What if I invent a new and technically useful process for effecting interprocess memory transfer? That's not a mathematical process. It is a software process. I should be able to obtain a patent to protect it.
What if, as soon as you try to market it, several large companies file lawsuits claiming you violated some stupid patent that they have been granted?
Example: I am a coder for a steel mill that has figured out an algorithm that reduces the amount of energy used in the reduction of steel(which takes more energy than melting the steel). Now, after the steel company spends money on R&D to implement this, I defect to a rival steel company and implement the algorithm for them. Now the first steel company not only has lost it's competitive advantage, but they are actually further behind because they spent the money on R&D that the other mill did not.
It could happen that way. It could also happen that as you are coming up with your idea, doing your development, etc, that some other company is working on the same problem, for the same reason - and whoever files the patent first wins, the other one gets sued for doing what they were already doing.
Or it could be that you get everything going, and some other company then sues your company saying that your new algorithm infringes on some obscure patent they own. Regardless of whether they have a valid claim, you then have to defend.
The lawywers make money on patents. Large companies can sue small companies out of existence. But everyone else loses.
I see nothing wrong with software patents. it is up to the patent office to make sure people don't file trivial patents, but that applies to hardware and inventions too. The problem isn't that there are software patents, it is that stupid software patents are being given out by the patent office.
If the US had software patents, the Visicalc would still own the spreadsheet market - nobody else would be allowed to compete. Lord knows what we would have as a word processor.
Just because someone (individual, or company) writes a piece of software and happens to be the first one to write that particular kind of software is no reason to stop everyone else from doing any development in that market. And that is what software patents do.
Software patents have screwed up software development in the US. If Europe implements them, they are just asking to end up with the same problems.
From the article :
"Toutatis is about 2.9 miles long and 1.5 miles wide (4.6 by 2.4 kilometers)."
I'd call that the size of a small town, not a small city.
As sites like Stonehenge show, Europe doesn't have Christian roots. It's roots are pagan.
Christianity itself has pagan roots. Christmas: Started as
winter solstice. Christmas trees come from pagan beliefs. Easter,
with all the eggs and cute lil' easter bunnies? (Symbols of fertility.) Pagan, once again. The notion of virgin birth, 2nd coming - almost everything about Christianity has a prior history with the pagans.
Yes, it does sound like a troll. And it sounds like you didn't read the article, nor do you understand the basic point.
The Red Cross did win the case, and they won an appeal following it. Quote from the article "Ziarno lost his case, and later, his appeal."
However, in order to *win* that case, the Red Cross still had to defend, hire lawyers, waste time, spend money, etc. And *that* is the basic point of this story.
For the record, I'll be taking my patent exam this summer....
That would explain why you are in favor of the insane patent system we have now - you plan on making money off of it, and don't give a damn about how it effects the world.
I sometimes wonder if people who favor the elimination of all forms of intellectual property are really capable of understanding the ramifications of their proposal.
Where I find it quite clear that the patent system we have now is a horrible system that benefits lawyers and large companies, while stifling development.
Given the recent retreat from Falluja and the disgusting behaviour (pres's words) of the troops (both US and UK), how exactly do you 'do things'?
Saddam Hussein and his men did far worse things, and their press wasn't in any position to criticize. Our press, and our president, both recognize the problem, and admit it is wrong. Some soldiers will be punished over this.
You compare that to people who beleive it's normal to strap bombs to themselves and blow up as many innocents as possible? To people who fill a car full of explosives and drive it into a crowd before setting it off?
If the US had the same "Who cares who gets hurt" mentality that you accusse us of, we could level Falujah, instead of backing off. If the harming of civilians and children were part of our game plan, as it is for your glorious "freedom fighters", then there would be no problem in blowing Falujah all to hell. We certainly have the tools necessary.
Your good buddies, the terrorists, will target civilians - and you're upset because some US soldiers *who are in trouble for doing so* have tortured some of the people who fight by attcking their own kids.
This sub-thread started because you whined about how *one of your goody-two-shoes terrorists* blew up 70 people including 20 kids. But it wasn't an American that did that, it was a terrorist piece of shit, like you.
You seemed to have skipped right past the part where I said "without more information, it's hard to verify".
I didn't mention it, but I run two opt in lists myself, both requiring confirmation. I've never had a spam complaint about either of them. I have no question that there are lots of legitimate opt in lists - I'm on many myself - so you're claim that I believe "any list with more than 10 recipients is spam" is just bullshit that you made up.
