The right mouse button on my Logitech cordless optical mouse at home has started acting up. I'll be using mouselook in WoW and it acts as if I released and repressed the button, meaning that I tend to attack or interact with whatever I was mousing over at that moment. Alas, battery replacement didn't fix it, so I guess it's time for a new mouse.
The next one will also be Logitech. That last mouse I carried from my last PC to my first Mac, and I discovered that use of a Logitech mouse and the installing of the Logitech control center was an easy way to avoid the stupid insane Mac mouse acceleration curve. I have to reward them with another purchase just for that.
As for multiple AV systems, that is retarded. They will fight for resources and cause performance to be brought down. Just pick one and run with it. If you want.
No, they don't mean all on the same computer at the same time. They mean in general there should be multiple anti-virus programs, not just one, so that the affected base is smaller if an exploit is found in one of them.
And no, I don't plan to rush home and install one on my new MacBook Pro. =p
After all, it is not an unreasonable expectation to want to leave some inheritance for our children...
And why can't you put part of your income (while alive) in a trust fund, like the rest of us? Your argument is bogus.
That said, I think tying copyright to the author's death is ripe for abuse. I personally would, right now, set it at 25 years for free, with a required $1 filing and registration to extend to 50 years. That may even be too long, but it is most certainly without a doubt fair enough to the existing copyright holders. Under this scenario descendants / estates can continue to hold the copyright as desired until expiration.
I believe their claim is that they won't assert these patents against anyone. IBM isn't willing to buy out these patents to prevent their exploitation, but IBM is willing to donate a smaller amount of money to achieve the same thing. Cisco believes the same thing.
I see this as companies doing something that is beyond themselves. It's in their own interest, yes - the have neutralized a series a patents at less than it would cost to buy them or fight off a lawsuit - but in the process they have protected other companies that didn't help fund the operation.
I fail to see why wanting to transfer my hard-earned wealth to my children is any of the government's business.
And why is it the government's business if you want to transfer your hard-earned money to your employees in response to their efforts? Why is it the government's business if I want to transfer my hard-earned money to McDonald's for a Happy Meal?
It's the government's business because we have banded together to form a society with a government, and we as a society have chosen to let the government skim off the top of some types of transactions as a way to keep the communal services funded. Money transfers between people is one method that we allow to be taxed.
It doesn't matter that I paid income tax on the money I earn. When I spend it with or give it to someone else, they are going to have to pay income tax on it, too.
And, besides, if you want your hard-earned wealth to go to your children, why don't you sit down and write out a check for $30,000 (IIRC) to each of them right now? Then do it again next year, and every year until you die. Voila, no government involvement in the transfer of your wealth to your kids. When they get married, or they have kids, you can write the same check to their spouses and their kids and transfer your wealth even faster.
Slashdot is made up largely (I would hazard a wager) of people making (or from families making) substantially more than the average and with more education than the average.
And most of those people came from a family that didn't earn its living in the same way, since most people in IT/tech fields don't have parents that did the same.
Thus, I think that many of those people are in the "self-taught" or "self-starter" categories. These are precisely the sort of people who tend to skew libertarian, because they often feel that "if I can go out and so something new/different that makes me successful, why can't everyone else"?
I think there are more economic libertarians on Slashdot that you do. Watch the sort of questions that more regularly get moderated up and I think you'll eventually agree with me.
Unfortunately philanthropy won't ever take off unless it's profitable. Just an inherit part of human greed. Sad but true.
That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality. They can then choose four options:
1) Pass on the money while they still live, giving gifts to family/friends under the tax limits each year for many years.
2) Pass on the money while they still live, giving it to charity with no limits.
3) Allow the money to go to charity when they die, with no limits.
4) Have the government take most of it.
The option 4) in my list above, brought about by the 90% inheritance tax, replaces the current option 4) Keep a death grip on money and power in their family until the day they die, then have their children reach in and take over that grip.
Honestly, I'm not sure why we as a society would like the old option four at all. I agree that (living) people have a right to do what they wish with their acquired wealth (with some limits). And, once someone dies, it's nice to be able to respect their wishes. But if people know that the new option four is inevitable if they don't make their own choices while they live, or give it all to charity when they die, we'll all see more philanthropy and a better world.
