I see your point, but to me it's still different even in the case of iOS 6 - yes you are dragging a physical looking element, but that doesn't correspond to anything real - what real-world thing do you drag one way and then the whole thing vanishes? The button itself is physical but not "real".
To me it's just very different than manipulating a very direct physical representation of a real switch on-screen, where the dragging isn't even a flat dragging as it is taking an object through an arc by dragging over as it swings a switch back and forth.
It is a great point that a major issue is that at no point are they showing that action unlock anything. It seems a small point to most of us to go from a switch to an unlock but of such things patents are formed. That may well be wrong, but as that's how the system is you can't argue about t being invalid based on "common sense", when the patent system is built to diverge from same...
You're putting it out there that the MS example has buttons while the iPhone doesn't have any buttons. I'd argue, the MS example is more sophisticated because it supports multiple buttons, while the iPhone has one button: The iPhone. The MS example entirely encapsulates the iPhone's technology and moves forward from there.
I'd say "no" primarily because of the bolt/barrel latches that have been holding doors closed for millenia. The idea of "slide to unlock" is obvious from such devices. "On a computer" is not innovation.
If you actually take the time to watch the video, you might understand the results of UI research are not as obvious as you presume.
For those of you arguing against patents for UI elements in general, this is just HILARIOUS, because this video makes an excellent case for SOMEONE having the patent! =D
Most of the time, I think you guys are just trolling or have a vested interest in the exploitation going on. But for brief moments, one of you manages to convince me that you really are genuinely that stupid, and that I have far fewer peers on this hunk of rock than I thought I did, and it's deeply depressing.
"Apple, and several others, have managed to blatantly hijack the patent system"
Not defending their current practice (slide to unlock and pinch zoom clearly have prior art), but it comes from their past experience.
One obvious example is the keyboard/trackpad layout of all modern laptops. It was Apple on their PowerBooks who pushed the keyboard toward the screen, making room for palmrests and pointing devices below. Prior to that, everyone was putting keyboards tight against the lower edge. They didn't patent it, and the rest of the industry quickly followed.
I never knew that. I hate them just a little more now than I did 5 minutes ago. These trackpads-under-the-palms are fucking terrible.
Not just "I miss the clit-mouse on my old Thinkpad" terrible...
"I need to disable this because I'm constantly moving the cursor with my palms while I try to type and now I need to go buy a USB mouse for this poorly designed piece of shit." terrible.
The only thing worse than granting ridiculously obvious, simple, overly broad, or just plain stupid patents (and the companies trying to enforce them) is the absurd state of copyright protection in the USA.
Did you actually watch the video? You know, where the nice lady discusses the pros and cons of about ten different ways of doing roughly the same thing, and results of the usability studies?
If anything, this video demonstrates this line of work is not obvious or stupid. Arguing over prior art is one thing, but arguing against patenting UI elements in the context of this R&D video is just a little stupid.
Did you seriously see anything there that wasn't painfully obvious? All the video demonstrated to me is that Microsoft throws their money away. It struck me as a bureaucratic butt covering move that they hired her to go through these motions in the first place.
How much more do you think we have to give them before they've gotten all they deserve for work that was largely completed 12 years ago? Setting aside your attachment to the "hate the game not the player" perspective. How much before we can with integrity say "You've been more than fairly compensated, and the whole world needs this, so we're letting them do what they need with it."
Does greed have a boundary? Do you just encourage them to continue forever?
Cars cost more because they are naturally scarce. Every one you make takes time and effort and resources.
Once software is made, it is trivial to make enough for everyone. Every person who could be advantaged by it but isn't is another example of waste and inefficiency.
If you can sit in a room, look at your creation, destroy its capacity to enrich the human experience just out of a spiteful desire to render it scarce when it doesn't have to be, and not be wracked with guilt at what you've done... frankly, you're a monster and have no fucking soul.
No one is suggesting that Microsoft should be compelled to do anything they don't want to do. If they don't want to support it, they don't have to. Just let them do it themselves.
I used to have a No Fear shirt when I was younger that said "Lead, Follow, or Get The Fuck Out Of The Way".
Microsoft and everyone else who uses "Intellectual Property" laws in their business is guilty of the greatest possible sin. They stand in the way of people helping themselves.
