Why is this a good thing? Because this time, the fake-patenters got overzealous and attacked someone who actually has the legal resources to fight back. If they get smashed (and I hope they do) it will create a legal precedence that will make this practice much harder to do in the future.
Either way... When did the business model "I created a patent just so I could sue you" a socially acceptable business practice?
You must be European. In the US the doctrine (for the right, at least) is "personal responsibility", which basically means the victim is always at fault.
Yea, seriously, paint me as one who doesn't wanna make climate changes and just hope for the best. Our ecosystem, and our existence, is made possible only by an equilibrium of different factors grossly unlike most of the known universe. Tipping the balance one way or the other just doesn't read "good idea" to me.
Also, if you're going to go to the trouble of setting up a PC with smoothwall or something like that, you're not also going to need a broadband router, since a PC firewall with a second ethernet card is going to have all the functionality of a cheap broadband sharing device and much more.
Overzealous Kazaa users? There is some amount of Kazaa usage you'd allow in your coffeee shop? You don't really need a PC to do sophisticated packet filtering... why not just block the ports that Kazaa uses? I also don't know how you could "filter" vaguely defined script kiddie activity.
My wireless-basestation-included broadband router cost $55 with a $20 rebate, and you can block ports and ban MAC addresses with it (you have to assign the MAC address to a certain ip range, and then block that ip range), btw.
It's human nature to think of relatively vague, amorphous entities such as "20th century America" or "the West" or "the Middle East" etc. as having anthropomorphic human qualities like the ability to own things, have debts or consciously plan things across actual human beings that clearly do not talk to each other and work that sort of thing out. The church, the government and "corporations" do not and did not get together and figure out the way they wanted Christmas to be -- these amorphous groups do not have human characteristics -- and even if you could somehow trace Christmas to them, you could not hold them responsible -- these amorphous groups do not have human characteristics, and cannot be "responsible" or even consciously do anything.
Our (American) Christmas is largely taken after the British tradition, and I don't know if you've ever been there in the Fall, but the retailers there don't have Thanksgiving to wait for and so advertise full-scale for Christmas starting virtually at the end of the summer.
The first step to making a supportable assertion is to speak literally and use terms that can be defined. Thank you.
I agree. When we say "culture is our greatest export" that's a figurative statement. We don't literally export our culture. Sometimes people forget that distinction, and that's why some get up in arms over "culture imperialism" like there's literally some organized effort to do that.
Mainstream reporting of science has always been totally bunk, perhaps for the reason that reporters majored in journalism and not physics. One of the early reports of the Wright Brothers' first successful flight said the plane had 8 propellers, flew 3 miles, etc.
The problem is when we make important legislative decisions based on bogus science. For instance, at the beginning of the Great Depression, Congress received a petition signed by more than 1000 economists warning that the thinking behind the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act would make things dramatically worse... Congress passed the act anyway, and you can guess the results (it made things get dramatically worse).
This isn't the first time in history powerful swaths of the population seem openly hostile to science that doesn't tell them quite what they want to hear (see: Gallileo, Scopes monkey trial), humanity is certainly more powerful than ever and so the stakes are a lot higher. Also, you would've thought people would've gotten over this kind of nonsense by now, but maybe that's just more wishful thinking.
So he had 73 years of life experience for him to know better.
It is quite well documented that one's cognitive functions and ability to reason start to break down by this age for most people. It is in no way safe to assume that this man has not been affected by proccesses which have degraded his ability to think.
Sure, we all know that one guy who's 89, still smarter than Niels Bohr, still wittier than Voltaire, etc. etc. That person is a statistical outlier. If anything exceptions are more salient because they are exceptional, but that is no excuse to ignore base rate statistics.
Don't forget the huge cash payouts SCO has received from Microsoft in exchange for vaguely defined "licenses," etc.
