Re:I hate college
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
University degrees are about time, money, political connections, pedigree, government meddling (vote buying -- think medical schools here). But not "balance". Education has nothing to do with intelligence, creativity, wisdom (that is, applying knowledge in a benefical way to all, not just yourself), insight, integrity, morality, selflessness -- the things that truly give balance.
My experience is that companies that require applicants to have a university degree are usually looking for someone else to say you are qualified (i.e., your university). It helps the front-line tard 'screeners' weed out applicants without actually having any knowledge in the area for which they are interviewing candidates. It saves the later-round interrogators from having to do any genuine 'searching out' of a person.
Not everyone can get into good schools, but it helps if mom & dad are loaded, have funded building a new wing recently, and can provide you with ton of free time, car, expenses, etc.).
I, for one, am convinced you can't teach anyone anything. They must learn it on their own. Who helps them is practically irrelevant in my experience.
Regarding Google, it sounds like they are more interested in finding zealots and disciples than in decent employees. More than three interveiws to assess a candidate's nature and knowledge is just plain silly. And, with the number of people that they are screening, they have no doubt codifed this process into some inhumane system designed to maximize throughput. Not exactly a recipe for finding talented people. I'm sure if you were really really talented they'd be calling you.
Paraphrasing GB Shaw, the only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
Actually, all I was responding to was the assertion that evolution was "fact" -- which it clearly is not. This is never meant to become a discussion of who has the correct religion.
I believe that there is only one true religion because I am monotheistic, and I believe that the one true God has but one way he wishes to be worshiped. My studies show that God has no intention of letting man rule himself indefinitely, and the he will step in and take over. And God dignifies everyone with the choice to be part of that new management or not. Of course I believe I have the correct religion. If I didn't, I'd be a hypocrite. But my religion requires strict abstinence from all forms of man's governments, even in the jutisdictions in which we live. My religion is practiced in all countries of the world (my exact faith) and we all belive identically and worship unitedly. We do not participate in any wars whatsoever and refuse to be violent toward any person for any reason. We are strictly neutral in matters of war, regardless of the stated purpose. We strive to be exactly like our Lord and Exemplar Jesus Christ. And we believe that the entire Bible, Hebrew and Greek scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial for all things. (2 Tim 3:16,17). We live in sharp contrast to the world in general (see 2 Tim 3:1-5).
Regarding the verses in James, they have reference to the process involved, which includes the subconscious mind, which was asserted by another/.er was absent from the Bible. Here's how it applies: First, information is fed into the mind, intentionally or unintentionally. Then the subconcious chews on it. Next, even forbidden and unwise courses of action can start to seem good if we are not careful (we all rationalize). Then it is acted upon. This is what James was pointing out. Understanding this verse to this depth requires some background that you may be lacking, such as knowing the many Bible accounts dealing with the figurative heart, which is used to represent inner motivation and often beyond conscious thought. James, throughout his letter (book, epistle) makes many references to this implicit treachery of the imperfect human, soi that we may be instructed and learn to avoid falling prey to it.
To the translations you have quoted, they're all generally accurate, and while they do not all read identically they do all express the point I am making. (Some translations quoted use middle english, others a mix of middle and modern. I prefer interlinears and strictly literal translations myself -- see The Role of Bias and Theology in Bible Translations by Rolf Furuli for a discussion of literal vs paraphrased translations).
But you make the point that scientific inquiry does not belong at the church door. I agree. The role of science is to discover how things work. The role of religion is to understand God's purpose for mankind (assuming the Christian faith, for instance). And while completely accurate in matters of scientific detail, the Bible is not a science text book. Anyone who has read it and endeavored to understand it knows that. So your implication that I am using it in that way are false.
As for my Christian beliefs, I have studied the Hebrew and Christain scriptures extensively and have arrived at my own conlusions. I have also studied other religions as well. You are welcome to your own analysis. And, I don't mind making a defense of my faith, but I do stop short of pointlessly arguing.
My actrivity on this thread began with someone else's loose but incorrect application of the 'mark of the beast' from Revelation chapter 13. It has strayed far from this purpose. I have answered enough challenges now to show any honest-hearted one I am not some blind-faith, unreasonable, fundamentalist kook. But there are those, no matter what is said, will always see these posts negatively and comment pejoratively. See Matthew 12:33-50.
Well, this is a multilevel thread that has taken on a life of its own, as multilevel threads often do. But basically we got here because the original post I responded to had a misinformed view of Revelation Chapter 13, and the 'mark of the beast', which I helped with. Most people, 5 out of 6, regarded it as valuable, as did the moderators. I wrote it in a way I hoped would not be offensive or come off as Bible thumping. And it started out to demonstrate that evolution per se is not "fact", as most are conditioned to believe, but rather is still very much a theory. Clearly, your post supports my view.
Regarding Isaiah 40:22, most Bible commentators agree that the Hebrew word translated here carries the implicit meaning of sphericity. It has been translated variously as "circle", "globe", and "roundness". I am sure at some point you have used the "four corners" idiom too, but I doubt it's fair to say you always speak metaphorically. For your reference, Moses penned Genesis about 800 years before Isaiah penned the book that bears his name.
Germline mutations are directly inheritable, whereas other genetic changes are assumed not. But changes in DNA are changes in DNA: this is still regarded as the engine of evolution; inheritability is specious. It seems beyond credibility that one DNA changes that affect my offspring are heralded as "progress", while the other that happens to me directly is disdained, since they result in exactly the same thing. Next time you're at the dentist, have them leave off the lead apron and have them aim the x-ray gun upwards through your groin and crank up the power a bit. According to evolution logic, you could, quite reasonably, become the parent of the first superhuman.
And, irrefutably, there are physiological changes that affect germ cells indirectly. Think "crack babies" here. This "progess" is caused first to the host and propagates to the germline. So, I am not sure I agree that cancer of, say, the gonads or of various brain centers have no effect on progeny. The evidence is that they do.
I double-checked -- "Specie" is indeed a proper word, meaning "in the same kind or shape; as specified".
Regarding abiogenesis and panspermia, you quoted me partially and out of context. I was merely pointing out that evolutionists often reference experiments like Miller's 'organic soup' series as evidence to support evolutionary theory, but these were designed to show how life can come from non-life (abiogenesis) rather than changing one species into another (evolution). Panspermia is an odd one to me, because it isn't evolution and it isn't abiogenesis either. It was synthesized in an effort to deal with the fact that no theory on abiogenenis has ever been proven experimentally and all that have been tried have been abandoned as false. "So," sayeth the 'panspermians', the abiogenesis happened somewhere else -- beyond the reach of researchers and thus their ability to explain and demonstrate it experimentally, but they know it happened just the same -- and then that life got here whole on an intergalactic transport of some sort (such as asteroid fragments bouncing off the surface of Mars and ricocheting here).
