They are paying off a complaint because they do not feel that the legal system, which is ultimately designed to protect the innocent[0] will protect them. Ergo they must feel, on some level, that what they did is seen by the masses as wrong.
You're confusing a lot of things.
1) What a judge will rule is not equal to what the masses think, so your comment about the masses doesn't follow from their action.
2) Just because the justice system is "designed" to protect the innocent doesn't mean it actually protects the innocent, so your comment about feeling or not feeling innocent doesn't follow from their action.
There is the chance of an unjust ruling which has to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to settle.
There are the costs of defending themselves in court which may or may not be recovered by the innocent party.
3) Your logic applies also to Be, since the fact that they settled could be taken to suggest that they don't think they have much of a case.
Oh trust me there is...I hang around with enough people of both genders to know that social stigmas have a great impact.
That's not my point. I'm saying I don't see any such social stigma about games among the young girls I know. One of whom loves, absolutely loves The Sims.
Any new developments made within the U.S. can easily be copied and re-produced in other countries, and possibly even countries with a better comparative advantage than the U.S. (meaning they can do the same for less).
No, that is not correct. This is very important to understand. Comparative advantage works both ways; it cannot conceivably work one way. It makes no sense to say that a country has a better comparative advantage than the U.S. It's really important the concept be understood. It is not an obvious concept. This is not a mere pedantic point, because the genuine concept of comparative advantage contains an insight that changes everything. It's a major, major argument in favor of international trade - i.e., if other countries get richer and more advanced, that will benefit Americans. Contrary to myth, we do not benefit from the backwardness of other countries.
Why bother deregulating ? Really, what is to be gained ?
Isn't cheap power the goal ?
Markets are famous for making things cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, so deregulation on the face of it is a good idea if what you want is cheap power. An example of this is computers. The rapid advance in computer technology is driven private enterprise, e.g., Intel and AMD and Dell and HP and Motorola and Apple, and all the rest. All these companies locked in perpetual competition is what keeps us zipping into the future.
That's not proof that deregulation will work, but it's certainly something to try.
Private-entreprise zealots quickly lose steam whenever you point Hydro-Quebec at them as a shining example of profitable State ownership.
If it's so efficient and so profitable, then it doesn't need to be a monopoly. So it would be fine to end the monopoly and let HQ compete fairly against fully deregulated competitors. I notice that's not happening, and consequently suspect your account is...incomplete.
... every news program on the planet is going to talk about... how we need MORE, MORE, MORE power. Nowhere will you likely hear anything in the mainstream about CONSERVATION. That's a four-letter word in the eyes of the current hyper-consuming society.
However, the patent system as originally envisioned by the U.S. forefathers was a pretty good idea.
Or to reduce it to simpler language, "in an area that I know something about, patents are bad, but in areas that I am sufficiently ignorant about that I am forced to judge purely on the basis of the idea of patenting as originally envisioned before anyone actually had a chance to see what sort of a mess they produced, patents were a pretty good idea."
It is my belief that the reason why nobody ever RTFA is BECAUSE the comments are more interesting. [. ..] Not to mention that the important facts of the article are usually summed up throughout the course of reading people's comments
I know what you mean, but it reminds me of the old joke about a restaurant that nobody ever goes to any more.
A government subsidy comes from tax money, which is taken involuntarily. The idea of "free as in free speech", as I understand it, is that free software is freely created, freely distributed, and freely used. Taxes are not given freely.
Nope, I just now read the actual verdict and the jury did rule that the patent was non-obvious. The newspaper reports apparently just didn't think this worth mentioning.
I have always been troubled by a dangrous ambiguity in the term "obvious". What is obvious to the man in the street is a very different thing from what would be obvious to an expert in the field. I just have to wonder if the jury is using a "lay" sense of obvious. Because when I read the actual verdict document, it says only "Do you find [. ..] patent is invalid due to obviousness." Reading that just as a lay person, I would say, "well, nothing about the field is obvious to me, all these computers are a deep mystery to me, so naturally this isn't obvious either".
If you're on a jury and you're told someone has patented breathing, and you're given evidence that a person is breathing, and you're asked if he infringed the patent, then the answer is obvious, you don't have to think about it. The answer is, "yes", of course the breathing person is infringing the patent.
But it's the wrong question. What you should be asked is, is this patent nutty. Then you can say, "yes, it's nutty, it's invalid."
I read three newspaper articles on this, and not a single one said whether the jury was asked to rule whether the patent in question was frivolous. And that is the key question.
This view that the Constitution enumerates our rights flies in the face of historical evidence on the intent of the founders of this country, and is only going to worsen the problems we're having.
But only some people advocate interpreting the Constitution according to "original intent". I do, but then I'm pretty conservative so that explains that.
We use open source in our work, hence we feel we should give something back.
