I disagree with the idea of just attempting to patent absolutely anything, and then only when the app comes back as "has issue", the company says, "Oops! heh heh, never mind that one..." and just keeps on going. It's pretty clear that even if the patent office was great at detecting dupe patents, prior art,etc., that if there are 10,000 patent apps a day or whatever coming in, how do you have time to check them all? Surely a lot are slipping through and being granted based on this "apply first, worry later" stuff.
There are many corporate data centers larger and more powerful than that, it is much more impressive if the entire thing can run one giant application. Still, I'm pretty sure that Google's new datacenter wipes its ass with a datacenter the size of this one.
The best solution IMHO would be to have each 2-3 results in the top 10 come from different search pattern algorithms. It would be substantially harder to corrupt multiple separate algorithms to "bomb" all the top placements, versus the same set of algorithms being applied to ALL the results (which effectively becomes 1 big algorthm and is easy to corrupt once you know how it works).
My dad tells me stories of when he was in school, that if you started teasing other kids in class, etc. teachers would bust you in the head with a dictionary. I am pretty sure that would stop just about any bully these days, from the shock value alone. I find it likely that a bully is getting no punishment at home, and I don't advocate physical punishment, but maybe the administration and law enforcement should step up punishment of bullies (hitting is still assault, right?)
Any credible threat of or actual incident of physical violence are illegal here, so I don't see why they need a separate law or whatever to deal with any of that, just enforce the existing laws. I had to intervene in lots of fights because the admins didn't do anything at school. Isn't hitting someone still assault?
You pretend something they did caused the main production server to crash, and see how they handle it (so you know what to expect in case that really does happen)!
A company buys enormous data centers, the kind one might use to farm out a business' IT infrastructure needs, and then that company promotes... farming out business' IT infrastructure needs! Whaaa?!
What about prior art for storing information for future generations, things like actual hieroglyphics, dating back to pretty much the beginning of civilization? Why on earth would anyone take a stab at reinventing this, when we have physical examples of how to do it already. We know they last because they lasted.
This is a case where Microsoft needs to remember: gloves.
I figure it's safer to assume that anything connected to the network could be an attack point. If you have a network toy like some light-up furby that connects to the network and changes color based on packet throughput, that thing probably has no security whatsoever on it (even assuming it has embedded linux or something).
Given that if you buy a product, you don't even get to see all the API hooks you can use with the product. Why would they give it to their competitors when they won't even give all the API stuff to customers that paid for it?
The longer that firefox maintains its current user base, the closer the time comes when a killer extension is released by someone (maybe you!). This killer extension would be something that so dramatically improves the browsing experience that pretty much everyone has to get it to be "really on the internet". By the time Microsoft rips off whatever it is, it will be too late. That is the best reason to support firefox, its extensibility means that at any moment, it could become develop a (albeit temporarily) insurmountable competitive advantage.
If "success" to you means that people are willing to keep using your product despite crippling errors, then Myspace is a success. To me, this is not success. Success for me would that they REDUCE the number of "sorry, a technical error has occured this error has been forwarded to the Myspace group" pages.
I'm not saying any of that, I'm just saying that the attitude towards piracy is actually costing the industry more money than would a strategy to embrace people's willingness to be very cheap distribution engines. I mean, how is it not in the industry's interest to distribute a movie with zero overhead? It's their own fault they don't monetize that transaction.
IMHO, it has nothing to do with the cost/etc. although those are factors in how pervasive the piracy is. The only thing the labels/MPAA/etc care about is a small, independent movie/album doing an end-run around the major studios. If that practice were to catch on (which would of course require lots of piracy), entire industries could face losses into the billions.
I have a great idea. Just don't sell the product, or release it for distribution of any kind. I guarantee there won't be any piracy, but you'll have a hard time making money!
Everyone complained about piracy when tape decks came out, but everyone knows in retrospect that the bootleg tapes, even the good quality ones (which could easily be as good as the one you bought) were actually helping bands get noticed. This is all about just controlling the supply line so that only studio-backed projects can get money. They want the ability to sh*t can a movie by not distributing it, and vice versa, to make money from only the ones they are investing in.
In all fairness, he hasn't admittedly done those since he got to be president, so most likely they'd still be illegal. Also, I think Nixon implied that it's not illegal for the President to do something that would be illegal if anyone else did it... very disturbing.
Slashdot Mirror
as if millions of chairs just went through windows at some big software company, and then were suddenly silenced.
Just release it, the deluge of bad PR will suck the moneyline away from the lawyers long enough for you to jet to Aruba or somewhere.