Now on to your Wikipedia/Evolution definition reference:
"* explains, and is consisten[sic] with, the vast majority of data"
The data as I see it are: 1) there are lots of different kinds of creatures on the Earth today. 2) Bones from different kinds have been found and similarities noted. 3) No one has ever demonstrated changing one species into another, either naturally or unnaturally, regardless of skeletal similarities. This evidence does not explain and prove the means by which we have the the many kinds of creatures that surround us.
* makes predictions about what should occur or what has occured that can be tested
Okay, I'm open-minded: Turn a duck into a dog by screwing with the duck's DNA.
"And, nobody can show you a squirrel "in the process" of evolving. But I *can* paint you a theoretical picture."
Exactly: A theoretical picture. I do not dispute that creationism is based on faith, and in my case, it is by no means blind faith. I have studied it extensively. But the same faith issue is true for evolutionists -- it is still very much a theory in which its adherents put great faith based on the things they have been taught. In this, creationists and evolutioists are the same. The Bible clearly says that organisms were created according to their kind, and nowhere does it say that each organism would be an exact copy of itself. To the contrary it specifically points to a great variety with kinds (species).
The flaw in your 'sentences evolving' example is that an intelligence produced them with a specific purpose in mind. This is inarguably an example of intelligent creationism with purposeful intent. You are unwittingly supporting the Bible's position. Put Scrabble letters on the table and when they arrange themselves, without intervention of any kind other than time and chance events, to form those three sentences you will have witnessed something that is thousands of orders of magnitude more likey to occur than one single strand of DNA belonginging to anything living to spontaneously create itself out of random activity. The odds of the latter have been computed with varying results, some as high as 10^40,000, but since no one, not even with intelligent intervention and all modern science has to offer has been able to duplicate it, I'd say at the moment it is impossible without intelligent intervention.
Here's the paradox to your HIV immunity example: If a person wasn't immune before getting HIV it would certainly kill them, according to the facts currently in evidence. No one, to my knowledge, has been cured, either with drugs or by some spontaneous genomic mutation. Those identified with an immunity have been discovered because they have been exposed to a degree believed to be irrecoverably infected but have not become infected. So, they must have had this gene prior to infection, thus no direct evidence of evolution (with these specific subjects). So, logically, they inherited the gene. But, if organisms are not commonly exposed to something, then the mechanisms of evolution are predicted to weed them out. So, why did these genes stay around? If they did persist even though unecessary, then DNA is stable and change-resistant, and thus anti-evolutionary. Besides, changing a beetle into a leopard is evolution, not finding gnats-eyebrow differences within a given species. For this to prove evolution it would have to change one species into another. This example is merely a very weak, very indirect inference data point that doesn't contradict evolutionary theory. But this is no different than some people never getting the Spanish Flu that ravaged the earth ninety years ago. And I've never heard anyone suggest that the Spansh Flu was evidence of evolution in high action.
But if exposure to grave diseases like HIV is what cures humans by correcting genomic shortcomings via direct excitation the evolutionary engine, then by all means we should immediately withdraw all medical treatment and interventions for HIV, and indeed, all diseases afflicting mankind and the animal world, because by intervening we are frustrating the very machinery that will produce the needed genomic immunity. And let's stop removing cancers, because the next human species maybe spawning in one of them. By this logic, we should pump CFC's into the atmosphere to destroy the ozone, because it clearly inhibits evolution. But I believe that even the staunchest evolutionist will argue that these notions are ludicrous. But these satirical examples do highlight the conflict and underscores just how much is still in dispute about evolution -- which proves it is at best a theory, but in my personal view, still a hypothesis.
Okay, I'll stop before all the fundamentalist evolutionsts mod me into oblivion. Or maybe it's too late;-)
Yes I do, based on the Scientific Method. Most people that understand it recognize that it is still a theory. Proof? Simple: If you yourself contracted a cancer, is it good or is it bad? Cancer, according to evolution, is the engine of progress. Truth is, you'd leave everything just the way it is. Nobody wants their DNA fooled with because they know intuitively that it's a bad thing. Stanley Miller gave up trying to prove his organic soup theory because he could never make it work (one initial success followed by a career of failures) and that he could never eliminate himself from the experiments. Ironically, his experiments were to prove all this could have happened blindly, without intelligent intervention, but he realized after years and years of failures his experiments never worked without his thoughtful intelligence guiding it. So, in pure scientific terminology, evolution is still a theory, since no one has demonstrated exactly how it works and demonstrated it experimentally. And I might also point out that evolution relates to how organisms morph across specie boundaries, not how life appears in the first place. That is the providence of abiogenesis vs. panspermia.
I arrived at creationism using the Sherlock Holmes method: Eliminate the impossible, and whatever's left, however improbable, is the truth. Since evolution is mathematically so remote so as to be impossible I gave up on it. After years of objective and deep academic research that had nothing to do with Bible research. I initially set out to disprove the Bible, but could not unless I abandoned objectivity.
The book The Blind Watchmaker, often cited as having proved evolution, says in one chapter that to transform (evolve) an ordinary squirrel into a flyiong squirrel, one simply needs to find a clumsy squirrel with loose skin and have it fall from trees so often that it soon learns to glide to the ground. Okay, fine. Show me how it's done: get all the regular squirrels you want, and throw them from trees and produce a flying squirrel. If you can, you still haven't proven evolution, because I don't beleive that such an experiment would demonstrate a crossing of specie boundaries. When you've accomplished that feat, you woill have progressed from theory to fact. Otherwise, it's just a theory (hypothesis, actually, since it lacks the detail in the specific mechanisms involved).
As far as the Earth being flat, the Bible pointed out it is a sphere some 3,000 years ago (Isiaih 40:22), some 250 years before Pythagoras. And it never said the Earth is the center of the universe. So, you're just making those things up. And the Bible clearly says that the subconscience is very treacherous and must be carefully monitored and curbed by the conscious mind (James 1:14,15).
As for the final outcome, whether you are correct that the world will continue and man will evolve into some higher species through blind chance, or I am correct in believing the Bible's predictions, only time will tell.
Okay, I'm in. The Mark spoken of at Revelation ch 13 (aka Apocalypse) is a demonstrated allegiance to a way of life that is opposite to God's righteous way and blocks admittance into the promised new world (see Revelation ch7 and ch 20-22).
For clarification of this position see the parallel prophecy given to the prophet Ezekiel at Ezek ch 9, where a 'secretary' from God is seen marking the foreheads of those that would be saved. It is clear that they get their mark because of their inner groaning over the detestible things being done in the Earth -- detestible according to God's standards, not their own. All others, starting from the sanctuary (those saying that they are Godly but are falsely so) are to be destoyed by the six other messengers.
The physically tattooed marks and RFID tags are a means to control others, and of course things like these appeal to the masses because these measures seem benign, even helpful. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, what's to fear? But in the end they are a means of control. Today we have security cameras monitoring everything, even traffic flow, cross-referencing vehicle tags. People are being photographed hundreds of times a day in public places and their faces cross-referenced by high-speed computers, police now dress and train as military combatants. Core Internet routers are now archiving every single packet without prejudice. Voice recognition systems are scanning phone conversations in real-time. Fully automted packet-data-examining systems. And so on...it's all very sad, but it is also a warning.
