If you ask me I'd use the wikipedia way, or the good old search box. Because if you're typing into the address box in a browser, you're likely to have autocompletion. That means you're likely to start a search whenever you want to get back at the site, bad for the search engine. Also your searches are accessible through your browsing history - as for all searches through get requests I think.
Having said that, this patent differs from the prior art of wikipedia by simply doing an additional step automatically. Where's the innovation, USPTO guys?
If tech were superior to our pathetic biological vision (including the realtime signal processing around it, of course) I'd be able to point a photo or video camera to a scene and click and have the same result of what mt eyes see. This is not really the case.
Indeed- And what would be the rationale behind contacting Anderson in the first place if RIAA truly believed he would obtain the info legally? OTOH this anderson better have proof for what he's saying.
Gay cultivated crops are still free from patents, so your ANALogy is flawed on one important aspect. Another aspect is that you ought to give us a theory on any correlation between the sexual orientation of the farmer and the composition of the farmed food.
Thank you for trying, you miserable troll.
> If you really want non-GMO food, pay someone to guarantee that it's not.
BTW, if you want me to stop calling ya troll, ask for my paypal account and deposit a suitable sum there.
>And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs
AFAIK, and some googling seems to confirm, much lobbying is done to avoid such labeling even here in EU.
Which raises the question: what do they have to fear if GMO are safe? They basically say "It's because you consumer are too stupid and bound to tradition to appreciate our offering". I say "No matter what, I'm the friggin paying consumer and you are trying to deceive me. Besides, GMO is proprietary, so why should I support patenting what I eat after having - indirectly - to deal with patented software? no way".
Interesting but can IBM sue them for using e.g. Office while leaving other Office customers unscathed? Can you avoid them getting the matter to their software supplier?
> "if you get sued for patent infringement, we'll grant you a patent license for one of our patents so you can smite the bastards".
which works against the evil corporations. But, as already pointed out in a recent discussion, what if a patent troll, which is not utilizing any of its patents, comes up against you?
> Actually, those chemicals are, likely, far more dangerous to the body...
Even if your "likely" were proven true I find it difficult to believe that the health of a suspected terrorist is more important than the information you can extract from him. Doesn't make much sense in light of what has been done to civilians in fallujah for example.
With more reliable extracted information you also cut the number of suspected terrorists who turn out to be innocent.
I can't believe no more progress has been made since sodium pentothal. USA has (had) the money and the know-how to extract more accurate info from suspects instead of torturing them. My opinion is that somebody wants to spread terror instead of prevent it.
> I can only see this as a bid to grab more marketshare in the web client arena.
It's all in the hands of web designers, though.
Then there's the article cited in the blurb: 'if you're a web designer and not using Vista then this download is mandatory since it will let you see your page as your Vista users see it.'
WTF? does vista replace font-family properties to display the new fonts? I don't think so.
> They will engage you with their embrace, extended, and finally extinguish strategy with enough resources to outpace your independent project in an escalating features and incompatible formats fight.
But that's the problem for them. They would have to do that for every project, pouring resources on a myriad of overlapping projects that are also competitors of their available offer. And they gotta do it right.
1. fork the most recent open release of a recently MS bought out OSS project. 2. improve and offer support for it. 3. Now MS either has to improve its own branch or buy you out too (which is the 3b. Profit!!! part)
I mean, seriously, isn't Microsoft going to prove money can be made with OSS?
> These Europeans haven't heard of the theory that god created the world?
Yes, we did. But, some of us believe that an omnipotent god could conceive a universe where living creatures do NOT need "a patch" from him to exist. If you see conflict between evolution and life being a miracle, between freedom of choice and prophecy, it might not be the same for an hypothetical entity that exists (also) outside the influence of space and time.
Back to the topic. A minister in the previous government in Italy "forgot" to include Darwin. After getting a good share of egg on her face, had to backpedal publicly. Even if it was a temporary measure, among the indifference of public opinion. Some italian pages about that still on the web.
