Bah! I plan to do real time modeling if global weather systems, fold complex proteins for my side gig in pharmagenetics, beat international chess champions, render 3d objects with billions of polygons, and email my mom. And you're telling me this thing has only firewire 400? Next you'll be telling me it uses an older cpu. I repeat, sir: Bah!
Also most non-savvy Mac users I have seen do run their computers under the administrator account which means if someone can get in they will be able to play.
Uh, wrong. This hypothetical hacker would still need to type in the admin account password (the dialogue box is a sort of GUI front end for sudo) if he wanted to really "play" with the system. Admin != root. Root is disabled by default on OS X and enabling it is not something anyone is liable to do by accident.
Fugu's OK, and you certainly can't argue with the price. However, I found Transmit to be more powerful and easier to use when I was doing a lot of ftping. Free trial, but well worth the shareware fee.
Uh, they are? A firewire case can be had for as cheap as $20 that I know of, maybe cheaper. Then you add a full size hard drive. I've got 7 or 8 of various sizes that aren't being used. The largest is 60 GB, I think. I wouldn't be suprised if most of us have a spare ATA drive lying around not being used.
Yes, I just mentioned the first one that came to mind. And it doesn't even have XLR in, so I couldn't use my sennheiser shotgun mic to tape car-to-car interviews while stuck in traffic. =) asif
The company would either have to hire staff to implement the idea or contract with a company to implement. That company, in turn will hire people to implement the idea. There's one side benefit: job creation.
In risking "_more money_", there will be more pressure to make a return on the investment, so the patent holding company is more likely to shop the technology around to potential licensees if not actually enter the business themselves. Not so easy to submarine someone if you've been trying to sell the idea to them first. This breaks the business model of a couple of rich lawyers accumulating a portfolio, then sitting on their asses waiting for an chance to submarine someone. It by no means will stop patent litigation, nor abuse of the system, but I think it will make the pure patent portfolio company a less attractive proposition.
You're also right, neither of us are patent lawyers, and we're both (at least I am) blowing hot air on one of the stupider websites, but I still think it's of some use to think about these things and discuss them, even if it is on slashdot. And it's a slim hope, but possibly the other idiots that hang out here will glean some wisdom from our keen insights. =)
I think the way to go would be to require companies like NTP to actually develop a working prototype of their system within a certain amount of time or lose the patent, either starting from the application, granting, or purchasing of the patent.
The hoped for result would be to lessen submarine patents, and to actually advance the technology. It would mean that a patent holding company would need to risk more than just money for the patent. They would need to invest time and effort to bring the patent idea to fruition.
Furthermore, we need to limit the duration of patents (and copyrights, but that's a whole 'nother slashdot article), so that even if a company can submarine another company creating an actual product, the damages will be considerably limited and settlement reached before expensive and crippling litigation.
This is a great idea, but the danger is that if you don't have the resources to complete the prototype in time, someone with greater resources could easily steal your idea. But you're certainly thinking along the right lines.
Perhaps a patent might be granted, but for a shorter period of time unless a working model can be produced, at which time an extension to the patent can be granted.
The other significant problem with patents, imho, is that the terms are too long. Shortening them to 5 - 12 years would be an acceptable compromise.
Uh, no. This isn't about the product, per se, but the service. The infrastructure of the service is located in Canada, which should mean that Canadian patent law governs, not US patent law.
What is at stake is the whole patent system since if a company in country B can sell products in country A and promote them in country A while infringing on patents in in country A then the patent system will collapse.
Geneva notwithstanding, there is no truly international patent system yet in existence, and you are ignorant if you think that US patent protection automatically extends across the globe.
Bottom line is that this is an interesting and complicated case, and not at all the simple issue that you have represented. My gut feeling is that because of the can of worms (in terms of international trade and diplomacy) this has opened, the companies involved will be pressured to settle, and the issue will be swept under the rug for now.
I don't know the particulars, but according to wikipedia, something like this occured in 1988 when Ted released the source code to Xanadu as Project Udanax, to help overturn some patents. Unfortunately, wikipedia provides no further detail on the case(s). I'm not sure if Xanadu had any impact on the BT hyperlink patent case, for instance.
