[no patents] isn't feasible in a capitalist society where people are free to profit from their labours
There is no proof that such a comment is true.
There are many examples where people profit from their creative labors without patents.
Do you have a job? Are you ever creative? Does your job pay you to "innovate" solutions to problems? Most people I know work at jobs where creativity is a requirement. None of them have patents. All of them get paid.
There is however plenty of evidence that the patent system prevents people from profiting from their ideas. This is especially a risk for the small guy that cannot afford to contest frivolous infringement accusations.
I suspect that at this point in history the patent office is doing more harm than good.
two issues which the NON SLASHDOT community is concerned with is application pendancy and quality
And this is the crux of the real issue. Those who want current patent rules applied more reliably and efficiently have already sold out to the ideas are property notion. Legitimacy of owning monopoly rights to business methods and math algorithms are just two examples of such thinking.
If you do not like the notion of someone owning monopoly rights to ideas, then making the process for such ownership quicker is not a solution is it?
The main problem is conceptual. The entire concept of what should and should not be patentable needs honest reconsideration.
As long as business-processes and math-algorithms are patentable domains, I think the topic of seeking prior art is obfuscation. Getting such patents through faster is beside the point.
Hiring 2000 more examiners trained to follow today's policies does not help.
1. the area you live in sucks. MOVE.
2. you aren't nearly as skilled as you think you are.
3. you aren't nearly as skilled as the -other- applicants are.
4. You want bubble-boom pay rates. Lower your standard of living.
I believe the word for that is "conjecture." A conjecture is far removed from "fact". Evidently this Dr. Schon invented "facts". This is a VERY bad thing.
Good science is science you can trust. If something is a scientific fact, then other scientists can build upon it, and do. If fact turns out to be fiction, then dependent labors are wasted.
eventually engineers will be substituted by a bestselling software program Engineer-in-a-Box 2.0
Isn't that the goal? As a programmer, don't you want to be part of the team that writes that?
Of course, before engineer-in-a-box, we will probably see entry-level-programmer in a box. When analysts draw UML and get software (a-la rational stuff) that application gets pretty close.
The opportunity to cobble together a fully functional custom web browser with minimal effort has been available to COM and VB programmers in Windows since at least 1996. However, I don't see many IE clones floating around.
Seems to me there is not much demand for that kind of thing. Instead I suspect there will be a diminishment of browsers over time. (e.g., Konqerer, Opera... etc will die the slow "market share" death that mature markets seem to develop.)
We have arrived at the day when there is no significant open standard possible that does not tread on someone's existing ip monopoly. This is the techies' fault for assuming the legal folks know best. They obviously know best for someone.
I can see the argument when the university is non profit or state run, but how about all those (and there are many) for-profit schools? They are a business. Just ask the stockholders if they are a business if you are not sure.
Does it make any difference that in the process of making money they might also be teaching students... on pirated software?
Like you said, writing the original code is the smallest part. Let me add to that, sometimes that is also the easiest part.
If these three zero coders did not contribute to the original code, I would be afraid to turn them lose on the defect reports. Better off hiring a brand new sharp person or two instead.
Ironically, this hybrid burns diesel fuel. That is a pretty dirty thing.
However, one way hybrids are cleaner than conventional rides burning the same materials is that they run their combustion engines at a constant "ideal" rpm. All piston engines have a specific RPM where the ratio of pollution to power is smallest. Car engines driving wheels mechanically pollute more and burn more fuel because have to speed up and slow down.
Diesel-Electric trains replaced direct drive combustion and steam locomotives decades ago for this reason.
Does anybody buy and use those little blackberry (RIM) devices? I'm talking about the old ones with the tiny keys, not the newton sized monster they are selling now.
Seems to me the little keys are very usable. Sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand misleading words.
...in the US army are usually expected to take a test flight with the pilot after they work on the machine. At least that's what I was told back in the 80's.
CAV: Constant Angular Velocity, meaning that the record is rotated at constant speed, making the readout speed higher on an outer track than on an inner track. Something to be avoided.
Not sure why anyone would want to avoid higher speeds. If the inner tracks are slower, we need to slow down the outer tracks too? Why not just read outer tracks faster and let the inner tracks spit out their data at their own speed?
Seems to me part of the spin issue is the motor control overcoming the increasing momentum of the disk as it tries to accelerate and decelerate to employ CAV. This CAV thing sounds useless and dumb for computer data.
Slashdot Mirror
[no patents] isn't feasible in a capitalist society where people are free to profit from their labours
There is no proof that such a comment is true.
There are many examples where people profit from their creative labors without patents.
Do you have a job? Are you ever creative? Does your job pay you to "innovate" solutions to problems? Most people I know work at jobs where creativity is a requirement. None of them have patents. All of them get paid.
There is however plenty of evidence that the patent system prevents people from profiting from their ideas. This is especially a risk for the small guy that cannot afford to contest frivolous infringement accusations.
I suspect that at this point in history the patent office is doing more harm than good.
two issues which the NON SLASHDOT community is concerned with is application pendancy and quality
And this is the crux of the real issue. Those who want current patent rules applied more reliably and efficiently have already sold out to the ideas are property notion. Legitimacy of owning monopoly rights to business methods and math algorithms are just two examples of such thinking.
