You should be able to patent implementations, not ideas.
Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The reason we have software patents is because lawyers were able to twist a series of patent cases into a questionable conclusion that says something like 'when this software idea is combined with the hardware of a computer it transforms the hardware into a new machine and therefore the software itself is patentable as part of the implementation.'
There are a number of people who make a great deal of money ensuring this root conclusion stands and they extract huge sums of money from the market by utilizing this conclusion. If the tenuous link between a software idea / algorithm / design and the actual software implementation can be broken then the rest of the software patent mess will crumble.
A software idea or design, even as a component of a machine, should be ruled as ineligible for patent protection because, as you state, it is basically an abstract idea that solves a problem and by allowing patent protection of the idea the path to advancement of useful arts and science is blocked because the idea covers all possible implementations. The argument that this will remove the incentive for innovation and invention will quickly come out but this argument is moot because software is covered by copyright so the implementation of an idea is still protected.
The astounding absurdity in software patents is that the patent itself is not actually on the software. When you look at a software patent it doesn't show the software, it shows a very high level abstraction of the problem the software will solve or how it will solve the problem. Most machine patents include drawings of the actual machine implementation, a software patent never shows the actual software implementation because if they did that it would be redundant to copyright and would not prevent competition from alternate solutions to the same problem.
Your idea may have also been invented by someone and you just didn't patent it. This is the problem with software patents. The patents themselves can be very vague and cover a whole host of ideas. If the patent office has to pass more patents just to get rid of a backlog, perhaps it isn't the fault of the filers but the fault of the law.
While it may be valid to discuss the various issues surrounding software patents I would avoid focusing on them as the reason to eliminate software patents. The reason being that these people fighting to keep software patents will look at your arguments and see that you have a very strong point and a very weak point, they will immediately focus on the weak point and detract you and the argument away from a logical conclusion that would do away with the absurdity of software patents.
Since CentOS is basically removing trademarks and recompiling how exactly does this make their work more difficult? Does CentOS not ship the same kernel as Red Hat by using Red Hat source? Wont CentOS simply compile the pre-patched source from the tarball and be good to go?
I think the big disclaimer is "Advertised Speeds". Yes, at my address QWest advertises 25-50 Mbps, they advertise fiber optic connections, and Comcast also provides similar advertisements. But when you check availability I'm out of luck.
Unfortunately, as both you and I know, advertised != available.
I get a reliable ~6 Mbps down but I am only provided ~740Kbps up. The down speed meets the expectations of the 1996 telecommunications act that gave many concessions to telecoms with the expectation of investing in nationwide broadband but I question the viability of originating quality video, especially if their are other currently active outgoing streams, from that upload speed.
Two judges have ruled it to be Unconstitutional so far and it is making its way up to the Supreme Court for review.
People have their biases and they like to seek out information and sources that confirm rather than challenge their assertions and assumptions... those on the left whom limit themselves to only "friendly" sources, plus those that do seek out "enemy" sources but dismiss everything the opposition has to say anyway, might have had a hard time finding coherent arguments to why ObamaCare wasn't a good thing, well, other than the far left that cried that ObamaCare just didn't go far enough.
You seem to have missed the truth that 2 judges have ruled that the federal health care reform law in unconstitutional while 2 have ruled that it is constitutional. As a U.S. citizen who is looking forward to the Supreme Court striking down a law that forces citizens to buy over priced insurance policies from corrupt scum bag corporations I can also see that a single payer system would be good for the welfare of the entire nation, from individual citizens to all corporations excluding the scum bags currently ripping off citizens.
So I have to ask, that super Koolaid you are drinking that blinds you from reality, is it a bum trip or a super high cause I wouldn't want a bum trip but if the fantasy world your living in is any fun perhaps it would be worthwhile to take a sip.
I wasn't going to reply in this thread, it seems a bit pointless with the cry baby troll moding, but I like your comment so I will reply.
Uh... what? Do you really believe that the United States is hell-bent on eliminating other ways of life? Do you really believe that (because if so, that's just bizarre) or are you just America-bashing for fun?
Short answer, no.
My comment was an over the top somewhat ridiculous statement responding to another over the top fear mongering paranoid delusional "the world is out to get us" comment. And logically if all humans on earth are such garbage it should follow that people in the United States are also humans who are subject to the listed human weaknesses and threatening characteristics. I know for a fact that people in the United States do not fit this crappy characterisation of humans and I know from the foreigners I have interacted with that it is the same elsewhere. I am sorry that you and the moderators failed to catch that, although your questioning leads me to believe that you may have caught it but were not absolutely sure.
And on another note, criticism of one's own nation and politics is not bashing. Attacking criticism because it is criticism is tantamount to being a cry baby nationalistic whore. I like your comment because you bring up some valid points but be careful about labeling criticism as bashing. I hope the only reason you mentioned bashing was due to the outrageous nature of my comment.
we're far more focused on the economic benefit of our overseas campaigns. Which isn't necessarily better, but it still has nothing to do with converting everyone to our brand of representative republicanism. We don't really care how you want to live: just buy our stuff and sell us your oil. Oh, and listen to our music and buy a lot of our DVDs.
I think many people miss the underlying economic causes of many conflicts and I think it plays a greater role than many would like to admit, it is unethical and evil.
I was with you on the fact that, perhaps other than religious evangelism in foreign nations, the U.S. people and government are happy to let people of sovereign nations live the way they want in most cases but the 'buy our shit and sell us your resources' policy isn't any better. But perhaps you are alluding to this circumstance when you noted that the economic based campaigns aren't much better.
Why would you ever have thought that? More to the point, what do you mean by "defensive"?