And I still believe what I posted the first time. Legitimate mailing lists do not cause a lot of spamcop complaints. If Spamcop is receiving a lot of complaints about your list, then the people that you claim opted in and confirmed that they wanted to be on your list obviously neither remember doing so, nor do they want your mail. And if that many people on your list are unhappy about being on it, then chances are, your list isn't as clean as you pretend it is.
We work very hard to keep our mailing lists clean and we can't do it when complaints have their original email address taken out. As much as I dig what Spamcop does they're too heavy handed with legitimate mailing lists.
Without more information, such as the name of the list, there is no way to verify what you say. However, legitimate mailing lists are not going to generate a bunch of complaints to Spamcop. If they are getting a lot of reports about the emails you send, chances are, you are sending spam.
If he is correct for what he alleges, he will win. If SPAMCop anonymizes addresses it makes it impossible for this abhorrent slime to comply with current US legislation (CAN SPAM). The fact that he would have simply copied the complaint address to a higher rank "sucker alive" database is unfortunately irrelevant.
Not correct. There is no law requiring Spamcop to give him anyones address. People who choose to report spam to Spamcop do so by choice. Those people could, if they choose, follow the spammers "opt out" instructions. (For all the good that would do.) Some of them may have tried following the opt out.
SpamCop doesn't have to give him their addresses - no law requires that. Spamcop doesn't have to tell him that people complained at all. They can simply list his IP's.
This is a libel complaint. Richter has to prove that spamcop has said things about him that are a) Untrue and b) Damaged his reputation.
The first thing I would point out in court is what kind of reputation Richter has. It would be hard for Spamcop to damage a reputation like that - it's a reputation straight from the gutter.
The fact that Richter is already in legal trouble is going to help Spamcops case, since he's claiming they are harming his reputation.
I believe that most judges, when given the choice between defending Richter's honor, or ruling for SpamCop's free speech (the right to say "Here is a list of IP's that have been reported for sending spam) will go with free speech.
IANAL - but I've done some research into libel recently, after a spammer threatened to sue me.
10-12 years ago, I was getting pains down both forearms. I got one of the Microsoft Natural keyboards. The pains went away.
Now I have several of them. One for my home system, one for the office, and a spare for "whatever". I strongly recommend them.
You claim their is nothing natural about the position they put your hands in, but that is verifiably not true. The positioning that the MS Natural keyboard leads to is *much* more natural than what a regular keyboard forces you into.
I'd hate to see how you flip out when you get junk mail in real life! Do you call up these companies and threaten to sue? Do you make bomb threats against them? After all, they're eating up your time!!
The junk mail guys are also paying their own costs for printing and delivery. The spammers aren't - they are forcing their unwanted crap (which is mostly lies anyway) onto other people by making those people pay for it.
Now you have to prove that they're the ones who trojaned the systems, and not merely someone who scanned them, found they were compromised, and used them.
You don't have to prove any such thing. The fact that they used them is enough. If you steal a car, sell it to me, and I get caught driving it, *I* will go to jail. Sure, the cops will be interested in finding you, too, but they *will* arrest me, as soon as they realize I'm driving a stolen car.
lets get something strait, there is nothing wrong with spam in the sence that it shouldn't be ever allowed to exist. People sign up for things and they buy and sell things thru it.
It's hard to discuss spam with someone who doesn't know what spam is. You don't "sign up" for spam. When you sign up to join an email list (regardless of what that list is about - if it's about cheap mortgages and viagra and free porno - fine and well) then mail sent to that list isn't spam. You signed up. Since you signed up, it isn't unsolicited. Even if you decide you don't want it anymore, you asked for it, so it is solicited. It will remain solicited until you ask to be removed from the list. At that point, they should stop.
Spam doesn't fit that description. Spammers find addresses any way they can, and force it into your mailbox.
Spam should not be allowed to exist. Your theory of "some people want it and sign up for it" is similar to saying "People have volunatry sex, so rape is acceptable". But rape isn't, and spam isn't.
You either trust God and what he said about it, or you trust man and what he says.
I've seen men - many of them. Some I trust, some I don't.
I've never seen God, therefore, I have little trust in what he "says".
If, as you believe, God created me, then he must have given me a mind that thinks, he must have created me a skeptic that doesn't believe every spam I receive and every rumor I hear, and he must want me to think for myself.
Yet he's given me no evidence that he exists, and I won't blindly believe that just because The Bible or The Koran or
Billy Graham or Jim Baker or Robert Tilton say so.
