... the greater acceptance of scientific explanations of human origins among Icelanders than among Americans does not seem to hamper their simultaneous belief in the supernatural.
According to reports here, here and here, the Icelanders may just be experienced at distinguishing elves from trolls.
From the Article... it is misleading to say that open source empowers people in ways proprietary software does not. Both open source and proprietary software allow you to change the behavior of a software program in significant ways without touching the program's source code
Those two sentences go beyond mere FUD to outright deception.
It equates empowerment to changing program behavior without changing the source code, as if source code inspection for security flaws were of no significance; +1 FUD
It ignores the possibility that modifying source code can be far more empowering more than tweakiing program behavior; +1 FUD
It accuses OSS proponents of being misleading. +1 FUD
From the article: "Software, with its millions of lines of code, is so complicated that experts don't know for sure that open source has fewer bugs, nor can they say with certainty that having fewer bugs makes open source more secure."
That argument proves too much. If it is impossible to be certain that any software is bug-free and/or in other ways insecure, it is all the more important that one be able to examine the source code.
Your analysis would be more pursuasive if you could point to examples.
You do not dispute that the law as written is I have stated; you merely say courts will cite principles of equity ("laches") in refusing to uphold the law as it is written. That may be the case, but it (a) presumes that the holder of the submarine patent acted in bad faith, which is not always easy to prove even when it is true; (b) is a poor business practice & legal strategy to depend on activist courts.
As I initially stated and you appear to agree with, the Euro system of disclosing applications at the time of filing eliminates the problem. It is better to have a statutory system that eliminates problems through the clear language of the law, rather than to rely on judges using principes of equity.
In the U.S. system, patent applications need not be publicized for a year-and-a-half after filing... and that time can be extended with the applicant makes certain declarations. That's a vast improvement over our old system (where submarines could stay under the surface for decades) but still a long way from being "good". If your 18 months of effort got holed amidship and sank into the frigid North Atlantic, you would not say "well, at least it's not decades" you would say "that is bad" (or words to that effect).
As you note, submarining doesn't work under the Euro system because applications are published upon filing... which was precisely my point.
A "submarine patent" remains unpublished after it is granted. By running silent, running deep, the submarine patent's owners let other people develop and implement inadvertantly infringing products. Then *BLAMMO* the Patent surfaces and holds the inadvertant infringers at gunpoint (er, torpedo point. What-ever).
Publishing applications as soon as they are filed stops this tactic. Potential infringers have the ability to check whether their product infringes BEFORE they invest. That's a good thing!
From the Article:The newly discovered planets have masses of about 10, 12 and 18 times that of Earth and they zip around the star in rapid orbits of about 9, 32 and 197 days, respectively. Based on their distances from the star, two inner worlds nearest the star are rocky planets similar to Mercury, the scientists suspect.
The significance of the distinction is that rocky planets may be much more likely to harbor earth-like life than are gas giants. Of course, being so close to their home sun that they have a 9 or 32-earth day year, it seems likely that the "earth-like" life may be mere bacteria living in subsurface water, rather than human-like meat-bags getting suntans on the surface.
It's not paranoia if people are really out to get access to your resources.
Your particular machine don't actually have to have valuable information to be worth breaking into. The meta-data in your documents, your machine's access to other more valuable machines, and of course its use as a zombie... makes us all valuable targets!
At last, someone really values each and every one of us: the criminals!
While it would be naiive to suggest sites like youtube would fully replace entertainment developed for the masses, noticable audience share may be drawn away as Youtube & its ilk not only radically drop the transaction costs of (short) video entertainment but, more importantly, provide search and rating capability.
For example, which is more likely to provide a solid hour of laughs: watching an hour of Saturday Night Live and hope for two or three funny scetches, or searching YouTube for a dozen bits of comedy that have been highly rated?
... taken in the best possible light, the letter claims it is fighting a crime by committing another crime.