Where a battle is fought does not determine whether actions are defensive or offensive but I feel I must point out that defense is much broader than fighting battles. The war in Afghanistan was a defensive war because the United States was attacked the the Al Queda organization that was based in and harbored by Afghanistan and their government. The Iraq war was offensive because there was no credible threat from within Iraq from the government or any harbored organizations. The U.S. Nuclear Forces and the ICBM systems are an offensive weapon used defensively through coercion. Reagan's negotiation of the START I treaty was defensive, the talks between U.S. and Chinese military leaders is defensive, the Patriot Missile system is defensive. Hopefully that elucidates my understanding of "defensive".
this idea that America is continuing to build this ever more massive military is just wrong
It is less a question of how much was spent in the past on the military versus what is spent today, the question is how much is needed to achieve the desired objective. Looking at what the United States spends on military versus every other nation suggests to me that we are spending much more than is necessary. To use an automobile analogy,:), if you need a vehicle to commute to work you may want a Bugatti Veyron but that doesn't mean you can't do the same commute just
I was being facetious about the chrome painted missile but you are wrong about mirrors and high power lasers.
It is not as simple as spraying krylon chrome paint on a substrate to create a laser mirror and cooling is an issue but even high power lasers utilize mirrors in the optical cavity with a Q switch outcoupler mirror on one end.
If the United States military exercised their full capability everyone on the planet would be dead multiple times over and a significant percentage of all human civilization infrastructure would be destroyed.
And when it finally happens and they push the button they are going to be surprised to discover that the earth is not flat as their holy book suggests. So in a way religious ignorance may save the day.
the humans of earth are a jealous lot, full of hate and mistrust, and belief that their way is the only way to live, and that all other ways must be eliminated
Suddenly the foreign policy and economically destructive wars perpetuated by the United States make sense.
Honestly I think the comment "we really just need a small group to protect the environment and or a army that create Harmony between nations" needs a hell of a lot more clarification but the truth is that the United States is not paying for a defensive military.
And like previous nations the end result of feeding a perpetual offensive war state will eventually have a serious economic impact on the ordinary citizens who are simply trying to make a living to the point where not only are the wars unsustainable but the entire military, government and economic structure of the nation will crumble. See the history of France with their perpetual wars and borrowing of capital to fuel the American Revolution because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that resulted in the French Revolution and several people losing their heads.
Our militarily enforced foreign policy is like nailing together a fine curio cabinet with 8 penny framing nails and a 20 pound sledge hammer. The end product is something nobody wants.
There was non of this when the throttle body was an actual link to the accelerator.
From the NHTSA recall database...
CHRYSLER SEBRING 1997 ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 2.5L V6 ENGINES, THE THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE CAN FRAY CAUSING THE THROTTLE TO BIND OR STICK. THIS COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
DODGE RAM 1995 PICKUP TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH DIESEL ENGINES. THE THROTTLE CABLE COULD UNRAVEL (FRAY) OR BREAK RESULTING IN LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL. A THROTTLE THAT DOES NOT RETURN TO IDLE COULD RESULT IN UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
FORD ESCAPE 2001 SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL. THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE CAN HAVE A CRACKED OR MISSING SPEED CONTROL CABLE SERVO CAP LOCATING TAB. THE LOCATING TAB COULD ENTER THE SERVO CLUTCH CAVITY AND INTERFERE WITH THE SPEED CONTROL SERVO CLUTCH. ALSO, WATER COULD ENTER THOSE UNITS THAT CONTAIN A CRACKED OR MISSING SERVO CAP LOCATING TAB, EVENTUALLY CAUSING CORROSION THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE FUNCTION OF THE SPEED CONTROL. IF EITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS OCCURS AND THE SPEED CONTROL IS USED, THE SPEED CONTROL COULD PREVENT THE THROTTLE FROM RETURNING TO IDLE, RESULTING IN A STUCK THROTTLE. A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
FORD F150 1998 THE THROTTLE IS UNABLE TO RETURN TO IDLE DUE TO ICE FORMING IN THE THROTTLE BODY WHEN THE TEMPERATURE RANGES FROM -10 TO -40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. INCREASED BRAKE PEDAL EFFORTS OR SOME INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE COULD RESULT.
KIA SPORTAGE 1996 THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLY COULD BIND OR STICK DURING OPERATION. THIS CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE ACCELERATOR TO HOLD THE THROTTLE PARTIALLY OPEN, RESULTING IN LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
CHEVROLET CAVALIER 1996 THE ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE COULD HAVE BEEN KINKED DURING ASSEMBLY CAUSING HIGH ACCELERATOR PEDAL EFFORT, STICKING ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE, OR A BROKEN ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE. IF THE ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE STICKS OR BREAKS, UNWANTED ACCELERATION AND/OR LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL CAN RESULT INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
FORD F600, F800 1990, 1991 THE THROTTLE CABLE WHICH RUNS FROM THE ACCELERATOR TO THE GOVERNOR ASSEMBLY HOUSING MAY HAVE BEEN KINKED DURING ASSEMBLY, CAUSING EXCESSIVE WEAR OF THE CABLE HOUSING INNER LINING. THIS COULD RESULT IN EITHER FRACTURE OR STICKING OF THE CABLE. IF THE THROTTLE CABLE FRACTURES, ENGINE SPEED WILL RETURNTO IDLE. IF THE CABLE JAMS OR STICKS, THE ENGINE WILL REMAIN AT THE SPEED ATWHICH IT WAS RUNNING WHEN THE JAMMING OCCURRED. A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT INLOSS OF CONTROL AND AN ACCIDENT.
FORD RANGER 1990 THROTTLE LEVER MAY CONTACT THROTTLE BODY AIR INLET TUBE, WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR THROTTLE REMAINING OPEN FOLLOWING RELEASE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FROM THE FULL-THROTTLE POSTION IN TRUCKS WITH 4.0 L ENGINES. UNCONTROLLED ACCELERATION COULD CREATE LACK OF CONTROLAND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT.