Why do you need the "M" or the "O"? You will never, ever, see what you want in an MMO because A) no one will develop a detailed, nuanced game intended for mass online interaction and then B) only let you play it.
If you want to be the only one to do the quest, ever, why not play an offline game? Then you are the only hero. Or, better yet, if you want a game where you can make any level of nuanced decision and have the world reflect appropriately, and you still want to interact with some other people, why don't you find a local GURPS (or similar) group?
In the real world of what's available today, WotLK has added what Blizzard calls "phasing". It makes it possible for each character to have a unique view of the world, so that the world can indeed change (for you) as you affect it. See the quests at Angrathar the Wrath Gate.
It stands for "hit points", though in some games like World of Warcraft this statistic is also called "health".
220 doesn't seem very good, though. In 3.x WoW that's not much of an improvement at all. Heck, I think his laptop would have better stats if it dropped Ferrari and took up mining for the Toughness bonus. Or perhaps it should take up blacksmithing, so it could add some gem sockets.
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot is populated by libertarians, not liberals, for the most part. They may, in general, dislike Card for 1) and 2), but they are probably a better target for your 3).
Re:*sigh* you're worse than homophobes
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Card has openly advocated mass murder if his strict religious views are not adopted by the country. He sounds a lot like, for example, Osama bin Laden.
If bin Laden released a science fiction book, would you buy it?
I think people with views like yours are the reason that consumers are sheep. They readily ignore that which harms them, and thereby perpetuate and propagate that which they dislike.
"What do you get for pretending the danger's not real. Meek and obedient you follow the leader Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel. What a surprise! A look of terminal shock in your eyes. Now things are really what they seem. No, this is not a bad dream."
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why? As a single consumer, I have very little power in the economy. But my one ability is to not patronize those I disagree with. It has very little overall effect, but it is my only effect.
Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and douche? His life's work is meaningless to me.
Tom Cruise supports an oppressive regime? I don't need his films.
Owners of local BBQ place talking about how social safety nets are bullshit and a gun and your own wits are all you need (because nothing bad ever happens to you out of your control) and how in an ideal world they could just shoot all the corrupt *local* politicians that make them charge sales tax and pay for library bonds? I won't eat there again. (And they should learn to keep their political views to themselves while patrons are in their restaurant, unless they wish to only cater to their nutball crowd.)
Ahh, I see. So "reduced to practice" cannot just mean that it (a manufacturing technique, or unreversable formula) was used to produce a final product, even if that final product can only be uniquely produced by that technique or formula. In such a case, the technique or formula was still "suppressed" despite the end product being marketed.
You didn't get the joke? "No one will ever know you cut in line . . . unless you murdered them all with a knife (because then you obviously 'cut' them while they were standing in line..."
No one got the joke? "No one will ever know you cut in line . . . unless you murdered them all with a knife (because then you obviously 'cut' them while they were standing in line..."
The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride.
How do you know this? Are you certain that every taxi cab company makes money based on the number of pickups or length of trip for each driver?
Remember that most taxi cab drivers are independent small business owners, running a franchise for a central organization firm. Those drivers very likely pay a fixed fee to use the name/logo of the firm, and to be given access to the central scheduling.
It seems very unlikely to me that these independent drivers pay a percentage of each fare; the central company would receive more consistent income from a fixed rate.
Explain, then, exactly how the central taxi cab company is not like PickupPal? As a car owner, can I just go into the taxi business by "arranging to drive carpools" over the internet, but then never bothering to get commercial insurance or a commercial driver's license?
There are limo services that never pick people up from the street. If I understand and recall New York City law correctly, the limo companies aren't allowed to pick up fares. All of their clients are arranged on the phone or internet. If their drivers are independent franchises who pay fixed fees, and they don't drive stretch limos, how are they different from me and my Caddy using PickupPal to drive "carpoolers" around the city all day?
And no, a trade secret certainly does not qualify as prior art in the US. Nor should it.
Ahh, but I believe you are incorrect. The U.S. still uses a First to Invent method to establish the correct owner for a patent. The original inventor, who or who's company decided to keep the material secret, should have sufficient documentation to clearly establish him/herself as the first to invent. The fact that a patent was never sought should be irrelevant in this case; the idea was clearly reduced to practice by bringing a product to market based on it (as a trade secret). This would be especially apparent when the second "inventor" / patent troll actually just reverse engineered the original design, after the idea was in use in a commercially-available product or service.
