That's true on earth but when these corporations are light years away, how do they face punishment for unethical or illegal behavior? It's not like government would be able to cut a supply line or order an expedition to return home.
I think the author underestimated exactly how ruthless explorers need to be. Corporations are ideal for the job if they can profit from whatever they find. I'm a little annoyed with how much time the author spent convincing me to abandon NASA in favor of corporations only to conclude that corporate exploitation would be bad.
It's a choice. If we let government call the shots, we must accept the consequences of a slow, tedious and cowardly program. If we let corporations call the shots, we must accept their rights to whatever they find.
We can learn from the exploration of the new world. NASA can issue charters with restrictions on how much power they hold over their claims (i.e., corporations keep mineral rights, US keeps territory.)
It all depends on how we want to relate to exploration and how quickly we want to get to new worlds.
The author's claim about pioneers destroying the American West is pretty shallow. I'm sure it's easy to spout nonsense like that from old Europe. Descendants of those pioneers are the people that keep it protected.
I saw this on the BBC this morning and looked around CNN, the New York Times site, and the other usual suspects in vain for any word of this. Surely this has some importance to people in the United States, since we'll be paying for t in our taxes? But for some reason, the mainstream media in the US has chosen to simply roll over and play dead for the government. Remember all the play given to that boring and irrelevant Lewinsky case? But the fact that the government lied to get us into a war, the fact that the government has marked the enquiry on what went wrong on 9/11 as classified, crucial things involving life and death for thousands of Americans, have barely been mentioned here in the US.
You make a serious point. Newsclips of late have portrayed European governments as highly sympathetic to the needs of their local economies. I doubt the EU can survive the damage to their credibility if they pass this and Munich et al. gives them the bird. Despite zealots, governments in Europe at every level have a huge interest in seeing that Linux thrives. It's a home grown OS for them and an enormous chunk of Europe (15%) depends on Linux. Europeans will get along only if the EU isn't pulling stupid stunts that hurt individual member states. Corporate influence is much weaker because of this dynamic.
Laws are for people with no friends.
And it looked like this to me:
To help MS make more money, we have collected the email of millions of idiots who haven't read their EULAs. This database will prove invaluable later when we mine it for whatever data we want. With the release of Outlook2003, we will have new, smarter ways of adding your email to our database to recognize and block your own unwanted email more effectively, while allowing all virii through. The shear number of patches for Outlook2003 has forced us to adopt a Windows update structure that automatically runs daily, or more often if we let people announce all of our new security enhanced security holes.
Somehow I knew who the inventor was on these patents before I even looked -- Jerome Lemelson. Lemelson is infamous in the patent world as the "king of the submarine patent." Back when Lemelson was active, he would file applications and delay prosecution until he had defendants to sue. He would then prosecute the patent and sue when it issued. Because patent applications are held confidential while pending, others using the technology claimed in Lemelson's patents would have no idea that the patents existed until issuance, thus the submarine analogy. These actions are almost universally seen by practitioners as abuses of the patent system, NOT as appropriate uses. Thankfully, in most instances current PTO procedure prevents these abuses. However, this type of prosecution tactic, even though it resulted in a patent issuing, still may not ultimately be successful because of a doctrine called "prosecution laches."
Generally, the doctrine of laches applies to protect a defendant when a plaintiff has sat on its rights for too long. The doctrine of prosecution history laches, very simply put, states that a patentee who has delayed prosection for too long may not enforce its patent once it issues. I am not saying that this is the case here; that is for a court to decide. But I do feel the need to note that this doctrine was recently "revived" by courts after a long period during which the doctrine was never even discussed, much less applied.
You may wonder who the patent holder was in the case that recently revived the doctrine of prosecution history laches. His name, I believe, is Jerome Lemelson.
Incorporating computers in an English class may give you the opportunity to examine the ways in which technology affects our thought processes and therefore our communication.
One earlier poster said to completely disallow AOLisms. I suppose this means things like LOL or RTFM, etc. I would tend to disagree. Allowing these types of things â" in fact, encouraging them â" gives you a chance to examine them. It's a fact of life that computers are changing the way we communicate and even order our thoughts.
These changes are very recent phenomena but they open up the discussion for other technological changes in the way we communicate. For instance, you could trace the development of different types of "literature" through various technological innovations. It may be difficult to think of oral tradition as a technological innovation (or even literature), but there were very organized methods necessary to transfer a body of knowledge from one generation to the next. When the written word came along, it began to formalize language, providing more structure to our communications and eventually ordering the way we form the thoughts in our head. When the printing press came along, we are suddenly dealing with mass-communication and all of the new rules and structures that come with it.
These are all innovations in the long history of communication and literature, but you can take the computer, a piece of technology for which they've witnessed the development, and use it to point to and compare with these other innovations. Then, choose pieces of literature that illustrate literary concepts from each of these technological ages
You might check out Orality & Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word by Walter J Ong. You could try Life On The Screen by Sherry Turkle. These point to ways that technology affects communication and culture.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true on earth but when these corporations are light years away, how do they face punishment for unethical or illegal behavior? It's not like government would be able to cut a supply line or order an expedition to return home.