VOLKSWAGEN RABBIT 1984 THE THROTTLE SHAFT OF THE CARBURETOR MAY CRACK AND EVENTUALLY BREAK AT THE THREADED HOLE FOR THE THROTTLE PLATE CONNECTION DUE TO EXCESSIVE VIBRATION OF THE THROTTLE SHAFT. CONSEQUENCE OF DEFECT: IF THE THROTTLE SHAFT BREAKS, THE THROTTLE WOULD NOT RETURN TO ITS IDLE POSITION. THIS COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF CONTROL AND AN ACCIDENT.
So the accelerator problems started before fly by wire, I guess its time to give up on those new fangled throttle cables and springs, maybe go back to the buggy and whip. Just be sure to carry a pistol to shoot that horse if it accelerates out of control.
At that point it is obvious where the issue lies for the coward. I don't see your logic in calling me a racist for pointing out that the root of the cowards rant is race based.
"give teachers' unions the boot"
You are correct, he proposed a solution, remove teachers bargaining power for wages and benefits because, you know, they're making too much and have it too easy, or perhaps its the tenure issue, he sees the union as a barrier to firing all the teachers because there are more capable people banging on the doors to join the field of education. Yep, he has a solution, a phoenix will rise from the ashes or something.
Looks fairly obvious that the issue for the coward is not education, its the racial make up of the current president and unions, he could not care less about the educational system, so, troll.
HSR had a good start in the United States but was pretty much killed off for strange reasons.
The Red Devil, Electroliner, and Bullet were on par with anything else available at the time. The Bullet design was used as inspiration for the Japanese HSR. But it seems HSR in the states was continually coming into conflict with automotive traffic, i.e. the Electroliners were forced to reduce their speeds because the distance between crossing gates and the switches that triggered them was too short and the Electroliner would reach the crossing before the gates were closed when cruising at speed.
Sometimes I just can't resist feeding the trolls.:)
The best Obammy can muster these days is to conjure up images from their glory days to try to keep his sheep from realizing that their empire is crumbling around them.
It seems your incurable fear and loathing of an elected leader who doesn't look like you has severely impeded any possibility of higher level sentient reasoning or logic, or your simply dumb as a box of rocks. So I'll help you out here with your mental deficiency.
The Sputnik moment was a realization that the United States as a nation was losing focus on the importance and value of investing in scientific pursuits. The Sputnik moment drove home this fact and put the nation in gear to invest in an area of science that has resulted in what I suspect has been the greatest expansion in economic diversity in history. The results of the space program are so intertwined with so many areas of industry and education in the United States that many people now question whether their was any value at all in the space program.
And as you noted in your boring statement there is a crumbling of an empire taking place. Over the past decade or two there have been a continuous flow of Sputnik moments slapping us in the face, the Super Collider was cancelled and the future of particle physics is slowly moving out of the United States, the most powerful super computer in the world no longer resides in the United States, this year will be the end of manned space flight capability in the United States, the United States has lost any lead it ever had in math and science education and skills, etc.
Whether you like Obama or not his statement is on the mark. Whether he has the answers to solve the problems that ail the nation I don't know and I personally am dissatisfied with many of his actions to date as the President. But I also realise that part of the problem for the nation are numb nuts like you who not only have no solutions but are part of the problem with your boorish cry baby whining because you don't like the color of his skin.
Enjoy the troll food, hopefully a bright spot in your pathetic simpleton world.
Read the entire comment or try to avoid quote mining...
"Critical thinking and the scientific method should have come up in some introductory courses in middle school to provide students with the tools necessary to evaluate scientific theory, observations and conclusions."
The idea that you can you can teach evolutionary biology in a high school level course to the degree necessary for students to honestly critique the scientific evidence and provide solid scientific conclusions is absurd. If students are given critical thinking and scientific theory lessons prior to attending the various high school level scientific courses from biology to physics, chemistry, etc. then there is no need to go over the various gaps and weaknesses found in the many scientific theories they will be exposed to.
And lets be honest, the objective of these endeavors to "teach the weakness" is not to endow students with skills in the methods of science, the intent here is to undermine confidence in science and that is all. No high school student is going to provide constructive contributions to evolutionary biology in a high school class, they can save that for the University level courses where they will have a much firmer grasp on both the scientific method and the field of biology.
It isn't anti-science to expose limitations of a theory.
When you are educating students on basic science and teaching scientifically accepted theories it absolutely is anti-science to turn around and tell the students that it all may not be true and they will have to rule out alternative hypotheses before they should accept evolutionary science even though most of the students will never have the necessary education to effectively analyse evolutionary evidence themselves.
And lets be honest, it is anti-science because the objective of these efforts to teach wishy washy science to students in public schools is not intended to produce a generation of scientifically astute students, the purpose is to undermine confidence in science and perpetuate ignorance.
K-12 physics is usually Newtonian, which isn't just overly simplistic; but known to be false.
False is not the correct term, it is not 100% accurate. Newtonian mechanics is an excellent model with valuable real world applications. In fact, in most cases nobody is going to bother with quantum mechanics or general relativity to solve engineering problems that can be solved with Newtonian mechanics with more than enough accuracy to produce the desired results.
Other than that I think you are making an important point, you can't teach PhD level courses for every subject to every student. You can teach enough to create an informed and educated society that can have a meaningful discourse which is not what we currently have on the subject of evolutionary science. Most of the discourse from those who question evolutionary science is from individuals who don't have even the most basic clue as to the principles of evolutionary science and simply regurgitate pseudo-science garbage some quack fed them.
The challenge in discussing evolution in public schools is presenting evolution as an uncertain field in a way that drives inquiry, contributing to a healthy development of scientific thinking among the populace
The challenge in discussing evolution in public schools is getting past preconceived notions implanted through indoctrination and pseudo-science that is overly abundant at home, in church, in the news, on the internet, and in our political system.
Critical thinking and the scientific method should have come up in some introductory courses in middle school to provide students with the tools necessary to evaluate scientific theory, observations and conclusions.
Very few students will actually enter a field that will require them to become educated in the field of biology to a level at which they could honestly conduct meaningful inquiry or contribute to evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology is founded on solid factual evidence and produces results in the laboratory and as such does not require inquiry and contribution in a high school class room.
