Do you really believe that it is just the republicans that are pushing heavy copyright enforcement? That would be completely ignorant of the fact that DMCA was signed by Clinton, that the biggest proponent in copyright extension, Senator "Disney" Hollings, is a Democract, and that most of Hollywood and the music industry are democrats.
Maybe the "good-ol'-fashion power-to-the-people" democrats believed in something different but that isn't what the party is about now. Hell Kerry could become the richest president ever.
Those suits were over 3 years ago (started by KPMG I believe) and nothing ever came out of them. Either way they were for deep-linking and are not at all similar to this case. There are dozens of sites that have been doing this for years now and none of them have been sued. Do you really think any site is going to take on Microsoft now?
Don't defend the original post. It was a crappy ass attempt to karma-whore by linking to the previous article. It is as old as the hills and it never works.
Have you never seen how these sites work? They don't copy the entire article onto their site. They provide a link to the original site with a short blurb. This doesn't infringe on any copyrights and, if anything, the sites are getting free advertising. In the case you link he had the information on his site. Now that doesn't necessarily mean he was infringing but you can't compare the two.
Imagine the precedent if they did. It would totally destroy the search engine industry (which is basically all this is).
Of course that is why Drake's equation is a joke. You can't calculate anything with a sample size of one. There is not one number is his equation that we can even estimate.
And it really isn't that hard to get to actually less than one. There's a calculator here.
I did some very reasonable estimates and came up with 0.2475.
Better to go into everything blindly? How does that make any sense? Just because some predictions (maybe even most) are wrong doesn't mean that we should try to predict anything.
Here's an example:
Apple predicts it is going to sell X iPods so they start manufacturing expecting to meet that demand (or in Apple's case it often seems to fall just short of that demand to create false demand but that is another story). When the iPods become wildly popular they sell far more than X. While the prediction was wrong it hopefully was based on some consumer study, focus groups, etc. and was better than just producing a random amount.
Not sure where you get that interpretation of process but it doesn't matter. The real issues with business-method patents are as follows:
1) The Patent Office is poorly equipped to judge whether a particular method is useful, new, and non-obvious. This is especially true of software patents.
2) They are typically over-broad in definition.
Also the State street did not make business method patents possible - just a lot easier. There were in fact patents on business methods before but the USPTO generally did not like them. It is interesting, however, to note that everybody attacts the patent office for these patents when it was a federal court that opened the flood gates.
I am pretty sure that his patent would have run out by now. Term on patents in the US is 20 years with a possible extension of 5 years if there was "Interference delay or secrecy orders [or] Extension for appellate review.1"
Also interesting to note that he just missed the first patent laws in the US. He died in 1790 and "George Washington signed the First United States Patent Grant on July 31, 1790, and the patent examiner was Thomas Jefferson.2"
Finally, as someone else mentioned, he was a British subject in 1752 when he invented the lightning rod and the earliest known British patent "was granted by Henry VI to Flemish-born John of Utynam in 1449. The patent gave John a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College, that had not been previously known in England.3"
Actually I can't think of any Microsoft lawsuits for patent infringement (although I am sure somebody will jump in with one that I missed - a quick google sees them on the receiving end a lot, though). Apple also seems to be also on the receiving end of most patents suits. Both Microsoft and Apple do, however, actively protect their trademark which is to be expected.
Too bad that none of that is actually true. Interesting that in everything else in life being content is a bad thing yet in finding a loving relationship we should just be happy with what we have. The reason marraiges get ruined is because people do settle. They think that they have to get married by a certain age. They go into marraige with this false idea of what marraige really is. I find it most disturbing that people get married without living together and without having sex. It's funny that somebody who wouldn't think of buying a car without test driving it or buy a house without having it inspected would marry somebody without having even seen them naked or seen what they are like living with every day.
There is also absolutely nothing that says that having sexual fantasies is actually going to make you leave your wife. I fantasize about being a baseball player sometimes but that doesn't mean I am quitting my day job. You are basically saying that fantasy is unhealthy. If that is your point than I don't think you will find a lot of converts on this site.
You have what is typically called "good ol' days" syndrome. Every generation believes that the next generation is degenerate and proof to the decline of civilization. Your parents may have raised you properly but that doesn't mean that everybody's parents did. How do you think police officers were viewed 100 years ago? Do you think they were considered fine upstanding people that everybody waved to? Corruption and violence are nothing new to society. You just are hearing about it more than you did when your mom and dad were driving you around.
That study proves my point exactly. For those of you who don't want to read the whole thing - it consisted of two studies:
Study 1 - Survey college students about their historical gaming experience and measure their aggression level. This as I said in a post above is not determining which came first - the agression or the game.
