this tells me that you are not that interested in participating in the discussion, just in reading it after the fact. Would eliminating the Slashdot Effect change you from a lurker into a more active participant?
On the contrary, most weeks I take a very active position in the discussions here. I should have said "one might be more likely" instead of "I might be more likely". Take a look at my users page.
Anyway, even theoretically (and especially without any statistics), I'm making a tough argument. But my point is that given anti-extortion laws, Slashdot could get hurt if it tried to get sites to buy external hosting "or else". If Slashdot offered the hosting themselves, it's even more blatant.
Perhaps the discussion about slashdotted links might not be affected substantially (other than the addition of "here's a mirror" and "+5 funny joke about the speed at which it was slashdotted" posts). But most of Slashdot's income is from subscriptions and banner ads, both of which are affected by the shear number of hits. For example, if more articles weren't slashdotted, I might be more likely to check the front page more frequently to catch stories as they are posted, instead of waiting 12 or 24 hours until the slashdotting subsides.
Like I said, it's a fine line. From a business standpoint, this fine line could be even riskier than outright extortion. It could have the potential for a long, drawn-out argument as opposed to a quick "oops, we were wrong, let's throw in the towel quickly before anyone else notices" judgement.
It's a pretty fine line, because according to that, the only thing distinguishing coercion from extorsion is whether the coercer or extorter gains any financial or material benefit as a result. One could argue that since Slashdot's subscribers would be getting better access to the articles, Slashdot would benefit. Slashdot makes money by selling subscriptions and banner ads, and better access would increase the popularity of both.
So you're saying that 60% don't refuse to buy anything (ie., buy something), and 20% buy later? So 80% of people buy something? I'm skeptical, or else I'm reading it wrong...
If Ford had rocket scientists who made vehicles with over a million parts that flew into space and back repeatedly, then this analogy would be worth arguing over.
You'd think with all the advanced, nearly brainless programming languages available, we wouldn't have to worry about 16-bit signed integer limits anymore. 32- and 64-bits have been available for just as long, and it's not like the extra two bytes in each address are going to bankrupt a Powermac with 1GB RAM.
It's Y2K all over again. Just more lazy programmers.
Turn the sail around when you get halfway to your destination -- which would be another star. (You're right, solar sails wouldn't be much use going to any other destination for that reason.)
My Girlfriend's mom's name is Kathy Goldenkranz. There are about 50 Goldenkranz's in the entire country. But there is still another duplicate -- her cousin-in-law.
And just think how I feel with Peter [William] Davis. Even counting my middle name, there's a duplicate here in my own city.
You seriously don't read the contract when you buy a car or get a mortgage? I can understand not reading software EULAs, but if you trust a car salesman, then "deaddrunk" is bound to be a fitting name in the near future after your credit is ruined and you're out on the street.
Okay, let's go through the claims and what they really mean, because you missed a few:
Claim 1: Basically normal testing as we can understand it today, but wherein the test questions are entered via a remote terminal instead of on the test-server itself, and for which test takers pay for the test.
Claims 2-11 and 16 are dependant on Claim 1, so if you don't infringe on Claim 1, you're clean.
Except if you infringe on Claims 12-15, which are independant.
Did you even read Claim 12?!?!?!? (Those exclamation points are describing my disgust for this patent.) Same idea as Claim 1, but where users are required to input a password and "wherein the restricted directory includes academic practice tests and wherein a school enrolls students at a set cost per school year." So taking a course in a University is a way around Claim 1, but not around Claim 12. Claim 12 also doesn't require the test questions to be entered from a remote terminal.
Claims 13-15 are almost as bad, because they essentially close the loophole about entering the test questions from a remote terminal (ie., you can't get around Claim 1 by entering the questions directly at the server). The good thing is that they require some sharing of revenue between the test maker and the owner of the server, so TheSpark.com might be in the clear.
So forget about everything except Claim 12, because us Free Software people don't care about paying for or sharing revenue from online tests. Because of Claim 12, all schools and universities could be affected.
The true affect of this patent then could be dependant on the meanings of the words "compile" and "directory", which will hopefully be defined down in the description of the invention, which I haven't had time to read yet. But I'm not optimistic.
Not so simple, since the article says several times that they are not trying to restrict casual or occasional file transfers. (Did you read it?)
The way it will be enforced is to manually shut down any groups whose sole purpose is deemed to be file transfering. You're right that it could be tough to squash all the hundreds of new groups that will innevitably be created to temporarily bypass a closure, but attracting a supply of users to the new channels could be even harder. Dalnet sharers will have to find some totally new way to go about business that is not reliant on lurking around preset channels, or they'll have to go elsewhere.
"It" doesn't do anything. The person who made the subtitles can do whatever he wants, whether anti-aliasing or just drawing smily faces instead of letters. That's why they are pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology will advance so that we can find the [cures for diseases] easily, so why bother?
does a planet have to orbit a star? Can it orbit other things?