Evolutionary biology should be taught exactly as it is understood and known by those who have actually entered and studied the field but at a level to which a high school student can understand. This will not provide them with the knowledge needed to contribute to evolutionary science, but that should not be the goal of a high school level course. It may very well provide them with enough information to, at the very least, purge our society of the absolute ignorance on even the most basic principles of evolutionary science that result in debates and discussions between grown adults in which one side shows the intelligence and rational of a 4 year old without even realizing how ignorant they are.
Just as there is no reason to waste time in the classroom teaching students to question Newtonian mechanics there is no reason to waste time addressing pseudo-science attacks on solid evolutionary facts. They both work, they both produce results, they both are valuable models with uses in the real world. There is no reason to waste time addressing garbage that doesn't work and has no application in reality.
Isn't this more an indiciation of a widening income gap between working class and middle class backgrounds?
No. The income gap that most people refer to is the 300x difference in pay between your average middle class worker and the board members running the corporations. That gap was around 30x back in the 1960s.
There are a lot of not-so-smart people with degrees.
Actually, there are a lot of not-so-smart people. While a degree is no guarantee of intelligence the rampant claims that make it sound like the vast majority of the people with degrees are actually dumb and the people who only finished high school or dropped out are actually the smart people is, well, dumb.
Anyone who believes their intelligence far exceeds that of the people who spent the time to get a degree and is not currently making a six figure income from their job or their own business should set their ego aside for awhile and go get a degree to prove how smart they are and how dumb the educated are and the professors who made them dumb. Unless part of this "educated people are dumb" mantra includes some conspiracy theory about educational institutes sucking out your brains and making you dumb.
Conform your requirements to the available proprietary software, develop it from scratch, or build on the work of an existing near solution.
Over a 20 year period I watched this play out.
In one instance a license was going to expire on a statistical analysis application that ran on a Unix server and all the engineers used Reflection X on their Windows workstations to run the application and perform processor intensive statistical analysis for their manufacturing experiments.
A replacement was selected and presented to the engineering group, it was Windows based and ran on the workstation instead of a server. Aside from the fact that it was missing many features and functions the engineers used from day to day nobody seemed to take into consideration that the move from a client server configuration was going to 1) increase network traffic significantly as each engineer would now need to download and upload massive data files from a file server, 2) rather than have one powerful server running the application as needed now all workstations needed to be upgraded with the memory and CPU needed to support the application, and 3) as the application was continually updated to implement the missing features the upgrades would now be needed on hundreds of workstations instead of one server.
Proprietary software is definitely not a magic bullet that works turnkey out of the box.
People who follow the free software philosophy (like me) will smugly laugh at it all
It is funny but I naively thought we may have made it beyond these corporate funded attacks on open source software.
What makes it funny to me is that the game is pretty much over, proprietary software vendors are not going away but they have already been surrounded by a booming market running on open source software, servers, network infrastructure, televisions, DVD players, satellite receivers, now smart phones, tablets, etc. The more people realize that their favorite devices are running on open source software the more these attacks will be detrimental to their corporate credibility and image.
And here I thought we had left the FUD wars of the 1990s behind us and it was time to focus on substance.
Within just 15 years they have completely changed the landscape of the software industry, turning it from a mostly capitalist economy into a mixed one.
Open Source != Communism Open Source != Socialism Gillette is not a communist operation and neither is McDonalds.
Why is it that Capitards always throw the workers out the window when they start calculating the means of production.
Take corporate computer programs away, and the economy comes to a grinding halt.
Software is not magic pixie dust, software and the machines it runs on are often improvements in operating efficiency but there was an effective economy before computers and software. It is also important to note that sprinkling magic software pixie dust on everything does not magically make it more efficient, with a background in manufacturing I can attest to the misuse of results garnered from software to make disastrous decisions.
On the one hand, most inventors need incentives to keep inventing.
Greed is a motivator for crime, the bulk of the inventors I have worked with enjoy what they do. Yes money can boost innovation but it does not automatically die when the cash stops flowing.
This makes it all the more surprising that the writing about open source is rather patchy.
No, the reason the writing is patchy is because there is incentive to produce FUD. The greed factor motivates certain people and corporations to engage in unethical behaviour to stifle competition. That is what happens when you have 90%+ gross profit margins and virtually no competition.
who are sure to take offence at the fact that the authors took money for research from Microsoft
Correcting lies != Offended Once bitten twice shy.
To recreate a software commons, a group of politically motivated programmers came up with a special usage licence
Let me repeat... Open Source != Communism Open Source != Socialism One of the anecdotal stories that demonstrates why copyleft arose is from Richard Stallman and his sharing of code for his Lisp interpreter with a corporation which refused to return the favor. It has nothing to do with politics, people just don't like to be ripped off by weasel scum bags.
It is also important to note that Copyleft utilizes Copyright to protect the commons.
the motivation and background of programmers is now much more mixed. Many work for firms that develop both open-source and proprietary programs and combine them in all kinds of business models
Duh. So what was all the garbage in the beginning of the article about the need for incentives.
More than a quarter of companies happily mix and match both sorts, in particular in poorer countries.
Heh, it appears the authors recently crawled out from under a rock. The utilization of both Open Source and proprietary code in business is not new, and no it is not predominantly left to the poor countries that cannot afford the expensive proprietary code. If the surveys suggest that developed countries don't use Open Source in their business then I suspect they are either oblivious or covering their rears to avoid litigation. There are many individuals and corporations that will vehemently avoid Open Source but seem blind to all the hardware running their operations on embedded linux.
companies that use such programs spend more on such things as learning to use them and making them work with other software
Perhaps this is what the survey says but speaking from experience I can tell you that many corporations have
The linux surge into markets beyond the server started maybe 5 or more years ago.