If you do not like the notion of someone owning monopoly rights to ideas, then making the process for such ownership quicker is not a solution is it?
Fault the courts and the applicants themselves
The point is hiring 2000 more examiners, no matter how well trained, does not address the real issues.
The main problem facing the office is pendancy
I don't agree.
The main problem is conceptual. The entire concept of what should and should not be patentable needs honest reconsideration.
As long as business-processes and math-algorithms are patentable domains, I think the topic of seeking prior art is obfuscation. Getting such patents through faster is beside the point.
Hiring 2000 more examiners trained to follow today's policies does not help.
1. the area you live in sucks. MOVE.
2. you aren't nearly as skilled as you think you are.
3. you aren't nearly as skilled as the -other- applicants are.
4. You want bubble-boom pay rates. Lower your standard of living.
A nightmare. The ones already there can't seem to do a reasonable job. Hiring 2000 more of the same will make things better?
None of this addresses the real issues.
are in this article.
How about comparing this machine to a $199 PS2 or $199 XBox? Is it really that much better for action game-play?
Seems like a tiny niche market -- folks with too much money and too much time to think about how they spend either.
6th sense that lead them to correct hypothesises
I believe the word for that is "conjecture." A conjecture is far removed from "fact". Evidently this Dr. Schon invented "facts". This is a VERY bad thing.
Good science is science you can trust. If something is a scientific fact, then other scientists can build upon it, and do. If fact turns out to be fiction, then dependent labors are wasted.
Liar probably fits here.
eventually engineers will be substituted by a bestselling software program Engineer-in-a-Box 2.0
Isn't that the goal? As a programmer, don't you want to be part of the team that writes that?
Of course, before engineer-in-a-box, we will probably see entry-level-programmer in a box. When analysts draw UML and get software (a-la rational stuff) that application gets pretty close.
The opportunity to cobble together a fully functional custom web browser with minimal effort has been available to COM and VB programmers in Windows since at least 1996. However, I don't see many IE clones floating around.
... etc will die the slow "market share" death that mature markets seem to develop.)
Seems to me there is not much demand for that kind of thing. Instead I suspect there will be a diminishment of browsers over time. (e.g., Konqerer, Opera
I feel odd about this, but California is making sense. First they rule that programmers don't have to flip burgers for a living once they leave a technology employer, now this.
I guess I should say kudos.
We have arrived at the day when there is no significant open standard possible that does not tread on someone's existing ip monopoly. This is the techies' fault for assuming the legal folks know best. They obviously know best for someone.
But this one does. Not cool.
I can see the argument when the university is non profit or state run, but how about all those (and there are many) for-profit schools? They are a business. Just ask the stockholders if they are a business if you are not sure.
... on pirated software?
Does it make any difference that in the process of making money they might also be teaching students
debug more than me
Like you said, writing the original code is the smallest part. Let me add to that, sometimes that is also the easiest part.
If these three zero coders did not contribute to the original code, I would be afraid to turn them lose on the defect reports. Better off hiring a brand new sharp person or two instead.
How about hardwiring the chip to play Nokia ring tone music when you hit the sweet spot. I'm thinking a tinny Bethovens 5th would be nice.
Ironically, this hybrid burns diesel fuel. That is a pretty dirty thing.
However, one way hybrids are cleaner than conventional rides burning the same materials is that they run their combustion engines at a constant "ideal" rpm. All piston engines have a specific RPM where the ratio of pollution to power is smallest. Car engines driving wheels mechanically pollute more and burn more fuel because have to speed up and slow down.
Diesel-Electric trains replaced direct drive combustion and steam locomotives decades ago for this reason.
If the up-stream blocking controls have security flaws, a new kind of attack might become popular: wall off sites instead of flood them.
Could be nasty if not done right.
I think the folks at RIM would argue that size does not matter. :)
www.blackberry.com
Does anybody buy and use those little blackberry (RIM) devices? I'm talking about the old ones with the tiny keys, not the newton sized monster they are selling now.
Seems to me the little keys are very usable. Sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand misleading words.
Piano players naturally hold their wrists above the keys. The playing sounds better that way.
This, by coincidence, also prevents CTS.
Typing letters on a keyboard needs no such rythm maintenance. As a result, prorgrammer types don't develop this healthy habit on their own.
...in the US army are usually expected to take a test flight with the pilot after they work on the machine. At least that's what I was told back in the 80's.
That is pretty good QA.
This is wonderful. I did not know that there was a Phantom Menace 1.1. I'm glad there is.
I would like to think that legal barriers will not crop up to prevent more of this in the future.
CAV: Constant Angular Velocity, meaning that the record is rotated at constant speed, making the readout speed higher on an outer track than on an inner track. Something to be avoided.
Not sure why anyone would want to avoid higher speeds. If the inner tracks are slower, we need to slow down the outer tracks too? Why not just read outer tracks faster and let the inner tracks spit out their data at their own speed?
Seems to me part of the spin issue is the motor control overcoming the increasing momentum of the disk as it tries to accelerate and decelerate to employ CAV. This CAV thing sounds useless and dumb for computer data.
Am I missing part of the picture?