Respect won't help me pay my bills. Why should I invest money and innovate when I will get absolutely nothing tangible in return?
Don't, then. Let other people live, you just sit there on a lump and grow moss.
My labor gave them something better than the status quo thus I should be allowed to be compensated a bit more that the status quo for in return for my technological advancement.
I don't see anyone asking you to invent better candles. I just see you asking the world at large to be your goon squad and enforce your right to be "The Candle Guy". Where is our reward? Don't say "my innovation", there is abundant evidence that need causes parallel development, that the answer to the question is right there in the problem for anyone to see, and that you are not a special sort of genius who needs to be won over at all cost.
If there is no reward than it is not worth it to innovate, or do better. Rational human beings know this. It's a basic part of psychology.
No, rational beings pursue excellence in everything they do, because excellence is habit forming, and recognition is emotionally gratifying. You never know what threats tomorrow will bring, the rational thing is to pursue excellence in everything you do regardless of compensation and try to be respected so you have allies against future misfortune.
Only communists such as yourself completely ignore it as it is a very inconvenient fact that goes against the very foundation of the viability of your ideology.
My ideology has brought me to achieve great things, be elected to positions of authority in projects that enriched my life, that of my loved ones, and that of my community. Aside from my terrible taste in women, I'm the living embodiment of both my childhood dreams and my values.
Its the reason why under communism technological and economic stagnation is prevalent.
That's a ridiculous statement. Russia were the first ones to space. Their contributions to science and engineering, literature and philosophy are among the finest of any nation on Earth. Americans can't even get to the ISS without their help.
And Cuba have been thumbing their nose at you and producing a proud culture that is largely self sufficient, has some of the finest medical and dental professionals on the planet and have multiple cultural exports such as cuisine, dance and music. You contribute Big Mac's, Twerking and Lady Gaga.
Frankly, the only reason the US has any success to speak of is the fact that they corrupted foreign officials into accepting their monopoly on printing worthless fiat currency. You're bandits and thieves. Your manufacturing base is not at all respectable. You don't compete to elevate the best man, you compete to subjugate anyone and everyone you can. You are the Prison Culture, locking up more people than China despite their population dwarfing yours. More wasted resources, caused by a system that is unsuited to humanity. You are not efficient, you are wasteful. Despite all that you steal, your population still has poverty. Despite all the communications technology that floods from the four corners of the earth to your shitty country, you still have people kept uninformed as to what the hell is going on.
You couldn't wish for a worse neighbour. So, I say to you, fuck the candles. Sit down and grow moss.
"The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that expanded access to the incorporation of joint-stock companies.
Before the Act, incorporation was possible only by royal charter or private bill and was limited owing to Parliament's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted."
Prior to this Act, companies were governed by the Bubble Act of 1720. They had a charter given to them by the nation. They earned profits, ridiculous profits, but they were a governmental entity responsible for enriching the nation at the expense of other nations, in the same way that a non-profit earns profits but reinvests them in the pursuit of the company charter rather than paying out to shareholders. This was the time of Mercantilism, not Capitalism.
In the USA, forming each individual corporation required a separate act of legislation until New Jersey adopted an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state in 1896. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. And, if you broke the rules, you didn't get a fine, the company had its charter revoked.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this power by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. This was done on the basis that the charter was a contract between the King and the College, and that it violated the Constitution to pass laws to invalidate a contract. The US was no longer a part of the Commonwealth at this time, but that was deemed non-relevant to the contract.
That decision was the beginning of the modern corporation. This was when they moved beyond the control of democratic processes, were relieved of any duty to serve humanity and became all about contracts and shareholders and their duty became empowering the shareholders above all other concerns.
Really? Even with simple products like decorative candles? If I were come up with a novel process of coming up with a unique looking decorative candle that made me distinctly different from my competitors and gave me a competitive advantage, I would be required to publicly disclose it for everyone to see, including my competitors and would immediately lose any advantage I had.
Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.
We don't live in a world where most people are illiterate and working 60 hour weeks. Someone will invent those candles just because it's fun and they have time to be bored. They'll enjoy the respect people give them for having created them, and that will be all the compensation they need. So... if you're that put off by the idea of doing anything useful unless you have a "competitive advantage" over your peers, frankly, it will cost us nothing if you decide to go sit on a tree stump until moss grows on you. Why the hell should we care to be your enforcers?
