Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?
The browser is running on a user's hardware. It should always do what the _user_ wants, not what some adspamming company wants instead. It's common sense, "my hardware, my rules".
Tun, tun, ta! Hello Viacom, I am Robin Hood, and I am here to steal fuzzyfuzzyfungus' grandfather's copyrighted works from you to give them back to the People!
Disney: Someone catch him! He escaped from one of our patented vaults!
Well, neither are any of the major currencies, especially the dollar.
Incorrect. The major currencies, especially the dollar, are based on the threat of extreme violence. If you live in America, 1) you are forced to accept dollars at face value for services and trades. And 2) you are not allowed to counterfeit them. If you try, expect black SUV and helicopters, people breaking down your door at 6am, being slapped around a bit, and then put in jail for a good chunk of your remaining life.
2) No one is using them
As a gauge of current popular interest, the fact that not a lot of people are actually using them for anything is a big negative. Slashdot should be reporting things that interest its readership.
3) It's a scam
It's not a problem for BitCoin if someone convinces you to deposit your coins
in their bank and then loses them, any more than it's a problem for US
currency if someone convinces you to give them your money and loses it.
People get scammed all the time, but it's not the fault of the currency.
Nice strawman. Real currencies are recognized and backed by governments, bitcoin is only a pretend currency, like monopoly money. It may in fact be illegal, if it tries to substitute for legal tender, in various parts of the world.
Again, I don't see the difference. BitCoins are like money, and can be stolen
like money. Why is having money any different?
No, bitcoins are like property, and can be stolen like property. That means they can have value, but it doesn't make them like money.
He means, it contains the authors' favourite topics related to the basic material, and doesn't contain the authors' least favourite topics. For example, in calculus, optimizing functions (finding the max or min) is an important application of calculus. So if a textbook doesn't mention this application because the author finds it uninteresting, that's an example of a biased textbook.
The District Court said they could, and the Court of
Appeal have confirmed this. Their reasoning seems to be that *if* Motorola
was in breach of contract by not licensing its patents to MS at RAND rates,
then one remedy for MS would be a compulsory licence at such a rate. But such
a licence would necessarily include *all* of Motorola's relevant patents,
including the German ones. Thus MS would no longer be committing patent
infringement in Germany, and the German injunction would be wrongly granted.
This is the crux of the issue I think. Neither of the US courts have the right to second guess the German court. There is no question of fact that the injunction is wrongly granted. The German court has already decided this: the injunction is correctly granted, period.
Thus, the interesting question is: by compelling Motorola to forego its rights in Germany, are the US courts unduly meddling with a victim's rightfully granted legal relief against its aggressor? The US courts seem to be acting in contempt of the intent of German law.
But in any event, "If the president wants the dollar to be weak, you'll be
worth less, and if he wants the dollar to be strong, you'll be worth more.
Regardless of what you do for a living." is flat out wrong.
The US economy isn't an island. As such, the fluctuations of the dollar do in fact change the worth of US citizens. Your implicit assumption that wealth is separate from currency value is ridiculous in today's globalized world. It made sense a few hundred years ago when Adam Smith wrote his book, but no more.
It is wrong to make a direct relative comparison of wealth between economic actors within one single country. Wealth is a proxy for the potential to act, but this fails to capture worth when actions can occur across borders.
As a simple concrete example, consider two US pensioners with the same assets, one always buying pharmaceuticals in the US, the other always buying them across the border in Canada. Measuring the value of their assets in the US alone gives the wrong impression that they have comparable living standards. Only looking at the global economy allows their worths to be meaningfully compared.
, by merely comparing assets in that country's currency. It misses the fact that
as if the available activities were
Also, you shouldn't concentrate solely on exchange rates, the gist of the argument was that government's monetary policies have
Corporations deserve/require a voice in government too.
No they don't.
Our system of
investment would crumble along with our economy if it wasn't there.
That's exactly what people are saying. The current system of investment is broken and leads to ownership and control by the one percenters. The current system of investment needs to be scrapped and the economy needs a new foundation. Corporations should not be "people" in the future.
Correct. You can do whatever you like with it on your own private computer.
But you do need permission to distribute it to *anybody*, whether you've made any changes at all or not.
The GPL happens to give this permission in exchange of making the full and complete source code available to all those who receive the binary from you. If you don't comply, then you have no permission at all to distribute it to anyone, whether you've made any changes at all or not.
ALL money is the government's money, since they decide what is legal tender. If you want to spend money that isn't the government's you'll have to spend Canadian dollars or Mexican pesos. And BTW, whatever you think you are worth, that's really just a consequence of government policies. If the president wants the dollar to be weak, you'll be worth less, and if he wants the dollar to be strong, you'll be worth more. Regardless of what you do for a living.
The thing I I do want it. I would love it if I was only shown ads which were
for things that I was truly interested in. It would be wonderful if ads were
a product discovery service.
That's great. What we really need is a little sandbox for people like you, say a TLD like.advertising, where you could browse to and watch ads all day, or however long you like. Then, for the rest of us, advertisements could be banned from all the other domains. You get to be happy, and we get to be happy too. Deal?