Study 2 - Had students play Wolfenstein and Myst and then measure their aggression levels after the game. Not surprisingly people were more aggresive after Wolfenstein (I would have been asleep after Mysgt). This does not say that there was any long term affect, that this aggresion would translate into violence, or that their agression wasn't just from being interupted.
Both studies also use such a subjective measurement - aggression - that it is a joke to even call this a study. It is more of mental masturbation by university psych professors who have to do this sort of thing to keep their jobs.
What happened to the time when being cool was becoming a cop, doctor, fireman or pilot;
When was that time? I don't remember anybody when I was a kid wanting to be any of those things. Everybody wanted to be Baseball players, rockstars, movie stars, etc. I am not sure there was ever a time that being a cop was cool. That is why it has been traditionally the occupation of the poor, lower middle class, and immigrants.
You are so far offbase that it isn't even funny. We are more sensitive now than even before. Ever since Vietnam brought war to our homes we have cared far more about our soldiers. Before Vietnam, soldiers and war were glorified as this clean, civilized affair where two countries lined up on opposite sides of a field, fired a couple of shots and then stopped for tea. It was only with movies like Private Ryan and mini-series like Band of Brothers that we actually showed that people died violent horrible deaths in WWII and not just "evil" Germans and Japanese.
Step back 50-60 years and ask yourself if the war in Iraq would even be talked about at all. If it wouldn't have been just another police action that had a few lines in the Times.
I am sure he can find some studies but the problem is that these studies are usually bullshit and unscientific. A good example is the one that studied children with a history of violence and found that most of them had played violent games. What it doesn't answer is whether the games made them violent or their violence made them attracted to violent games.
This is even older than video games, though. Remember when D&D supposedly made kids violent? The amazing thing is that we live in one of the least violent times in history.
Without going into too much of an English lesson - an adjective modifies a noun. In the sentence - I like Korn's music - Korn is the adjective and music is the noun. It describes the type of music.
In regards to trademark - in the sentence - Kleenex brand tissues - Kleenex brand is the adjective. If instead they said - Kimberly-Clarke brand kleenexes then they would lose the trademark because now Kimberly-Clarke is the adjective and Kleenex is the noun.
I hope that clears things up for you (and your English seems better than most Americans).
In the US that is only the case if a company itself uses its name as anything but an adjective. If a company starts using its name as a verb or noun (like googling or vasoline instead of Google brand search engine or vasoline brand petroleum jelly) then it risks losing its trademark.
You can also lose the right to protect your trademark if you allow a company to use your trademark without suing (unless of course they are licensed to use it. For example, if Kleenex allowed Scott to call their tissues Scott Brand Kleenex they could not sue Puffs if they starting using it, too.
If they are a public company with shareholders they pretty much need to enforce any IP unless they can prove that enforcing it would not be in the best interest of the company.
I would also point out that you only need to protect your trademark if it is being used in commerce which is not the case here. That is, of course, in the US. Not sure how things differ in the UK.
I would normally agree with you but the testing on PHP 5 has been so extensive and has gone on for so long (2 or 3 Betas and 3 RC's) that I am pretty confident in it. I have been using it since Beta 2 and I haven't had any problems with it. Premature releases are so ingrained into our mentality that we sometimes forget that there are quality developers out there who do do thorough testing.
I would say that you have not spent nearly enough time in New York to make any judgement of that sort. If you honestly believe that you cannot have an interesting conversation with somebody on the streets on NY then you are indeed a sad individual. How many Sikhs do you know? How many Brazilians? How about Guyanese? These are my co-workers and not only do they all have a boatload of interesting stories about their religions/homeland - they are also very willing to tell you them. And if you are a pretty girl you can stop any of them in the street.
You complain about New Yorkers being close minded and stereotypically but everything you say is exactly that. In a way - everytime you open your mouth you prove my point.
Another reason not to go to NYC is the residents are so provencial.
What does New York have to do with Provence, France?
They really have no concept of what's outside there city
That's why the NY Times is one of the most popular newspapers globally. That's why the UN is located in New York.
some really restrictive and stereotypical perceptions.
Huh? I can't think of anything more completely the opposite. New York has the most diverse population of any city in the world. New York is the city that breaks stereotypes. Come here and everything you think about people changes.
Where are you from that the people are so much smarter and so non-restrictive.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really believe that it is just the republicans that are pushing heavy copyright enforcement? That would be completely ignorant of the fact that DMCA was signed by Clinton, that the biggest proponent in copyright extension, Senator "Disney" Hollings, is a Democract, and that most of Hollywood and the music industry are democrats.