That may be a good idea for things like medical or aviation related devices where people can die if they fail. There are regulations in these fields for exactly this reason, and that's why it's such an expensive and long, drawn out process to bring new products to markets in highly regulated industries like these.
However, putting that burden on every industry would just move all technology jobs to countries without such regulations. Then what would you do to stop people from buying crappy, poorly supported products from those countries? Moving production doesn't help solve the underlying problem.
For software, it should be sufficient for them to release the code and let someone else take over the market they've given up on. Culturally, we only recognize the profit oriented side of business, and ignore the benefit to society that could come with allowing that intellectual property to go into the public domain once it's no longer commercially viable.
Same way SparkFun lost those yellow multi-meters. Stop the boat at the shore, destroy all the illegal merchandise. Any idiot can manage this task. Many do.
Shorter copyright would actually not hinder but force innovation to happen. Right now, you can invent something and if it turns out to be "gold", you can milk it forever. No need whatsoever to ever invent anything again.
That's supposed to spur innovation? Could someone show me how?
Imagine living in a world where half the population is illiterate and the majority are required to work labor from dawn till dusk, where free time is scarce and every single moment spent pursuing "flights of fancy" instead of pursuing "real work" has a significant cost to the individuals involved.
Copyright was created for such an environment. Did quite well by us in moving beyond that way of living. Now that a high school student has access to publishing tools that will reach a global audience, it's just holding us back, but it was effective when it was created.
Though, it was patents that were responsible for unleashing innovation. Not because they enticed people to innovate, but because they gave us tools to force trade secrets to be disclosed. Patents WERE an "open source movement". That was their reason to exist. It was never to "motivate companies to compete". Hell, companies were non-profit by law back in those days, and had to justify the social good they brought to the community each year or they were dissolved. The idea of motivating them to do the duty they were given after the fact is kind of ridiculous in such a setting.
No its not, manufacturer is responsible for product safety but that doesn't mean anything must be disclosed.
No, but they should be. Cars have ridiculous safety standards, with engineers poking their noses into everything and it hasn't prevented cars from being a success.
I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.
The risk to society is too high for things to continue in this way, and there are many other qualified people who would love to shoulder the responsibility if greed pushes MS or any other company to refuse to work.
Lets draw it like this: Full disclosure of the entire manufacturing process is a mandatory safety requirement that must be met before bringing any product to market.
Let everyone speak, but control the podium supply. Make podiums expensive, but give them away free to those saying what you want to be heard. Use this to control the discussion. Give the illusion that every position you think is important is supported by a rational majority and opposed by a fringe of maniacs. If a subject isn't important to your agenda but is contentious, keep it constantly in the public sphere and use it to keep people divided against each other. Say as little as you can yourself.
Free Speech took a shot to the head. Political Correctness bullshit seems to trump it, every damn time.
Frankly NOW I'm thinking of totally dumping Firefox.
I think having social structures to subsidize the healthy development of nuclear families is important, and have always been happy to pay more taxes than my married peers without complaint. That is what marriage is there for.
But there are a group of sexual deviants who aren't content to simply be left to enjoy their perversions without interference. No, they want to steal those resources that have been set aside for the future and use them to fuel more decadence. And, Mozilla are standing in solidarity with them.
They crossed the line from "outsider" to "aggressor" when they did that.
You know what the general problem with society today is? The strong and the fit gave considerations to the weak and unfit because they have compassion and wanted the weak and unfit to still be able to live with dignity and security. But, somewhere along the way, the weak and unfit forgot that these considerations were given compassionately, and came to actually believe that THEY were the strong and the fit.
Personally, I find it very amusing that you're having serious discussions about the ethics of long distance space missions when you can't even get their astronauts to ISS without the Russians, and you're imposing sanctions on them this very moment.
Not real sanctions, more like those really annoying passive aggressive types that you tell them to do something, they give you the finger, then they go do it while muttering under their breath.
Canonical is genius on wasting money , they start so many project , and neither of them actually works great . just look at unity , mir and so many other. e.g unity first written in (i think) gtk , then Canonical created nux (c++ framework), then ported to nux , and unity 2 to qml , and now they port whole unity to Qt again. something same will happen for mir . then no serious company never will look at mir seriously (like nvidia ATI )
Go found a company in your parents garage and sell it for half a billion dollars. Then you can "waste" money too.