Their predicate is questionable; I don't know, and don't want to get into, whether Blue Frog is doing anything wrong. However, whoever sent the email you cite is threatening spamming if the recipient of the email fails to perform a particular act. That may be cyberterrorism under USA/PATRIOT or some similar law.
We need to put more spammers in jail by getting prosecutors to set up false-flag operations, place orders for Viagra, prosecute whoever fufills the orders, and display their heads on pikes from the city gates (... or whatever the internet equivalent may be...)
But I suppose the cops are already busy stalking pervos who solicit kids on the internet, and I must admit that's a higher priority.
... that someone will eventually notice natural features that have vaguely pyramidal shapes, ignore those that do not, and write a book that sells well to people who are not good at science.
We already have a pretty good idea what happens when a web-based technology competes with its desktop equivalent: email.
Yahoomail, gmail, et cetera compete with Microsoft Outlook & that ilk. Both types of email flourish, Fill-In-Your-Reasons-Here, each stealing some market from the other but also expanding the market.
Why would not a similar situation obtain with wordprocessings?
>"The neurons we have identified encode the value individuals assign to the available items when they make choices based on subjective preferences"
The article does not deny the subjective nature of many of our preferences, but provides evidence as to the objective mechanism by which these subjective preferences are translated into action.
It sorta requires a re-thinking of the distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective'.
Slashdot Mirror
>His assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming
Where has Al Gore, or anyone, asserted that 2nd-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming
One suspects you are the victim of a joke. Link please?
... the greater acceptance of scientific explanations of human origins among Icelanders than among Americans does not seem to hamper their simultaneous belief in the supernatural.
According to reports here, here and here, the Icelanders may just be experienced at distinguishing elves from trolls.
Heh. That would be "famous Seattle attorney". And handsome. Also smart.
Just not nearly as smart as I think I am ...
>This is where it's nice having a last name of Smith
Heh. Too true.
For a short time, when I googled my name, I found myself and only myself. It was handy, or spooky, take yer pick.
Then a pro baseball player came along with the same name. Now I almost have privacy again. He doesn't but that's why he makes the big bucks!
The online journal appears to be here.
Whether it is pretigious or not, I leave to people who know more than I.
From the Article... it is misleading to say that open source empowers people in ways proprietary software does not. Both open source and proprietary software allow you to change the behavior of a software program in significant ways without touching the program's source code
Those two sentences go beyond mere FUD to outright deception.
Bad doggie! No cookie for you!
From the article: "Software, with its millions of lines of code, is so complicated that experts don't know for sure that open source has fewer bugs, nor can they say with certainty that having fewer bugs makes open source more secure."
That argument proves too much. If it is impossible to be certain that any software is bug-free and/or in other ways insecure, it is all the more important that one be able to examine the source code.
FOGent is also appropriate:
Fog
plus
-ent = suffix meaning "an agent, something that performs the action"
Dang! you got fine manners .... let us break for a beer and sing sodden songs of fellowship!
... Wallace couldn't resist.
Your analysis would be more pursuasive if you could point to examples.
You do not dispute that the law as written is I have stated; you merely say courts will cite principles of equity ("laches") in refusing to uphold the law as it is written. That may be the case, but it
(a) presumes that the holder of the submarine patent acted in bad faith, which is not always easy to prove even when it is true;
(b) is a poor business practice & legal strategy to depend on activist courts.
As I initially stated and you appear to agree with, the Euro system of disclosing applications at the time of filing eliminates the problem. It is better to have a statutory system that eliminates problems through the clear language of the law, rather than to rely on judges using principes of equity.
I agree that altruism works faster with a material incentive booster ...
... but when it comes to finding prior art, the incentive is simple:
1. Find hot patent application
2. Find prior art sure to sink patent
3. Setup production of competing product using information disclosed in application
4. When you're ready to go to market: reveal prior art and blow away patent
5. PROFIT!!!
In-In-correct.