I think it's a perfectly valid (if immoral and probably illegal) business model. There is a huge demand from well-moneyed interests (e.g., Microsoft) to get rid of Linux. Thus, there is a high market price for this "service," and one company (SCO) is stepping into the market to supply it.
Of course, since it's probably illegal, and since doing so would endanger their business methods (would be damaging to their court cases), they can never speak frankly about what they are doing, so instead they have to speak in codes, like the "licensing arrangement" with Microsoft, etc.
The terror alert system is just a way for politicians to protect themselves. Issuing vague warnings that will not do anything to prevent an attack does nothing but give whomever's ass is on the line the ability to say "I told you so / it's not my fault" if something actually happens.
Which is why we are probably never going to be at anything other than orange or yellow alert. Because if we ever go to some "reduced" alert level and there is an attack then whoever is in charge of the alert system will get in trouble for not vaguely warning us.
I would point out that all large businesses are not convicted monopolists. Companies like Apple, Sun and Sony would sell your mother if they could, and we all have our gripes with them from time to time, but they seem to genuinely take pride in creating cool stuff. Microsoft seems to take pride in putting other companies out of business.
2. I expect software I pay for to work as advertised
Strictly speaking, Linux cannot and probably will never be able to "advertise" in the same sense that Microsoft can. This, if anything, is a hindrance (not unsurmountable) to the spread of Linux.
I think what you really mean is "What you see is what you get." Microsoft products are the exact opposite of both parts of that statment.
It used to be that people found giant public works projects to be a source of national pride. Nowadays, people feel impugned by large public works projects to their personal sense of power. That's my money they're spending!
Either way, it's the same emotion. I don't know which, if either, is "right", but you should at least keep that in mind when evaluating arguments about this sort of problem. (You can get the same feeling from reading a lot of books as you can from having a lot of guns; it's all just power.)
They will not avoid politics entirely (to do that would be foolish) but they will analyzed in scientific ways and conclusions drawn about what would be best in a theoretical framework
I think you're sort of missing the point. The question is, why do some people find bad arguments so persuasive? And, there is plenty of existing literature on the subject, in linguistics, psychology, behavioral economics -- Daniel Kahneman one a Nobel prize last year for basically addressing that question.
This is like a steel cage match between bin Laden and Hitler. Who the hell do I root for?
This is an easy one. Root for the fight itself, and hope that it will be as bloody and terrible as possible and they will just destroy each other.
Incidentally, this is what the free world was hoping with Hitler & Stalin (before the war) when the two parallel nightmares seemed to be trying to stare each other down. Then, they suddenly allied with one another....
Slashdot Mirror
but not because you couldn't think of anything?
Why is this a good thing? Because this time, the fake-patenters got overzealous and attacked someone who actually has the legal resources to fight back. If they get smashed (and I hope they do) it will create a legal precedence that will make this practice much harder to do in the future.
You must be European. In the US the doctrine (for the right, at least) is "personal responsibility", which basically means the victim is always at fault.
It's called "crying wolf." If this turns out to be another political charade, the next person who honestly tries to do this won't be taken seriously.
It actually makes sense if you think about it.
http://www.econ.rochester.edu/eco108/ch4/micro04/s ld040.htm
I mean sure, "...has been thoroughly torn to shreds" is a valid argument, and.... you get where I'm going with this
Yea, seriously, paint me as one who doesn't wanna make climate changes and just hope for the best. Our ecosystem, and our existence, is made possible only by an equilibrium of different factors grossly unlike most of the known universe. Tipping the balance one way or the other just doesn't read "good idea" to me.
While bravely defending George W. Bush's environmental record!
Also, if you're going to go to the trouble of setting up a PC with smoothwall or something like that, you're not also going to need a broadband router, since a PC firewall with a second ethernet card is going to have all the functionality of a cheap broadband sharing device and much more.
Overzealous Kazaa users? There is some amount of Kazaa usage you'd allow in your coffeee shop? You don't really need a PC to do sophisticated packet filtering... why not just block the ports that Kazaa uses? I also don't know how you could "filter" vaguely defined script kiddie activity.