If you use identical hardware of an intel apple it IS kind of region coding. For the countless other cases it is not.
So in general, it is not, which was my point.
I didn't say it's NOT an artificial lock, I said it's not a matter of artificial lock. To clarify, it's a matter of compatibility plus the apple (questionable? justified?) choice of preventing OSX to run at all instead of, say, throw a big warning that the machine you're running on could experience potentially disastrous behavior as the config is untested.
Well theoretically I don't agree, I think that it can still be considered open source.
But you nailed the issue. These licenses limit USE, GPL limits redistribution. So GPL is inherently more free.
Now we'll see what position will be taken on MS licenses by the guys who used to bash GPL because it's not as free as the BSD.
As for me, OSI can bless MS licenses, ISO can certify OOXML, Vista can get a stable and fast OS. It doesn't change a iota. Microsoft attitude and actual interference with my computing experience is already too cumbersome without using their software, license, or new file formats, I'm surely not going to get more of their stuff to bother me.
> the various Linux distros, Ubuntu included, are the harder to install software on, even everyday software.
Ease of installation is a bogus metric, if you forget about ease of upgrade. On debian based distros you upgrade the OS and packaged apps all in one go, from remote if you want, without fuss. And, running "aptitude autoclean" before each upgrade, I have a picture of what packages were upgraded and i can force reinstallation of the old version of a package if I don't like the new. All of this is science fiction on windows XP, dunno about vista.
Nothing stops linux from compiling stuff statically or using one click installers, and IIRC realplayer, opera or firefox gotten from the official sites were just that. But the majority of linux users prefer adding repositories to the package manager instead and they are quite right.
Yet I guess that, should he cause an accident, possibly killing people who have the bad luck of getting on the streets to commute and owning less safe cars than his precious M5, he'll run away like whatever 18 year old drunk coward.
OSX not working on generic intel hardware is not a matter of artificial lock, like region coding on DVD. It would take a significant effort to achieve compatibility. If I were Jobs I'd not like people trying out an unlocked OSX on various hardware and dismissing because it "doesn't work". Linux shows people are unable to tell OS problems from drivers problems.
>If it took you 5 hours to figure that out then you really do not need to be using a computer
Heh, how things change: parent poster showed the somewhat lazy attitude that make many people complain about linux being "difficult" while it's just different, and you replied with the same "get a clue" attitude of linux geeks.
> "...new innovative ways to enjoy media that doesnt leave you feeling like you just got ripped off."
What about this scenario: you subscribe for some songs you really like, but as revenue starts flowing, labels publish as much crap as possible, because they know you would like to hold onto the content you like. If you rebelled, the songs you like either expire at the end of subscription, or would be tied to one particular player which is gonna get obsolete/less functional in 3 years or less and with restricted transfer capabilities to another device.
> Vista did (as best I can see) have fewer security vulnerabilities in the first six months than any other MS OS.
Maybe crackers are holding onto XP for their business as anyone else's doing. Or Maybe you have to give em time to work on the bloat of a new OS.
Joking aside, I expected MS to ship a decent OS, now that there's competition again. But, now that linux can provide a good experience on a desktop, the issue is settled for me:
Vista is as secure as linux? But linux is faster (even with selinux i suppose). Vista becomes as fast as linux? But linux is multiplatform and so i can have a similar environment in my new and old hardware and on embedded stuff, which is a dream come true. Vista becomes multiplatform? But linux is free as in freedom. Checkmate.
Slashdot Mirror
Only, wikipedia search for the string in the URL is an option that is one click away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't%20it%20true
If you ask me I'd use the wikipedia way, or the good old search box.
Because if you're typing into the address box in a browser, you're likely to have autocompletion. That means you're likely to start a search whenever you want to get back at the site, bad for the search engine.
Also your searches are accessible through your browsing history - as for all searches through get requests I think.
