After spending over two hours with Verizon tech "support," I was told that my 3 Mb DSL account was "ineligible" for Verizon's free wi-fi service... even though Verizon's wi-fi page says that the requirement is at least 1.5 Mb DSL (or 20 Mb FIOS).
Forget about Verizon not hitting the right market, or limiting accessibility for non-windows devices: their incompetence in not even allowing a qualified customer to attempt to use the service guarantees failure!!!
Hmmm... from the subject page (and yes, I typed the URL... of course, I don't use IE): "When the http protocol was originally designed, the "@" character was intended to denote a username at a particular site, in the style of http://sir.tim.berners-lee@www.w3.org where sir.tim.berners-lee is the username, and www.w3.org is the name of the site."
I wonder if Frank Weyer or the USPTO are aware of this. IS M$ saying there is prior art which invalidates Frank's patent? Quel fromage!
Ahem... last time I checked, the "origin of Capabilities Maturity Model" (sic) was widely acknowledged to be Watts Humphrey and the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI), not the MITRE Corporation. Click here for some more info. I wonder if my MITRE associates would agree with the statement that MITRE "breaks down all... initiative"??? And I thought it was bad in the Government!
What is at stake for content creators, providers, and users? Let me answer that by turning it around: what is at stake is the very *existence* of the intellectual "marketplace" for creative content.
There are already numerous laws protecting intellectual property. OK... the laws are frequently outdated, and law *is* slow to adapt to rapid technological advances, but it is illegal to engage in software (or movie, CD, etc.) "piracy." If I purchase an audio CD, and make a single copy for archival purposes, or "rip" a track to play on my computer, this activity is protected under the "fair use" doctrine (note that I didn't suggest doing this with a DVD: it's already illegal to exercise my right of fair use with DVDs, thank-you very much!). If I e-mail copies of the CD - or even a single track - to my friends and co-workers (or make it available for distribution through the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) software, like Gnutella, or Kazaa), that is illegal. Period. This is analogous to the rights (and restrictions) which exist for other, more traditional media (e.g., books, videotapes, etc.).
What prevents me from engaging in such intellectual property theft is my moral conviction that it is wrong: creators and owners of intellectual property have the right to be fairly compensated for their labors (I work in an academic institution: I've had works published, so I know a *little* about this!). Requiring the use of "coercive" digital rights management hardware, and emasculating the "fair use" doctrine, is a little like trying to legislate morality, and as we *all* know, you can't do that. (Well... actually, you *can*, but it will do as much good as when the Arkansas State Legislature decreed (back in the 20's? 30's?) that the value of "pi" should be 3: it just ain't so, and no amount of legal gobbledygook will alter that fact! And there's always my favorite: the Prohibition!) Let me put it another way: how many of us drive cars capable of attaining speeds in excess of the highest posted speed limit in the country? What do you think the effect would be if the Congress were to pass legislation that banned the manufacture and importation (or even possession) of such vehicles? After the howls of protest died down, what do you think would happen to car sales in this country?
So... to get back to where I started: what is at stake for the users is their ability to exercise their rights: the right to use a creative work in accordance with existing intellectual property law and the "fair use" doctrine. What is at stake for the creators and providers is the existence of a viable market for their creative works: if we can't enjoy what we've bought and paid for, then we will stop buying it and paying for it. And if we aren't buying it, then neither the creators nor distributors of these creative works will be selling it. At the stroke of a pen - yours - the technological revolution will have come to an end - for us. The solution is *not* to stifle creativity, or disincentivize innovation, but to foster a sense of responsibility in the users, and to encourage the creators and distributors to develop innovative business models and to embrace change (sorry 'bout that... it *was* a little "preachy," but you get the idea - I hope!).
Remember: Apple (TM) didn't get to where they are today ("growing" from 80% of the desktop computer market to less than 10% today) except by the efforts of *many* lawyers jealously protecting every last shred of Apple's intellectual property - until they became a niche player. That's not what the Congress is trying to do here, is it???
_____________ Apple is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
I think "In the future, when the earth was used up" will rank up there with "It was a dark and stormy night" as one of the WORST opening lines ever uttered!
Slashdot Mirror
After spending over two hours with Verizon tech "support," I was told that my 3 Mb DSL account was "ineligible" for Verizon's free wi-fi service ... even though Verizon's wi-fi page says that the requirement is at least 1.5 Mb DSL (or 20 Mb FIOS).