Yes, the original inventor or company would lose their trade secret, since they would have to provide those original notes to prove that the troll was not the first. But the patent, if valid at all, would then be granted to the original inventor at the original company, not to the patent troll.
Let's assume, for just a second, that food recipes were patentable. Suppose Haliburton reverse engineered KFC's secret herbs and spices, patented them, and tried to sue KFC. It would be hard to argue that KFC had not reduced to practice their formula, having sold it for several decades, with the original invention and production process cleanly documented the entire time.
Since I'm not a patent attorney, and the original poster probably isn't either, would a patent attorney (in a very "this isn't legal advice" sort-of-way) like to provide better clarification?
I, on the other hand, don't mind driving to work in the dark. I just want the sun to still be a little visible when I leave work and get home, so I can see the flowers and the trees for a few minutes after a day staring at pixels and plastic.
1. If I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you borrow my laptop, have I distributed Linux and am I required to provide you wish the source? 2. What if I let you borrow it for money, aka "lease" it?
3. What if I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you into my home or office to use my laptop; have I distributed it then?
I'm pretty sure the answer to 3. is NO. I'm not so sure about 1. or 2.
I was looking for a serious thread to reply to, but it seems this topic attracts more kidding than science. =p
Anyway, my college plasma physics professor, a decade ago, told us that he'd invented the "force field". It created a magnetic shield around an object in a vacuum, and was intended to protect things like satellites from charged particles. (For obvious reasons discussed below he didn't go into detail.)
His work was funded by the U.S. Air Force, who promptly took the patent and classified it. In other words, this was invented about 15 years ago, and this guy might have just made it public, but he's likely not going to get a patent to protect his invention since it will be rejected.
Yeah, because we eat a lot of tree trunks, blades of grass, and stalks. Plus we eat things like scrub weeds that can grow in the harshest of conditions with no irrigation or pesticides.
Slashdot Mirror
The right mouse button on my Logitech cordless optical mouse at home has started acting up. I'll be using mouselook in WoW and it acts as if I released and repressed the button, meaning that I tend to attack or interact with whatever I was mousing over at that moment. Alas, battery replacement didn't fix it, so I guess it's time for a new mouse.
The next one will also be Logitech. That last mouse I carried from my last PC to my first Mac, and I discovered that use of a Logitech mouse and the installing of the Logitech control center was an easy way to avoid the stupid insane Mac mouse acceleration curve. I have to reward them with another purchase just for that.
As for multiple AV systems, that is retarded. They will fight for resources and cause performance to be brought down. Just pick one and run with it. If you want.
No, they don't mean all on the same computer at the same time. They mean in general there should be multiple anti-virus programs, not just one, so that the affected base is smaller if an exploit is found in one of them.
And no, I don't plan to rush home and install one on my new MacBook Pro. =p
After all, it is not an unreasonable expectation to want to leave some inheritance for our children...
And why can't you put part of your income (while alive) in a trust fund, like the rest of us? Your argument is bogus.
That said, I think tying copyright to the author's death is ripe for abuse. I personally would, right now, set it at 25 years for free, with a required $1 filing and registration to extend to 50 years. That may even be too long, but it is most certainly without a doubt fair enough to the existing copyright holders. Under this scenario descendants / estates can continue to hold the copyright as desired until expiration.
I believe their claim is that they won't assert these patents against anyone. IBM isn't willing to buy out these patents to prevent their exploitation, but IBM is willing to donate a smaller amount of money to achieve the same thing. Cisco believes the same thing.
I see this as companies doing something that is beyond themselves. It's in their own interest, yes - the have neutralized a series a patents at less than it would cost to buy them or fight off a lawsuit - but in the process they have protected other companies that didn't help fund the operation.
I fail to see why wanting to transfer my hard-earned wealth to my children is any of the government's business.
And why is it the government's business if you want to transfer your hard-earned money to your employees in response to their efforts? Why is it the government's business if I want to transfer my hard-earned money to McDonald's for a Happy Meal?