Just think, if Gopher had been invented at UC Santa Cruz, it'd be called Slug or Banana Slug. Then we'd say stuff like, "I was doing some research, so I had to slug your server."
The mention of Fox News implies that you think I'm somehow conservative. Well, I'm about as far from that as you can get.
I wasn't implying that you're conservative. I was implying that you were the type who gets his ideas from Fox News. I know that many people who think they are conservative rely on Fox News for for their received wisdom and world view, but they've confused blind party obedience for critical thought. However, you'll notice that I used a parenthetical "where ever", because the source of your received wisdom is not important; what is important is that instead of questioning these ideas that are being implanted in your mind, you seek to manipulate the evidence of your senses, of your everyday life, to fit the theory. This is known as intellectual dishonesty, and it is of the worst sort, because you are lying to yourself as well as to others.
I didn't state that people are homeless and destiture by choice. I stated that there are people that refuse help from others
Thanks for clearing that distinction up. So, what then, is your explanation, if you're going to mince words in this way? Are you saying that they are refusing help, but that they are not choosing to refuse help? Is someone or something outside of them forcing them to refuse help? Logically, this distinction you are making is meaningless. Perhaps you can logically explain how "choosing not to receive help" doesn't naturally follow from "refusing help". Was the person or were the persons you talked to mentally ill and incapable of informed rational choice?
All it takes is one person to disprove that, and I've enconutered at least one that does disprove that.
In this case, you are incredibly wrong. You are the one who made the generalization, that homeless people are in their present miserable condition because they refuse help and turn away opportunities to better themselves. You base this theory on conversations you claim to have had with homeless people. Now, this is anecdotal evidence at best, unless you were conducting a acientific survey. However, I was still willing to hear out your anecdotal evidence if you could actually provide it. So far, you have not, and have even undermined your evidence by suggesting that your many conversations is actually a single conversation.
So, let's return to your original argument and see if you can supply some evidence.
Your Contention: Homeless people are in their present miserable condition because they refuse help when it is offered.
Your evidence: You know this to be so, because you have talked with homeless people.
My challenge of your evidence: Please describe your evidence. You say you have evidence, but so far you have failed to describe or disclose it in any way. I've prepared some questions to help get out what should be the salient points of your evidence, but if you wish to give us an account of the conversation(s) in narrative form, feel free.
o How many homeless people have you spoken to about the problems of homelessness? (0) (1) (2-5) (6-10) (10-20) (21+)
o Do you really know what the availability of help and services is for those homeless in your area? How many beds available vs. the number of homeless? Is there really a surplus of help available on average?
o Were the people or person you talked to aware of the services being offered?
o Were the people or person you talked to capable of making a rational decision on their own, i.e., were they free of mental impairment? I realize you might not be in a position to diagnose mental illness, but make your best estimate, and tell us, if you can, upon what you base this estimate.
o Did the people or person you talk to actually say that they were refusing services of which they were aware, or was this an assumption that you made?
o If they, he, or she told you that they refused service or help, did you ask why?
o What terms and conditions, if any, are there at these shelters that might make
I also imagine I'd be one of the mindless koolaid drinking zombies that would try to join him in his secret mountain hide away. Although Jobs seems more like the private island type. Sort of like Dr. No, but with a top notch industrial design team.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's explore your version of the analogy. If a mac mini is a VW Bug, then what parts of it would correspond to the axle and hood?
$2 for tortillas? What, you're using the gold plated kind? =)
Let me make this simple for you with the well loved car analogy.
If you need a dump truck, buy a dump truck. Don't buy a Volkswagon Bug.
Conversely, if you're in the market for a VW or other small car, don't buy a dump truck.
Bah! I plan to do real time modeling if global weather systems, fold complex proteins for my side gig in pharmagenetics, beat international chess champions, render 3d objects with billions of polygons, and email my mom. And you're telling me this thing has only firewire 400? Next you'll be telling me it uses an older cpu. I repeat, sir: Bah!