But isn't there any real bottom-line motivation? For example, I can see the value of improving an open source application for one's own use. I also see the intrinsic interest of programming. Once that's done, then sending out one's own code has virtually zero cost and could have several personal advantages:
1) recognition 2) the modification may be incorporated in future releases, saving the trouble of having to re-improve each new release. 3) free peer review and testing 4) as a contributor, you may be a "favored" customer of the OSS project leader next time you report a problem. 5) Someone may improve on your improvement.
Open source software development could in some ways be like Usenet discussion. You can sit back and lurk, or you can contribute to the discussion. You don't need to contribute for altruistic reasons or to "give something back"; there are tremendous advantages to contributing.
1) ego boost 2) it was on your mind, you wanted to get it off your chest 3) people answer and maybe teach you something 4) you can steer discussion in a direction that interests you
OSS-development-as-public-discussion could provide at least some intuition boosting to help explain how it is possible that it persists despite the lack of direct financial advantage.
Maybe all that OSS needs is the realization that secrecy does not confer very much advantage. People are going to code their own software anyway; companies are going to pay their own internal developers to develop software for company use anyway; the only addition that OSS needs is that people choose to make their source freely available. There is virtually zero direct cost in that, the only significant cost being a loss of competitive advantage if one's direct competitors get a hold of the software. But how significant is that loss, really?
Unless there's a legal catastrophe, open source software is not going away. Unlike Apple Computer, it doesn't need to make money, and therefore it doesn't need mass popularity. It only needs to interest the creators. The reason it will always exist is that many people, for very good reason, prefer no secrets in their software, prefer adherence to standards, prefer the security of public testing and code review, and prefer not to be at the legal and financial mercy of the whim of a profit-oriented corporation.
Gradually, open source software will leak into the mainstream. There's no reason to hurry. It has all the time in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
They are paying off a complaint because they do not feel that the legal system, which is ultimately designed to protect the innocent[0] will protect them. Ergo they must feel, on some level, that what they did is seen by the masses as wrong.
You're confusing a lot of things.
1) What a judge will rule is not equal to what the masses think, so your comment about the masses doesn't follow from their action.
2) Just because the justice system is "designed" to protect the innocent doesn't mean it actually protects the innocent, so your comment about feeling or not feeling innocent doesn't follow from their action.
There is the chance of an unjust ruling which has to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to settle.
There are the costs of defending themselves in court which may or may not be recovered by the innocent party.
3) Your logic applies also to Be, since the fact that they settled could be taken to suggest that they don't think they have much of a case.
Oh trust me there is...I hang around with enough people of both genders to know that social stigmas have a great impact.
That's not my point. I'm saying I don't see any such social stigma about games among the young girls I know. One of whom loves, absolutely loves The Sims.
I'm more inclined to believe in the social stigma effect.
I have a very different take. That there is a significant social stigma seems to me implausible in the extreme.
The real question is why does the ratio between males and females close as women get older? I would say there are two reasons
Maybe younger girls are simply very sociable and like to talk a lot, which doesn't mix easily with game playing.
Any new developments made within the U.S. can easily be copied and re-produced in other countries, and possibly even countries with a better comparative advantage than the U.S. (meaning they can do the same for less).
No, that is not correct. This is very important to understand. Comparative advantage works both ways; it cannot conceivably work one way. It makes no sense to say that a country has a better comparative advantage than the U.S. It's really important the concept be understood. It is not an obvious concept. This is not a mere pedantic point, because the genuine concept of comparative advantage contains an insight that changes everything. It's a major, major argument in favor of international trade - i.e., if other countries get richer and more advanced, that will benefit Americans. Contrary to myth, we do not benefit from the backwardness of other countries.
that 1 line that isn't offending is
# Made by Linus Torvald
So Linux is a shell script?
would not apply to business users of XP
Good, because my copy of XP is corporate. At least that's what the MASTERS OF DEADLY DOOM accompanying file says.
Hydro plants are a substantial capital investment, with a comparatively minimal return
So the bit about the Quebecois hydro plant being amazingly profitable was warm-ish air...
Why bother deregulating ?
Really, what is to be gained ?
Isn't cheap power the goal ?
Markets are famous for making things cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, so deregulation on the face of it is a good idea if what you want is cheap power. An example of this is computers. The rapid advance in computer technology is driven private enterprise, e.g., Intel and AMD and Dell and HP and Motorola and Apple, and all the rest. All these companies locked in perpetual competition is what keeps us zipping into the future.
That's not proof that deregulation will work, but it's certainly something to try.
Private-entreprise zealots quickly lose steam whenever you point Hydro-Quebec at them as a shining example of profitable State ownership.
If it's so efficient and so profitable, then it doesn't need to be a monopoly. So it would be fine to end the monopoly and let HQ compete fairly against fully deregulated competitors. I notice that's not happening, and consequently suspect your account is...incomplete.
