The people in power have no incentive to change things, and the people who want to change things don't have the power. Catch-22. Short of some sort of miracle at the polling booth, it looks like this is our foreseeable future, sad as it is.
No, some people are just irrational and power-hungry. Real nutcases invent problems and troublemakers, then blame everything on them. Like Hitler blamed the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals for all of Germany's problems. He was Germany's worst domestic terrorist, and he wasn't bothered by external political problems. The same situation is going on in the Middle East. Everyone blames the Jews, because it gives people a common cause and keeps them from thinking for themselves.
Real terrorists are Evil. There is no moral ambiguity here. They need to be hunted down and destroyed. They cannot be reasoned with -- you've seen the propaganda videos, those young men and women suicide bombers have been completely brainwashed.
On the other hand, they only need to be stopped when they're in a position to harm our citizens. I don't support unilaterally going to war in Iraq. Yeah, they harbor terrorists, but they're half a world away. When they enter the US, bust 'em hard, but don't throw away thousands of lives in some desert somewhere out of some sort of misplaced revenge motive.
Actually, I think the problem is with the educational system. It used to be that you went to school to learn morals: the Golden Rule, how to be nice to people, how to stand up for yourself, etc. Now, you go to school to try to pass standardized tests which are discriminatory and politically motivated. Avoiding the guns is a bonus.
Pledging allegiance to a flag is a fine example of patriotism. The problem is that no one takes it seriously any more. It's just 15 seconds of mumbling meaningless words before homeroom, one more rule that They make you follow to grind you into submission.
The central problem is that it's unconstitutional in that it no longer would award patents to the first person to actually invent something, but rather to the first person to file for a patent. The Constitution permits Congress to grant patents to inventors, not mere filers.
To be slightly technical:
The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8.
It just says "inventors," without specifying which inventors. It certainly doesn't say "the first inventors." If the second person to make the invention has a better chance of promoting the progress of science, there's nothing unconstitutional about giving the award to them. It may be against the policies and regulations of the Patent Office, but that's another story.
It also harms the public, since it ignores the decision of an inventor to not get a patent, and thus allow the invention to lapse into the public domain right away.
All the inventor has to do is publish. That's it. The article didn't say anything about eliminating the prior art requirements.
In fact, the bill greatly simplifies some things. If someone can point to a trade publication with a cover date before the patent was filed, the patent will be rejected automatically. No need to worry about them claiming that they invented it before the publication date, which is what you have in the current system. See35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2000). This bill gives inventors a real incentive to file immediately, and not try to submarine other companies. That, in turn, means that the patents expire and enter the public domain sooner.
There's a difference between the layout of data on a platter and its representation in userspace, and they solve different problems. Physical layout is more concerned with density, error recovery, and read/write times, while userspace is concerned with speed in locating data and ease of interface. The reason folders have lasted so long is that they perform well from both perspectives.
To make any filesystem searchable, you have to store metadata on the platter. The traditional folder structure is user-defined metadata, and it seems to be working pretty well so far. A database filesystem with full-blown user-defined metadata (more than just folder names) will use more space on the platter, making disk access slower, data density lower, etc. I don't think folders will be dying any time soon.
Mod parent up. A lot of people call a lot of things "AI", but "expert system" is a perfectly good way to describe most of what they're talking about. I reserve "AI" for 'thinking machines', not just searching, sorting, and pattern recognition algorithms in some very limited problem space.
I propose the following Test for Artificial Intelligence: the machine has to (gently) stop a four year old girl wielding a peanut butter and jelly sandwich from destroying the DVD player. If you can show me a machine that does that, I'll award you the Prize. Medical scanners, image recognition software, genetic algorithms, and anything else these days that claims to be "AI" don't have a snowball's chance of passing my test, and make very little progress in that direction.
P.S. It is the year 2005. But where are the AI bots? I was promised AI bots, I don't see any AI bots! Why? Why? Why?
And what, exactly, is wrong with blocking a domain? ISPs will have to make that choice for themselves, and it's a marketing decision. It will create a new market for ISPs who cater exclusively to parents of small children, it won't somehow censor all the other ISPs out there. I can't see there being a stigma against 'adult' ISPs, since at least 9 out of 10 are 'adult' right now. This is not a market-killer. If you want porn, there will be plenty of ISPs out there who will offer.xxx because they can charge more for it.