I think the author underestimated exactly how ruthless explorers need to be. Corporations are ideal for the job if they can profit from whatever they find. I'm a little annoyed with how much time the author spent convincing me to abandon NASA in favor of corporations only to conclude that corporate exploitation would be bad.
It's a choice. If we let government call the shots, we must accept the consequences of a slow, tedious and cowardly program. If we let corporations call the shots, we must accept their rights to whatever they find.
We can learn from the exploration of the new world. NASA can issue charters with restrictions on how much power they hold over their claims (i.e., corporations keep mineral rights, US keeps territory.)
It all depends on how we want to relate to exploration and how quickly we want to get to new worlds.
The author's claim about pioneers destroying the American West is pretty shallow. I'm sure it's easy to spout nonsense like that from old Europe. Descendants of those pioneers are the people that keep it protected.
Laws are for people with no friends.
I saw this on the BBC this morning and looked around CNN, the New York Times site, and the other usual suspects in vain for any word of this. Surely this has some importance to people in the United States, since we'll be paying for t in our taxes? But for some reason, the mainstream media in the US has chosen to simply roll over and play dead for the government. Remember all the play given to that boring and irrelevant Lewinsky case? But the fact that the government lied to get us into a war, the fact that the government has marked the enquiry on what went wrong on 9/11 as classified, crucial things involving life and death for thousands of Americans, have barely been mentioned here in the US.
You make a serious point. Newsclips of late have portrayed European governments as highly sympathetic to the needs of their local economies. I doubt the EU can survive the damage to their credibility if they pass this and Munich et al. gives them the bird. Despite zealots, governments in Europe at every level have a huge interest in seeing that Linux thrives. It's a home grown OS for them and an enormous chunk of Europe (15%) depends on Linux. Europeans will get along only if the EU isn't pulling stupid stunts that hurt individual member states. Corporate influence is much weaker because of this dynamic. Laws are for people with no friends.
And it looked like this to me: To help MS make more money, we have collected the email of millions of idiots who haven't read their EULAs. This database will prove invaluable later when we mine it for whatever data we want. With the release of Outlook2003, we will have new, smarter ways of adding your email to our database to recognize and block your own unwanted email more effectively, while allowing all virii through. The shear number of patches for Outlook2003 has forced us to adopt a Windows update structure that automatically runs daily, or more often if we let people announce all of our new security enhanced security holes.
Somehow I knew who the inventor was on these patents before I even looked -- Jerome Lemelson. Lemelson is infamous in the patent world as the "king of the submarine patent." Back when Lemelson was active, he would file applications and delay prosecution until he had defendants to sue. He would then prosecute the patent and sue when it issued. Because patent applications are held confidential while pending, others using the technology claimed in Lemelson's patents would have no idea that the patents existed until issuance, thus the submarine analogy.
These actions are almost universally seen by practitioners as abuses of the patent system, NOT as appropriate uses. Thankfully, in most instances current PTO procedure prevents these abuses. However, this type of prosecution tactic, even though it resulted in a patent issuing, still may not ultimately be successful because of a doctrine called "prosecution laches."
Generally, the doctrine of laches applies to protect a defendant when a plaintiff has sat on its rights for too long. The doctrine of prosecution history laches, very simply put, states that a patentee who has delayed prosection for too long may not enforce its patent once it issues. I am not saying that this is the case here; that is for a court to decide. But I do feel the need to note that this doctrine was recently "revived" by courts after a long period during which the doctrine was never even discussed, much less applied.
You may wonder who the patent holder was in the case that recently revived the doctrine of prosecution history laches. His name, I believe, is Jerome Lemelson.
Incorporating computers in an English class may give you the opportunity to examine the ways in which technology affects our thought processes and therefore our communication.
One earlier poster said to completely disallow AOLisms. I suppose this means things like LOL or RTFM, etc. I would tend to disagree. Allowing these types of things â" in fact, encouraging them â" gives you a chance to examine them. It's a fact of life that computers are changing the way we communicate and even order our thoughts.
These changes are very recent phenomena but they open up the discussion for other technological changes in the way we communicate. For instance, you could trace the development of different types of "literature" through various technological innovations. It may be difficult to think of oral tradition as a technological innovation (or even literature), but there were very organized methods necessary to transfer a body of knowledge from one generation to the next. When the written word came along, it began to formalize language, providing more structure to our communications and eventually ordering the way we form the thoughts in our head. When the printing press came along, we are suddenly dealing with mass-communication and all of the new rules and structures that come with it.
These are all innovations in the long history of communication and literature, but you can take the computer, a piece of technology for which they've witnessed the development, and use it to point to and compare with these other innovations. Then, choose pieces of literature that illustrate literary concepts from each of these technological ages
You might check out Orality & Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word by Walter J Ong. You could try Life On The Screen by Sherry Turkle. These point to ways that technology affects communication and culture.