When Hitler began rouding people up, it all seemed benign and even helpful to the majority. Even those being rounded up believed that they had nothing wrong and thus had nothing to fear, according to their own testimony. But those that would not go along with the round-up got rounded up too. Compare that to the entire context of Rev ch 13. Hitler's actions were a dry run for the larger showdown that is to come, but it will be a world-wide affair according to Revelation. And God steps n to protect his own, and gives them the gift of the new paradise on Earth which he has promised.
But now for the University science: According to Stanley Milgram's famous experiment, most people will go along with those perceived to be in authority, no matter how objectionable the request might seem upon first glance. And the Stanford Prison Experiment shows that most people in charge of others will without fail revel in sadism in very short order when given control over others. So, that people will attack those who desire to serve God en masse -- preventing them from even maintaining livlihoods and even from buying and selling to sustain life -- will be willing participants, even those of you who are convinced right now that you would never had help Hitler. Reliable scientific research consistently shows that most people would have, regardless of what they say when asked hypothetically.
(Okay, mighty moderators, protectors of the/. common good, have your way with me. At least it wasn't posted anonymously. And, furthermore, I've actually read and sudied the Bible -- unlike most who are happy to comment as if they know what it says or mod down those that have the courage to repeat what it says -- hehehe.)
The Department of [Whatever] marching in and "requesting" that someone do something or not do something 'just in case' is itself a form terrorism, by definition. People are genuinely afraid of what might happen if they don't fully comply, regardless of morality or legality. Many suppose that by 'going along to get along', they'll be rewarded with special favor.
This is exactly what you get when you trade freedom and liberty for the illusion of security. Security is always a future risk issue, and only a fool thinks the future is can be controlled by people. Of course there are general precautions, but history has shown that the most effective methods are simply to treat your neighbor as yourself, then only the profoundly selfish, sadistic and crazed are at issue. In which case, you're sunk anyway.
For example, why not empower the State to do daily inspections of every single home to root out 'terrorist cells'? Of course, if this were to be undertaken some "cells" would be found, but the proven reliable sociological effect would yield only the sadistic domination by the very 'security' people responsible for the enforcing the policy. And from the evidence I've seen this behavior cannot be predicted by any level of psychological screening. It's a matter of flawed human nature. And the effect is seen in less than a week, so for all those who think this is slow and unusual and is easily managed, you're simply wrong -- the effect propagates through all echelons of such organizations and is quite thorough and complete.
For those of you following along with the true issues involved, liberty has been redefined by Presidential decree three times in the last 50 years (see EO13083, et al). Of course, the US consitution itself hasn't been changed, but the dictionary used to decode it sure has.
There are a few non-embedded applications that would indeed benefit. Automated test and measurement is one that I can think of right off the bat. RT probably the last big advantage to VxWorks, so maybe now's a good time to dump your WindRiver stock.
Krumholtz says that commercial software alone spurs economic growth and creates jobs.
If this were really true, Microsoft would have nothing to worry about. But the truth is that everything they do have to worry -- panic, even -- what they have they either bought or "leveraged" from open source. Microsoft innovates nothing, and this has been well covered. And who cares about WIndows API any more? It is becoming increasingly irrelavent.
What they do very well, indeed, is distort markets with their money (by definition, "anticompetitive"). CIO's and IT departments and developers make no money because of Linux?!? Pure nonsense.
And they are influencing American politics with the promise of jobs -- in India. And all that Microsoft software bought by government agencies is paid for by the tax base. More of "the world produces, America consumes."
Microsoft is very much the problem here, from all vantage points, which is why they have to lock up oatents and politicians with their checkbook.
Yes, but what you describe is an abuse of the patent system. The patent system exists to encourage innovation by de-risking the open publishing of new ideas in exchange for a limited time monopoly on the claimed innovation. What's not claimed is fair game.
What you suggest is an abuse of that design. What you suggest is exactly what I am endeavoring to make plain: That Microsoft will use money and politics to allow it to act however it wants, making it too expensive for people to compete, which is abuse of its monopoly power.
Patents themselves are fine. I believe software patents are an abuse in themselves because they cover the written word. Why not start patenting romance novels or how-to books? Or the quickest directions on how to get to the grocery? Because the techniques involved in writing are not unknown, and that's what software is (and don't bother, I've heard all the 'final customization to the hardware' arguments, and they're just plain bogus. In that sense, romance novels are the final customizations for paper, driving directions are the final customization to the notepad.)
Software, books, driving directions are all involved with cognitive thought, and that's not -- or should not be allowed to be -- patentable. The device with the software in it is patentable, but not the software itself, because it's out of context. A new refridgeration technique, and emodied and provable in a new refridgeration device is patentable. The software that turns on the light inside is not distictly patentable, except in the context of the entire apparatus. I realize that this is not how the law is applied now but I am discussing principle here, which is more lofty than simple law. Attempting to fix laws with new laws is a fool's game. If laws are unsuitable or inappropriate, it's the principles that need to be examined.
Microsoft abuses its monopoly power, plain and simple, just like the bully at school beats everyone up to become and remain number one. Everyone sees a bully, but the bully sees he's number one. Microsoft uses money and politics and the court systems to stifle innovation and create an anti-competitive market that favors Microsoft. Regulators are more worried with appearance than correcting these moral abuses. Form over substance. Besides many of the regulators use the very same techniques themselves, so they can't be too zealous.
In the end, Microsoft has become bad for software, bad for business, bad corporate citizen, bad for the economy. Most people know this intuitively, which is why so many rail against them. Or they simply figure out a way to get their face in the Microsoft trough, and then start talking nice about them.
Utility patents are a limited monopoly. If Microsoft didn't want to enforce the monopolies granted by patents, Microsoft would simply publish invention disclosures on their website. Then they'd be public domain and couldn't be used against Microsoft, but neither would Microsoft have a monopoly on the otherwise patentable technologies.
Logically, then, Microsoft would only go to such an expense for financial reward. And they have stated that they would do this 'agressively' -- deliberately overloading the patent process and the reviewers -- they said 3,000 a year, which is just about 1-1/2 applications an hour. To spend Microsoft corporate money on such an endeavor without such a goal would be negligent and a breach of fiduciary responsibilty. Not to mention completely out of established Redmond character.
Microsoft is notorious for abusing monopoly power. If Microsoft was the assignee of the Eolas patent, I seriously doubt their would be any other browser out there but IE (or its duly MS-EULA-based derivitives).
Microsoft has not been an agressive patent-portfolio builder until recently. Now it is their stated goal to file literally thousands of patents annually. I doubt that it's because they are bored with all the bug-fixing and whatnot, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. They weren't copyright-blood-thirsty at first either.
The parent to my post evidently saw the Microsoft victory as a victory against software patents. It was no such thing. It simply underscored that if you have US$20-30M to throw away on court battles and your opponent does not, you will prevail in court. Anyone that argues against that notion is simply naiive.
