I thought you had a problem with Apple, but it appears your gripe is with the W3C process and even more so with the whole system of software patents
No, the problem is with Apple (and also software patents). Apple is using a patent to block the open standard process.
For me that conflicts with the whole "create things," "run a business," "make money from your work" thing.
There is no "work" in patenting something obvious and preventing other people from doing that obvious thing. Especially when it's a software patent. Somehow other W3C members are making money just fine. What's preventing Apple from making money if they give out a royalty-free license for this patent?
The fact that the W3C information states the exact same thing: Apple refuses to license it royalty-free: "Apple Inc. has excluded all claims of patent 5,764,992"
Its a preexisting patent, not a "blocking" patent.
That's besides the point. The point is that they are using their SOFTWARE patent to block or slow down the standards process.
Apple makes a genuine effort to do good things in this area and has made significant contributions to open standards and computing in general.
So why have they suddenly decided to become assholes? It's the same with the HTML5 video tag. They insisted on NOT having a baseline free, open video codec (no, no one asked them to give away QuickTime), basically undermining the whole point of a video tag in the first place.
The point is that members get to decide what IP they want to release to the consortium. Horse trading is done! Maybe Apple has plans for this patent and does not care to release it. Membership is not an obligation by a company to release ANY of their IP.
It's a software patent. And other companies seem to have no problems issuing royalty-free licences for their own patents. I guess this is because everyone else sees software patents as being defensive, and Apple is seeing trouble on the horizon (see the Palm Pre lawsuit threats), and is planning to become a patent troll.
There are many ways the consortium could circumvent this without the Apple patent, a few of which have been outlined by others in this forum. All they have to do is decide to do it.
"All they have to do", as if it's that simple. The bottom line is that Apple has used a software patent to block the open standards process. Since this is the widgets spec and we know that Apple has proprietary interests in that area, it isn't unlikely that Apple is yet again pulling dirty punches.
Are you trolling? The source of this story is the W3C WEBSITE! And it isn't even about patent stockpiling (even Opera does it, for defensive purposes). It's about Apple being a roadblock for open standards.
Apple refused to license it royalty-free, which is what all of this is about. And why should license fees be paid to Apple and no one else? Everyone else seems to be able to license stuff royalty-free to the W3C, so why not Apple? Furthermore, this is a software patent!
Being a W3C member is about creating open standards and does not imply or require signing away all one's IP.
This is nothing but a straw man. This is not about "all of Apple's IP", it's about a software patent covering automatic updates. A software patent! Are you really saying that this single patent is all of Apple's IP? Also, it's funny how other W3C member companies license their patented technology royalty-free... Do they lose all their IP as well? Does licensing something royalty-free to W3C mean that Microsoft open-sources Windows and places it under a BSD license? Geez.
The articles linked seem to act as if there's only one update scheme in existence and we need to sit patiently until Apple decides if we can use it or not.
No it doesn't. In fact, TFA clearly states that this means a lot of extra work trying to figure out if the patent actually applies, and if it does, come up with something different. This is going to cost a lot of W3C members a lot of money.
In fact people who force atheism down other peoples throats are also doing it wrong
No one is forcing atheism down other people's throats.
atheists are normally out there accusing those who believe in God of having flawed logic. Whether or not this is true, the manner in which the argument is made is not exactly polite
It is not polite to force religion down people's throats either. Atheists have had to put up with that for ages. At least they aren't being slaughtered these days... for the most part.
I recall someone on slashdot encouraging people to hate religion. The ones that talk sure seem desperate to convert everyone...
Do you want to convert nazis to non-nazis?
What I did was link fundamentalist religion with (to be fair) some athiests.
Which is complete BS, since atheism has got nothing to do with religion.
Hate speech against atheists. Hmmm. How about "all atheists are idiots who should be shot?" It doesn't take much imagination to come up with statements like that.
But that isn't what this is about at all, is it? No, this UN thing is to prevent criticism of RELIGION, not just the religious.
Those who "hate religion" so much probably practise it in their own way.
Like those who "hate nazism" probably practice it in their own way?
So what? If you actually have something valid, you will show him being wrong. But you don't, because your delusion is supersitious nonsense with no evidence what so ever, and you know it.
about as unscientific as any religious pundit
How, specifically?
If they truly wanted to Know, then they would.
