here's some advice. it's going to be a bit difficult to wrap your 7th grade brain around it, but make some effort. mmkay ?
Not being a homophobe doesn't mean i'm homosexual. Being a homophobe means you're *afraid* of gay people.
I didn't say you deserved to lose your job. Losing your job is terrible. What also is terrible is to see someone who is so hurt that he can't let go of losing his job and move on, taking it out on people he has never met and doesn't know. You spend a lot of time and energy being 'angry guy', to the point of making almost every post you make about you and your woes.
it's sad to see posts like yours. I feel bad for you and sympathize, I do. But if anyone in real life makes the connection, I can assure you it won't do anything for your reputation or credibility as an intelligent person.
now, if someone will just hire me...maybe if I can fool them into thinking I'm not a homophobic, self-absorbed bigot complainer...whew - that'll be hard to do.
don't even reply. the guy is a bigot, freak, and gets his rocks off on baiting people with insults.
my suggestion on how to deal with him is to give him a poke and a prod every now and again about himself: he's a fat, bitter, redneck Arizona kid with a great ability to start arguments, but can't back them up when it really comes down to it.
oh, and he's angry about pretty much everything, which makes him a whiner. He makes himself feel bigger/better than intelligent posters on this board by not commenting on the subject at hand, but insulting the person who is making the comment. sophmoric at best.
(he's one of those guys who you might see at a software/computer conference who sits in the back, and asks questions that go on and on and makes everyone's eyes roll.)
so my suggestion is to either agree with him, or don't even bother replying. your time is better spent staring at the wall than to listen to him. think of him as the little whiney dog that won't shut up....at some point, it just becomes background noise.
it's wrong in the way that the words 'innovation' and 'pointless' are used and defined.
Innovation, in and of itself, is not bad at all. It is the product or process or idea that has no merit, or is realized to have no value. But even with those *without* any value to it creators, the public can, and does, benefit (sometimes greatly) from that exercise.
Example: the innovation that ANYTHING could be sold on the internet. or the innovation that brought about the idea and business model solely resting on advertising revenue. did it work ? no.
did people lose their jobs, and billions of dollars ? yes. but that doesn't mean that the exercise was "pointless"...to the contrary, the current environment is now able to change and better predict future ideas on these precedents.
"pointless" is a word that is not only subjective, but I would say incorrect in this article. Replace the word "pointless" with "sometimes doesn't produce something that the originators can't make money from".
they can make money, and still put the source code in the patent! software patents disregard the original concept of patents...namely, you have to SHOW what you are patening, including the inner workings of the discovery/invention.
if they want a patent, then include the source.
not placing source in software patents goes against what patents were made for. and let me guess, after 20 years, they'll extend it ? BULLSH*T.
does ANYONE know of lawmakers/senators that are out to rehaul the patent system ? ANYONE ?
"It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents."
no kidding. the USPO appears, in some cases, to not only be lenient, but to be completely oblivious to the purpose of having patents, as well as having wild interpretations of patent law.
software patents, the way that they are currently handled, is incorrect, with regards to the original means that was set out by even Thomas Jefferson himself.
to be able to patent compiled binary code, without regards to the source, or ENTIRE details of the mechanism that the software is implying is insane, and will continue to destroy the legal ability to innovate based on derivative work.
it IS independent. that means that they don't have a corporation telling them what to print.
name one other independent source of original content on the web that gets 3 million unique visitors a day.
name ONE, and i'll call you smart.
in this case, it's not a freedom of speech issue. not from first glance, anyway. maybe it is, but more on that later...
what *is* happening here is law (whether temporary or not) empowering the state to inject control of content WITHIN the network. this goes against the original design of the Internet, which allowed for control only at the ENDs of the network (i.e. your house, the library, school, etc.)
not having control of content *within* the network is a good thing. in fact, it is for that exact reason that the innovations we have seen with the Internet (and its protocols) have been able to come about. once their is control placed WITHIN the network (i.e. the ISPs or Tier1 providers) then the entire network is affected in a controlled way. that is BAD for innovation and creativity, and can kill any future creations that might come about.