... every news program on the planet is going to talk about ... how we need MORE, MORE, MORE power. Nowhere will you likely hear anything in the mainstream about CONSERVATION. That's a four-letter word in the eyes of the current hyper-consuming society.
Actually, "MORE" is a four-letter word.
Wow.... you can read but apparently not much else.
No need for insults.
Where will they move to? This is terrible.
For the record, this was a joke.
Where will they move to? This is terrible.
melting a piece of ice floating on a water body will result in the water level being exactly the same as before
You are correct! We simply apply Archimedes' principle to water itself!
One of the contributors to this 1994 discussion mentions the Y2K problem.
However, the patent system as originally envisioned by the U.S. forefathers was a pretty good idea.
Or to reduce it to simpler language, "in an area that I know something about, patents are bad, but in areas that I am sufficiently ignorant about that I am forced to judge purely on the basis of the idea of patenting as originally envisioned before anyone actually had a chance to see what sort of a mess they produced, patents were a pretty good idea."
That about cover it?
It is my belief that the reason why nobody ever RTFA is BECAUSE the comments are more interesting. [. . .] Not to mention that the important facts of the article are usually summed up throughout the course of reading people's comments
I know what you mean, but it reminds me of the old joke about a restaurant that nobody ever goes to any more.
"Why not?"
"It's too crowded!"
A government subsidy comes from tax money, which is taken involuntarily. The idea of "free as in free speech", as I understand it, is that free software is freely created, freely distributed, and freely used. Taxes are not given freely.
Nope, I just now read the actual verdict and the jury did rule that the patent was non-obvious. The newspaper reports apparently just didn't think this worth mentioning.
.] patent is invalid due to obviousness." Reading that just as a lay person, I would say, "well, nothing about the field is obvious to me, all these computers are a deep mystery to me, so naturally this isn't obvious either".
I have always been troubled by a dangrous ambiguity in the term "obvious". What is obvious to the man in the street is a very different thing from what would be obvious to an expert in the field. I just have to wonder if the jury is using a "lay" sense of obvious. Because when I read the actual verdict document, it says only "Do you find [. .
If you're on a jury and you're told someone has patented breathing, and you're given evidence that a person is breathing, and you're asked if he infringed the patent, then the answer is obvious, you don't have to think about it. The answer is, "yes", of course the breathing person is infringing the patent.
But it's the wrong question. What you should be asked is, is this patent nutty. Then you can say, "yes, it's nutty, it's invalid."
I read three newspaper articles on this, and not a single one said whether the jury was asked to rule whether the patent in question was frivolous. And that is the key question.
This view that the Constitution enumerates our rights flies in the face of historical evidence on the intent of the founders of this country, and is only going to worsen the problems we're having.
But only some people advocate interpreting the Constitution according to "original intent". I do, but then I'm pretty conservative so that explains that.
We use open source in our work, hence we feel we should give something back.
But isn't there any real bottom-line motivation? For example, I can see the value of improving an open source application for one's own use. I also see the intrinsic interest of programming. Once that's done, then sending out one's own code has virtually zero cost and could have several personal advantages:
1) recognition
2) the modification may be incorporated in future releases, saving the trouble of having to re-improve each new release.
3) free peer review and testing
4) as a contributor, you may be a "favored" customer of the OSS project leader next time you report a problem.
5) Someone may improve on your improvement.
Open source software development could in some ways be like Usenet discussion. You can sit back and lurk, or you can contribute to the discussion. You don't need to contribute for altruistic reasons or to "give something back"; there are tremendous advantages to contributing.
1) ego boost
2) it was on your mind, you wanted to get it off your chest
3) people answer and maybe teach you something
4) you can steer discussion in a direction that interests you
OSS-development-as-public-discussion could provide at least some intuition boosting to help explain how it is possible that it persists despite the lack of direct financial advantage.
Maybe all that OSS needs is the realization that secrecy does not confer very much advantage. People are going to code their own software anyway; companies are going to pay their own internal developers to develop software for company use anyway; the only addition that OSS needs is that people choose to make their source freely available. There is virtually zero direct cost in that, the only significant cost being a loss of competitive advantage if one's direct competitors get a hold of the software. But how significant is that loss, really?
Unless there's a legal catastrophe, open source software is not going away. Unlike Apple Computer, it doesn't need to make money, and therefore it doesn't need mass popularity. It only needs to interest the creators. The reason it will always exist is that many people, for very good reason, prefer no secrets in their software, prefer adherence to standards, prefer the security of public testing and code review, and prefer not to be at the legal and financial mercy of the whim of a profit-oriented corporation.
Gradually, open source software will leak into the mainstream. There's no reason to hurry. It has all the time in the world.
Nontransferrable vouchers, and it would be perfect.