Your programming team which composed Internet Explorer 5 did an outstanding job creating a browser that, while not perfect, easily can stand on its own as a significant advance in any number of web technologies.
Wasn't IE originally bought from someone else? Chameleon, or someone?
Revoke their charter. Or, to only imprison them, revoke their charter temporarily. Or take their profits for a few years (and give to whom?).
They're the equivalent of a serial killer, as far as businesses are concerned. Why shouldn't we treat them like one? At the least, we need to remove any means they have of hurting others. How can we do that?
studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, bigger banks charge higher prices for services.
Exactly. People somehow imagine large companies are altruistic, and so will charge less if they can. After all, a bigger operation means more efficient, the economy of scale, right? Except that prices are set based on what people will pay, not on the cost of production. Companies care not for you, they care for maximum profit. Don't be fooled into believing otherwise.
An oligopoly is essentially a monopoly by a few, rather than by one.
So as long as they cooperate with each other, they can raise prices and reduce service at will. The fewer companies are in the market, the more power each one has and the easier it is to get consensus among all of them, on how to get more money out of us while providing less. This is a Bad Thing. Look at Big Oil and Big Tobacco for examples of oligopolies. They set prices based on what we'll pay for them, rather than on the cost of production. And meanwhile prevent entry into the market by startups who would charge less.
Where on earth did Hemos get the idea that this would help him get DSL at home? We'd have had high bandwidth years ago if it wasn't for monopolistic conditions in telecommunications.
In monopoly conditions, consolidation does not lead to lower prices or better service.
I go "Whoa" when a cool idea that's been around a while, actually becomes physical reality. It's one thing to see a possible future, but when it's actually in front of your face it's pretty wild. From Sci-Fi to theory to experimental lab to reality.
Like hand transplants. Or head transplants. Or enough bandwidth to download images on a page without waiting minutes or hours on a 2400 baud modem. Now *that* is cool.
Do you think video cameras remove the operator from the immediate experience? If so, how can one avoid that? What can we do about BM porn ending up on eBay, or should we care?
What do you think about it now vs., say, 1994?
Did you see JC Superstar by Mark Pesce, Toni Parisi (of VRML fame), and Paul Godwin?
What were your favorite parties/events/art pieces? Who were the coolest camps? Were you with HAmlet (Austinites)?
Is Earthlink the ISP that was started by Scientologists, or am I confusing it with another one? Can anyone refresh my failing memory or correct me on this? Any good links?
There aren't many comments that point this out. Virtually every company already uses a fair amount of open source software, if they use email, domain names, or develop in C/C++ (most of the time). The OSS underlying most systems that is so pervasive that it gets taken for granted. Any effort to remove all OSS from a company would probably fail, because a) the systems would fail, and b) they couldn't find all the OSS in their system, anyway, even if they thought they had. Those who thought they were successful would probably be quite ignorant, and OSS would merrily continue doing work on their systems.
Most people who vote in "Readers' Choice" polls simply vote for the product they use, so it turns into a measure of product sales. Few voters have actually evaluated and compared many products in a class.
Actually, I'd love a Reader's Choice poll where all the voters had fully evaluated the field, taking advantage of collective opinion. Unfortunately, that's not what normally happens.
Offtopic? Offtopic?! Hey, I was surprised no one else said it first. Security has been the raison d'etre of OpenBSD since it started.
Actually, this post is truly offtopic. I'm testing my new CGI-based proxy, and I need to make sure Slashdot posting works through it.:) New version by Monday, hopefully, for all you filter-haters.
They want security? How ironic that possibly the most secure operating system, OpenBSD, has to be developed in Canada because of US export restrictions!
That's true, but I think the delay also makes it more difficult for software inventors to be ethical about it.
Well, if they were starving, maybe it would be difficult to be ethical about it. But all programmers I know make a very comfortable living (or have the option to). Most programmers do so even without obtaining patents.
Anywhere we can remove pressure to be unethical, I'm all for it. But whether we do or not, the greater blame lies with whoever's unethical and abuses the system, not with those who unintentially design a flawed system (designing a bulletproof system is tough).
He can, but he has no legal protection while the patent is pending; this means that others can make use of the invention as long as the patent has not actually been granted.
But it seems that others would be fools to do so (or be taking a big risk), because when the patent is granted, all their work becomes dependent on someone else's patent, someone who they've antagonized. That's what it seems like, but I admit I've never been involved in such a situation.
Oh, bite me, Mr. Anonymous J. You make American-bashers look like idiots. I wasn't saying anything bad about Canada.
If you actually read the article, you'd know it pounded in the point that there was not local demand for the bandwidth that CA*Net3 provides. If the article's wrong, correct it, but don't blame me for responding to the article.