now, about the freedom of speech part of the constitution. that's actually the best part of the constitution. it guarantees that someone who asks questions of his government (and therefore inact change in it) cannot be punished or held silent by anyone who might not agree. it is exactly that part of the constitution that would ALLOW us to "change the specs" of our project.
p.s. it's the US government, not a software design project. there are some great parts of it, and some not so great parts of it. believe me when i say that not everyone thinks that it is handed down on stone tablets. far from it. that's the beauty of it.
that they shouldn't be blocking ANYTHING. End organizations (i.e. where you can view the porn, like your house, school, etc.) should be able to control access.
are you suggesting that the STATE decide what content ISP customers can see and what they can't ? what if the Democratic Senator from that state decides that you can't see Republican websites ? or Catholic ones ? or Jewish ones ? yes, child porn is bad. so are a lot of things that are in newspapers, cable TV, and on the radio.
but to give the control of that content to the people RUNNING the network flies in the face of the end-to-end design the Internet was built with.
once you put control within the network, not at its ends, you have a situation where the vested interests (in this case, the state) can decide what is good and what is bad. that, my friend, is worse than ANY child porn you can find.
i think that, the term "slippery slope" aside...you get the meaning.
fallacious, meaning that it's not certain to come to that end. but it doesn't mean that it WON'T or CAN'T. read the articles on "slippery slope"'s fallaciousness.
Empowering an ISP to block certain content is to blatantly go against the end-to-end design which the Internet was built on.
It is a slippery slope indeed. Setting a precedent like this is to give the courts the ability (i.e. and high powered self interest lawyers of corporations) to CONTROL the content layer of the Internet.
Porn is bad. No doubt. But is a historical image gallery of lynchings in the American South ? Is the image of Jesus in a jar of urine ? How about a website that criticizes Republicans ? Democrats ? Catholics ? Jews ?
Controlling the access to certain content should exist as the ENDS of the network, not the network itself.
take the term "slippery slope" the way it is meant, not a study in logical deduction with certainty.
you know what the poster meant. and he's right.
allowing ISPs (or even legally binding them) to control the content layer flies in the face of the end-to-end design that the Internet was built with.
Re:I'm Sacrificing +2 Karma To Say This...
on
Buy a Segway... Please
·
· Score: 0, Troll
come on....give me another one of those bones, puppy dog! give me the mcdaniel thingy!
you think motorcycles look like they're compensating for something, yet you think welding 2 segways together and wrapping kevlar around it DOESN'T look like it's compensating ? yeah, *that* won't look ridiculous. right.
maybe direct your opinions that it looks 'gay' to the police forces in NH, MA, and GA:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/021118/5/qbt4.html
http://www.segway.com/aboutus/press_releases/pr_12 0701.html
http://www.segwaychat.com/topics/306-segway.htm
p.s. you think you're like 'most' people ? think again. take a trip outside of your republican right-wing-freak-ridden-ufo-chasing-tinfoil-hat-we aring-vortex-hiking state. you'll see that 'most' people are definitely not like you.
what is this, 1982 ?
i was pretty nerdy in high school, and had no problems, or felt 'persecuted' due to being smart.
it's as if the world was a John Hughes movie. people get made fun of if they are smart, dumb, big, small, weak, or dopey.
where i come from, being a nerd is what got me laid.
not at all. what's important here is that there is a precedent set in yet another identity-theft case.
the more diverse cases that sets precedent, the better legal progress is made.
haha...this used to annoy me, but now it's just plain funny. it's almost pavlovian.
i can almost craft a post that *won't* make you repeat that "punish McDaniel" stuff, but what's the fun in that ?
seriously, tho. do you know anyone who has actually called this guy, or his mom ? hopefully they've changed their number. why don't you suggest what people should SAY when they call the number ? like some sort of old school telephone prank. hahaha...it kills me just to think about it.
think of it: i could *cause*, indirectly, someone to be annoyed, in Georgia, just because i annoyed you! man, that is Buddhism interconnectedness if i've ever heard it.
Slashdot Mirror
here's some advice. it's going to be a bit difficult to wrap your 7th grade brain around it, but make some effort. mmkay ?
Not being a homophobe doesn't mean i'm homosexual.