It's the government's business because we have banded together to form a society with a government, and we as a society have chosen to let the government skim off the top of some types of transactions as a way to keep the communal services funded. Money transfers between people is one method that we allow to be taxed.
It doesn't matter that I paid income tax on the money I earn. When I spend it with or give it to someone else, they are going to have to pay income tax on it, too.
And, besides, if you want your hard-earned wealth to go to your children, why don't you sit down and write out a check for $30,000 (IIRC) to each of them right now? Then do it again next year, and every year until you die. Voila, no government involvement in the transfer of your wealth to your kids. When they get married, or they have kids, you can write the same check to their spouses and their kids and transfer your wealth even faster.
Whoooosh!
Slashdot is made up largely (I would hazard a wager) of people making (or from families making) substantially more than the average and with more education than the average.
And most of those people came from a family that didn't earn its living in the same way, since most people in IT/tech fields don't have parents that did the same.
Thus, I think that many of those people are in the "self-taught" or "self-starter" categories. These are precisely the sort of people who tend to skew libertarian, because they often feel that "if I can go out and so something new/different that makes me successful, why can't everyone else"?
I think there are more economic libertarians on Slashdot that you do. Watch the sort of questions that more regularly get moderated up and I think you'll eventually agree with me.
Unfortunately philanthropy won't ever take off unless it's profitable. Just an inherit part of human greed. Sad but true.
That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality. They can then choose four options:
1) Pass on the money while they still live, giving gifts to family/friends under the tax limits each year for many years.
2) Pass on the money while they still live, giving it to charity with no limits.
3) Allow the money to go to charity when they die, with no limits.
4) Have the government take most of it.
The option 4) in my list above, brought about by the 90% inheritance tax, replaces the current option 4) Keep a death grip on money and power in their family until the day they die, then have their children reach in and take over that grip.
Honestly, I'm not sure why we as a society would like the old option four at all. I agree that (living) people have a right to do what they wish with their acquired wealth (with some limits). And, once someone dies, it's nice to be able to respect their wishes. But if people know that the new option four is inevitable if they don't make their own choices while they live, or give it all to charity when they die, we'll all see more philanthropy and a better world.
Why do you need the "M" or the "O"? You will never, ever, see what you want in an MMO because A) no one will develop a detailed, nuanced game intended for mass online interaction and then B) only let you play it.
If you want to be the only one to do the quest, ever, why not play an offline game? Then you are the only hero. Or, better yet, if you want a game where you can make any level of nuanced decision and have the world reflect appropriately, and you still want to interact with some other people, why don't you find a local GURPS (or similar) group?
In the real world of what's available today, WotLK has added what Blizzard calls "phasing". It makes it possible for each character to have a unique view of the world, so that the world can indeed change (for you) as you affect it. See the quests at Angrathar the Wrath Gate.
It stands for "hit points", though in some games like World of Warcraft this statistic is also called "health".
220 doesn't seem very good, though. In 3.x WoW that's not much of an improvement at all. Heck, I think his laptop would have better stats if it dropped Ferrari and took up mining for the Toughness bonus. Or perhaps it should take up blacksmithing, so it could add some gem sockets.
Slashdot is populated by libertarians, not liberals, for the most part. They may, in general, dislike Card for 1) and 2), but they are probably a better target for your 3).
Card has openly advocated mass murder if his strict religious views are not adopted by the country. He sounds a lot like, for example, Osama bin Laden.
If bin Laden released a science fiction book, would you buy it?
I think people with views like yours are the reason that consumers are sheep. They readily ignore that which harms them, and thereby perpetuate and propagate that which they dislike.
"What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is not a bad dream."
Why? As a single consumer, I have very little power in the economy. But my one ability is to not patronize those I disagree with. It has very little overall effect, but it is my only effect.
Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and douche? His life's work is meaningless to me.
Tom Cruise supports an oppressive regime? I don't need his films.
Owners of local BBQ place talking about how social safety nets are bullshit and a gun and your own wits are all you need (because nothing bad ever happens to you out of your control) and how in an ideal world they could just shoot all the corrupt *local* politicians that make them charge sales tax and pay for library bonds? I won't eat there again. (And they should learn to keep their political views to themselves while patrons are in their restaurant, unless they wish to only cater to their nutball crowd.)