Maybe the "good-ol'-fashion power-to-the-people" democrats believed in something different but that isn't what the party is about now. Hell Kerry could become the richest president ever.
Those suits were over 3 years ago (started by KPMG I believe) and nothing ever came out of them. Either way they were for deep-linking and are not at all similar to this case. There are dozens of sites that have been doing this for years now and none of them have been sued. Do you really think any site is going to take on Microsoft now?
Don't defend the original post. It was a crappy ass attempt to karma-whore by linking to the previous article. It is as old as the hills and it never works.
Have you never seen how these sites work? They don't copy the entire article onto their site. They provide a link to the original site with a short blurb. This doesn't infringe on any copyrights and, if anything, the sites are getting free advertising. In the case you link he had the information on his site. Now that doesn't necessarily mean he was infringing but you can't compare the two.
Imagine the precedent if they did. It would totally destroy the search engine industry (which is basically all this is).
Of course that is why Drake's equation is a joke. You can't calculate anything with a sample size of one. There is not one number is his equation that we can even estimate.
And it really isn't that hard to get to actually less than one. There's a calculator here.
I did some very reasonable estimates and came up with 0.2475.
I guess that is a matter of opinion. Here is their software patents. You be the judge.
Better to go into everything blindly? How does that make any sense? Just because some predictions (maybe even most) are wrong doesn't mean that we should try to predict anything.
Here's an example:
Apple predicts it is going to sell X iPods so they start manufacturing expecting to meet that demand (or in Apple's case it often seems to fall just short of that demand to create false demand but that is another story). When the iPods become wildly popular they sell far more than X. While the prediction was wrong it hopefully was based on some consumer study, focus groups, etc. and was better than just producing a random amount.
Not sure where you get that interpretation of process but it doesn't matter. The real issues with business-method patents are as follows:
1) The Patent Office is poorly equipped to judge whether a particular method is useful, new, and non-obvious. This is especially true of software patents.
2) They are typically over-broad in definition.
Also the State street did not make business method patents possible - just a lot easier. There were in fact patents on business methods before but the USPTO generally did not like them. It is interesting, however, to note that everybody attacts the patent office for these patents when it was a federal court that opened the flood gates.
I am pretty sure that his patent would have run out by now. Term on patents in the US is 20 years with a possible extension of 5 years if there was "Interference delay or secrecy orders [or] Extension for appellate review.1"
Also interesting to note that he just missed the first patent laws in the US. He died in 1790 and "George Washington signed the First United States Patent Grant on July 31, 1790, and the patent examiner was Thomas Jefferson.2"
Finally, as someone else mentioned, he was a British subject in 1752 when he invented the lightning rod and the earliest known British patent "was granted by Henry VI to Flemish-born John of Utynam in 1449. The patent gave John a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College, that had not been previously known in England.3"
1 - USC 35
2 - about.com
3 - UK Patent Office
Actually I can't think of any Microsoft lawsuits for patent infringement (although I am sure somebody will jump in with one that I missed - a quick google sees them on the receiving end a lot, though). Apple also seems to be also on the receiving end of most patents suits. Both Microsoft and Apple do, however, actively protect their trademark which is to be expected.
Interesting. Then how come United States Code 35 Section 101 states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter...
Too bad that none of that is actually true. Interesting that in everything else in life being content is a bad thing yet in finding a loving relationship we should just be happy with what we have. The reason marraiges get ruined is because people do settle. They think that they have to get married by a certain age. They go into marraige with this false idea of what marraige really is. I find it most disturbing that people get married without living together and without having sex. It's funny that somebody who wouldn't think of buying a car without test driving it or buy a house without having it inspected would marry somebody without having even seen them naked or seen what they are like living with every day.
There is also absolutely nothing that says that having sexual fantasies is actually going to make you leave your wife. I fantasize about being a baseball player sometimes but that doesn't mean I am quitting my day job. You are basically saying that fantasy is unhealthy. If that is your point than I don't think you will find a lot of converts on this site.
You have what is typically called "good ol' days" syndrome. Every generation believes that the next generation is degenerate and proof to the decline of civilization. Your parents may have raised you properly but that doesn't mean that everybody's parents did. How do you think police officers were viewed 100 years ago? Do you think they were considered fine upstanding people that everybody waved to? Corruption and violence are nothing new to society. You just are hearing about it more than you did when your mom and dad were driving you around.
That study proves my point exactly. For those of you who don't want to read the whole thing - it consisted of two studies:
Study 1 - Survey college students about their historical gaming experience and measure their aggression level. This as I said in a post above is not determining which came first - the agression or the game.