Throwing out "the state" is the easy bit, the real problem has always been and will always be - then what, Napoleon, Mugabe? - We already know anarchy does not work, if it did we wouldn't be "trapped" within our respective democratic nation sates at this point in our evolution, right?
Actually, Anarchy DOES work, and HAS worked. The word, and the concept, come from the ancient city-state of Athens, which isn't known for being full of fools.
It worked in Spain, and from a historical perspective, very recently.
When Anarchy was instituted, productivity went UP, not down. People work harder, smarter and better when they don't feel like they're working to enrich someone else.
The problem was that systems with flat power structures are not as efficient at reacting to changing conditions. Vertical hierarchies make humans MIGHTY. Which is why the Anarchists got their asses kicked by the Fascists.
What is needed is a system that can easily transition from a flat power structure to a hierarchy and back again as needed, without requiring a bloody revolution. I'm currently working with a few people on designing technology to achieve this.
I wrote about it here, if you're interested in tearing the idea apart in greater detail...
No easy answers to be found in it, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I believe that what it really boils down to is, my privacy doesn't come from you not knowing what I'm doing, it comes from you not forcing me to interact with or acknowledge you.
You want to experience this for yourself? Go piss in a urinal. The other guy is right there. You have no secrets. But, you all stare blankly at the wall, do what you've got to do, and you're fine with it.
We need to establish taboo's as a society, that's all. It's already happening. That's what the efforts to combat "cyber-bullying" are, an effort to establish appropriate taboo's.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but... have you EATEN a microwave dinner?
Quality doesn't matter. Only convenience.
I've read interviews where patent clerks said precisely that. I'm not motivated enough to look for them, but it IS true.
I see your point, but to me it's still different even in the case of iOS 6 - yes you are dragging a physical looking element, but that doesn't correspond to anything real - what real-world thing do you drag one way and then the whole thing vanishes? The button itself is physical but not "real".
To me it's just very different than manipulating a very direct physical representation of a real switch on-screen, where the dragging isn't even a flat dragging as it is taking an object through an arc by dragging over as it swings a switch back and forth.
It is a great point that a major issue is that at no point are they showing that action unlock anything. It seems a small point to most of us to go from a switch to an unlock but of such things patents are formed. That may well be wrong, but as that's how the system is you can't argue about t being invalid based on "common sense", when the patent system is built to diverge from same...
You're putting it out there that the MS example has buttons while the iPhone doesn't have any buttons. I'd argue, the MS example is more sophisticated because it supports multiple buttons, while the iPhone has one button: The iPhone. The MS example entirely encapsulates the iPhone's technology and moves forward from there.
I'd say "no" primarily because of the bolt/barrel latches that have been holding doors closed for millenia. The idea of "slide to unlock" is obvious from such devices. "On a computer" is not innovation.
If you actually take the time to watch the video, you might understand the results of UI research are not as obvious as you presume.
For those of you arguing against patents for UI elements in general, this is just HILARIOUS, because this video makes an excellent case for SOMEONE having the patent! =D
Most of the time, I think you guys are just trolling or have a vested interest in the exploitation going on. But for brief moments, one of you manages to convince me that you really are genuinely that stupid, and that I have far fewer peers on this hunk of rock than I thought I did, and it's deeply depressing.
"Apple, and several others, have managed to blatantly hijack the patent system"
Not defending their current practice (slide to unlock and pinch zoom clearly have prior art), but it comes from their past experience.
One obvious example is the keyboard/trackpad layout of all modern laptops. It was Apple on their PowerBooks who pushed the keyboard toward the screen, making room for palmrests and pointing devices below. Prior to that, everyone was putting keyboards tight against the lower edge. They didn't patent it, and the rest of the industry quickly followed.
I never knew that. I hate them just a little more now than I did 5 minutes ago. These trackpads-under-the-palms are fucking terrible.
Not just "I miss the clit-mouse on my old Thinkpad" terrible...
"I need to disable this because I'm constantly moving the cursor with my palms while I try to type and now I need to go buy a USB mouse for this poorly designed piece of shit." terrible.