And if you think that big money doesn't influence the USPTO, think again. Like every orgaization they look to see *who* they're hearing from. A patent filed by Microosoft using one of the more prestigious patent firms will sail through first action allowance, even if it's perpetual motion. We've all seen some of the stupid ones they've done already.
I take it you're not big on history (other than over a bag of chips and a beer watching some US military sponsored WWII revisionist history piece on the History Channel). Money is right. Money is power. Microsoft is Money.
This isn't an anti-Microsoft rant. It just is reality. There's not a whole lot anyone can do about it either.
Posted from Redmond no doubt. WinCE is not Windows. Windows runs on x86 arhitecure, and that's just about it.
Try buying a laptop without Windows, they represent >50% of all the PC's sold now. Better still, try buying one that will run something other than XP. Yeah, yeah, we can all find a really pricey 'linux-ready model" for 2X or 3X the price of the "value systems", but the good bargains are all "Designed for XP" machines, a euphemism for "Only runs XP". I had had a bunch of machines recently that will only run non-XP OS's in 640x480 mode (yes, even W2K). When I called for drivers, I was informed in every case that XP-only drivers would be able to access >640x480.
And as far as the bargian HP's, eMachines, Compaqs, etc, that I get/recommend for my non-techie family and friends, they always come with windows. If you change it, manufacturers won't even honor the power cord warranty unless you reinstall the "factory restore" version of WIndows.
Did you ever think for just one moment that there would be a whole lot more CPU's and arcitecures out there if Microsoft supported them? Do you think that the "mighty and benevolent dictator" Microsoft just might be stifling inovation?
Your position is fine except that the company pushing to not pay this patent's due royalties is the same company agressively pushing for thousands of software patents annually for their own financial benefit. This is not some benficent act, but rather a "Heads I win, Tails you lose" strategy made possible by pure money-politics.
Microsoft has succeeded in controlling the global software market by prevailing in at least these three main areas:
1. Convincing everyone that Windows is the universal platform, when in fact it runs on fewer architectectures (one, mainly) than virtually any other OS around;
2. Exacting an OS tax on virtually every personal computer sold;
3. Using large blocks of public domain code in their software, while getting to treat under law in most jurisdictions as their own copyrighted work.
Now add to that list: Making sure that the only software patent royalties that get paid, get paid to them.
Since the ex post facto rejection of the Eolas patent does nothing to influence software patent law in general, your elation regarding the Eolas patent disallowance is sorely misplaced, IMHO. Microsoft simply paid to get it overturned. All patents in retrospect are obvious, and just about any scrap of paper read 10+ years later can be made to seem preemptive if all you have to do is say that it is.
If Eolas were suing Microsoft on the exact same legal grounds, the suit would have most surely failed. Look at how simply having money -- some report it came largely from Microsoft -- has prolonged the circus that is the SCO lawsuit. It's clearly about money, not software patent law.
"Take me for instance. I am from a state that -always- goes for one of the parties. So the minority in that state never gets represented. If I happen to not agree with the majority of people in my state, I effectively don't have a vote."
You're not supposed to, that's why it's called majority rule. Or mob rule, depending on your view.
It sounds like you want to be represented when you are the minority because your view is never in the majority. But I suppose you'd be the first one crying foul if you were in the majority and you got thrown over because the minority view needed to be respected.
Actually, it's a Republic system. But your point is well taken. The issue now is that every nation in its twilight years does two things:
1. Creates Lawyers to turn word-smithing into a for-proft industry, effectively taxing and controlling everything through the sly use of words and a mysticism in untangled the maze of cross-linked and implicitly contradictory laws they themselves have created (and in a way that would make any crashed FAT16 file system blush).
2. Close the economy and make it start feeding on itself, much like a starving animal will begin metabolising its own muscle.
For any with access to it, William Playfair's An Inquiry into the Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations (1805) might be fun reading. And Frederic Bastiat's Economic Sophisms, well beyond copyright and freely available on the web (just don't use a P2P client to get a copy) is also great stuff.
The solution to this is to have dentists begin licensing dental work to recording industry professionals. Every time those wankers smile and show those pearly white caps, every time a photo is run with them grinning, everytime they chew something...
In order to make it palatable, the dentists need a publicist to headline a few high-profile cases where poor dentists are shown losing everything because nobody is buying new dental work anymore. Picture it: a few talking heads discussing how this will eventually devastate the economy, how billions will leave the country to futher line the pockets of foriegn magnates. Forclosures, bad credit card debt, dentists leaving the industry for better prospects in other industries..how the brain-drain is sapping innovation, how the masses are now beginning to suffer from a death of dental professionals...
They should then push for important new legislation to stop all gray-market dental work from being done: The Dental Millenium Universal Hygiene Act. Of course the name has been chosen to impicitly ironic, suggesting that the welfare of the commoner is being looked after.
Oh great, I have to run. The company that makes the turbofan cooling my video card proccessor chip is here with a subpoena demanding I pay for the traquil whir i've been listening to all this time, or else.
As CTO of an embedded hardware/software development company, I would be interested in sponsoring such an effort, both financially and with personnel.
Commercial BIOS is slow, cumbersome, and simply a pain to fix and feature. Things like PXE, console redirect, etc. are far more expensive then they should be because the commercial providers see these features as 'high end server features', and thus overcharge for them.
I would say that it is more relevant to see the teachings and not the claims as the test for obviousness. You give the teachings and get the claims: if you don't teach anything new novel and non-obvious then you can't claim anything.
Obviousness also has the element of time: what is obvious today may not have been a year or two ago, and it is always a tricky matter. And there is the matter of everything, once understood, becomes obvious and that's a core irony that patent examiners must contend with.
What you describe is a lack of concern for others, not the intentional jamming of radio signals with the primary intent being to disrupt thinse signals. But even still, the FCC can mandate that both parties work to resolve the interference, and can, at their sole discretion mandate that one or bot change equipment or bar the parties from using the spectrum entirley. "Unlicensed" does not mean "Unregulated".
Also, the FCC exists for this very purpose, that is to coordinate and regulate spectrum usage and uses and resolve related disputes. Thus it is not expected or reasonable that parties to such a dispute to seek relief from, or at the expense of, the product manufacturers. Product manufacturers are not responsible for the intentional misuse of their products (even if some try to make them responsible because they may have 'deeper pockets' than the actual abuser).
I believe that no one has the right (in the USA) to intentionally interfere with the receiving of legitimate radio signals. I do not believe this regulation has such a narrow definition to include only "active" jamming techniques. Since the prohibition is silent on the method, the method is immaterial. If you interfere, however accomplished, you are breaking the law and thus subject to its wrath.
Yeah, why fix it yourself when you can get your customer to do it:
Tech Support Guy speaking to proud HP laptop owner: "Sure, lady, all you have to do is follow these fiften simple steps, just go tou our website...oh yeah, sorry, forgot your computer is horked...right... Okay I'
ll talk you through it. Just get a #1 philips screwdriver -- what's that? I'm sorry?!? what do you mean, 'is #1 is the philips the one with the yellow handle?!? How am I suppos--- never mind, send it back, we'll take care of it and get it right back to you. Our current backlog is sixteen weeks. What's that? you found the #1 philips? Swell. Now just don't slip and gouge something or you'll void the warranty. No put on your anti-static strap..."