For a great deal of desktop use linux is already fully capable of replacing Windows or OS/X but it wont happen. (For anyone whose knickers get bunched due to this statement and feel they need to vent their personal anecdotal rants about their linux desktop experience, don't waste your time, I'm not saying you have to use linux, Windows or OS/X on the desktop, use whatever you prefer, I prefer linux.)
While the cost of Microsoft's and Apple's operating systems are outrageously high with gross margins likely over 90% consumers don't care because the rough and tumble competition between hardware manufacturers has provided enough of a reduction in hardware costs to hide the crazy price of the operating system that is wrapped up in the full retail price of a turn key system that most consumers buy. That being the case it is very easy to scare the masses away from alternatives even if they do have the potential to reduce the cost of a turn key system even further.
The linux surge started in servers, moved to infrastructure hardware like routers and switches, quietly moved into everyone's living room in televisions, DVD players, satellite receivers, etc. and is now making an end run round the desktop in complimentary computing devices.
It appears to me that the desktop will be the last market to be swallowed by the hyper competitive nature of open source and hybrid open/closed source offerings and linux. It will happen after the desktop has been completely surrounded by functional hardware and software using open source and linux. Then perhaps 80% of the FUD that scares people away from even considering a linux based desktop can be tossed aside with a similar WinTel proponent's tactic, "everything else is running open source and linux so it makes sense to run it on the desktop as well".
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The reason we have software patents is because lawyers were able to twist a series of patent cases into a questionable conclusion that says something like 'when this software idea is combined with the hardware of a computer it transforms the hardware into a new machine and therefore the software itself is patentable as part of the implementation.'
There are a number of people who make a great deal of money ensuring this root conclusion stands and they extract huge sums of money from the market by utilizing this conclusion. If the tenuous link between a software idea / algorithm / design and the actual software implementation can be broken then the rest of the software patent mess will crumble.
A software idea or design, even as a component of a machine, should be ruled as ineligible for patent protection because, as you state, it is basically an abstract idea that solves a problem and by allowing patent protection of the idea the path to advancement of useful arts and science is blocked because the idea covers all possible implementations. The argument that this will remove the incentive for innovation and invention will quickly come out but this argument is moot because software is covered by copyright so the implementation of an idea is still protected.
The astounding absurdity in software patents is that the patent itself is not actually on the software. When you look at a software patent it doesn't show the software, it shows a very high level abstraction of the problem the software will solve or how it will solve the problem. Most machine patents include drawings of the actual machine implementation, a software patent never shows the actual software implementation because if they did that it would be redundant to copyright and would not prevent competition from alternate solutions to the same problem.
While it may be valid to discuss the various issues surrounding software patents I would avoid focusing on them as the reason to eliminate software patents. The reason being that these people fighting to keep software patents will look at your arguments and see that you have a very strong point and a very weak point, they will immediately focus on the weak point and detract you and the argument away from a logical conclusion that would do away with the absurdity of software patents.
Since CentOS is basically removing trademarks and recompiling how exactly does this make their work more difficult? Does CentOS not ship the same kernel as Red Hat by using Red Hat source? Wont CentOS simply compile the pre-patched source from the tarball and be good to go?
I think the big disclaimer is "Advertised Speeds". Yes, at my address QWest advertises 25-50 Mbps, they advertise fiber optic connections, and Comcast also provides similar advertisements. But when you check availability I'm out of luck.
Unfortunately, as both you and I know, advertised != available.
I get a reliable ~6 Mbps down but I am only provided ~740Kbps up. The down speed meets the expectations of the 1996 telecommunications act that gave many concessions to telecoms with the expectation of investing in nationwide broadband but I question the viability of originating quality video, especially if their are other currently active outgoing streams, from that upload speed.
You seem to have missed the truth that 2 judges have ruled that the federal health care reform law in unconstitutional while 2 have ruled that it is constitutional. As a U.S. citizen who is looking forward to the Supreme Court striking down a law that forces citizens to buy over priced insurance policies from corrupt scum bag corporations I can also see that a single payer system would be good for the welfare of the entire nation, from individual citizens to all corporations excluding the scum bags currently ripping off citizens.
So I have to ask, that super Koolaid you are drinking that blinds you from reality, is it a bum trip or a super high cause I wouldn't want a bum trip but if the fantasy world your living in is any fun perhaps it would be worthwhile to take a sip.
I wasn't going to reply in this thread, it seems a bit pointless with the cry baby troll moding, but I like your comment so I will reply.
Short answer, no.
My comment was an over the top somewhat ridiculous statement responding to another over the top fear mongering paranoid delusional "the world is out to get us" comment. And logically if all humans on earth are such garbage it should follow that people in the United States are also humans who are subject to the listed human weaknesses and threatening characteristics. I know for a fact that people in the United States do not fit this crappy characterisation of humans and I know from the foreigners I have interacted with that it is the same elsewhere. I am sorry that you and the moderators failed to catch that, although your questioning leads me to believe that you may have caught it but were not absolutely sure.
And on another note, criticism of one's own nation and politics is not bashing. Attacking criticism because it is criticism is tantamount to being a cry baby nationalistic whore. I like your comment because you bring up some valid points but be careful about labeling criticism as bashing. I hope the only reason you mentioned bashing was due to the outrageous nature of my comment.
I think many people miss the underlying economic causes of many conflicts and I think it plays a greater role than many would like to admit, it is unethical and evil.
I was with you on the fact that, perhaps other than religious evangelism in foreign nations, the U.S. people and government are happy to let people of sovereign nations live the way they want in most cases but the 'buy our shit and sell us your resources' policy isn't any better. But perhaps you are alluding to this circumstance when you noted that the economic based campaigns aren't much better.
Where a battle is fought does not determine whether actions are defensive or offensive but I feel I must point out that defense is much broader than fighting battles. The war in Afghanistan was a defensive war because the United States was attacked the the Al Queda organization that was based in and harbored by Afghanistan and their government. The Iraq war was offensive because there was no credible threat from within Iraq from the government or any harbored organizations. The U.S. Nuclear Forces and the ICBM systems are an offensive weapon used defensively through coercion. Reagan's negotiation of the START I treaty was defensive, the talks between U.S. and Chinese military leaders is defensive, the Patriot Missile system is defensive. Hopefully that elucidates my understanding of "defensive".