In the U.S. system, patent applications need not be publicized for a year-and-a-half after filing ... and that time can be extended with the applicant makes certain declarations. That's a vast improvement over our old system (where submarines could stay under the surface for decades) but still a long way from being "good". If your 18 months of effort got holed amidship and sank into the frigid North Atlantic, you would not say "well, at least it's not decades" you would say "that is bad" (or words to that effect).
As you note, submarining doesn't work under the Euro system because applications are published upon filing ... which was precisely my point.
A "submarine patent" remains unpublished after it is granted. By running silent, running deep, the submarine patent's owners let other people develop and implement inadvertantly infringing products. Then *BLAMMO* the Patent surfaces and holds the inadvertant infringers at gunpoint (er, torpedo point. What-ever).
Publishing applications as soon as they are filed stops this tactic. Potential infringers have the ability to check whether their product infringes BEFORE they invest. That's a good thing!
From the Article:The newly discovered planets have masses of about 10, 12 and 18 times that of Earth and they zip around the star in rapid orbits of about 9, 32 and 197 days, respectively. Based on their distances from the star, two inner worlds nearest the star are rocky planets similar to Mercury, the scientists suspect.
The significance of the distinction is that rocky planets may be much more likely to harbor earth-like life than are gas giants. Of course, being so close to their home sun that they have a 9 or 32-earth day year, it seems likely that the "earth-like" life may be mere bacteria living in subsurface water, rather than human-like meat-bags getting suntans on the surface.
It's not paranoia if people are really out to get access to your resources.
Your particular machine don't actually have to have valuable information to be worth breaking into. The meta-data in your documents, your machine's access to other more valuable machines, and of course its use as a zombie ... makes us all valuable targets!
At last, someone really values each and every one of us: the criminals!
While it would be naiive to suggest sites like youtube would fully replace entertainment developed for the masses, noticable audience share may be drawn away as Youtube & its ilk not only radically drop the transaction costs of (short) video entertainment but, more importantly, provide search and rating capability .
For example, which is more likely to provide a solid hour of laughs: watching an hour of Saturday Night Live and hope for two or three funny scetches, or searching YouTube for a dozen bits of comedy that have been highly rated?
How can mere pornography compare to the soul-eating danger of Cthulhu?
ICANN must act to wall off this seeping horror, for the sake of sanity itself!
I don't know whether the article is confused or trying to be clever, but I don't think Apple minds 'criticism' such as that.
... taken in the best possible light, the letter claims it is fighting a crime by committing another crime.
Their predicate is questionable; I don't know, and don't want to get into, whether Blue Frog is doing anything wrong. However, whoever sent the email you cite is threatening spamming if the recipient of the email fails to perform a particular act. That may be cyberterrorism under USA/PATRIOT or some similar law.
We need to put more spammers in jail by getting prosecutors to set up false-flag operations, place orders for Viagra, prosecute whoever fufills the orders, and display their heads on pikes from the city gates (... or whatever the internet equivalent may be...)
But I suppose the cops are already busy stalking pervos who solicit kids on the internet, and I must admit that's a higher priority.
... that someone will eventually notice natural features that have vaguely pyramidal shapes, ignore those that do not, and write a book that sells well to people who are not good at science.
Look to the left side of this photo. Frighteningly symmetrical, is it not? And it blows away the Bosnian pyramid as to size.
... our new coffee overlords! (mod -1 for "predictable")
We already have a pretty good idea what happens when a web-based technology competes with its desktop equivalent: email.
Yahoomail, gmail, et cetera compete with Microsoft Outlook & that ilk. Both types of email flourish, Fill-In-Your-Reasons-Here, each stealing some market from the other but also expanding the market.
Why would not a similar situation obtain with wordprocessings?
>"The neurons we have identified encode the value individuals assign to the available items when they make choices based on subjective preferences"
The article does not deny the subjective nature of many of our preferences, but provides evidence as to the objective mechanism by which these subjective preferences are translated into action.
It sorta requires a re-thinking of the distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective'.