I've always been impressed by my Canadian friends, remarkably insightful and well-educated. If you are Canadian, you sure are bringing down the average.
Well, something like RSA or MP3 patents are arguably valid. I don't really like them, but my case against them gets into many bigger issues that I don't feel like getting into right now.
RSA and MP3, as I see them, are very specific implementations. The patents are very specific, not broad. What I have a problem with is patents against "public-key encryption", or "streaming compressed audio". I even have a problem with narrower patents, like "public-key encryption based on a certain property of large primes", or "streaming compressed audio using wavelets". Patents should be against very specific implementations and not cover a category.
Patents should not be granted for things that an average expert in the field would come up with, given a length of time to solve a problem. I've never written any compression code, but if I did I'd probably think about it for a while, and unwittingly come up with some of the same approaches that various other programmers have used before. I'd hate to then be stymied by a patent on something I independently invented.
Patents should encourage innovation of things that would not be developed if it weren't for the patent. They should not be used to stake a claim by someone just because they got there first. That is not encouraging innovation.
This also leads to people trying to make their patents overly broad in attempt to ensure that their patents remain relevant.
Actually, people try to make their patents overly broad because it's most profitable to them, regardless of the delay in the patent approval. It also happens in fields where the technology doesn't become obsolete in a short time. It happens because of the simple fact that people are greedy.
Also, if a patent is pending, isn't the inventor still protected? I realize no one likes lingering legal paperwork, but can't the inventor still proceed with the work while waiting for approval?
What we should think about is how to protect software for the public good.
1) If I have an idea I want to protect for the public domain (i.e. to keep anyone else from patenting it), do I have to actually patent it myself, or can I just publish it somewhere, thus qualifying as "prior art" against future patent attempts?
2) To be a little more aggressive, we could establish a foundation that owns many software patents, with the provisions that
the patented technology could be used and distributed royalty-free in any software covered by GPL or other qualifying licenses; and
use of the patented technology by a commercial entity would require complete cross-licensing of that entity's software patents (i.e. they'd have to open their patents to us, royalty-free).
Does anyone know enough patent law to comment on either of these?
I don't know what kind of "software invention" you've developed, but there's a good chance that someone's already thought of it before, and implemented it in one form or another. And if you didn't invent it now, someone else would, as soon as they experienced the problem your program fixes. That's the problem, that almost every program ever written is fairly "obvious" (in the sense of patent law).
What kind of tools are you using, e.g. programming languages, APIs, protocols, hardware? Chances are that the designers of those tools foresaw the general kind of application you're making, and those tools were designed to accommodate the sort of thing you're doing. For example, I had someone ask me about a patent on something like "automatically downloading an HTML resource using HTTP, and modifying that HTML in a specified way before sending it back to the user." Well, this is all possible to some extent because the designers of HTTP, HTML, and whatever else is involved, designed all those things to make that sort of thing easier.
When tools/frameworks/standards are designed well, the people involved dream up the most esoteric far-out situations that the tool could possibly be used for, to make sure the tool can accommodate any situation they can imagine. To have someone come along later and say "I thought of that so I own it" is kind of offensive when that person's "discovery" is just one specific implication of those people's work.
On a related tangent, old archives of newsgroups, working groups, etc. could be mined for evidence of "prior art", much more than they have been.
Go to any country in Europe or to Canada that provides much greater aid to the poor and you'll find a staggering number of homeless people.
I have. I didn't.
Where on earth do you get your information? Specifically, where have you been and what did you see there? Otherwise, quit making up data and spreading ugly stereotypes. It's called lying, and you're harming people with it. And whoever told you these things is lying to you.
Those people are not welfare recipients. I'm talking about people who have the minimal intelligence to go to the welfare office and write their own names.
I've never been on welfare, but I hear it takes a bit more than that. It's by no means guaranteed. Even for those who do manage to get welfare, the payments usually don't cover basic expenses. Sometimes it doesn't even pay enough for rent, literally. Thus, many people end up living on the street, or in their cars if they have them.
Also, I think welfare payments end after two years. After that, no more.
Contrary to what you've been told, there is no real safety net in America. We have scapegoats instead, victims of propoganda that they're living like "European monarchy two centuries ago". (Note that the powerless are usually chosen for scapegoats, because they can't fight back.)
Street people are fucked one way or another - many of them have psychological issues and would die peniless and filthy in any system.
Well, maybe some would (though many countries don't have a homeless problem-- how does that happen?). But many homeless are not so different from you or me. If you started to interact with them, you'd find some intelligent ones.
Filthy? You would be too if you didn't have a place to shower. These people are perfectly capable of cleaning themselves; they just don't have a place to do so.