I disagree with the idea of just attempting to patent absolutely anything, and then only when the app comes back as "has issue", the company says, "Oops! heh heh, never mind that one..." and just keeps on going. It's pretty clear that even if the patent office was great at detecting dupe patents, prior art,etc., that if there are 10,000 patent apps a day or whatever coming in, how do you have time to check them all? Surely a lot are slipping through and being granted based on this "apply first, worry later" stuff.
There are many corporate data centers larger and more powerful than that, it is much more impressive if the entire thing can run one giant application. Still, I'm pretty sure that Google's new datacenter wipes its ass with a datacenter the size of this one.
in case it would be bad for our PR, then no, in case it would be good for our PR, then yes, we take the site down. /sarcasm?
The best solution IMHO would be to have each 2-3 results in the top 10 come from different search pattern algorithms. It would be substantially harder to corrupt multiple separate algorithms to "bomb" all the top placements, versus the same set of algorithms being applied to ALL the results (which effectively becomes 1 big algorthm and is easy to corrupt once you know how it works).
But how come it's so easy to punish the teacher and so hard to punish the student when it's based on the same evidence?
My dad tells me stories of when he was in school, that if you started teasing other kids in class, etc. teachers would bust you in the head with a dictionary. I am pretty sure that would stop just about any bully these days, from the shock value alone. I find it likely that a bully is getting no punishment at home, and I don't advocate physical punishment, but maybe the administration and law enforcement should step up punishment of bullies (hitting is still assault, right?)
Any credible threat of or actual incident of physical violence are illegal here, so I don't see why they need a separate law or whatever to deal with any of that, just enforce the existing laws. I had to intervene in lots of fights because the admins didn't do anything at school. Isn't hitting someone still assault?
You pretend something they did caused the main production server to crash, and see how they handle it (so you know what to expect in case that really does happen)!
Well, I did visit the RnR Hall of Fame back in 2006, so that probably explains their listing that year.
A company buys enormous data centers, the kind one might use to farm out a business' IT infrastructure needs, and then that company promotes... farming out business' IT infrastructure needs! Whaaa?!
What about prior art for storing information for future generations, things like actual hieroglyphics, dating back to pretty much the beginning of civilization? Why on earth would anyone take a stab at reinventing this, when we have physical examples of how to do it already. We know they last because they lasted.
This is a case where Microsoft needs to remember: gloves.
I figure it's safer to assume that anything connected to the network could be an attack point. If you have a network toy like some light-up furby that connects to the network and changes color based on packet throughput, that thing probably has no security whatsoever on it (even assuming it has embedded linux or something).
Given that if you buy a product, you don't even get to see all the API hooks you can use with the product. Why would they give it to their competitors when they won't even give all the API stuff to customers that paid for it?
Sounds like our massive nuclear stockpile isn't going to be reduced anytime soon, especially in light of this news.
The longer that firefox maintains its current user base, the closer the time comes when a killer extension is released by someone (maybe you!). This killer extension would be something that so dramatically improves the browsing experience that pretty much everyone has to get it to be "really on the internet". By the time Microsoft rips off whatever it is, it will be too late. That is the best reason to support firefox, its extensibility means that at any moment, it could become develop a (albeit temporarily) insurmountable competitive advantage.
If "success" to you means that people are willing to keep using your product despite crippling errors, then Myspace is a success. To me, this is not success. Success for me would that they REDUCE the number of "sorry, a technical error has occured this error has been forwarded to the Myspace group" pages.
If you have a "happy mac" (128/512/SE/Classic), the same thing happens to them, including the keyboard and mouse.
I'm not saying any of that, I'm just saying that the attitude towards piracy is actually costing the industry more money than would a strategy to embrace people's willingness to be very cheap distribution engines. I mean, how is it not in the industry's interest to distribute a movie with zero overhead? It's their own fault they don't monetize that transaction.
IMHO, it has nothing to do with the cost/etc. although those are factors in how pervasive the piracy is. The only thing the labels/MPAA/etc care about is a small, independent movie /album doing an end-run around the major studios. If that practice were to catch on (which would of course require lots of piracy), entire industries could face losses into the billions.
I have a great idea. Just don't sell the product, or release it for distribution of any kind. I guarantee there won't be any piracy, but you'll have a hard time making money!
Everyone complained about piracy when tape decks came out, but everyone knows in retrospect that the bootleg tapes, even the good quality ones (which could easily be as good as the one you bought) were actually helping bands get noticed. This is all about just controlling the supply line so that only studio-backed projects can get money. They want the ability to sh*t can a movie by not distributing it, and vice versa, to make money from only the ones they are investing in.
In all fairness, he hasn't admittedly done those since he got to be president, so most likely they'd still be illegal. Also, I think Nixon implied that it's not illegal for the President to do something that would be illegal if anyone else did it... very disturbing.
"If the president does it, then it's not illegal"...
"Hey baby, guess what time it is?"