In all the lifespan of using windows and its various versions and IE I have NEVER encountered any site with any of the security problems that the "experts" jump up and down about.
Millions of people have been affected by these holes. Even if they don't personally get exploited, they are recipients of the SPAM that is spewed out by the zombie machines that were taken over by the spammers use of unpatched exploits. Thousands of machines each spewing spam to untold millions of email addresses costs millions of dollars to the orginizations trying to filter the wheat from the chaf...