Being a homophobe means you're *afraid* of gay people.
I didn't say you deserved to lose your job. Losing your job is terrible. What also is terrible is to see someone who is so hurt that he can't let go of losing his job and move on, taking it out on people he has never met and doesn't know. You spend a lot of time and energy being 'angry guy', to the point of making almost every post you make about you and your woes.
it's sad to see posts like yours. I feel bad for you and sympathize, I do. But if anyone in real life makes the connection, I can assure you it won't do anything for your reputation or credibility as an intelligent person.
yeah, finally!
now, if someone will just hire me...maybe if I can fool them into thinking I'm not a homophobic, self-absorbed bigot complainer...whew - that'll be hard to do.
don't even reply. the guy is a bigot, freak, and gets his rocks off on baiting people with insults.
my suggestion on how to deal with him is to give him a poke and a prod every now and again about himself: he's a fat, bitter, redneck Arizona kid with a great ability to start arguments, but can't back them up when it really comes down to it.
oh, and he's angry about pretty much everything, which makes him a whiner. He makes himself feel bigger/better than intelligent posters on this board by not commenting on the subject at hand, but insulting the person who is making the comment. sophmoric at best.
(he's one of those guys who you might see at a software/computer conference who sits in the back, and asks questions that go on and on and makes everyone's eyes roll.)
so my suggestion is to either agree with him, or don't even bother replying. your time is better spent staring at the wall than to listen to him. think of him as the little whiney dog that won't shut up....at some point, it just becomes background noise.
it's wrong in the way that the words 'innovation' and 'pointless' are used and defined. Innovation, in and of itself, is not bad at all. It is the product or process or idea that has no merit, or is realized to have no value. But even with those *without* any value to it creators, the public can, and does, benefit (sometimes greatly) from that exercise. Example: the innovation that ANYTHING could be sold on the internet. or the innovation that brought about the idea and business model solely resting on advertising revenue. did it work ? no. did people lose their jobs, and billions of dollars ? yes. but that doesn't mean that the exercise was "pointless"...to the contrary, the current environment is now able to change and better predict future ideas on these precedents. "pointless" is a word that is not only subjective, but I would say incorrect in this article. Replace the word "pointless" with "sometimes doesn't produce something that the originators can't make money from".
google is not all that bad...but software patents should be requiring applicants to include their source.
they can make money, and still put the source code in the patent! software patents disregard the original concept of patents...namely, you have to SHOW what you are patening, including the inner workings of the discovery/invention. if they want a patent, then include the source.
not placing source in software patents goes against what patents were made for. and let me guess, after 20 years, they'll extend it ? BULLSH*T. does ANYONE know of lawmakers/senators that are out to rehaul the patent system ? ANYONE ?
you know, the company that apparently everyone wants to DIE ? what other online magazine would/has run this ?
"It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents." no kidding. the USPO appears, in some cases, to not only be lenient, but to be completely oblivious to the purpose of having patents, as well as having wild interpretations of patent law. software patents, the way that they are currently handled, is incorrect, with regards to the original means that was set out by even Thomas Jefferson himself. to be able to patent compiled binary code, without regards to the source, or ENTIRE details of the mechanism that the software is implying is insane, and will continue to destroy the legal ability to innovate based on derivative work.
"letting" lower class ? what country do you live in ? if kids can learn from using the internet, then why not ? do you need any better reason ?
again: dumb. that's Slate, not Salon.
i *DO* know how much they pay writers, and they pay just as much as any other struggling magazine.
it IS independent. that means that they don't have a corporation telling them what to print. name one other independent source of original content on the web that gets 3 million unique visitors a day. name ONE, and i'll call you smart.
in this case, it's not a freedom of speech issue. not from first glance, anyway. maybe it is, but more on that later...
what *is* happening here is law (whether temporary or not) empowering the state to inject control of content WITHIN the network. this goes against the original design of the Internet, which allowed for control only at the ENDs of the network (i.e. your house, the library, school, etc.)
not having control of content *within* the network is a good thing. in fact, it is for that exact reason that the innovations we have seen with the Internet (and its protocols) have been able to come about. once their is control placed WITHIN the network (i.e. the ISPs or Tier1 providers) then the entire network is affected in a controlled way.