Forget about Verizon not hitting the right market, or limiting accessibility for non-windows devices: their incompetence in not even allowing a qualified customer to attempt to use the service guarantees failure!!!
Anyone here read "Synners" by Pat Cadigan? Remember: It's only impossible in the real world!
Umm ... 200 KW is slightly less than 270 English hp (or slightly more than 270 Metric hp), not 350-400 hp.
Why do they even care??!?
Ever heard of the Porsche Boxter?
Hmmm... from the subject page (and yes, I typed the URL... of course, I don't use IE): "When the http protocol was originally designed, the "@" character was intended to denote a username at a particular site, in the style of http://sir.tim.berners-lee@www.w3.org where sir.tim.berners-lee is the username, and www.w3.org is the name of the site."
I wonder if Frank Weyer or the USPTO are aware of this. IS M$ saying there is prior art which invalidates Frank's patent? Quel fromage!
Ahem... last time I checked, the "origin of Capabilities Maturity Model" (sic) was widely acknowledged to be Watts Humphrey and the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI), not the MITRE Corporation. Click here for some more info. I wonder if my MITRE associates would agree with the statement that MITRE "breaks down all... initiative"??? And I thought it was bad in the Government!
What is at stake for content creators, providers, and users? Let me answer that by turning it around: what is at stake is the very *existence* of the intellectual "marketplace" for creative content.
There are already numerous laws protecting intellectual property. OK... the laws are frequently outdated, and law *is* slow to adapt to rapid technological advances, but it is illegal to engage in software (or movie, CD, etc.) "piracy." If I purchase an audio CD, and make a single copy for archival purposes, or "rip" a track to play on my computer, this activity is protected under the "fair use" doctrine (note that I didn't suggest doing this with a DVD: it's already illegal to exercise my right of fair use with DVDs, thank-you very much!). If I e-mail copies of the CD - or even a single track - to my friends and co-workers (or make it available for distribution through the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) software, like Gnutella, or Kazaa), that is illegal. Period. This is analogous to the rights (and restrictions) which exist for other, more traditional media (e.g., books, videotapes, etc.).
What prevents me from engaging in such intellectual property theft is my moral conviction that it is wrong: creators and owners of intellectual property have the right to be fairly compensated for their labors (I work in an academic institution: I've had works published, so I know a *little* about this!). Requiring the use of "coercive" digital rights management hardware, and emasculating the "fair use" doctrine, is a little like trying to legislate morality, and as we *all* know, you can't do that. (Well... actually, you *can*, but it will do as much good as when the Arkansas State Legislature decreed (back in the 20's? 30's?) that the value of "pi" should be 3: it just ain't so, and no amount of legal gobbledygook will alter that fact! And there's always my favorite: the Prohibition!) Let me put it another way: how many of us drive cars capable of attaining speeds in excess of the highest posted speed limit in the country? What do you think the effect would be if the Congress were to pass legislation that banned the manufacture and importation (or even possession) of such vehicles? After the howls of protest died down, what do you think would happen to car sales in this country?
So... to get back to where I started: what is at stake for the users is their ability to exercise their rights: the right to use a creative work in accordance with existing intellectual property law and the "fair use" doctrine. What is at stake for the creators and providers is the existence of a viable market for their creative works: if we can't enjoy what we've bought and paid for, then we will stop buying it and paying for it. And if we aren't buying it, then neither the creators nor distributors of these creative works will be selling it. At the stroke of a pen - yours - the technological revolution will have come to an end - for us. The solution is *not* to stifle creativity, or disincentivize innovation, but to foster a sense of responsibility in the users, and to encourage the creators and distributors to develop innovative business models and to embrace change (sorry 'bout that... it *was* a little "preachy," but you get the idea - I hope!).
Remember: Apple (TM) didn't get to where they are today ("growing" from 80% of the desktop computer market to less than 10% today) except by the efforts of *many* lawyers jealously protecting every last shred of Apple's intellectual property - until they became a niche player. That's not what the Congress is trying to do here, is it???
_____________
Apple is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
I think "In the future, when the earth was used up" will rank up there with "It was a dark and stormy night" as one of the WORST opening lines ever uttered!