Homeland Security, "War On [terrorism/poverty/drugs/you-name-it](tm)", etc., are always about the economy (and political control, which is ensured and stabilised by a productive economy).
It is a commonly held belief that inflation is a general rising in prices, and deflation is the opposite. This is just plain wrong: inflation is an increase in the overall money supply and deflation is the opposite. Rising and falling prices are the end-effects of inflation and deflation. It is generally agreed that inflation and deflation are destructive to the long-term economy, but that is the wrong way to look at it. If you know that money supply is increasing or decreasing and you are first in line at the trough you will profit superamazingly. If you are at the back end, you simply get to eat the vomit of those who gorged and hurled before you.
These 'security initiatives' and whatnot are created to absorb front-end inflation and vice versa. "Trickle-down" is a fool's game. Central Banks ostensibly exist to prevent inlation, but it is quite obvious from the evidence that the exact opposite is true. More proof that those on the inside are the ones that benefit from inflation: the masses are told the opposite. When prices rise, inflation is attacked, but it's already too late. Same with deflation and press reports of impending deflation: this is the best evidence that the money supply is about to increase and that there will be a host of new government initiatives to fight it (absorb the new money before prices rise becuase of its introduction). "Let them eat cake," she said. And money is not created by printing it -- not in any meaningful amount, not any more -- it is created through credit (debt).
Thus, these silly 'initiatives' will not go away until all the money created (inflation) has been absorbed by those that understand this and profit from it. Until such time as the economy demands new ones...
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone can get into good schools, but it helps if mom & dad are loaded, have funded building a new wing recently, and can provide you with ton of free time, car, expenses, etc.).
I, for one, am convinced you can't teach anyone anything. They must learn it on their own. Who helps them is practically irrelevant in my experience.
Regarding Google, it sounds like they are more interested in finding zealots and disciples than in decent employees. More than three interveiws to assess a candidate's nature and knowledge is just plain silly. And, with the number of people that they are screening, they have no doubt codifed this process into some inhumane system designed to maximize throughput. Not exactly a recipe for finding talented people. I'm sure if you were really really talented they'd be calling you.
Paraphrasing GB Shaw, the only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
I believe that there is only one true religion because I am monotheistic, and I believe that the one true God has but one way he wishes to be worshiped. My studies show that God has no intention of letting man rule himself indefinitely, and the he will step in and take over. And God dignifies everyone with the choice to be part of that new management or not. Of course I believe I have the correct religion. If I didn't, I'd be a hypocrite. But my religion requires strict abstinence from all forms of man's governments, even in the jutisdictions in which we live. My religion is practiced in all countries of the world (my exact faith) and we all belive identically and worship unitedly. We do not participate in any wars whatsoever and refuse to be violent toward any person for any reason. We are strictly neutral in matters of war, regardless of the stated purpose. We strive to be exactly like our Lord and Exemplar Jesus Christ. And we believe that the entire Bible, Hebrew and Greek scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial for all things. (2 Tim 3:16,17). We live in sharp contrast to the world in general (see 2 Tim 3:1-5).
Regarding the verses in James, they have reference to the process involved, which includes the subconscious mind, which was asserted by another /.er was absent from the Bible. Here's how it applies: First, information is fed into the mind, intentionally or unintentionally. Then the subconcious chews on it. Next, even forbidden and unwise courses of action can start to seem good if we are not careful (we all rationalize). Then it is acted upon. This is what James was pointing out. Understanding this verse to this depth requires some background that you may be lacking, such as knowing the many Bible accounts dealing with the figurative heart, which is used to represent inner motivation and often beyond conscious thought. James, throughout his letter (book, epistle) makes many references to this implicit treachery of the imperfect human, soi that we may be instructed and learn to avoid falling prey to it.
To the translations you have quoted, they're all generally accurate, and while they do not all read identically they do all express the point I am making. (Some translations quoted use middle english, others a mix of middle and modern. I prefer interlinears and strictly literal translations myself -- see The Role of Bias and Theology in Bible Translations by Rolf Furuli for a discussion of literal vs paraphrased translations).
But you make the point that scientific inquiry does not belong at the church door. I agree. The role of science is to discover how things work. The role of religion is to understand God's purpose for mankind (assuming the Christian faith, for instance). And while completely accurate in matters of scientific detail, the Bible is not a science text book. Anyone who has read it and endeavored to understand it knows that. So your implication that I am using it in that way are false.
As for my Christian beliefs, I have studied the Hebrew and Christain scriptures extensively and have arrived at my own conlusions. I have also studied other religions as well. You are welcome to your own analysis. And, I don't mind making a defense of my faith, but I do stop short of pointlessly arguing.
My actrivity on this thread began with someone else's loose but incorrect application of the 'mark of the beast' from Revelation chapter 13. It has strayed far from this purpose. I have answered enough challenges now to show any honest-hearted one I am not some blind-faith, unreasonable, fundamentalist kook. But there are those, no matter what is said, will always see these posts negatively and comment pejoratively. See Matthew 12:33-50.
Well, this is a multilevel thread that has taken on a life of its own, as multilevel threads often do. But basically we got here because the original post I responded to had a misinformed view of Revelation Chapter 13, and the 'mark of the beast', which I helped with. Most people, 5 out of 6, regarded it as valuable, as did the moderators. I wrote it in a way I hoped would not be offensive or come off as Bible thumping. And it started out to demonstrate that evolution per se is not "fact", as most are conditioned to believe, but rather is still very much a theory. Clearly, your post supports my view.
Regarding Isaiah 40:22, most Bible commentators agree that the Hebrew word translated here carries the implicit meaning of sphericity. It has been translated variously as "circle", "globe", and "roundness". I am sure at some point you have used the "four corners" idiom too, but I doubt it's fair to say you always speak metaphorically. For your reference, Moses penned Genesis about 800 years before Isaiah penned the book that bears his name.
Germline mutations are directly inheritable, whereas other genetic changes are assumed not. But changes in DNA are changes in DNA: this is still regarded as the engine of evolution; inheritability is specious. It seems beyond credibility that one DNA changes that affect my offspring are heralded as "progress", while the other that happens to me directly is disdained, since they result in exactly the same thing. Next time you're at the dentist, have them leave off the lead apron and have them aim the x-ray gun upwards through your groin and crank up the power a bit. According to evolution logic, you could, quite reasonably, become the parent of the first superhuman.
And, irrefutably, there are physiological changes that affect germ cells indirectly. Think "crack babies" here. This "progess" is caused first to the host and propagates to the germline. So, I am not sure I agree that cancer of, say, the gonads or of various brain centers have no effect on progeny. The evidence is that they do.
I double-checked -- "Specie" is indeed a proper word, meaning "in the same kind or shape; as specified".