And if you choose to own hundreds of domains, it's your own damn fault if your choice is expensive. The reason adult businesses own so many domains is that $6/yr domains are way, WAY below normal meatspace advertising costs. Now they want to charge $60/yr, which is still much less than even a newspaper ad in some places. The adult industry won't be destroyed because their marketing costs are now closer to normal. They can suck it up as a cost of doing business.
Yes, this will cost the adult Internet market. What are they getting in return? Well, if they all move to.xxx, there is a lot lower chance that Johnny will accidently stumble across their site on the school's computer (think whitehouse.com), meaning a lower chance they get sued by some indignant parent. There's also a lot of lobbying pressure taken off the development of advanced porn filters and other censorship tools. Going to.xxx could actually reduce censorship research. It also means that adult sites can more effectively target their consumers without violating local laws.
In sum, there are a lot of good things that can come from this.
Under the current system, software is a product, you're allowed to copy it once onto your hard drive, and you're given permission (a "license") to use it. The company does not allow you to copy the software again, and they enforce that restriction under copyright laws. Copyrights (and patents) destroy all free market arguments, since they create an artificial monopoly by their very design ("by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries").
The GPL doesn't change any of this. General and Public though it may be, it's still a License, creating an artificial monopoly in the copyright holder. All that the GPL does is give express permission to make more than one copy, and to distribute changes without having to separately contact the original author. The copyright holder is still responsible for pursuing violators. In other words, it takes power away from the monopoly holder, without reducing their burden to prosecute. That's why some people don't like it.
If you don't want to have a license at all, you have to put your work in the Public Domain. Then free market arguments apply, as the product is no longer regulated. At that point, (unlimited) supply will always keep up with demand. Notice that RMS didn't put his software in the Public Domain. As you say, he's clever.
I disagree. The word "evidence" is in the sentence you quoted, and the state was trying to prove he was guilty. If it's not evidence of guilt, than what is it evidence of? How exactly are you parsing that quote?
I believe in freedom too. I'm going to buy the land next to your house and put up a sewage treatment plant. It's my land, why should I care if your land value drops, making you poor? Heck, I'll buy your land for pennies on the dollar, and that will give me a place to bury the leftover waste.
In case you hadn't guessed, that's why we have zoning regulations. External housing codes work on the same principle. They're not structural, they're economic. Maybe you don't care if your neighbor paints his house polka-dots, but I bet his neighbor on the other side does.
First, all the comments about 18 U.S.C. 1030. Your home computer is a "protected computer" since you buy things with it online. That pulls it under the interstate commerce clause, and the power of Congress to regulate it.
Second, the first bill, H.R. 29, doesn't provide for a private cause of action. It says it's enforced by the FTC. Which means you can't sue under this bill (if it becomes law).
Third, the second bill allows for an (implied) private cause of action: No person may bring a civil action under the law of any State if such action is premised in whole or in part upon the defendant's violating this section. It doesn't say you can't bring a criminal action under state law, so you may not be required to file in federal court.
My sense of the bills is that the first goes after companies who make and bundle spyware, while the second goes after extortionists, phishers, virus writers and the like.
Agreed. I'd say if you're the owner of the company and a single point of failure, and you're still thinking about skiing in the back country or going camping, pretty soon you won't need a new pager, you'll need a new job. Hire someone technical, or don't go on vacations. Yes, that sucks, but if you really want your business to succeed, you have to sacrifice. (Unless you have really rich friends, in which case I've got a business plan...)
There should be more women in computer engineering. It's a good line of work, it pays well, and it goes right along with sexual equality in the workplace.
On the other hand, pass me some of what you're on, because it sounds like really good stuff. Outsourcing has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with money. The reason jobs are getting sent to India is because of the (increasingly narrow) pay differential. That's the beginning and end of it. Corporations' sole purpose in existing is to make money. If their employees don't have families, it affects their bottom line in terms of morale, but it's not nearly as direct a link as cutting a fraction out of salary by outsourcing.