that is BAD for innovation and creativity, and can kill any future creations that might come about.
now, about the freedom of speech part of the constitution. that's actually the best part of the constitution. it guarantees that someone who asks questions of his government (and therefore inact change in it) cannot be punished or held silent by anyone who might not agree. it is exactly that part of the constitution that would ALLOW us to "change the specs" of our project.
p.s. it's the US government, not a software design project. there are some great parts of it, and some not so great parts of it. believe me when i say that not everyone thinks that it is handed down on stone tablets. far from it. that's the beauty of it.
that they shouldn't be blocking ANYTHING. End organizations (i.e. where you can view the porn, like your house, school, etc.) should be able to control access.
are you suggesting that the STATE decide what content ISP customers can see and what they can't ? what if the Democratic Senator from that state decides that you can't see Republican websites ? or Catholic ones ? or Jewish ones ? yes, child porn is bad. so are a lot of things that are in newspapers, cable TV, and on the radio.
but to give the control of that content to the people RUNNING the network flies in the face of the end-to-end design the Internet was built with.
once you put control within the network, not at its ends, you have a situation where the vested interests (in this case, the state) can decide what is good and what is bad. that, my friend, is worse than ANY child porn you can find.
i think that, the term "slippery slope" aside...you get the meaning. fallacious, meaning that it's not certain to come to that end. but it doesn't mean that it WON'T or CAN'T. read the articles on "slippery slope"'s fallaciousness.
Empowering an ISP to block certain content is to blatantly go against the end-to-end design which the Internet was built on. It is a slippery slope indeed. Setting a precedent like this is to give the courts the ability (i.e. and high powered self interest lawyers of corporations) to CONTROL the content layer of the Internet. Porn is bad. No doubt. But is a historical image gallery of lynchings in the American South ? Is the image of Jesus in a jar of urine ? How about a website that criticizes Republicans ? Democrats ? Catholics ? Jews ? Controlling the access to certain content should exist as the ENDS of the network, not the network itself.
take the term "slippery slope" the way it is meant, not a study in logical deduction with certainty. you know what the poster meant. and he's right. allowing ISPs (or even legally binding them) to control the content layer flies in the face of the end-to-end design that the Internet was built with.
come on....give me another one of those bones, puppy dog! give me the mcdaniel thingy!
yeah...that's how i like it. mmmmmmmm.....
you think motorcycles look like they're compensating for something, yet you think welding 2 segways together and wrapping kevlar around it DOESN'T look like it's compensating ? yeah, *that* won't look ridiculous. right. maybe direct your opinions that it looks 'gay' to the police forces in NH, MA, and GA: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/021118/5/qbt4.html http://www.segway.com/aboutus/press_releases/pr_12 0701.html
http://www.segwaychat.com/topics/306-segway.htm
p.s. you think you're like 'most' people ? think again. take a trip outside of your republican right-wing-freak-ridden-ufo-chasing-tinfoil-hat-we aring-vortex-hiking state. you'll see that 'most' people are definitely not like you.
you're right, actually..except that satellite communications don't use light.
what is this, 1982 ? i was pretty nerdy in high school, and had no problems, or felt 'persecuted' due to being smart. it's as if the world was a John Hughes movie. people get made fun of if they are smart, dumb, big, small, weak, or dopey. where i come from, being a nerd is what got me laid.
not at all. what's important here is that there is a precedent set in yet another identity-theft case. the more diverse cases that sets precedent, the better legal progress is made.
salary through obscurity ?
haha...this used to annoy me, but now it's just plain funny. it's almost pavlovian.
i can almost craft a post that *won't* make you repeat that "punish McDaniel" stuff, but what's the fun in that ?
seriously, tho. do you know anyone who has actually called this guy, or his mom ? hopefully they've changed their number. why don't you suggest what people should SAY when they call the number ? like some sort of old school telephone prank. hahaha...it kills me just to think about it.
think of it: i could *cause*, indirectly, someone to be annoyed, in Georgia, just because i annoyed you! man, that is Buddhism interconnectedness if i've ever heard it.