The only thing worse than granting ridiculously obvious, simple, overly broad, or just plain stupid patents (and the companies trying to enforce them) is the absurd state of copyright protection in the USA.
Did you actually watch the video? You know, where the nice lady discusses the pros and cons of about ten different ways of doing roughly the same thing, and results of the usability studies?
If anything, this video demonstrates this line of work is not obvious or stupid. Arguing over prior art is one thing, but arguing against patenting UI elements in the context of this R&D video is just a little stupid.
Did you seriously see anything there that wasn't painfully obvious? All the video demonstrated to me is that Microsoft throws their money away. It struck me as a bureaucratic butt covering move that they hired her to go through these motions in the first place.
Indeed. Why would I want one of your silly "microwaves" when I can go to restaurants. It'll never take off.
How much more do you think we have to give them before they've gotten all they deserve for work that was largely completed 12 years ago? Setting aside your attachment to the "hate the game not the player" perspective. How much before we can with integrity say "You've been more than fairly compensated, and the whole world needs this, so we're letting them do what they need with it."
Does greed have a boundary? Do you just encourage them to continue forever?
Your position is really out there, you know that?
Cars cost more because they are naturally scarce. Every one you make takes time and effort and resources.
Once software is made, it is trivial to make enough for everyone. Every person who could be advantaged by it but isn't is another example of waste and inefficiency.
If you can sit in a room, look at your creation, destroy its capacity to enrich the human experience just out of a spiteful desire to render it scarce when it doesn't have to be, and not be wracked with guilt at what you've done... frankly, you're a monster and have no fucking soul.
No one is suggesting that Microsoft should be compelled to do anything they don't want to do. If they don't want to support it, they don't have to. Just let them do it themselves.
I used to have a No Fear shirt when I was younger that said "Lead, Follow, or Get The Fuck Out Of The Way".
Microsoft and everyone else who uses "Intellectual Property" laws in their business is guilty of the greatest possible sin. They stand in the way of people helping themselves.
Respect won't help me pay my bills. Why should I invest money and innovate when I will get absolutely nothing tangible in return?
Don't, then. Let other people live, you just sit there on a lump and grow moss.
My labor gave them something better than the status quo thus I should be allowed to be compensated a bit more that the status quo for in return for my technological advancement.
I don't see anyone asking you to invent better candles. I just see you asking the world at large to be your goon squad and enforce your right to be "The Candle Guy". Where is our reward? Don't say "my innovation", there is abundant evidence that need causes parallel development, that the answer to the question is right there in the problem for anyone to see, and that you are not a special sort of genius who needs to be won over at all cost.
If there is no reward than it is not worth it to innovate, or do better. Rational human beings know this. It's a basic part of psychology.
No, rational beings pursue excellence in everything they do, because excellence is habit forming, and recognition is emotionally gratifying. You never know what threats tomorrow will bring, the rational thing is to pursue excellence in everything you do regardless of compensation and try to be respected so you have allies against future misfortune.
Only communists such as yourself completely ignore it as it is a very inconvenient fact that goes against the very foundation of the viability of your ideology.
My ideology has brought me to achieve great things, be elected to positions of authority in projects that enriched my life, that of my loved ones, and that of my community. Aside from my terrible taste in women, I'm the living embodiment of both my childhood dreams and my values.
Its the reason why under communism technological and economic stagnation is prevalent.
That's a ridiculous statement. Russia were the first ones to space. Their contributions to science and engineering, literature and philosophy are among the finest of any nation on Earth. Americans can't even get to the ISS without their help.
And Cuba have been thumbing their nose at you and producing a proud culture that is largely self sufficient, has some of the finest medical and dental professionals on the planet and have multiple cultural exports such as cuisine, dance and music. You contribute Big Mac's, Twerking and Lady Gaga.
Frankly, the only reason the US has any success to speak of is the fact that they corrupted foreign officials into accepting their monopoly on printing worthless fiat currency. You're bandits and thieves. Your manufacturing base is not at all respectable. You don't compete to elevate the best man, you compete to subjugate anyone and everyone you can. You are the Prison Culture, locking up more people than China despite their population dwarfing yours. More wasted resources, caused by a system that is unsuited to humanity. You are not efficient, you are wasteful. Despite all that you steal, your population still has poverty. Despite all the communications technology that floods from the four corners of the earth to your shitty country, you still have people kept uninformed as to what the hell is going on.