Except they're not. There's not enough margin in that and that's not how
advertisers want to reach me.
Yes, we know. And that's why we have to censor them everywhere, with prejudice, via technical means.
That doesn't matter. The copyright to the original paintings hanging in a museum expired some years after the painter died. The museum may own the canvases, but they don't own the copyright itself which no longer exists. So you can make copies of the original paintings as photographs if you like.
That's nothing, kiddos! Where I work, even sub-nanosecond time differences
matter a lot on single calculations! And we use the fastest electrons we can
get!
1) The willingness of Linux users to pay for software. Big name games are not
going to go OSS, they are not going to be free, they are not going to
function off of donations. They cost too much money for that. When you sink
$10-30 million in making a game, you have to have a way to make it back.
Unfortunately I've met more than a few Linux users who think all software
should be no cost, they are just unwilling to consider paying for something.
Others will pay, but only a small amount. So we'll have to see how many
people are willing to pay, if it is enough to cover the costs of porting and
supporting.
I consider that a poison apple. The Linux culture has always been about free sharing, and there is a real danger that culture would be destroyed if Linux becomes a gaming platform, as a large influx of gamers from Windows etc would bring a changed attitude and the increased commercialization would also attract more companies with expectations of profit, in all areas.
Looking at the ad infested cesspit that Android is, I cannot help but think that's what's in store for the Linux community as a whole, if we turn ourselves into a mass market gaming platform.
I'm actually quite happy for gamers to _stay_ on Windows, for that reason.
And yes, I'm one of those Linux users who thinks all software should be no cost, as it's only information.
If there were no such techniques, one's mobile bill would be almost twice
as high and the browsing experience
would be 4 times as slow.
That's doubtful. There is a feedback loop where transmission gains encourage webisite operators to be profligate with their content, because the hardware side can "take it".
Look at Google's homepage for a dramatic example of this over the last 10 years. If there hadn't been all the efficiency gains at the network level, chances are we'd have a faster web overall, because content owners would be a lot more careful about adding that extra bloat.
They'll just make you take them off in their presence. What we need for spying on cops aren't borg glasses, what we need are spy cams that fit in a shirt button.
Actually no. Troll as used in internet slang is a bastardisation of the word trawl, which means a large industrial scale net dragged along the sea bottom by a fishing vessel.
On a forum like slashdot, a troll is a user who is fishing for predictable responses by other users. This is analogous to trawling because the troll is targeting everybody, usually with a controversial top level comment, and people get caught up in the resulting flamefest. Also like trawling, it damages the environment and leaves behind a population vacuum of sorts, ie readers who are still willing to have an intelligent discussion are rare.
The true meaning of patent trolling is derived from the above. It means a company or individual who is casting a wide net of legal attacks, essentially on the whole world, with the aim of intimidating as many small fish as possible into paying patent extortion money. Like the other forms of trolling above, it leaves a vacuum behind, where those who would otherwise have developed an idea won't or can't do so anymore.
It uses
standards so should be resistant to patent infringement suits,
That is NOT how it works. Standards are not a defense against patent claims, especially on the web, where some of the basic technologies like video display codecs are patented up the wazoo.
The evil of patents is that even if you mind your own business and do everything right, some American Troll who paid money to Uncle Sam's Patent Emporium can attack you and 1) stop you doing business, 2) demand money for past "infringements".
Slashdot Mirror
The browser is running on a user's hardware. It should always do what the _user_ wants, not what some adspamming company wants instead. It's common sense, "my hardware, my rules".
Disney: Someone catch him! He escaped from one of our patented vaults!
Incorrect. The major currencies, especially the dollar, are based on the threat of extreme violence. If you live in America, 1) you are forced to accept dollars at face value for services and trades. And 2) you are not allowed to counterfeit them. If you try, expect black SUV and helicopters, people breaking down your door at 6am, being slapped around a bit, and then put in jail for a good chunk of your remaining life.
As a gauge of current popular interest, the fact that not a lot of people are actually using them for anything is a big negative. Slashdot should be reporting things that interest its readership.
Nice strawman. Real currencies are recognized and backed by governments, bitcoin is only a pretend currency, like monopoly money. It may in fact be illegal, if it tries to substitute for legal tender, in various parts of the world.
No, bitcoins are like property, and can be stolen like property. That means they can have value, but it doesn't make them like money.
Quite true. The latter is murder.
He means, it contains the authors' favourite topics related to the basic material, and doesn't contain the authors' least favourite topics. For example, in calculus, optimizing functions (finding the max or min) is an important application of calculus. So if a textbook doesn't mention this application because the author finds it uninteresting, that's an example of a biased textbook.
This is the crux of the issue I think. Neither of the US courts have the right to second guess the German court. There is no question of fact that the injunction is wrongly granted. The German court has already decided this: the injunction is correctly granted, period.
Thus, the interesting question is: by compelling Motorola to forego its rights in Germany, are the US courts unduly meddling with a victim's rightfully granted legal relief against its aggressor? The US courts seem to be acting in contempt of the intent of German law.