It is less a question of how much was spent in the past on the military versus what is spent today, the question is how much is needed to achieve the desired objective. Looking at what the United States spends on military versus every other nation suggests to me that we are spending much more than is necessary. To use an automobile analogy, :), if you need a vehicle to commute to work you may want a Bugatti Veyron but that doesn't mean you can't do the same commute just
I was being facetious about the chrome painted missile but you are wrong about mirrors and high power lasers.
It is not as simple as spraying krylon chrome paint on a substrate to create a laser mirror and cooling is an issue but even high power lasers utilize mirrors in the optical cavity with a Q switch outcoupler mirror on one end.
For your reference here is a picture of the outcoupler from the Jefferson Lab FEL being worked on.
Why ask why, when *how* is so much more fun?
I checked and the local Ace Hardware is mysteriously out of Krylon metallic chrome spray paint.
Would that be the exocet missile with the fresh coat of Krylon metallic chrome paint on the nose cone? :P
If the United States military exercised their full capability everyone on the planet would be dead multiple times over and a significant percentage of all human civilization infrastructure would be destroyed.
And when it finally happens and they push the button they are going to be surprised to discover that the earth is not flat as their holy book suggests. So in a way religious ignorance may save the day.
Suddenly the foreign policy and economically destructive wars perpetuated by the United States make sense.
Honestly I think the comment "we really just need a small group to protect the environment and or a army that create Harmony between nations" needs a hell of a lot more clarification but the truth is that the United States is not paying for a defensive military.
And like previous nations the end result of feeding a perpetual offensive war state will eventually have a serious economic impact on the ordinary citizens who are simply trying to make a living to the point where not only are the wars unsustainable but the entire military, government and economic structure of the nation will crumble. See the history of France with their perpetual wars and borrowing of capital to fuel the American Revolution because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that resulted in the French Revolution and several people losing their heads.
Our militarily enforced foreign policy is like nailing together a fine curio cabinet with 8 penny framing nails and a 20 pound sledge hammer. The end product is something nobody wants.
From the NHTSA recall database...
CHRYSLER SEBRING 1997 ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 2.5L V6 ENGINES, THE THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE CAN FRAY CAUSING THE THROTTLE TO BIND OR STICK. THIS COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
DODGE RAM 1995 PICKUP TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH DIESEL ENGINES. THE THROTTLE CABLE COULD UNRAVEL (FRAY) OR BREAK RESULTING IN LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL. A THROTTLE THAT DOES NOT RETURN TO IDLE COULD RESULT IN UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
FORD ESCAPE 2001 SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL. THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE CAN HAVE A CRACKED OR MISSING SPEED CONTROL CABLE SERVO CAP LOCATING TAB. THE LOCATING TAB COULD ENTER THE SERVO CLUTCH CAVITY AND INTERFERE WITH THE SPEED CONTROL SERVO CLUTCH. ALSO, WATER COULD ENTER THOSE UNITS THAT CONTAIN A CRACKED OR MISSING SERVO CAP LOCATING TAB, EVENTUALLY CAUSING CORROSION THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE FUNCTION OF THE SPEED CONTROL. IF EITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS OCCURS AND THE SPEED CONTROL IS USED, THE SPEED CONTROL COULD PREVENT THE THROTTLE FROM RETURNING TO IDLE, RESULTING IN A STUCK THROTTLE. A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
FORD F150 1998 THE THROTTLE IS UNABLE TO RETURN TO IDLE DUE TO ICE FORMING IN THE THROTTLE BODY WHEN THE TEMPERATURE RANGES FROM -10 TO -40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. INCREASED BRAKE PEDAL EFFORTS OR SOME INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE COULD RESULT.
KIA SPORTAGE 1996 THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLY COULD BIND OR STICK DURING OPERATION. THIS CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE ACCELERATOR TO HOLD THE THROTTLE PARTIALLY OPEN, RESULTING IN LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
CHEVROLET CAVALIER 1996 THE ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE COULD HAVE BEEN KINKED DURING ASSEMBLY CAUSING HIGH ACCELERATOR PEDAL EFFORT, STICKING ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE, OR A BROKEN ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE. IF THE ACCELERATOR CONTROL CABLE STICKS OR BREAKS, UNWANTED ACCELERATION AND/OR LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL CAN RESULT INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
FORD F600, F800 1990, 1991 THE THROTTLE CABLE WHICH RUNS FROM THE ACCELERATOR TO THE GOVERNOR ASSEMBLY HOUSING MAY HAVE BEEN KINKED DURING ASSEMBLY, CAUSING EXCESSIVE WEAR OF THE CABLE HOUSING INNER LINING. THIS COULD RESULT IN EITHER FRACTURE OR STICKING OF THE CABLE. IF THE THROTTLE CABLE FRACTURES, ENGINE SPEED WILL RETURNTO IDLE. IF THE CABLE JAMS OR STICKS, THE ENGINE WILL REMAIN AT THE SPEED ATWHICH IT WAS RUNNING WHEN THE JAMMING OCCURRED. A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT INLOSS OF CONTROL AND AN ACCIDENT.
FORD RANGER 1990 THROTTLE LEVER MAY CONTACT THROTTLE BODY AIR INLET TUBE, WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR THROTTLE REMAINING OPEN FOLLOWING RELEASE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FROM THE FULL-THROTTLE POSTION IN TRUCKS WITH 4.0 L ENGINES. UNCONTROLLED ACCELERATION COULD CREATE LACK OF CONTROLAND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT.