Ahh, I see. So "reduced to practice" cannot just mean that it (a manufacturing technique, or unreversable formula) was used to produce a final product, even if that final product can only be uniquely produced by that technique or formula. In such a case, the technique or formula was still "suppressed" despite the end product being marketed.
Thanks for the clarification.
You didn't get the joke? "No one will ever know you cut in line . . . unless you murdered them all with a knife (because then you obviously 'cut' them while they were standing in line..."
No one got the joke? "No one will ever know you cut in line . . . unless you murdered them all with a knife (because then you obviously 'cut' them while they were standing in line..."
Sheesh.
The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride.
How do you know this? Are you certain that every taxi cab company makes money based on the number of pickups or length of trip for each driver?
Remember that most taxi cab drivers are independent small business owners, running a franchise for a central organization firm. Those drivers very likely pay a fixed fee to use the name/logo of the firm, and to be given access to the central scheduling.
It seems very unlikely to me that these independent drivers pay a percentage of each fare; the central company would receive more consistent income from a fixed rate.
Explain, then, exactly how the central taxi cab company is not like PickupPal? As a car owner, can I just go into the taxi business by "arranging to drive carpools" over the internet, but then never bothering to get commercial insurance or a commercial driver's license?
There are limo services that never pick people up from the street. If I understand and recall New York City law correctly, the limo companies aren't allowed to pick up fares. All of their clients are arranged on the phone or internet. If their drivers are independent franchises who pay fixed fees, and they don't drive stretch limos, how are they different from me and my Caddy using PickupPal to drive "carpoolers" around the city all day?
And no, a trade secret certainly does not qualify as prior art in the US. Nor should it.
Ahh, but I believe you are incorrect. The U.S. still uses a First to Invent method to establish the correct owner for a patent. The original inventor, who or who's company decided to keep the material secret, should have sufficient documentation to clearly establish him/herself as the first to invent. The fact that a patent was never sought should be irrelevant in this case; the idea was clearly reduced to practice by bringing a product to market based on it (as a trade secret). This would be especially apparent when the second "inventor" / patent troll actually just reverse engineered the original design, after the idea was in use in a commercially-available product or service.
Yes, the original inventor or company would lose their trade secret, since they would have to provide those original notes to prove that the troll was not the first. But the patent, if valid at all, would then be granted to the original inventor at the original company, not to the patent troll.
Let's assume, for just a second, that food recipes were patentable. Suppose Haliburton reverse engineered KFC's secret herbs and spices, patented them, and tried to sue KFC. It would be hard to argue that KFC had not reduced to practice their formula, having sold it for several decades, with the original invention and production process cleanly documented the entire time.
Since I'm not a patent attorney, and the original poster probably isn't either, would a patent attorney (in a very "this isn't legal advice" sort-of-way) like to provide better clarification?
I, on the other hand, don't mind driving to work in the dark. I just want the sun to still be a little visible when I leave work and get home, so I can see the flowers and the trees for a few minutes after a day staring at pixels and plastic.
Why use tequila instead of vodka?
Duh, you can't make a good margarita out of vodka.
You may get caught for the murders, but no one will ever know you cut in line.
Depends. Do you murder with a knife?
1. If I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you borrow my laptop, have I distributed Linux and am I required to provide you wish the source? 2. What if I let you borrow it for money, aka "lease" it?
3. What if I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you into my home or office to use my laptop; have I distributed it then?
I'm pretty sure the answer to 3. is NO. I'm not so sure about 1. or 2.
I was looking for a serious thread to reply to, but it seems this topic attracts more kidding than science. =p
Anyway, my college plasma physics professor, a decade ago, told us that he'd invented the "force field". It created a magnetic shield around an object in a vacuum, and was intended to protect things like satellites from charged particles. (For obvious reasons discussed below he didn't go into detail.)
His work was funded by the U.S. Air Force, who promptly took the patent and classified it. In other words, this was invented about 15 years ago, and this guy might have just made it public, but he's likely not going to get a patent to protect his invention since it will be rejected.
Yeah, because we eat a lot of tree trunks, blades of grass, and stalks. Plus we eat things like scrub weeds that can grow in the harshest of conditions with no irrigation or pesticides.
Or we could convert them into biodiesel.
You mean like in Obama's 30 minute infomercials, where he didn't even mention McCain?