Regarding abiogenesis and panspermia, you quoted me partially and out of context. I was merely pointing out that evolutionists often reference experiments like Miller's 'organic soup' series as evidence to support evolutionary theory, but these were designed to show how life can come from non-life (abiogenesis) rather than changing one species into another (evolution). Panspermia is an odd one to me, because it isn't evolution and it isn't abiogenesis either. It was synthesized in an effort to deal with the fact that no theory on abiogenenis has ever been proven experimentally and all that have been tried have been abandoned as false. "So," sayeth the 'panspermians', the abiogenesis happened somewhere else -- beyond the reach of researchers and thus their ability to explain and demonstrate it experimentally, but they know it happened just the same -- and then that life got here whole on an intergalactic transport of some sort (such as asteroid fragments bouncing off the surface of Mars and ricocheting here).
Now on to your Wikipedia/Evolution definition reference:
"* explains, and is consisten[sic] with, the vast majority of data"
The data as I see it are: 1) there are lots of different kinds of creatures on the Earth today. 2) Bones from different kinds have been found and similarities noted. 3) No one has ever demonstrated changing one species into another, either naturally or unnaturally, regardless of skeletal similarities. This evidence does not explain and prove the means by which we have the the many kinds of creatures that surround us.
* makes predictions about what should occur or what has occured that can be tested
Okay, I'm open-minded: Turn a duck into a dog by screwing with the duck's DNA.
Exactly: A theoretical picture. I do not dispute that creationism is based on faith, and in my case, it is by no means blind faith. I have studied it extensively. But the same faith issue is true for evolutionists -- it is still very much a theory in which its adherents put great faith based on the things they have been taught. In this, creationists and evolutioists are the same. The Bible clearly says that organisms were created according to their kind, and nowhere does it say that each organism would be an exact copy of itself. To the contrary it specifically points to a great variety with kinds (species).
The flaw in your 'sentences evolving' example is that an intelligence produced them with a specific purpose in mind. This is inarguably an example of intelligent creationism with purposeful intent. You are unwittingly supporting the Bible's position. Put Scrabble letters on the table and when they arrange themselves, without intervention of any kind other than time and chance events, to form those three sentences you will have witnessed something that is thousands of orders of magnitude more likey to occur than one single strand of DNA belonginging to anything living to spontaneously create itself out of random activity. The odds of the latter have been computed with varying results, some as high as 10^40,000, but since no one, not even with intelligent intervention and all modern science has to offer has been able to duplicate it, I'd say at the moment it is impossible without intelligent intervention.
Here's the paradox to your HIV immunity example: If a person wasn't immune before getting HIV it would certainly kill them, according to the facts currently in evidence. No one, to my knowledge, has been cured, either with drugs or by some spontaneous genomic mutation. Those identified with an immunity have been discovered because they have been exposed to a degree believed to be irrecoverably infected but have not become infected. So, they must have had this gene prior to infection, thus no direct evidence of evolution (with these specific subjects). So, logically, they inherited the gene. But, if organisms are not commonly exposed to something, then the mechanisms of evolution are predicted to weed them out. So, why did these genes stay around? If they did persist even though unecessary, then DNA is stable and change-resistant, and thus anti-evolutionary. Besides, changing a beetle into a leopard is evolution, not finding gnats-eyebrow differences within a given species. For this to prove evolution it would have to change one species into another. This example is merely a very weak, very indirect inference data point that doesn't contradict evolutionary theory. But this is no different than some people never getting the Spanish Flu that ravaged the earth ninety years ago. And I've never heard anyone suggest that the Spansh Flu was evidence of evolution in high action.
But if exposure to grave diseases like HIV is what cures humans by correcting genomic shortcomings via direct excitation the evolutionary engine, then by all means we should immediately withdraw all medical treatment and interventions for HIV, and indeed, all diseases afflicting mankind and the animal world, because by intervening we are frustrating the very machinery that will produce the needed genomic immunity. And let's stop removing cancers, because the next human species maybe spawning in one of them. By this logic, we should pump CFC's into the atmosphere to destroy the ozone, because it clearly inhibits evolution. But I believe that even the staunchest evolutionist will argue that these notions are ludicrous. But these satirical examples do highlight the conflict and underscores just how much is still in dispute about evolution -- which proves it is at best a theory, but in my personal view, still a hypothesis.
Okay, I'll stop before all the fundamentalist evolutionsts mod me into oblivion. Or maybe it's too late ;-)
Yes I do, based on the Scientific Method. Most people that understand it recognize that it is still a theory. Proof? Simple: If you yourself contracted a cancer, is it good or is it bad? Cancer, according to evolution, is the engine of progress. Truth is, you'd leave everything just the way it is. Nobody wants their DNA fooled with because they know intuitively that it's a bad thing. Stanley Miller gave up trying to prove his organic soup theory because he could never make it work (one initial success followed by a career of failures) and that he could never eliminate himself from the experiments. Ironically, his experiments were to prove all this could have happened blindly, without intelligent intervention, but he realized after years and years of failures his experiments never worked without his thoughtful intelligence guiding it. So, in pure scientific terminology, evolution is still a theory, since no one has demonstrated exactly how it works and demonstrated it experimentally. And I might also point out that evolution relates to how organisms morph across specie boundaries, not how life appears in the first place. That is the providence of abiogenesis vs. panspermia.
I arrived at creationism using the Sherlock Holmes method: Eliminate the impossible, and whatever's left, however improbable, is the truth. Since evolution is mathematically so remote so as to be impossible I gave up on it. After years of objective and deep academic research that had nothing to do with Bible research. I initially set out to disprove the Bible, but could not unless I abandoned objectivity.
The book The Blind Watchmaker, often cited as having proved evolution, says in one chapter that to transform (evolve) an ordinary squirrel into a flyiong squirrel, one simply needs to find a clumsy squirrel with loose skin and have it fall from trees so often that it soon learns to glide to the ground. Okay, fine. Show me how it's done: get all the regular squirrels you want, and throw them from trees and produce a flying squirrel. If you can, you still haven't proven evolution, because I don't beleive that such an experiment would demonstrate a crossing of specie boundaries. When you've accomplished that feat, you woill have progressed from theory to fact. Otherwise, it's just a theory (hypothesis, actually, since it lacks the detail in the specific mechanisms involved).
As far as the Earth being flat, the Bible pointed out it is a sphere some 3,000 years ago (Isiaih 40:22), some 250 years before Pythagoras. And it never said the Earth is the center of the universe. So, you're just making those things up. And the Bible clearly says that the subconscience is very treacherous and must be carefully monitored and curbed by the conscious mind (James 1:14,15).
As for the final outcome, whether you are correct that the world will continue and man will evolve into some higher species through blind chance, or I am correct in believing the Bible's predictions, only time will tell.
For clarification of this position see the parallel prophecy given to the prophet Ezekiel at Ezek ch 9, where a 'secretary' from God is seen marking the foreheads of those that would be saved. It is clear that they get their mark because of their inner groaning over the detestible things being done in the Earth -- detestible according to God's standards, not their own. All others, starting from the sanctuary (those saying that they are Godly but are falsely so) are to be destoyed by the six other messengers.