Psychological issues? Sure, who doesn't have those? And we'd have them a lot worse if we had to deal with being homeless all day and night, year-round. That's gotta screw up your mind. Risk arrest whenever you urinate or sit in one place too long. 90% of the people you pass on the street look at you in disgust, if they don't ignore you altogether. Can't get a job, because who would hire you? And the simple fact that hunger affects the mind in a way that's hard to control-- try it if you don't believe me (though the effects vary for different people).
Actually, I'm surprised how well most homeless people deal with it psychologically. I suspect I'd go totally nuts.
I don't understand the problem. If you want access, but you can't afford it. You can generally get free access at the library.
Actually, this isn't true. I've been to a few libraries with Internet terminals. They're always full and have a line waiting for them. Access is limited to 15 minutes if there's a wait.
Believe me, I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE it if libraries had enough Internet access to meet the demand. I think it WOULD help with a lot of social issues. I think it would provide an excellent return on our tax dollars. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. If you think it would be a good idea, please tell your local, state, and federal legislators.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't IE originally bought from someone else? Chameleon, or someone?
Revoke their charter. Or, to only imprison them, revoke their charter temporarily. Or take their profits for a few years (and give to whom?).
They're the equivalent of a serial killer, as far as businesses are concerned. Why shouldn't we treat them like one? At the least, we need to remove any means they have of hurting others. How can we do that?
Nope, I'm in SF, but transplanted from Houston, and accumulated a year or two in Austin. Have a great coupla parties!
Exactly. People somehow imagine large companies are altruistic, and so will charge less if they can. After all, a bigger operation means more efficient, the economy of scale, right? Except that prices are set based on what people will pay, not on the cost of production. Companies care not for you, they care for maximum profit. Don't be fooled into believing otherwise.
So as long as they cooperate with each other, they can raise prices and reduce service at will. The fewer companies are in the market, the more power each one has and the easier it is to get consensus among all of them, on how to get more money out of us while providing less. This is a Bad Thing. Look at Big Oil and Big Tobacco for examples of oligopolies. They set prices based on what we'll pay for them, rather than on the cost of production. And meanwhile prevent entry into the market by startups who would charge less.
Where on earth did Hemos get the idea that this would help him get DSL at home? We'd have had high bandwidth years ago if it wasn't for monopolistic conditions in telecommunications.
In monopoly conditions, consolidation does not lead to lower prices or better service.
I go "Whoa" when a cool idea that's been around a while, actually becomes physical reality. It's one thing to see a possible future, but when it's actually in front of your face it's pretty wild. From Sci-Fi to theory to experimental lab to reality.
Like hand transplants. Or head transplants. Or enough bandwidth to download images on a page without waiting minutes or hours on a 2400 baud modem. Now *that* is cool.
How do you think the press should be handled?
Do you think video cameras remove the operator from the immediate experience? If so, how can one avoid that? What can we do about BM porn ending up on eBay, or should we care?
What do you think about it now vs., say, 1994?
Did you see JC Superstar by Mark Pesce, Toni Parisi (of VRML fame), and Paul Godwin?
What were your favorite parties/events/art pieces? Who were the coolest camps? Were you with HAmlet (Austinites)?
Fiyaaaaaaaa on da playa!
Is Earthlink the ISP that was started by Scientologists, or am I confusing it with another one? Can anyone refresh my failing memory or correct me on this? Any good links?
Here's a good writeup of a world without free software.
Actually, I'd love a Reader's Choice poll where all the voters had fully evaluated the field, taking advantage of collective opinion. Unfortunately, that's not what normally happens.
Please change this. We don't want people thinking that EPIC endorses this as much as the White House does.
Actually, this post is truly offtopic. I'm testing my new CGI-based proxy, and I need to make sure Slashdot posting works through it. :) New version by Monday, hopefully, for all you filter-haters.
They want security? How ironic that possibly the most secure operating system, OpenBSD, has to be developed in Canada because of US export restrictions!
Well, if they were starving, maybe it would be difficult to be ethical about it. But all programmers I know make a very comfortable living (or have the option to). Most programmers do so even without obtaining patents.
Anywhere we can remove pressure to be unethical, I'm all for it. But whether we do or not, the greater blame lies with whoever's unethical and abuses the system, not with those who unintentially design a flawed system (designing a bulletproof system is tough).
He can, but he has no legal protection while the patent is pending; this means that others can make use of the invention as long as the patent has not actually been granted.
But it seems that others would be fools to do so (or be taking a big risk), because when the patent is granted, all their work becomes dependent on someone else's patent, someone who they've antagonized. That's what it seems like, but I admit I've never been involved in such a situation.
If you actually read the article, you'd know it pounded in the point that there was not local demand for the bandwidth that CA*Net3 provides. If the article's wrong, correct it, but don't blame me for responding to the article.
I've always been impressed by my Canadian friends, remarkably insightful and well-educated. If you are Canadian, you sure are bringing down the average.