Women face a tough choice right now: on the one hand, many women want to raise families. On the other, they're bombarded by women's lib propaganda, telling them to 'break the glass ceiling' and to fight for gender equality. The problem is that raising a family is a full-time job. IMHO, having a successful career in a specialized field and raising a family is painfully difficult, unless you're a Super Being. 99% of men couldn't hack it, and 99% of women couldn't hack it either. It's just too hard.
There is a solution: more men could stay home and take care of the kids. Of course, as a general trend, women tend to be better at nurturing, and as a general trend, men get paid more. Sucks, but those are the facts of life. Faced with those facts, the decisions most families make is pretty straight-forward.
I think women should be able to excel in a specialized career, as long as they realize that they could end up unmarried at 40 (especially if they go into CS). Or married, with no time for the kids, subject to the scorn that comes with being a bad mother.
So you're saying that someone who realizes they will be on welfare for the rest of their lives shouldn't be protected from interstate underage rape? Or are you saying that if you are raped (which wasn't the case here, luckily), that you shouldn't be allowed to get any sort of compensation?
Um, do you know how much money it takes to set up and maintain a campaign webpage? About $100/mo for colo fees, tops, plus the donated time of a web jockey who would love to get "worked for X campaign" on his resume. How is this going to exclude third parties and everyone but the "very, very rich or those who are funded by corporations"? The Internet is an extraordinarily flat playing field. I could run an Internet campaign with the change I found in my couch today.
Slashdot Mirror
I love saying it. Come on, say it with me: "UNIX and Linux do not get viruses." I feel better already.
The people in power have no incentive to change things, and the people who want to change things don't have the power. Catch-22. Short of some sort of miracle at the polling booth, it looks like this is our foreseeable future, sad as it is.
For a second, I thought my favorite game was getting a new character. SEE PHARM-BOT GO MAD AFTER TAKING SUPER VITAMINS!!
Real terrorists are Evil. There is no moral ambiguity here. They need to be hunted down and destroyed. They cannot be reasoned with -- you've seen the propaganda videos, those young men and women suicide bombers have been completely brainwashed.
On the other hand, they only need to be stopped when they're in a position to harm our citizens. I don't support unilaterally going to war in Iraq. Yeah, they harbor terrorists, but they're half a world away. When they enter the US, bust 'em hard, but don't throw away thousands of lives in some desert somewhere out of some sort of misplaced revenge motive.
Pledging allegiance to a flag is a fine example of patriotism. The problem is that no one takes it seriously any more. It's just 15 seconds of mumbling meaningless words before homeroom, one more rule that They make you follow to grind you into submission.
To be slightly technical:
It just says "inventors," without specifying which inventors. It certainly doesn't say "the first inventors." If the second person to make the invention has a better chance of promoting the progress of science, there's nothing unconstitutional about giving the award to them. It may be against the policies and regulations of the Patent Office, but that's another story.It also harms the public, since it ignores the decision of an inventor to not get a patent, and thus allow the invention to lapse into the public domain right away.
All the inventor has to do is publish. That's it. The article didn't say anything about eliminating the prior art requirements.
In fact, the bill greatly simplifies some things. If someone can point to a trade publication with a cover date before the patent was filed, the patent will be rejected automatically. No need to worry about them claiming that they invented it before the publication date, which is what you have in the current system. See 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2000). This bill gives inventors a real incentive to file immediately, and not try to submarine other companies. That, in turn, means that the patents expire and enter the public domain sooner.
To make any filesystem searchable, you have to store metadata on the platter. The traditional folder structure is user-defined metadata, and it seems to be working pretty well so far. A database filesystem with full-blown user-defined metadata (more than just folder names) will use more space on the platter, making disk access slower, data density lower, etc. I don't think folders will be dying any time soon.
I propose the following Test for Artificial Intelligence: the machine has to (gently) stop a four year old girl wielding a peanut butter and jelly sandwich from destroying the DVD player. If you can show me a machine that does that, I'll award you the Prize. Medical scanners, image recognition software, genetic algorithms, and anything else these days that claims to be "AI" don't have a snowball's chance of passing my test, and make very little progress in that direction.
P.S. It is the year 2005. But where are the AI bots? I was promised AI bots, I don't see any AI bots! Why? Why? Why?