Study 2 - Had students play Wolfenstein and Myst and then measure their aggression levels after the game. Not surprisingly people were more aggresive after Wolfenstein (I would have been asleep after Mysgt). This does not say that there was any long term affect, that this aggresion would translate into violence, or that their agression wasn't just from being interupted.
Both studies also use such a subjective measurement - aggression - that it is a joke to even call this a study. It is more of mental masturbation by university psych professors who have to do this sort of thing to keep their jobs.
What happened to the time when being cool was becoming a cop, doctor, fireman or pilot;
When was that time? I don't remember anybody when I was a kid wanting to be any of those things. Everybody wanted to be Baseball players, rockstars, movie stars, etc. I am not sure there was ever a time that being a cop was cool. That is why it has been traditionally the occupation of the poor, lower middle class, and immigrants.
You are so far offbase that it isn't even funny. We are more sensitive now than even before. Ever since Vietnam brought war to our homes we have cared far more about our soldiers. Before Vietnam, soldiers and war were glorified as this clean, civilized affair where two countries lined up on opposite sides of a field, fired a couple of shots and then stopped for tea. It was only with movies like Private Ryan and mini-series like Band of Brothers that we actually showed that people died violent horrible deaths in WWII and not just "evil" Germans and Japanese.
Step back 50-60 years and ask yourself if the war in Iraq would even be talked about at all. If it wouldn't have been just another police action that had a few lines in the Times.
I am sure he can find some studies but the problem is that these studies are usually bullshit and unscientific. A good example is the one that studied children with a history of violence and found that most of them had played violent games. What it doesn't answer is whether the games made them violent or their violence made them attracted to violent games.
This is even older than video games, though. Remember when D&D supposedly made kids violent? The amazing thing is that we live in one of the least violent times in history.
Without going into too much of an English lesson - an adjective modifies a noun. In the sentence - I like Korn's music - Korn is the adjective and music is the noun. It describes the type of music.
In regards to trademark - in the sentence - Kleenex brand tissues - Kleenex brand is the adjective. If instead they said - Kimberly-Clarke brand kleenexes then they would lose the trademark because now Kimberly-Clarke is the adjective and Kleenex is the noun.
I hope that clears things up for you (and your English seems better than most Americans).
In the US that is only the case if a company itself uses its name as anything but an adjective. If a company starts using its name as a verb or noun (like googling or vasoline instead of Google brand search engine or vasoline brand petroleum jelly) then it risks losing its trademark.
You can also lose the right to protect your trademark if you allow a company to use your trademark without suing (unless of course they are licensed to use it. For example, if Kleenex allowed Scott to call their tissues Scott Brand Kleenex they could not sue Puffs if they starting using it, too.
If they are a public company with shareholders they pretty much need to enforce any IP unless they can prove that enforcing it would not be in the best interest of the company.
I would also point out that you only need to protect your trademark if it is being used in commerce which is not the case here. That is, of course, in the US. Not sure how things differ in the UK.
I would normally agree with you but the testing on PHP 5 has been so extensive and has gone on for so long (2 or 3 Betas and 3 RC's) that I am pretty confident in it. I have been using it since Beta 2 and I haven't had any problems with it. Premature releases are so ingrained into our mentality that we sometimes forget that there are quality developers out there who do do thorough testing.
Your exact words:
Hitler was not, because he was the government.
Insanely enough, Israel may be one of the only nations to actually be an exception.
In other words Israel is terrorist even though it is a government. Not sure what else I needed to read. That seemed pretty clear to me.
I would say that you have not spent nearly enough time in New York to make any judgement of that sort. If you honestly believe that you cannot have an interesting conversation with somebody on the streets on NY then you are indeed a sad individual. How many Sikhs do you know? How many Brazilians? How about Guyanese? These are my co-workers and not only do they all have a boatload of interesting stories about their religions/homeland - they are also very willing to tell you them. And if you are a pretty girl you can stop any of them in the street.
You complain about New Yorkers being close minded and stereotypically but everything you say is exactly that. In a way - everytime you open your mouth you prove my point.
You'd make an exception for Israel but not for Hitler? Just a little anti-semitic, are we?
Thank you for proving my point.
Before anybody mods the parent as a troll please realize he is obviously pointing out the stereotypes often associated with NYC.
Another reason not to go to NYC is the residents are so provencial.
What does New York have to do with Provence, France?
They really have no concept of what's outside there city
That's why the NY Times is one of the most popular newspapers globally. That's why the UN is located in New York.
some really restrictive and stereotypical perceptions.
Huh? I can't think of anything more completely the opposite. New York has the most diverse population of any city in the world. New York is the city that breaks stereotypes. Come here and everything you think about people changes.
Where are you from that the people are so much smarter and so non-restrictive.