You couldn't wish for a worse neighbour. So, I say to you, fuck the candles. Sit down and grow moss.
"The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that expanded access to the incorporation of joint-stock companies.
Before the Act, incorporation was possible only by royal charter or private bill and was limited owing to Parliament's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Prior to this Act, companies were governed by the Bubble Act of 1720. They had a charter given to them by the nation. They earned profits, ridiculous profits, but they were a governmental entity responsible for enriching the nation at the expense of other nations, in the same way that a non-profit earns profits but reinvests them in the pursuit of the company charter rather than paying out to shareholders. This was the time of Mercantilism, not Capitalism.
In the USA, forming each individual corporation required a separate act of legislation until New Jersey adopted an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state in 1896. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. And, if you broke the rules, you didn't get a fine, the company had its charter revoked.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this power by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. This was done on the basis that the charter was a contract between the King and the College, and that it violated the Constitution to pass laws to invalidate a contract. The US was no longer a part of the Commonwealth at this time, but that was deemed non-relevant to the contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
That decision was the beginning of the modern corporation. This was when they moved beyond the control of democratic processes, were relieved of any duty to serve humanity and became all about contracts and shareholders and their duty became empowering the shareholders above all other concerns.
but it was effective when it was created.
The scientific evidence for that claim is nonexistent.
People who think science is the right tool for every problem domain are not as smart as they think they are.
Really? Even with simple products like decorative candles? If I were come up with a novel process of coming up with a unique looking decorative candle that made me distinctly different from my competitors and gave me a competitive advantage, I would be required to publicly disclose it for everyone to see, including my competitors and would immediately lose any advantage I had.
Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.
We don't live in a world where most people are illiterate and working 60 hour weeks. Someone will invent those candles just because it's fun and they have time to be bored. They'll enjoy the respect people give them for having created them, and that will be all the compensation they need. So... if you're that put off by the idea of doing anything useful unless you have a "competitive advantage" over your peers, frankly, it will cost us nothing if you decide to go sit on a tree stump until moss grows on you. Why the hell should we care to be your enforcers?
That may be a good idea for things like medical or aviation related devices where people can die if they fail. There are regulations in these fields for exactly this reason, and that's why it's such an expensive and long, drawn out process to bring new products to markets in highly regulated industries like these.
However, putting that burden on every industry would just move all technology jobs to countries without such regulations. Then what would you do to stop people from buying crappy, poorly supported products from those countries? Moving production doesn't help solve the underlying problem.
For software, it should be sufficient for them to release the code and let someone else take over the market they've given up on. Culturally, we only recognize the profit oriented side of business, and ignore the benefit to society that could come with allowing that intellectual property to go into the public domain once it's no longer commercially viable.
Same way SparkFun lost those yellow multi-meters. Stop the boat at the shore, destroy all the illegal merchandise. Any idiot can manage this task. Many do.
Shorter copyright would actually not hinder but force innovation to happen. Right now, you can invent something and if it turns out to be "gold", you can milk it forever. No need whatsoever to ever invent anything again.
That's supposed to spur innovation? Could someone show me how?
Imagine living in a world where half the population is illiterate and the majority are required to work labor from dawn till dusk, where free time is scarce and every single moment spent pursuing "flights of fancy" instead of pursuing "real work" has a significant cost to the individuals involved.
Copyright was created for such an environment. Did quite well by us in moving beyond that way of living. Now that a high school student has access to publishing tools that will reach a global audience, it's just holding us back, but it was effective when it was created.
Though, it was patents that were responsible for unleashing innovation. Not because they enticed people to innovate, but because they gave us tools to force trade secrets to be disclosed. Patents WERE an "open source movement". That was their reason to exist. It was never to "motivate companies to compete". Hell, companies were non-profit by law back in those days, and had to justify the social good they brought to the community each year or they were dissolved. The idea of motivating them to do the duty they were given after the fact is kind of ridiculous in such a setting.
No its not, manufacturer is responsible for product safety but that doesn't mean anything must be disclosed.
No, but they should be. Cars have ridiculous safety standards, with engineers poking their noses into everything and it hasn't prevented cars from being a success.
I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.