The US economy isn't an island. As such, the fluctuations of the dollar do in fact change the worth of US citizens. Your implicit assumption that wealth is separate from currency value is ridiculous in today's globalized world. It made sense a few hundred years ago when Adam Smith wrote his book, but no more.
It is wrong to make a direct relative comparison of wealth between economic actors within one single country. Wealth is a proxy for the potential to act, but this fails to capture worth when actions can occur across borders.
As a simple concrete example, consider two US pensioners with the same assets, one always buying pharmaceuticals in the US, the other always buying them across the border in Canada. Measuring the value of their assets in the US alone gives the wrong impression that they have comparable living standards. Only looking at the global economy allows their worths to be meaningfully compared. , by merely comparing assets in that country's currency. It misses the fact that as if the available activities were
Also, you shouldn't concentrate solely on exchange rates, the gist of the argument was that government's monetary policies have
No they don't.
That's exactly what people are saying. The current system of investment is broken and leads to ownership and control by the one percenters. The current system of investment needs to be scrapped and the economy needs a new foundation. Corporations should not be "people" in the future.
Meh, BFD!
Correct. You can do whatever you like with it on your own private computer. But you do need permission to distribute it to *anybody*, whether you've made any changes at all or not.
The GPL happens to give this permission in exchange of making the full and complete source code available to all those who receive the binary from you. If you don't comply, then you have no permission at all to distribute it to anyone, whether you've made any changes at all or not.
That's just lazy! You should have asked the Big Invisible Sky Giant, he would have told you the truth.
ALL money is the government's money, since they decide what is legal tender. If you want to spend money that isn't the government's you'll have to spend Canadian dollars or Mexican pesos. And BTW, whatever you think you are worth, that's really just a consequence of government policies. If the president wants the dollar to be weak, you'll be worth less, and if he wants the dollar to be strong, you'll be worth more. Regardless of what you do for a living.
Don't confuse a mechanical piece of software with a sentient being who can make binding legal decisions.
There fixed that for you.
Advertising is _propaganda_. Thus, it's _correlated_ with pop culture, but isn't actually pop culture. Don't confuse the two.
That's great. What we really need is a little sandbox for people like you, say a TLD like .advertising, where you could browse to and watch ads all day, or however long you like. Then, for the rest of us, advertisements could be banned from all the other domains. You get to be happy, and we get to be happy too. Deal?
Yes, we know. And that's why we have to censor them everywhere, with prejudice, via technical means.
That doesn't matter. The copyright to the original paintings hanging in a museum expired some years after the painter died. The museum may own the canvases, but they don't own the copyright itself which no longer exists. So you can make copies of the original paintings as photographs if you like.
Me too! Where d'you buy your electrons?
I consider that a poison apple. The Linux culture has always been about free sharing, and there is a real danger that culture would be destroyed if Linux becomes a gaming platform, as a large influx of gamers from Windows etc would bring a changed attitude and the increased commercialization would also attract more companies with expectations of profit, in all areas.
Looking at the ad infested cesspit that Android is, I cannot help but think that's what's in store for the Linux community as a whole, if we turn ourselves into a mass market gaming platform. I'm actually quite happy for gamers to _stay_ on Windows, for that reason.
And yes, I'm one of those Linux users who thinks all software should be no cost, as it's only information.
Whoa! Who woulda thunk that playing computer games makes people less humann?
That's doubtful. There is a feedback loop where transmission gains encourage webisite operators to be profligate with their content, because the hardware side can "take it".
Look at Google's homepage for a dramatic example of this over the last 10 years. If there hadn't been all the efficiency gains at the network level, chances are we'd have a faster web overall, because content owners would be a lot more careful about adding that extra bloat.
They'll just make you take them off in their presence. What we need for spying on cops aren't borg glasses, what we need are spy cams that fit in a shirt button.
Actually no. Troll as used in internet slang is a bastardisation of the word trawl, which means a large industrial scale net dragged along the sea bottom by a fishing vessel.
On a forum like slashdot, a troll is a user who is fishing for predictable responses by other users. This is analogous to trawling because the troll is targeting everybody, usually with a controversial top level comment, and people get caught up in the resulting flamefest. Also like trawling, it damages the environment and leaves behind a population vacuum of sorts, ie readers who are still willing to have an intelligent discussion are rare.
The true meaning of patent trolling is derived from the above. It means a company or individual who is casting a wide net of legal attacks, essentially on the whole world, with the aim of intimidating as many small fish as possible into paying patent extortion money. Like the other forms of trolling above, it leaves a vacuum behind, where those who would otherwise have developed an idea won't or can't do so anymore.
That is NOT how it works. Standards are not a defense against patent claims, especially on the web, where some of the basic technologies like video display codecs are patented up the wazoo.
The evil of patents is that even if you mind your own business and do everything right, some American Troll who paid money to Uncle Sam's Patent Emporium can attack you and 1) stop you doing business, 2) demand money for past "infringements".
ROFL. I should frame that comment if I were you...