The physically tattooed marks and RFID tags are a means to control others, and of course things like these appeal to the masses because these measures seem benign, even helpful. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, what's to fear? But in the end they are a means of control. Today we have security cameras monitoring everything, even traffic flow, cross-referencing vehicle tags. People are being photographed hundreds of times a day in public places and their faces cross-referenced by high-speed computers, police now dress and train as military combatants. Core Internet routers are now archiving every single packet without prejudice. Voice recognition systems are scanning phone conversations in real-time. Fully automted packet-data-examining systems. And so on...it's all very sad, but it is also a warning.
When Hitler began rouding people up, it all seemed benign and even helpful to the majority. Even those being rounded up believed that they had nothing wrong and thus had nothing to fear, according to their own testimony. But those that would not go along with the round-up got rounded up too. Compare that to the entire context of Rev ch 13. Hitler's actions were a dry run for the larger showdown that is to come, but it will be a world-wide affair according to Revelation. And God steps n to protect his own, and gives them the gift of the new paradise on Earth which he has promised.
But now for the University science: According to Stanley Milgram's famous experiment, most people will go along with those perceived to be in authority, no matter how objectionable the request might seem upon first glance. And the Stanford Prison Experiment shows that most people in charge of others will without fail revel in sadism in very short order when given control over others. So, that people will attack those who desire to serve God en masse -- preventing them from even maintaining livlihoods and even from buying and selling to sustain life -- will be willing participants, even those of you who are convinced right now that you would never had help Hitler. Reliable scientific research consistently shows that most people would have, regardless of what they say when asked hypothetically.
(Okay, mighty moderators, protectors of the /. common good, have your way with me. At least it wasn't posted anonymously. And, furthermore, I've actually read and sudied the Bible -- unlike most who are happy to comment as if they know what it says or mod down those that have the courage to repeat what it says -- hehehe.)
This is exactly what you get when you trade freedom and liberty for the illusion of security. Security is always a future risk issue, and only a fool thinks the future is can be controlled by people. Of course there are general precautions, but history has shown that the most effective methods are simply to treat your neighbor as yourself, then only the profoundly selfish, sadistic and crazed are at issue. In which case, you're sunk anyway.
For example, why not empower the State to do daily inspections of every single home to root out 'terrorist cells'? Of course, if this were to be undertaken some "cells" would be found, but the proven reliable sociological effect would yield only the sadistic domination by the very 'security' people responsible for the enforcing the policy. And from the evidence I've seen this behavior cannot be predicted by any level of psychological screening. It's a matter of flawed human nature. And the effect is seen in less than a week, so for all those who think this is slow and unusual and is easily managed, you're simply wrong -- the effect propagates through all echelons of such organizations and is quite thorough and complete.
For those of you following along with the true issues involved, liberty has been redefined by Presidential decree three times in the last 50 years (see EO13083, et al). Of course, the US consitution itself hasn't been changed, but the dictionary used to decode it sure has.
I was speaking more of automated test systems where multiple intruments are coordinated using an external controller.
There are a few non-embedded applications that would indeed benefit. Automated test and measurement is one that I can think of right off the bat. RT probably the last big advantage to VxWorks, so maybe now's a good time to dump your WindRiver stock.
If this were really true, Microsoft would have nothing to worry about. But the truth is that everything they do have to worry -- panic, even -- what they have they either bought or "leveraged" from open source. Microsoft innovates nothing, and this has been well covered. And who cares about WIndows API any more? It is becoming increasingly irrelavent.
What they do very well, indeed, is distort markets with their money (by definition, "anticompetitive"). CIO's and IT departments and developers make no money because of Linux?!? Pure nonsense.
And they are influencing American politics with the promise of jobs -- in India. And all that Microsoft software bought by government agencies is paid for by the tax base. More of "the world produces, America consumes."
Microsoft is very much the problem here, from all vantage points, which is why they have to lock up oatents and politicians with their checkbook.
What you suggest is an abuse of that design. What you suggest is exactly what I am endeavoring to make plain: That Microsoft will use money and politics to allow it to act however it wants, making it too expensive for people to compete, which is abuse of its monopoly power.
Patents themselves are fine. I believe software patents are an abuse in themselves because they cover the written word. Why not start patenting romance novels or how-to books? Or the quickest directions on how to get to the grocery? Because the techniques involved in writing are not unknown, and that's what software is (and don't bother, I've heard all the 'final customization to the hardware' arguments, and they're just plain bogus. In that sense, romance novels are the final customizations for paper, driving directions are the final customization to the notepad.)
Software, books, driving directions are all involved with cognitive thought, and that's not -- or should not be allowed to be -- patentable. The device with the software in it is patentable, but not the software itself, because it's out of context. A new refridgeration technique, and emodied and provable in a new refridgeration device is patentable. The software that turns on the light inside is not distictly patentable, except in the context of the entire apparatus. I realize that this is not how the law is applied now but I am discussing principle here, which is more lofty than simple law. Attempting to fix laws with new laws is a fool's game. If laws are unsuitable or inappropriate, it's the principles that need to be examined.
Microsoft abuses its monopoly power, plain and simple, just like the bully at school beats everyone up to become and remain number one. Everyone sees a bully, but the bully sees he's number one. Microsoft uses money and politics and the court systems to stifle innovation and create an anti-competitive market that favors Microsoft. Regulators are more worried with appearance than correcting these moral abuses. Form over substance. Besides many of the regulators use the very same techniques themselves, so they can't be too zealous.
In the end, Microsoft has become bad for software, bad for business, bad corporate citizen, bad for the economy. Most people know this intuitively, which is why so many rail against them. Or they simply figure out a way to get their face in the Microsoft trough, and then start talking nice about them.
Logically, then, Microsoft would only go to such an expense for financial reward. And they have stated that they would do this 'agressively' -- deliberately overloading the patent process and the reviewers -- they said 3,000 a year, which is just about 1-1/2 applications an hour. To spend Microsoft corporate money on such an endeavor without such a goal would be negligent and a breach of fiduciary responsibilty. Not to mention completely out of established Redmond character.
Microsoft is notorious for abusing monopoly power. If Microsoft was the assignee of the Eolas patent, I seriously doubt their would be any other browser out there but IE (or its duly MS-EULA-based derivitives).
But that's just me.
The parent to my post evidently saw the Microsoft victory as a victory against software patents. It was no such thing. It simply underscored that if you have US$20-30M to throw away on court battles and your opponent does not, you will prevail in court. Anyone that argues against that notion is simply naiive.
And if you think that big money doesn't influence the USPTO, think again. Like every orgaization they look to see *who* they're hearing from. A patent filed by Microosoft using one of the more prestigious patent firms will sail through first action allowance, even if it's perpetual motion. We've all seen some of the stupid ones they've done already.