The risk to society is too high for things to continue in this way, and there are many other qualified people who would love to shoulder the responsibility if greed pushes MS or any other company to refuse to work.
I don't think so. Full disclosure should limit liability and increase our satisfaction with our merchandise. Happy people have no need for lawyers.
Lets draw it like this: Full disclosure of the entire manufacturing process is a mandatory safety requirement that must be met before bringing any product to market.
Let everyone speak, but control the podium supply. Make podiums expensive, but give them away free to those saying what you want to be heard. Use this to control the discussion. Give the illusion that every position you think is important is supported by a rational majority and opposed by a fringe of maniacs. If a subject isn't important to your agenda but is contentious, keep it constantly in the public sphere and use it to keep people divided against each other. Say as little as you can yourself.
That's what it means to be English.
Free Speech took a shot to the head. Political Correctness bullshit seems to trump it, every damn time.
Frankly NOW I'm thinking of totally dumping Firefox.
I think having social structures to subsidize the healthy development of nuclear families is important, and have always been happy to pay more taxes than my married peers without complaint. That is what marriage is there for.
But there are a group of sexual deviants who aren't content to simply be left to enjoy their perversions without interference. No, they want to steal those resources that have been set aside for the future and use them to fuel more decadence. And, Mozilla are standing in solidarity with them.
They crossed the line from "outsider" to "aggressor" when they did that.
You know what the general problem with society today is? The strong and the fit gave considerations to the weak and unfit because they have compassion and wanted the weak and unfit to still be able to live with dignity and security. But, somewhere along the way, the weak and unfit forgot that these considerations were given compassionately, and came to actually believe that THEY were the strong and the fit.
It's about time that was rectified.
We could, we just don't want to.
Personally, I find it very amusing that you're having serious discussions about the ethics of long distance space missions when you can't even get their astronauts to ISS without the Russians, and you're imposing sanctions on them this very moment.
Not real sanctions, more like those really annoying passive aggressive types that you tell them to do something, they give you the finger, then they go do it while muttering under their breath.
The US is a joke.
Canonical is genius on wasting money , they start so many project , and neither of them actually works great . just look at unity , mir and so many other.
e.g unity first written in (i think) gtk , then Canonical created nux (c++ framework), then ported to nux , and unity 2 to qml , and now they port whole unity to Qt again.
something same will happen for mir . then no serious company never will look at mir seriously (like nvidia ATI )
Go found a company in your parents garage and sell it for half a billion dollars. Then you can "waste" money too.
Try Copy. It's cheap and you get a lot of free storage for referring people.
You forgot to say "Tell em umafuckit sent you!".
Throwing out "the state" is the easy bit, the real problem has always been and will always be - then what, Napoleon, Mugabe? - We already know anarchy does not work, if it did we wouldn't be "trapped" within our respective democratic nation sates at this point in our evolution, right?
Actually, Anarchy DOES work, and HAS worked. The word, and the concept, come from the ancient city-state of Athens, which isn't known for being full of fools.
It worked in Spain, and from a historical perspective, very recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
When Anarchy was instituted, productivity went UP, not down. People work harder, smarter and better when they don't feel like they're working to enrich someone else.
The problem was that systems with flat power structures are not as efficient at reacting to changing conditions. Vertical hierarchies make humans MIGHTY. Which is why the Anarchists got their asses kicked by the Fascists.
What is needed is a system that can easily transition from a flat power structure to a hierarchy and back again as needed, without requiring a bloody revolution. I'm currently working with a few people on designing technology to achieve this.
I wrote about it here, if you're interested in tearing the idea apart in greater detail...
http://slashdot.org/journal/49...
I wrote an essay on this very topic a few weeks ago entitled "Privacy and Secrecy" and published it in my journal.
http://slashdot.org/~ShieldW0l...
No easy answers to be found in it, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I believe that what it really boils down to is, my privacy doesn't come from you not knowing what I'm doing, it comes from you not forcing me to interact with or acknowledge you.
You want to experience this for yourself? Go piss in a urinal. The other guy is right there. You have no secrets. But, you all stare blankly at the wall, do what you've got to do, and you're fine with it.
We need to establish taboo's as a society, that's all. It's already happening. That's what the efforts to combat "cyber-bullying" are, an effort to establish appropriate taboo's.