Having said that, this patent differs from the prior art of wikipedia by simply doing an additional step automatically. Where's the innovation, USPTO guys?
If tech were superior to our pathetic biological vision (including the realtime signal processing around it, of course) I'd be able to point a photo or video camera to a scene and click and have the same result of what mt eyes see. This is not really the case.
On audio we're kind of there though.
For the record and for googling too, the name is Durand Durand. Besides, not a good idea to misspell the name of a guy with a positron ray.
Indeed- And what would be the rationale behind contacting Anderson in the first place if RIAA truly believed he would obtain the info legally?
OTOH this anderson better have proof for what he's saying.
Gay cultivated crops are still free from patents, so your ANALogy is flawed on one important aspect. Another aspect is that you ought to give us a theory on any correlation between the sexual orientation of the farmer and the composition of the farmed food.
Thank you for trying, you miserable troll.
> If you really want non-GMO food, pay someone to guarantee that it's not.
BTW, if you want me to stop calling ya troll, ask for my paypal account and deposit a suitable sum there.
>And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs
AFAIK, and some googling seems to confirm, much lobbying is done to avoid such labeling even here in EU.
Which raises the question: what do they have to fear if GMO are safe?
They basically say "It's because you consumer are too stupid and bound to tradition to appreciate our offering".
I say "No matter what, I'm the friggin paying consumer and you are trying to deceive me. Besides, GMO is proprietary, so why should I support patenting what I eat after having - indirectly - to deal with patented software? no way".
Interesting but can IBM sue them for using e.g. Office while leaving other Office customers unscathed? Can you avoid them getting the matter to their software supplier?
> "if you get sued for patent infringement, we'll grant you a patent license for one of our patents so you can smite the bastards".
which works against the evil corporations. But, as already pointed out in a recent discussion, what if a patent troll, which is not utilizing any of its patents, comes up against you?
> Actually, those chemicals are, likely, far more dangerous to the body...
Even if your "likely" were proven true I find it difficult to believe that the health of a suspected terrorist is more important than the information you can extract from him. Doesn't make much sense in light of what has been done to civilians in fallujah for example.
With more reliable extracted information you also cut the number of suspected terrorists who turn out to be innocent.
I can't believe no more progress has been made since sodium pentothal.
USA has (had) the money and the know-how to extract more accurate info from suspects instead of torturing them.
My opinion is that somebody wants to spread terror instead of prevent it.
> I can only see this as a bid to grab more marketshare in the web client arena.
It's all in the hands of web designers, though.
Then there's the article cited in the blurb: 'if you're a web designer and not using Vista then this download is mandatory since it will let you see your page as your Vista users see it.'
WTF? does vista replace font-family properties to display the new fonts? I don't think so.
> They will engage you with their embrace, extended, and finally extinguish strategy with enough resources to outpace your independent project in an escalating features and incompatible formats fight.
But that's the problem for them. They would have to do that for every project, pouring resources on a myriad of overlapping projects that are also competitors of their available offer. And they gotta do it right.
the OSS "buy-me" trolls?
1. fork the most recent open release of a recently MS bought out OSS project.
2. improve and offer support for it.
3. Now MS either has to improve its own branch or buy you out too (which is the 3b. Profit!!! part)
I mean, seriously, isn't Microsoft going to prove money can be made with OSS?
> These Europeans haven't heard of the theory that god created the world?
Yes, we did. But, some of us believe that an omnipotent god could conceive a universe where living creatures do NOT need "a patch" from him to exist. If you see conflict between evolution and life being a miracle, between freedom of choice and prophecy, it might not be the same for an hypothetical entity that exists (also) outside the influence of space and time.
Back to the topic. A minister in the previous government in Italy "forgot" to include Darwin. After getting a good share of egg on her face, had to backpedal publicly. Even if it was a temporary measure, among the indifference of public opinion. Some italian pages about that still on the web.
http://www.uaar.it/news/2005/11/03/moratti-darwin-scandalo-documento-censurato/
The advantages of faster reaction time of machines and their intrinsic cold blood are too tempting not to continue developing such stuff.