I take it you're not big on history (other than over a bag of chips and a beer watching some US military sponsored WWII revisionist history piece on the History Channel). Money is right. Money is power. Microsoft is Money.
This isn't an anti-Microsoft rant. It just is reality. There's not a whole lot anyone can do about it either.
Try buying a laptop without Windows, they represent >50% of all the PC's sold now. Better still, try buying one that will run something other than XP. Yeah, yeah, we can all find a really pricey 'linux-ready model" for 2X or 3X the price of the "value systems", but the good bargains are all "Designed for XP" machines, a euphemism for "Only runs XP". I had had a bunch of machines recently that will only run non-XP OS's in 640x480 mode (yes, even W2K). When I called for drivers, I was informed in every case that XP-only drivers would be able to access >640x480.
And as far as the bargian HP's, eMachines, Compaqs, etc, that I get/recommend for my non-techie family and friends, they always come with windows. If you change it, manufacturers won't even honor the power cord warranty unless you reinstall the "factory restore" version of WIndows.
Did you ever think for just one moment that there would be a whole lot more CPU's and arcitecures out there if Microsoft supported them? Do you think that the "mighty and benevolent dictator" Microsoft just might be stifling inovation?
Oh yeah, that's what WinCE is for...sorry
Microsoft has succeeded in controlling the global software market by prevailing in at least these three main areas:
1. Convincing everyone that Windows is the universal platform, when in fact it runs on fewer architectectures (one, mainly) than virtually any other OS around;
2. Exacting an OS tax on virtually every personal computer sold;
3. Using large blocks of public domain code in their software, while getting to treat under law in most jurisdictions as their own copyrighted work.
Now add to that list: Making sure that the only software patent royalties that get paid, get paid to them.
Since the ex post facto rejection of the Eolas patent does nothing to influence software patent law in general, your elation regarding the Eolas patent disallowance is sorely misplaced, IMHO. Microsoft simply paid to get it overturned. All patents in retrospect are obvious, and just about any scrap of paper read 10+ years later can be made to seem preemptive if all you have to do is say that it is.
If Eolas were suing Microsoft on the exact same legal grounds, the suit would have most surely failed. Look at how simply having money -- some report it came largely from Microsoft -- has prolonged the circus that is the SCO lawsuit. It's clearly about money, not software patent law.
You're not supposed to, that's why it's called majority rule. Or mob rule, depending on your view.
It sounds like you want to be represented when you are the minority because your view is never in the majority. But I suppose you'd be the first one crying foul if you were in the majority and you got thrown over because the minority view needed to be respected.
1. Creates Lawyers to turn word-smithing into a for-proft industry, effectively taxing and controlling everything through the sly use of words and a mysticism in untangled the maze of cross-linked and implicitly contradictory laws they themselves have created (and in a way that would make any crashed FAT16 file system blush).
2. Close the economy and make it start feeding on itself, much like a starving animal will begin metabolising its own muscle.
For any with access to it, William Playfair's An Inquiry into the Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations (1805) might be fun reading. And Frederic Bastiat's Economic Sophisms, well beyond copyright and freely available on the web (just don't use a P2P client to get a copy) is also great stuff.
In order to make it palatable, the dentists need a publicist to headline a few high-profile cases where poor dentists are shown losing everything because nobody is buying new dental work anymore. Picture it: a few talking heads discussing how this will eventually devastate the economy, how billions will leave the country to futher line the pockets of foriegn magnates. Forclosures, bad credit card debt, dentists leaving the industry for better prospects in other industries..how the brain-drain is sapping innovation, how the masses are now beginning to suffer from a death of dental professionals...
They should then push for important new legislation to stop all gray-market dental work from being done: The Dental Millenium Universal Hygiene Act. Of course the name has been chosen to impicitly ironic, suggesting that the welfare of the commoner is being looked after.
Oh great, I have to run. The company that makes the turbofan cooling my video card proccessor chip is here with a subpoena demanding I pay for the traquil whir i've been listening to all this time, or else.
Commercial BIOS is slow, cumbersome, and simply a pain to fix and feature. Things like PXE, console redirect, etc. are far more expensive then they should be because the commercial providers see these features as 'high end server features', and thus overcharge for them.
Obviousness also has the element of time: what is obvious today may not have been a year or two ago, and it is always a tricky matter. And there is the matter of everything, once understood, becomes obvious and that's a core irony that patent examiners must contend with.
Also, the FCC exists for this very purpose, that is to coordinate and regulate spectrum usage and uses and resolve related disputes. Thus it is not expected or reasonable that parties to such a dispute to seek relief from, or at the expense of, the product manufacturers. Product manufacturers are not responsible for the intentional misuse of their products (even if some try to make them responsible because they may have 'deeper pockets' than the actual abuser).
I believe that no one has the right (in the USA) to intentionally interfere with the receiving of legitimate radio signals. I do not believe this regulation has such a narrow definition to include only "active" jamming techniques. Since the prohibition is silent on the method, the method is immaterial. If you interfere, however accomplished, you are breaking the law and thus subject to its wrath.
Tech Support Guy speaking to proud HP laptop owner: "Sure, lady, all you have to do is follow these fiften simple steps, just go tou our website...oh yeah, sorry, forgot your computer is horked...right... Okay I' ll talk you through it. Just get a #1 philips screwdriver -- what's that? I'm sorry?!? what do you mean, 'is #1 is the philips the one with the yellow handle?!? How am I suppos--- never mind, send it back, we'll take care of it and get it right back to you. Our current backlog is sixteen weeks. What's that? you found the #1 philips? Swell. Now just don't slip and gouge something or you'll void the warranty. No put on your anti-static strap..."
"Ford Pintos aren't being recalled, gas taks are. Writeup is too sensationalized"
Uh-huh.
It is a commonly held belief that inflation is a general rising in prices, and deflation is the opposite. This is just plain wrong: inflation is an increase in the overall money supply and deflation is the opposite. Rising and falling prices are the end-effects of inflation and deflation. It is generally agreed that inflation and deflation are destructive to the long-term economy, but that is the wrong way to look at it. If you know that money supply is increasing or decreasing and you are first in line at the trough you will profit superamazingly. If you are at the back end, you simply get to eat the vomit of those who gorged and hurled before you.
These 'security initiatives' and whatnot are created to absorb front-end inflation and vice versa. "Trickle-down" is a fool's game. Central Banks ostensibly exist to prevent inlation, but it is quite obvious from the evidence that the exact opposite is true. More proof that those on the inside are the ones that benefit from inflation: the masses are told the opposite. When prices rise, inflation is attacked, but it's already too late. Same with deflation and press reports of impending deflation: this is the best evidence that the money supply is about to increase and that there will be a host of new government initiatives to fight it (absorb the new money before prices rise becuase of its introduction). "Let them eat cake," she said. And money is not created by printing it -- not in any meaningful amount, not any more -- it is created through credit (debt).
Thus, these silly 'initiatives' will not go away until all the money created (inflation) has been absorbed by those that understand this and profit from it. Until such time as the economy demands new ones...