I'll believe in science over "My religion SAYS SO!" any day.
I am appalled that you would continue to circulate secular lies about the accuracy of the Bible!
The church has a long history of repressing ideas that they did not agree with. Much more was written about Jesus than the church ever allowed to be put into the bible - they wanted to control what was said.
King James, who had the King James version of the bible translated, gets a lot of credit, because he did that translation *against* the will of the church. He felt that the bible should be avaialable to everyone, and did something about it.
But he also has a history of burning books that he did not agree with. For instance, Reginald Scott wrote "A Discovery of Witchcraft". It explained things logicaly, scientifically. It showed how jugglers/magicians would make coins disapear, and is the earliest known history of sleight of hand magic. However, since King James believed in witches (and had numerous people killed because of his belief) he had no intention of allowing someone to say "There are no witches, it's all fake, here is how they do those impossible things".
I find it hard to trust the King James version to be an accurate translation. Most english translations done since have been based on his verision. And his version was based on a previously censored version that the church supported at the time.
You can continue to believe that the bible is written by God, the way God wanted, with no changes of any kind, and 100% accurate. But nobody with an open mind would agree with that.
Slashdot Mirror
What if, as soon as you try to market it, several large companies file lawsuits claiming you violated some stupid patent that they have been granted?
It could happen that way. It could also happen that as you are coming up with your idea, doing your development, etc, that some other company is working on the same problem, for the same reason - and whoever files the patent first wins, the other one gets sued for doing what they were already doing.
Or it could be that you get everything going, and some other company then sues your company saying that your new algorithm infringes on some obscure patent they own. Regardless of whether they have a valid claim, you then have to defend.
The lawywers make money on patents. Large companies can sue small companies out of existence. But everyone else loses.
Software patents *are* bad. Braindead idiots like you may like them, but that doesn't change the facts.
Software patents have screwed up software development in the US. If Europe implements them, they are just asking to end up with the same problems.
From the article : "Toutatis is about 2.9 miles long and 1.5 miles wide (4.6 by 2.4 kilometers)." I'd call that the size of a small town, not a small city.
Christianity itself has pagan roots. Christmas: Started as winter solstice. Christmas trees come from pagan beliefs. Easter, with all the eggs and cute lil' easter bunnies? (Symbols of fertility.) Pagan, once again. The notion of virgin birth, 2nd coming - almost everything about Christianity has a prior history with the pagans.
The Red Cross did win the case, and they won an appeal following it. Quote from the article "Ziarno lost his case, and later, his appeal."
However, in order to *win* that case, the Red Cross still had to defend, hire lawyers, waste time, spend money, etc. And *that* is the basic point of this story.
That would explain why you are in favor of the insane patent system we have now - you plan on making money off of it, and don't give a damn about how it effects the world.
Where I find it quite clear that the patent system we have now is a horrible system that benefits lawyers and large companies, while stifling development.
You compare that to people who beleive it's normal to strap bombs to themselves and blow up as many innocents as possible? To people who fill a car full of explosives and drive it into a crowd before setting it off?
If the US had the same "Who cares who gets hurt" mentality that you accusse us of, we could level Falujah, instead of backing off. If the harming of civilians and children were part of our game plan, as it is for your glorious "freedom fighters", then there would be no problem in blowing Falujah all to hell. We certainly have the tools necessary.
Your good buddies, the terrorists, will target civilians - and you're upset because some US soldiers *who are in trouble for doing so* have tortured some of the people who fight by attcking their own kids.
This sub-thread started because you whined about how *one of your goody-two-shoes terrorists* blew up 70 people including 20 kids. But it wasn't an American that did that, it was a terrorist piece of shit, like you.
I didn't mention it, but I run two opt in lists myself, both requiring confirmation. I've never had a spam complaint about either of them. I have no question that there are lots of legitimate opt in lists - I'm on many myself - so you're claim that I believe "any list with more than 10 recipients is spam" is just bullshit that you made up.
And I still believe what I posted the first time. Legitimate mailing lists do not cause a lot of spamcop complaints. If Spamcop is receiving a lot of complaints about your list, then the people that you claim opted in and confirmed that they wanted to be on your list obviously neither remember doing so, nor do they want your mail. And if that many people on your list are unhappy about being on it, then chances are, your list isn't as clean as you pretend it is.
Now you're confusing me...
Without more information, such as the name of the list, there is no way to verify what you say. However, legitimate mailing lists are not going to generate a bunch of complaints to Spamcop. If they are getting a lot of reports about the emails you send, chances are, you are sending spam.