=)
You seem to have forgotten where you are Mr. Bombshell. =)
Also most non-savvy Mac users I have seen do run their computers under the administrator account which means if someone can get in they will be able to play.
Uh, wrong. This hypothetical hacker would still need to type in the admin account password (the dialogue box is a sort of GUI front end for sudo) if he wanted to really "play" with the system. Admin != root. Root is disabled by default on OS X and enabling it is not something anyone is liable to do by accident.
Fugu's OK, and you certainly can't argue with the price. However, I found Transmit to be more powerful and easier to use when I was doing a lot of ftping. Free trial, but well worth the shareware fee.
Uh, they are? A firewire case can be had for as cheap as $20 that I know of, maybe cheaper. Then you add a full size hard drive. I've got 7 or 8 of various sizes that aren't being used. The largest is 60 GB, I think. I wouldn't be suprised if most of us have a spare ATA drive lying around not being used.
Hard drive upgrades, I am sure, will void your warranty
No, it's official now. An upgrade won't violate the warranty so long as you don't damage anything in the process.
Beware that the 5400 rpm drive you are thinking of adding may seriously compromise the thermal environment inside the Mac mini.
That is an interesting point.
That's because you're talking to some school IT admin, who doesn't want the headache. Give them to a teacher. He or she will take them.
Yes, I just mentioned the first one that came to mind. And it doesn't even have XLR in, so I couldn't use my sennheiser shotgun mic to tape car-to-car interviews while stuck in traffic. =) asif
Of course, you are right, but consider this:
The company would either have to hire staff to implement the idea or contract with a company to implement. That company, in turn will hire people to implement the idea. There's one side benefit: job creation.
In risking "_more money_", there will be more pressure to make a return on the investment, so the patent holding company is more likely to shop the technology around to potential licensees if not actually enter the business themselves. Not so easy to submarine someone if you've been trying to sell the idea to them first. This breaks the business model of a couple of rich lawyers accumulating a portfolio, then sitting on their asses waiting for an chance to submarine someone. It by no means will stop patent litigation, nor abuse of the system, but I think it will make the pure patent portfolio company a less attractive proposition.
You're also right, neither of us are patent lawyers, and we're both (at least I am) blowing hot air on one of the stupider websites, but I still think it's of some use to think about these things and discuss them, even if it is on slashdot. And it's a slim hope, but possibly the other idiots that hang out here will glean some wisdom from our keen insights. =)
It would certainly make for a more polite society.
And these days, global trade makes wars between first-world countries unnecessary.
In that case, we won quite handily.
=)
-
Hey Elwood,
I think the way to go would be to require companies like NTP to actually develop a working prototype of their system within a certain amount of time or lose the patent, either starting from the application, granting, or purchasing of the patent.
The hoped for result would be to lessen submarine patents, and to actually advance the technology. It would mean that a patent holding company would need to risk more than just money for the patent. They would need to invest time and effort to bring the patent idea to fruition.
Furthermore, we need to limit the duration of patents (and copyrights, but that's a whole 'nother slashdot article), so that even if a company can submarine another company creating an actual product, the damages will be considerably limited and settlement reached before expensive and crippling litigation.
This is a great idea, but the danger is that if you don't have the resources to complete the prototype in time, someone with greater resources could easily steal your idea. But you're certainly thinking along the right lines.
Perhaps a patent might be granted, but for a shorter period of time unless a working model can be produced, at which time an extension to the patent can be granted.
The other significant problem with patents, imho, is that the terms are too long. Shortening them to 5 - 12 years would be an acceptable compromise.
Uh, no. This isn't about the product, per se, but the service. The infrastructure of the service is located in Canada, which should mean that Canadian patent law governs, not US patent law.
What is at stake is the whole patent system since if a company in country B can sell products in country A and promote them in country A while infringing on patents in in country A then the patent system will collapse.
Geneva notwithstanding, there is no truly international patent system yet in existence, and you are ignorant if you think that US patent protection automatically extends across the globe.