RSA and MP3, as I see them, are very specific implementations. The patents are very specific, not broad. What I have a problem with is patents against "public-key encryption", or "streaming compressed audio". I even have a problem with narrower patents, like "public-key encryption based on a certain property of large primes", or "streaming compressed audio using wavelets". Patents should be against very specific implementations and not cover a category.
Patents should not be granted for things that an average expert in the field would come up with, given a length of time to solve a problem. I've never written any compression code, but if I did I'd probably think about it for a while, and unwittingly come up with some of the same approaches that various other programmers have used before. I'd hate to then be stymied by a patent on something I independently invented.
Patents should encourage innovation of things that would not be developed if it weren't for the patent. They should not be used to stake a claim by someone just because they got there first. That is not encouraging innovation.
Actually, people try to make their patents overly broad because it's most profitable to them, regardless of the delay in the patent approval. It also happens in fields where the technology doesn't become obsolete in a short time. It happens because of the simple fact that people are greedy.
Also, if a patent is pending, isn't the inventor still protected? I realize no one likes lingering legal paperwork, but can't the inventor still proceed with the work while waiting for approval?
Hell, if nothing else, they could lease out cheap bandwidth from New York to Seattle, at least until they have the demand for it themselves.
1) If I have an idea I want to protect for the public domain (i.e. to keep anyone else from patenting it), do I have to actually patent it myself, or can I just publish it somewhere, thus qualifying as "prior art" against future patent attempts?
2) To be a little more aggressive, we could establish a foundation that owns many software patents, with the provisions that
Does anyone know enough patent law to comment on either of these?
What kind of tools are you using, e.g. programming languages, APIs, protocols, hardware? Chances are that the designers of those tools foresaw the general kind of application you're making, and those tools were designed to accommodate the sort of thing you're doing. For example, I had someone ask me about a patent on something like "automatically downloading an HTML resource using HTTP, and modifying that HTML in a specified way before sending it back to the user." Well, this is all possible to some extent because the designers of HTTP, HTML, and whatever else is involved, designed all those things to make that sort of thing easier.
When tools/frameworks/standards are designed well, the people involved dream up the most esoteric far-out situations that the tool could possibly be used for, to make sure the tool can accommodate any situation they can imagine. To have someone come along later and say "I thought of that so I own it" is kind of offensive when that person's "discovery" is just one specific implication of those people's work.
On a related tangent, old archives of newsgroups, working groups, etc. could be mined for evidence of "prior art", much more than they have been.
Sure, we all agree they should do that. But how are you going to convince the Supreme Court to do that?
I have. I didn't.
Where on earth do you get your information? Specifically, where have you been and what did you see there? Otherwise, quit making up data and spreading ugly stereotypes. It's called lying, and you're harming people with it. And whoever told you these things is lying to you.
I've never been on welfare, but I hear it takes a bit more than that. It's by no means guaranteed. Even for those who do manage to get welfare, the payments usually don't cover basic expenses. Sometimes it doesn't even pay enough for rent, literally. Thus, many people end up living on the street, or in their cars if they have them.
Also, I think welfare payments end after two years. After that, no more.
Contrary to what you've been told, there is no real safety net in America. We have scapegoats instead, victims of propoganda that they're living like "European monarchy two centuries ago". (Note that the powerless are usually chosen for scapegoats, because they can't fight back.)
Street people are fucked one way or another - many of them have psychological issues and would die peniless and filthy in any system.
Well, maybe some would (though many countries don't have a homeless problem-- how does that happen?). But many homeless are not so different from you or me. If you started to interact with them, you'd find some intelligent ones.
Filthy? You would be too if you didn't have a place to shower. These people are perfectly capable of cleaning themselves; they just don't have a place to do so.
Psychological issues? Sure, who doesn't have those? And we'd have them a lot worse if we had to deal with being homeless all day and night, year-round. That's gotta screw up your mind. Risk arrest whenever you urinate or sit in one place too long. 90% of the people you pass on the street look at you in disgust, if they don't ignore you altogether. Can't get a job, because who would hire you? And the simple fact that hunger affects the mind in a way that's hard to control-- try it if you don't believe me (though the effects vary for different people).
Actually, I'm surprised how well most homeless people deal with it psychologically. I suspect I'd go totally nuts.
Actually, this isn't true. I've been to a few libraries with Internet terminals. They're always full and have a line waiting for them. Access is limited to 15 minutes if there's a wait.
Believe me, I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE it if libraries had enough Internet access to meet the demand. I think it WOULD help with a lot of social issues. I think it would provide an excellent return on our tax dollars. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. If you think it would be a good idea, please tell your local, state, and federal legislators.
The 42% refers to a report released in July 1999. The lesser percentages refer to 1998.