Ah, the typical braindead superstitious moron move. "You will only know if you want to know!" Brilliant! No need to do science. No sirree! Just pull the "you aren't worthy" card.
Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply
You have not been able to show that it doesn't work. All you have done is to spew out vague nonsense.
Yet, history is full of "experts", (who in hindsight, should've known better) declaring this and that are "nonsense" on the basis of the current scientific knowledge at that time.
But of course, you and other superstitious idiots with no evidence what so ever for your claims know better? Give me a fucking break.
Does anyone really believe that we know just about everything we're going to know
See, this is why you are an idiot. No one claims that we know everything. But going from that to blindly believing in bullshit claims with no evidence what so ever is a huge leap.
Your supersitious bullshit is nothing new at all. You are making it out to be some amazing discovery, but your delusion has been the default for all of humanity's existence. Only with science were we able to move beyond the bullshit you so blindly accept.
You are talking to a braindead idiot who thinks that something must be true because there's no evidence for it. And the lack of evidence is proof of an evil conspiracy to keep it hidden.
I firmly believe that if someone were to appear before him in a flash of light, levitate and bend objects with their mind, and reveal contents of his own mind that only he knows, the guy would either find a way to rationalize it away or have a stroke on the spot.
So what you are saying is that Randi would be critical to what he was seeing, and look for natural explanations rather than resorting to bullshit pseudoscientific nonsense?
And to say that Randi isn't impartial is a massive understatement.
He doesn't have to be. All he needs to do is to set up experiments that are verifiable and falsifiable.
For this reason, he and his challenge can be crossed off the list of things to be taken seriously.
You have failed to demonstrate this. Instead, you have resorted to the old personal attack line, and superficial mumbo-jumbo about "we can't prove it, so it must be true" nonsense.
it's "adherents" often are so passionate about "defending" it as to come off as nutcases?
Because they are sick and tired of having religion forced down their throats? They aren't defending atheism as much as they are criticizing religion.
it's "adherents" often react to the statement "there is a God" in the same way religious groups react to the statement "there is no God."?
They do? In what way?
atheists are so desperate to convert everyone to their way of thinking(just like most religions)?
They are not desperate to do so at all. In fact, most atheists keep quiet about their lack of belief because it isn't politically correct to not believe in God.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a religion, but oh so many atheists react and argue in the same way as the religious fundamentalists they hate so much.
They don't. And even if they did, it would have nothing to do with religion. Fanboys (of Apple, Nintendo, etc.) will react with venom if you criticize their object of love. Does that mean that fanboyism is religion? Of course not. Same with political parties.
On a side note, do you really want hate speech against atheists to be legal?
Contradictions between Reason and Faith exist only if you buy into a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. It is possible to be a Christian and also to be Reasonable and Logical.
No one is denying that a Christian can be reasonable and logical. However, there are many direct contradictions in the Bible, for example. And Christians who are normally reasonable and logical will simply compartmentalize their brains and ignore the irrational parts, or try to justify it some way ("I'm not meant to understand this").
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that this particular lawyer showed a complete disregard for both justice and the standard of law?
No, the problem is with Apple (and also software patents). Apple is using a patent to block the open standard process.
There is no "work" in patenting something obvious and preventing other people from doing that obvious thing. Especially when it's a software patent. Somehow other W3C members are making money just fine. What's preventing Apple from making money if they give out a royalty-free license for this patent?
The fact that the W3C information states the exact same thing: Apple refuses to license it royalty-free: "Apple Inc. has excluded all claims of patent 5,764,992"
No, you idiot. Apple specifically refused to allow royalte-free use of their patent. That's the whole point.
And besides, the article was published a whole MONTH after Apple's move.
And remember, this is a SOFTWARE PATENT.
Actually, it does: "Apple Inc. has excluded all claims of patent 5,764,992"
No it doesn't, you idiot. It says there are rumors about it, which is completely true.
Yes, there is an issue. W3C specifications are not to be paid for. Everyone else gets it. Except Apple.
That's besides the point. The point is that they are using their SOFTWARE patent to block or slow down the standards process.
So why have they suddenly decided to become assholes? It's the same with the HTML5 video tag. They insisted on NOT having a baseline free, open video codec (no, no one asked them to give away QuickTime), basically undermining the whole point of a video tag in the first place.