My wireless-basestation-included broadband router cost $55 with a $20 rebate, and you can block ports and ban MAC addresses with it (you have to assign the MAC address to a certain ip range, and then block that ip range), btw.
Our (American) Christmas is largely taken after the British tradition, and I don't know if you've ever been there in the Fall, but the retailers there don't have Thanksgiving to wait for and so advertise full-scale for Christmas starting virtually at the end of the summer.
The first step to making a supportable assertion is to speak literally and use terms that can be defined. Thank you.
I agree. When we say "culture is our greatest export" that's a figurative statement. We don't literally export our culture. Sometimes people forget that distinction, and that's why some get up in arms over "culture imperialism" like there's literally some organized effort to do that.
The problem is when we make important legislative decisions based on bogus science. For instance, at the beginning of the Great Depression, Congress received a petition signed by more than 1000 economists warning that the thinking behind the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act would make things dramatically worse... Congress passed the act anyway, and you can guess the results (it made things get dramatically worse).
This isn't the first time in history powerful swaths of the population seem openly hostile to science that doesn't tell them quite what they want to hear (see: Gallileo, Scopes monkey trial), humanity is certainly more powerful than ever and so the stakes are a lot higher. Also, you would've thought people would've gotten over this kind of nonsense by now, but maybe that's just more wishful thinking.
It is quite well documented that one's cognitive functions and ability to reason start to break down by this age for most people. It is in no way safe to assume that this man has not been affected by proccesses which have degraded his ability to think.
Sure, we all know that one guy who's 89, still smarter than Niels Bohr, still wittier than Voltaire, etc. etc. That person is a statistical outlier. If anything exceptions are more salient because they are exceptional, but that is no excuse to ignore base rate statistics.
I think it's a perfectly valid (if immoral and probably illegal) business model. There is a huge demand from well-moneyed interests (e.g., Microsoft) to get rid of Linux. Thus, there is a high market price for this "service," and one company (SCO) is stepping into the market to supply it.
Of course, since it's probably illegal, and since doing so would endanger their business methods (would be damaging to their court cases), they can never speak frankly about what they are doing, so instead they have to speak in codes, like the "licensing arrangement" with Microsoft, etc.
Which is why we are probably never going to be at anything other than orange or yellow alert. Because if we ever go to some "reduced" alert level and there is an attack then whoever is in charge of the alert system will get in trouble for not vaguely warning us.
I would point out that all large businesses are not convicted monopolists. Companies like Apple, Sun and Sony would sell your mother if they could, and we all have our gripes with them from time to time, but they seem to genuinely take pride in creating cool stuff. Microsoft seems to take pride in putting other companies out of business.
Strictly speaking, Linux cannot and probably will never be able to "advertise" in the same sense that Microsoft can. This, if anything, is a hindrance (not unsurmountable) to the spread of Linux.
I think what you really mean is "What you see is what you get." Microsoft products are the exact opposite of both parts of that statment.
Why is "Don't want to help hegemonic evil spread across the face of the Earth" not one of the options?
Either way, it's the same emotion. I don't know which, if either, is "right", but you should at least keep that in mind when evaluating arguments about this sort of problem. (You can get the same feeling from reading a lot of books as you can from having a lot of guns; it's all just power.)
I think you're sort of missing the point. The question is, why do some people find bad arguments so persuasive? And, there is plenty of existing literature on the subject, in linguistics, psychology, behavioral economics -- Daniel Kahneman one a Nobel prize last year for basically addressing that question.
Put your money where your mouth is, and maybe they will.
This is an easy one. Root for the fight itself, and hope that it will be as bloody and terrible as possible and they will just destroy each other.
Incidentally, this is what the free world was hoping with Hitler & Stalin (before the war) when the two parallel nightmares seemed to be trying to stare each other down. Then, they suddenly allied with one another....
hmm...