Bottom line is that this is an interesting and complicated case, and not at all the simple issue that you have represented. My gut feeling is that because of the can of worms (in terms of international trade and diplomacy) this has opened, the companies involved will be pressured to settle, and the issue will be swept under the rug for now.
I don't know the particulars, but according to wikipedia, something like this occured in 1988 when Ted released the source code to Xanadu as Project Udanax, to help overturn some patents. Unfortunately, wikipedia provides no further detail on the case(s). I'm not sure if Xanadu had any impact on the BT hyperlink patent case, for instance.
Just think, if Gopher had been invented at UC Santa Cruz, it'd be called Slug or Banana Slug. Then we'd say stuff like, "I was doing some research, so I had to slug your server."
Great Xanadu in Dead R'Lyeh Sleeps
The mention of Fox News implies that you think I'm somehow conservative. Well, I'm about as far from that as you can get.
I wasn't implying that you're conservative. I was implying that you were the type who gets his ideas from Fox News. I know that many people who think they are conservative rely on Fox News for for their received wisdom and world view, but they've confused blind party obedience for critical thought. However, you'll notice that I used a parenthetical "where ever", because the source of your received wisdom is not important; what is important is that instead of questioning these ideas that are being implanted in your mind, you seek to manipulate the evidence of your senses, of your everyday life, to fit the theory. This is known as intellectual dishonesty, and it is of the worst sort, because you are lying to yourself as well as to others.
I didn't state that people are homeless and destiture by choice. I stated that there are people that refuse help from others
Thanks for clearing that distinction up. So, what then, is your explanation, if you're going to mince words in this way? Are you saying that they are refusing help, but that they are not choosing to refuse help? Is someone or something outside of them forcing them to refuse help? Logically, this distinction you are making is meaningless. Perhaps you can logically explain how "choosing not to receive help" doesn't naturally follow from "refusing help". Was the person or were the persons you talked to mentally ill and incapable of informed rational choice?
All it takes is one person to disprove that, and I've enconutered at least one that does disprove that.
In this case, you are incredibly wrong. You are the one who made the generalization, that homeless people are in their present miserable condition because they refuse help and turn away opportunities to better themselves. You base this theory on conversations you claim to have had with homeless people. Now, this is anecdotal evidence at best, unless you were conducting a acientific survey. However, I was still willing to hear out your anecdotal evidence if you could actually provide it. So far, you have not, and have even undermined your evidence by suggesting that your many conversations is actually a single conversation.
So, let's return to your original argument and see if you can supply some evidence.
Your Contention: Homeless people are in their present miserable condition because they refuse help when it is offered.
Your evidence: You know this to be so, because you have talked with homeless people.
My challenge of your evidence: Please describe your evidence. You say you have evidence, but so far you have failed to describe or disclose it in any way. I've prepared some questions to help get out what should be the salient points of your evidence, but if you wish to give us an account of the conversation(s) in narrative form, feel free.
o How many homeless people have you spoken to about the problems of homelessness? (0) (1) (2-5) (6-10) (10-20) (21+)
o Do you really know what the availability of help and services is for those homeless in your area? How many beds available vs. the number of homeless? Is there really a surplus of help available on average?
o Were the people or person you talked to aware of the services being offered?
o Were the people or person you talked to capable of making a rational decision on their own, i.e., were they free of mental impairment? I realize you might not be in a position to diagnose mental illness, but make your best estimate, and tell us, if you can, upon what you base this estimate.
o Did the people or person you talk to actually say that they were refusing services of which they were aware, or was this an assumption that you made?
o If they, he, or she told you that they refused service or help, did you ask why?
o What terms and conditions, if any, are there at these shelters that might make
Well, seeing as how they won't ship until the 22nd, probably not. However, see some posts above for further conjecture on the matter.
Also, I seem to remember something about the mini not having the antenae built into the case unless you've chosen the BTO option.
I had to make you a friend after that one.
I also imagine I'd be one of the mindless koolaid drinking zombies that would try to join him in his secret mountain hide away. Although Jobs seems more like the private island type. Sort of like Dr. No, but with a top notch industrial design team.