VOLKSWAGEN RABBIT 1984 THE THROTTLE SHAFT OF THE CARBURETOR MAY CRACK AND EVENTUALLY BREAK AT THE THREADED HOLE FOR THE THROTTLE PLATE CONNECTION DUE TO EXCESSIVE VIBRATION OF THE THROTTLE SHAFT. CONSEQUENCE OF DEFECT: IF THE THROTTLE SHAFT BREAKS, THE THROTTLE WOULD NOT RETURN TO ITS IDLE POSITION. THIS COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF CONTROL AND AN ACCIDENT.
So the accelerator problems started before fly by wire, I guess its time to give up on those new fangled throttle cables and springs, maybe go back to the buggy and whip. Just be sure to carry a pistol to shoot that horse if it accelerates out of control.
"The best Obammy can muster"
At that point it is obvious where the issue lies for the coward. I don't see your logic in calling me a racist for pointing out that the root of the cowards rant is race based.
"give teachers' unions the boot"
You are correct, he proposed a solution, remove teachers bargaining power for wages and benefits because, you know, they're making too much and have it too easy, or perhaps its the tenure issue, he sees the union as a barrier to firing all the teachers because there are more capable people banging on the doors to join the field of education. Yep, he has a solution, a phoenix will rise from the ashes or something.
Looks fairly obvious that the issue for the coward is not education, its the racial make up of the current president and unions, he could not care less about the educational system, so, troll.
HSR had a good start in the United States but was pretty much killed off for strange reasons.
The Red Devil, Electroliner, and Bullet were on par with anything else available at the time. The Bullet design was used as inspiration for the Japanese HSR. But it seems HSR in the states was continually coming into conflict with automotive traffic, i.e. the Electroliners were forced to reduce their speeds because the distance between crossing gates and the switches that triggered them was too short and the Electroliner would reach the crossing before the gates were closed when cruising at speed.
Sometimes I just can't resist feeding the trolls. :)
It seems your incurable fear and loathing of an elected leader who doesn't look like you has severely impeded any possibility of higher level sentient reasoning or logic, or your simply dumb as a box of rocks. So I'll help you out here with your mental deficiency.
The Sputnik moment was a realization that the United States as a nation was losing focus on the importance and value of investing in scientific pursuits. The Sputnik moment drove home this fact and put the nation in gear to invest in an area of science that has resulted in what I suspect has been the greatest expansion in economic diversity in history. The results of the space program are so intertwined with so many areas of industry and education in the United States that many people now question whether their was any value at all in the space program.
And as you noted in your boring statement there is a crumbling of an empire taking place. Over the past decade or two there have been a continuous flow of Sputnik moments slapping us in the face, the Super Collider was cancelled and the future of particle physics is slowly moving out of the United States, the most powerful super computer in the world no longer resides in the United States, this year will be the end of manned space flight capability in the United States, the United States has lost any lead it ever had in math and science education and skills, etc.
Whether you like Obama or not his statement is on the mark. Whether he has the answers to solve the problems that ail the nation I don't know and I personally am dissatisfied with many of his actions to date as the President. But I also realise that part of the problem for the nation are numb nuts like you who not only have no solutions but are part of the problem with your boorish cry baby whining because you don't like the color of his skin.
Enjoy the troll food, hopefully a bright spot in your pathetic simpleton world.
Read the entire comment or try to avoid quote mining...
"Critical thinking and the scientific method should have come up in some introductory courses in middle school to provide students with the tools necessary to evaluate scientific theory, observations and conclusions."
The idea that you can you can teach evolutionary biology in a high school level course to the degree necessary for students to honestly critique the scientific evidence and provide solid scientific conclusions is absurd. If students are given critical thinking and scientific theory lessons prior to attending the various high school level scientific courses from biology to physics, chemistry, etc. then there is no need to go over the various gaps and weaknesses found in the many scientific theories they will be exposed to.
And lets be honest, the objective of these endeavors to "teach the weakness" is not to endow students with skills in the methods of science, the intent here is to undermine confidence in science and that is all. No high school student is going to provide constructive contributions to evolutionary biology in a high school class, they can save that for the University level courses where they will have a much firmer grasp on both the scientific method and the field of biology.
When you are educating students on basic science and teaching scientifically accepted theories it absolutely is anti-science to turn around and tell the students that it all may not be true and they will have to rule out alternative hypotheses before they should accept evolutionary science even though most of the students will never have the necessary education to effectively analyse evolutionary evidence themselves.
And lets be honest, it is anti-science because the objective of these efforts to teach wishy washy science to students in public schools is not intended to produce a generation of scientifically astute students, the purpose is to undermine confidence in science and perpetuate ignorance.
False is not the correct term, it is not 100% accurate. Newtonian mechanics is an excellent model with valuable real world applications. In fact, in most cases nobody is going to bother with quantum mechanics or general relativity to solve engineering problems that can be solved with Newtonian mechanics with more than enough accuracy to produce the desired results.
Other than that I think you are making an important point, you can't teach PhD level courses for every subject to every student. You can teach enough to create an informed and educated society that can have a meaningful discourse which is not what we currently have on the subject of evolutionary science. Most of the discourse from those who question evolutionary science is from individuals who don't have even the most basic clue as to the principles of evolutionary science and simply regurgitate pseudo-science garbage some quack fed them.
The challenge in discussing evolution in public schools is getting past preconceived notions implanted through indoctrination and pseudo-science that is overly abundant at home, in church, in the news, on the internet, and in our political system.
Critical thinking and the scientific method should have come up in some introductory courses in middle school to provide students with the tools necessary to evaluate scientific theory, observations and conclusions.
Very few students will actually enter a field that will require them to become educated in the field of biology to a level at which they could honestly conduct meaningful inquiry or contribute to evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology is founded on solid factual evidence and produces results in the laboratory and as such does not require inquiry and contribution in a high school class room.