:-)
Well, if you're nit-picking about the original poster's definition, you should read the definition you're nit-picking about.
Links?
this tells me that you are not that interested in participating in the discussion, just in reading it after the fact. Would eliminating the Slashdot Effect change you from a lurker into a more active participant?
On the contrary, most weeks I take a very active position in the discussions here. I should have said "one might be more likely" instead of "I might be more likely". Take a look at my users page.
Anyway, even theoretically (and especially without any statistics), I'm making a tough argument. But my point is that given anti-extortion laws, Slashdot could get hurt if it tried to get sites to buy external hosting "or else". If Slashdot offered the hosting themselves, it's even more blatant.
Perhaps the discussion about slashdotted links might not be affected substantially (other than the addition of "here's a mirror" and "+5 funny joke about the speed at which it was slashdotted" posts). But most of Slashdot's income is from subscriptions and banner ads, both of which are affected by the shear number of hits. For example, if more articles weren't slashdotted, I might be more likely to check the front page more frequently to catch stories as they are posted, instead of waiting 12 or 24 hours until the slashdotting subsides.
Like I said, it's a fine line. From a business standpoint, this fine line could be even riskier than outright extortion. It could have the potential for a long, drawn-out argument as opposed to a quick "oops, we were wrong, let's throw in the towel quickly before anyone else notices" judgement.
It's a pretty fine line, because according to that, the only thing distinguishing coercion from extorsion is whether the coercer or extorter gains any financial or material benefit as a result. One could argue that since Slashdot's subscribers would be getting better access to the articles, Slashdot would benefit. Slashdot makes money by selling subscriptions and banner ads, and better access would increase the popularity of both.
So you're saying that 60% don't refuse to buy anything (ie., buy something), and 20% buy later? So 80% of people buy something? I'm skeptical, or else I'm reading it wrong...
If it were *possible*, given today's technology, to do so, then NASA wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be any safety concerns.
If Ford had rocket scientists who made vehicles with over a million parts that flew into space and back repeatedly, then this analogy would be worth arguing over.
Use conventional rockets and thrusters for minor corrections.
You're right... that'll teach me for not reading the article first.
Still, there is no excuse for using fixed-size arrays these days either. iTunes is written in C++, right?
You'd think with all the advanced, nearly brainless programming languages available, we wouldn't have to worry about 16-bit signed integer limits anymore. 32- and 64-bits have been available for just as long, and it's not like the extra two bytes in each address are going to bankrupt a Powermac with 1GB RAM.
It's Y2K all over again. Just more lazy programmers.
Turn the sail around when you get halfway to your destination -- which would be another star. (You're right, solar sails wouldn't be much use going to any other destination for that reason.)
Same way you stop when you're sailing on the ocean -- pull in the sail!
(A solar sail is just a *really* big, light-weight piece of material, like the size of a football field or even a small country.)
So what... top-right instead of top. Still looks like top to me.
Though I can't debate the truth of *why* they are where they are, but neither did you.
I'd agree for more personal transactions, but how do you ensure the integrity of the public PGP key?
My Girlfriend's mom's name is Kathy Goldenkranz. There are about 50 Goldenkranz's in the entire country. But there is still another duplicate -- her cousin-in-law.
And just think how I feel with Peter [William] Davis. Even counting my middle name, there's a duplicate here in my own city.
Hence the name "One Time" :-)
I dunno about C, but Java for sure...
Parent's parent: When was the last time you saw someone actually look over the credit card receipt they signed?
Parent: Some people will. Not me[.]
In my defense, I read it as the above, not considering what deaddrunk was probably actually replying to: [P]eople will do it just as blindly.
You seriously don't read the contract when you buy a car or get a mortgage? I can understand not reading software EULAs, but if you trust a car salesman, then "deaddrunk" is bound to be a fitting name in the near future after your credit is ruined and you're out on the street.
So forget about everything except Claim 12, because us Free Software people don't care about paying for or sharing revenue from online tests. Because of Claim 12, all schools and universities could be affected.
The true affect of this patent then could be dependant on the meanings of the words "compile" and "directory", which will hopefully be defined down in the description of the invention, which I haven't had time to read yet. But I'm not optimistic.
You're not talking about me, right? I used to be UID ~75000. I was just trying to be less rude than screaming RTFA.
Not so simple, since the article says several times that they are not trying to restrict casual or occasional file transfers. (Did you read it?)
The way it will be enforced is to manually shut down any groups whose sole purpose is deemed to be file transfering. You're right that it could be tough to squash all the hundreds of new groups that will innevitably be created to temporarily bypass a closure, but attracting a supply of users to the new channels could be even harder. Dalnet sharers will have to find some totally new way to go about business that is not reliant on lurking around preset channels, or they'll have to go elsewhere.
"It" doesn't do anything. The person who made the subtitles can do whatever he wants, whether anti-aliasing or just drawing smily faces instead of letters. That's why they are pictures.