Not correct. There is no law requiring Spamcop to give him anyones address. People who choose to report spam to Spamcop do so by choice. Those people could, if they choose, follow the spammers "opt out" instructions. (For all the good that would do.) Some of them may have tried following the opt out.
SpamCop doesn't have to give him their addresses - no law requires that. Spamcop doesn't have to tell him that people complained at all. They can simply list his IP's.
This is a libel complaint. Richter has to prove that spamcop has said things about him that are a) Untrue and b) Damaged his reputation.
The first thing I would point out in court is what kind of reputation Richter has. It would be hard for Spamcop to damage a reputation like that - it's a reputation straight from the gutter.
The fact that Richter is already in legal trouble is going to help Spamcops case, since he's claiming they are harming his reputation.
I believe that most judges, when given the choice between defending Richter's honor, or ruling for SpamCop's free speech (the right to say "Here is a list of IP's that have been reported for sending spam) will go with free speech.
IANAL - but I've done some research into libel recently, after a spammer threatened to sue me.
And I still believe you are. You'll have to troll someone else now - your nonsense isn't worth my time.
Now I have several of them. One for my home system, one for the office, and a spare for "whatever". I strongly recommend them.
You claim their is nothing natural about the position they put your hands in, but that is verifiably not true. The positioning that the MS Natural keyboard leads to is *much* more natural than what a regular keyboard forces you into.
You're just making this up as you go, aren't you... The CAN SPAM law doesn't say what you think it says.
The junk mail guys are also paying their own costs for printing and delivery. The spammers aren't - they are forcing their unwanted crap (which is mostly lies anyway) onto other people by making those people pay for it.
And you defend that, you PoS.
You're saying that you and your pro-spam buddies should be able to ruin email for everyone else in the world without us fighting back? Screw that.
Sure, spammer, sure. FOAD.
You don't have to prove any such thing. The fact that they used them is enough. If you steal a car, sell it to me, and I get caught driving it, *I* will go to jail. Sure, the cops will be interested in finding you, too, but they *will* arrest me, as soon as they realize I'm driving a stolen car.
A Google search for the lawywer doesn't turn a lot up. He's a nobody is my guess.
It's hard to discuss spam with someone who doesn't know what spam is. You don't "sign up" for spam. When you sign up to join an email list (regardless of what that list is about - if it's about cheap mortgages and viagra and free porno - fine and well) then mail sent to that list isn't spam. You signed up. Since you signed up, it isn't unsolicited. Even if you decide you don't want it anymore, you asked for it, so it is solicited. It will remain solicited until you ask to be removed from the list. At that point, they should stop.
Spam doesn't fit that description. Spammers find addresses any way they can, and force it into your mailbox.
Spam should not be allowed to exist. Your theory of "some people want it and sign up for it" is similar to saying "People have volunatry sex, so rape is acceptable". But rape isn't, and spam isn't.
I've seen men - many of them. Some I trust, some I don't.
I've never seen God, therefore, I have little trust in what he "says".
If, as you believe, God created me, then he must have given me a mind that thinks, he must have created me a skeptic that doesn't believe every spam I receive and every rumor I hear, and he must want me to think for myself.
Yet he's given me no evidence that he exists, and I won't blindly believe that just because The Bible or The Koran or Billy Graham or Jim Baker or Robert Tilton say so.
I'll believe in science over "My religion SAYS SO!" any day.
The church has a long history of repressing ideas that they did not agree with. Much more was written about Jesus than the church ever allowed to be put into the bible - they wanted to control what was said.
King James, who had the King James version of the bible translated, gets a lot of credit, because he did that translation *against* the will of the church. He felt that the bible should be avaialable to everyone, and did something about it.
But he also has a history of burning books that he did not agree with. For instance, Reginald Scott wrote "A Discovery of Witchcraft". It explained things logicaly, scientifically. It showed how jugglers/magicians would make coins disapear, and is the earliest known history of sleight of hand magic. However, since King James believed in witches (and had numerous people killed because of his belief) he had no intention of allowing someone to say "There are no witches, it's all fake, here is how they do those impossible things".
I find it hard to trust the King James version to be an accurate translation. Most english translations done since have been based on his verision. And his version was based on a previously censored version that the church supported at the time.
You can continue to believe that the bible is written by God, the way God wanted, with no changes of any kind, and 100% accurate. But nobody with an open mind would agree with that.