Evolutionary biology should be taught exactly as it is understood and known by those who have actually entered and studied the field but at a level to which a high school student can understand. This will not provide them with the knowledge needed to contribute to evolutionary science, but that should not be the goal of a high school level course. It may very well provide them with enough information to, at the very least, purge our society of the absolute ignorance on even the most basic principles of evolutionary science that result in debates and discussions between grown adults in which one side shows the intelligence and rational of a 4 year old without even realizing how ignorant they are.
Just as there is no reason to waste time in the classroom teaching students to question Newtonian mechanics there is no reason to waste time addressing pseudo-science attacks on solid evolutionary facts. They both work, they both produce results, they both are valuable models with uses in the real world. There is no reason to waste time addressing garbage that doesn't work and has no application in reality.
No. The income gap that most people refer to is the 300x difference in pay between your average middle class worker and the board members running the corporations. That gap was around 30x back in the 1960s.
Actually, there are a lot of not-so-smart people. While a degree is no guarantee of intelligence the rampant claims that make it sound like the vast majority of the people with degrees are actually dumb and the people who only finished high school or dropped out are actually the smart people is, well, dumb.
Anyone who believes their intelligence far exceeds that of the people who spent the time to get a degree and is not currently making a six figure income from their job or their own business should set their ego aside for awhile and go get a degree to prove how smart they are and how dumb the educated are and the professors who made them dumb. Unless part of this "educated people are dumb" mantra includes some conspiracy theory about educational institutes sucking out your brains and making you dumb.
Over a 20 year period I watched this play out.
In one instance a license was going to expire on a statistical analysis application that ran on a Unix server and all the engineers used Reflection X on their Windows workstations to run the application and perform processor intensive statistical analysis for their manufacturing experiments.
A replacement was selected and presented to the engineering group, it was Windows based and ran on the workstation instead of a server. Aside from the fact that it was missing many features and functions the engineers used from day to day nobody seemed to take into consideration that the move from a client server configuration was going to 1) increase network traffic significantly as each engineer would now need to download and upload massive data files from a file server, 2) rather than have one powerful server running the application as needed now all workstations needed to be upgraded with the memory and CPU needed to support the application, and 3) as the application was continually updated to implement the missing features the upgrades would now be needed on hundreds of workstations instead of one server.
Proprietary software is definitely not a magic bullet that works turnkey out of the box.
It is funny but I naively thought we may have made it beyond these corporate funded attacks on open source software.
What makes it funny to me is that the game is pretty much over, proprietary software vendors are not going away but they have already been surrounded by a booming market running on open source software, servers, network infrastructure, televisions, DVD players, satellite receivers, now smart phones, tablets, etc. The more people realize that their favorite devices are running on open source software the more these attacks will be detrimental to their corporate credibility and image.
And here I thought we had left the FUD wars of the 1990s behind us and it was time to focus on substance.
Open Source != Communism
Open Source != Socialism
Gillette is not a communist operation and neither is McDonalds.
Why is it that Capitards always throw the workers out the window when they start calculating the means of production.
Software is not magic pixie dust, software and the machines it runs on are often improvements in operating efficiency but there was an effective economy before computers and software. It is also important to note that sprinkling magic software pixie dust on everything does not magically make it more efficient, with a background in manufacturing I can attest to the misuse of results garnered from software to make disastrous decisions.
Greed is a motivator for crime, the bulk of the inventors I have worked with enjoy what they do. Yes money can boost innovation but it does not automatically die when the cash stops flowing.
No, the reason the writing is patchy is because there is incentive to produce FUD. The greed factor motivates certain people and corporations to engage in unethical behaviour to stifle competition. That is what happens when you have 90%+ gross profit margins and virtually no competition.
Correcting lies != Offended
Once bitten twice shy.
Let me repeat...
Open Source != Communism
Open Source != Socialism
One of the anecdotal stories that demonstrates why copyleft arose is from Richard Stallman and his sharing of code for his Lisp interpreter with a corporation which refused to return the favor. It has nothing to do with politics, people just don't like to be ripped off by weasel scum bags.
It is also important to note that Copyleft utilizes Copyright to protect the commons.
Duh. So what was all the garbage in the beginning of the article about the need for incentives.
Heh, it appears the authors recently crawled out from under a rock. The utilization of both Open Source and proprietary code in business is not new, and no it is not predominantly left to the poor countries that cannot afford the expensive proprietary code. If the surveys suggest that developed countries don't use Open Source in their business then I suspect they are either oblivious or covering their rears to avoid litigation. There are many individuals and corporations that will vehemently avoid Open Source but seem blind to all the hardware running their operations on embedded linux.
Perhaps this is what the survey says but speaking from experience I can tell you that many corporations have
The linux surge into markets beyond the server started maybe 5 or more years ago.
For a great deal of desktop use linux is already fully capable of replacing Windows or OS/X but it wont happen. (For anyone whose knickers get bunched due to this statement and feel they need to vent their personal anecdotal rants about their linux desktop experience, don't waste your time, I'm not saying you have to use linux, Windows or OS/X on the desktop, use whatever you prefer, I prefer linux.)
While the cost of Microsoft's and Apple's operating systems are outrageously high with gross margins likely over 90% consumers don't care because the rough and tumble competition between hardware manufacturers has provided enough of a reduction in hardware costs to hide the crazy price of the operating system that is wrapped up in the full retail price of a turn key system that most consumers buy. That being the case it is very easy to scare the masses away from alternatives even if they do have the potential to reduce the cost of a turn key system even further.
The linux surge started in servers, moved to infrastructure hardware like routers and switches, quietly moved into everyone's living room in televisions, DVD players, satellite receivers, etc. and is now making an end run round the desktop in complimentary computing devices.
It appears to me that the desktop will be the last market to be swallowed by the hyper competitive nature of open source and hybrid open/closed source offerings and linux. It will happen after the desktop has been completely surrounded by functional hardware and software using open source and linux. Then perhaps 80% of the FUD that scares people away from even considering a linux based desktop can be tossed aside with a similar WinTel proponent's tactic, "everything else is running open source and linux so it makes sense to run it on the desktop as well".