The other big advantage is that the next bush will be able to blame the slaughter of civilians in the next iraq on a firmware update gone bad.
If you use identical hardware of an intel apple it IS kind of region coding.
For the countless other cases it is not.
So in general, it is not, which was my point.
I didn't say it's NOT an artificial lock, I said it's not a matter of artificial lock. To clarify, it's a matter of compatibility plus the apple (questionable? justified?) choice of preventing OSX to run at all instead of, say, throw a big warning that the machine you're running on could experience potentially disastrous behavior as the config is untested.
Well theoretically I don't agree, I think that it can still be considered open source.
But you nailed the issue. These licenses limit USE, GPL limits redistribution. So GPL is inherently more free.
Now we'll see what position will be taken on MS licenses by the guys who used to bash GPL because it's not as free as the BSD.
As for me, OSI can bless MS licenses, ISO can certify OOXML, Vista can get a stable and fast OS. It doesn't change a iota. Microsoft attitude and actual interference with my computing experience is already too cumbersome without using their software, license, or new file formats, I'm surely not going to get more of their stuff to bother me.
> the various Linux distros, Ubuntu included, are the harder to install software on, even everyday software.
Ease of installation is a bogus metric, if you forget about ease of upgrade. On debian based distros you upgrade the OS and packaged apps all in one go, from remote if you want, without fuss. And, running "aptitude autoclean" before each upgrade, I have a picture of what packages were upgraded and i can force reinstallation of the old version of a package if I don't like the new. All of this is science fiction on windows XP, dunno about vista.
Nothing stops linux from compiling stuff statically or using one click installers, and IIRC realplayer, opera or firefox gotten from the official sites were just that. But the majority of linux users prefer adding repositories to the package manager instead and they are quite right.
Yet I guess that, should he cause an accident, possibly killing people who have the bad luck of getting on the streets to commute and owning less safe cars than his precious M5, he'll run away like whatever 18 year old drunk coward.
Shame on slashdot for posting this shit.
OSX not working on generic intel hardware is not a matter of artificial lock, like region coding on DVD. It would take a significant effort to achieve compatibility. If I were Jobs I'd not like people trying out an unlocked OSX on various hardware and dismissing because it "doesn't work". Linux shows people are unable to tell OS problems from drivers problems.
Exactly. 2008 and the next five years.
>If it took you 5 hours to figure that out then you really do not need to be using a computer
Heh, how things change: parent poster showed the somewhat lazy attitude that make many people complain about linux being "difficult" while it's just different, and you replied with the same "get a clue" attitude of linux geeks.
> "...new innovative ways to enjoy media that doesnt leave you feeling like you just got ripped off."
What about this scenario: you subscribe for some songs you really like, but as revenue starts flowing, labels publish as much crap as possible, because they know you would like to hold onto the content you like. If you rebelled, the songs you like either expire at the end of subscription, or would be tied to one particular player which is gonna get obsolete/less functional in 3 years or less and with restricted transfer capabilities to another device.
> Vista did (as best I can see) have fewer security vulnerabilities in the first six months than any other MS OS.
Maybe crackers are holding onto XP for their business as anyone else's doing.
Or Maybe you have to give em time to work on the bloat of a new OS.
Joking aside, I expected MS to ship a decent OS, now that there's competition again. But, now that linux can provide a good experience on a desktop, the issue is settled for me:
Vista is as secure as linux? But linux is faster (even with selinux i suppose).
Vista becomes as fast as linux? But linux is multiplatform and so i can have a similar environment in my new and old hardware and on embedded stuff, which is a dream come true.
Vista becomes multiplatform? But linux is free as in freedom. Checkmate.
>What about those people who are paying him to do it, should they not take some responsibility for the service they are paying for?
I didn't want to mention slow death under torture up to the seventh generation.