It's a software patent. And other companies seem to have no problems issuing royalty-free licences for their own patents. I guess this is because everyone else sees software patents as being defensive, and Apple is seeing trouble on the horizon (see the Palm Pre lawsuit threats), and is planning to become a patent troll.
"All they have to do", as if it's that simple. The bottom line is that Apple has used a software patent to block the open standards process. Since this is the widgets spec and we know that Apple has proprietary interests in that area, it isn't unlikely that Apple is yet again pulling dirty punches.
Are you trolling? The source of this story is the W3C WEBSITE! And it isn't even about patent stockpiling (even Opera does it, for defensive purposes). It's about Apple being a roadblock for open standards.
Apple refused to license it royalty-free, which is what all of this is about. And why should license fees be paid to Apple and no one else? Everyone else seems to be able to license stuff royalty-free to the W3C, so why not Apple? Furthermore, this is a software patent!
This is nothing but a straw man. This is not about "all of Apple's IP", it's about a software patent covering automatic updates. A software patent! Are you really saying that this single patent is all of Apple's IP? Also, it's funny how other W3C member companies license their patented technology royalty-free... Do they lose all their IP as well? Does licensing something royalty-free to W3C mean that Microsoft open-sources Windows and places it under a BSD license? Geez.
No it doesn't. In fact, TFA clearly states that this means a lot of extra work trying to figure out if the patent actually applies, and if it does, come up with something different. This is going to cost a lot of W3C members a lot of money.
No one is forcing atheism down other people's throats.
It is not polite to force religion down people's throats either. Atheists have had to put up with that for ages. At least they aren't being slaughtered these days... for the most part.
Do you want to convert nazis to non-nazis?
Which is complete BS, since atheism has got nothing to do with religion.
But that isn't what this is about at all, is it? No, this UN thing is to prevent criticism of RELIGION, not just the religious.
Like those who "hate nazism" probably practice it in their own way?
So what? If you actually have something valid, you will show him being wrong. But you don't, because your delusion is supersitious nonsense with no evidence what so ever, and you know it.
How, specifically?
Ah, the typical braindead superstitious moron move. "You will only know if you want to know!" Brilliant! No need to do science. No sirree! Just pull the "you aren't worthy" card.
You have not been able to show that it doesn't work. All you have done is to spew out vague nonsense.
But of course, you and other superstitious idiots with no evidence what so ever for your claims know better? Give me a fucking break.
See, this is why you are an idiot. No one claims that we know everything. But going from that to blindly believing in bullshit claims with no evidence what so ever is a huge leap.
Your supersitious bullshit is nothing new at all. You are making it out to be some amazing discovery, but your delusion has been the default for all of humanity's existence. Only with science were we able to move beyond the bullshit you so blindly accept.
You are talking to a braindead idiot who thinks that something must be true because there's no evidence for it. And the lack of evidence is proof of an evil conspiracy to keep it hidden.
So what you are saying is that Randi would be critical to what he was seeing, and look for natural explanations rather than resorting to bullshit pseudoscientific nonsense?
Like your avoidance technique when it comes to Randi's challenge?
He doesn't have to be. All he needs to do is to set up experiments that are verifiable and falsifiable.
You have failed to demonstrate this. Instead, you have resorted to the old personal attack line, and superficial mumbo-jumbo about "we can't prove it, so it must be true" nonsense.
Because they are sick and tired of having religion forced down their throats? They aren't defending atheism as much as they are criticizing religion.
They do? In what way?
They are not desperate to do so at all. In fact, most atheists keep quiet about their lack of belief because it isn't politically correct to not believe in God.
They don't. And even if they did, it would have nothing to do with religion. Fanboys (of Apple, Nintendo, etc.) will react with venom if you criticize their object of love. Does that mean that fanboyism is religion? Of course not. Same with political parties.
What is "hate speech against atheists"?
So your displelief in Zeus is a religion? Your disbelief in Zeus requires faith?
So your conscious decision to reject Zeus is a faith?
That islamic dictatorships are able to control parts of the UN is "a tempest in a teacup"?
Then again, the UN came up with the crap in TFA...
Guess you fail again.
No one is denying that a Christian can be reasonable and logical. However, there are many direct contradictions in the Bible, for example. And Christians who are normally reasonable and logical will simply compartmentalize their brains and ignore the irrational parts, or try to justify it some way ("I'm not meant to understand this").