And if you choose to own hundreds of domains, it's your own damn fault if your choice is expensive. The reason adult businesses own so many domains is that $6/yr domains are way, WAY below normal meatspace advertising costs. Now they want to charge $60/yr, which is still much less than even a newspaper ad in some places. The adult industry won't be destroyed because their marketing costs are now closer to normal. They can suck it up as a cost of doing business.
Yes, this will cost the adult Internet market. What are they getting in return? Well, if they all move to .xxx, there is a lot lower chance that Johnny will accidently stumble across their site on the school's computer (think whitehouse.com), meaning a lower chance they get sued by some indignant parent. There's also a lot of lobbying pressure taken off the development of advanced porn filters and other censorship tools. Going to .xxx could actually reduce censorship research. It also means that adult sites can more effectively target their consumers without violating local laws.
In sum, there are a lot of good things that can come from this.
The GPL doesn't change any of this. General and Public though it may be, it's still a License, creating an artificial monopoly in the copyright holder. All that the GPL does is give express permission to make more than one copy, and to distribute changes without having to separately contact the original author. The copyright holder is still responsible for pursuing violators. In other words, it takes power away from the monopoly holder, without reducing their burden to prosecute. That's why some people don't like it.
If you don't want to have a license at all, you have to put your work in the Public Domain. Then free market arguments apply, as the product is no longer regulated. At that point, (unlimited) supply will always keep up with demand. Notice that RMS didn't put his software in the Public Domain. As you say, he's clever.
After reading about naked virtual women, I'm sure it has more now than five minutes ago.
Makes sense. Hard to know exactly what the judge was thinking, because the quote came out of context. Thanks for pointing that out.
I disagree. The word "evidence" is in the sentence you quoted, and the state was trying to prove he was guilty. If it's not evidence of guilt, than what is it evidence of? How exactly are you parsing that quote?
In case you hadn't guessed, that's why we have zoning regulations. External housing codes work on the same principle. They're not structural, they're economic. Maybe you don't care if your neighbor paints his house polka-dots, but I bet his neighbor on the other side does.
Second, the first bill, H.R. 29, doesn't provide for a private cause of action. It says it's enforced by the FTC. Which means you can't sue under this bill (if it becomes law).
Third, the second bill allows for an (implied) private cause of action: No person may bring a civil action under the law of any State if such action is premised in whole or in part upon the defendant's violating this section. It doesn't say you can't bring a criminal action under state law, so you may not be required to file in federal court.
My sense of the bills is that the first goes after companies who make and bundle spyware, while the second goes after extortionists, phishers, virus writers and the like.
And because the rest of them don't know how to properly use apostrophes.
None of the above. Probably blotted out for 'national security'. Like the US Capitol Building, for instance.
Agreed. I'd say if you're the owner of the company and a single point of failure, and you're still thinking about skiing in the back country or going camping, pretty soon you won't need a new pager, you'll need a new job. Hire someone technical, or don't go on vacations. Yes, that sucks, but if you really want your business to succeed, you have to sacrifice. (Unless you have really rich friends, in which case I've got a business plan...)
Actually, it was running AIX. Seriously. They built an AIX box just so SCO would have a reminder of what one looked like as they circle the drain.
Did you, by any chance, attend Pacific Tech?
There should be more women in computer engineering. It's a good line of work, it pays well, and it goes right along with sexual equality in the workplace.
On the other hand, pass me some of what you're on, because it sounds like really good stuff. Outsourcing has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with money. The reason jobs are getting sent to India is because of the (increasingly narrow) pay differential. That's the beginning and end of it. Corporations' sole purpose in existing is to make money. If their employees don't have families, it affects their bottom line in terms of morale, but it's not nearly as direct a link as cutting a fraction out of salary by outsourcing.
Women face a tough choice right now: on the one hand, many women want to raise families. On the other, they're bombarded by women's lib propaganda, telling them to 'break the glass ceiling' and to fight for gender equality. The problem is that raising a family is a full-time job. IMHO, having a successful career in a specialized field and raising a family is painfully difficult, unless you're a Super Being. 99% of men couldn't hack it, and 99% of women couldn't hack it either. It's just too hard.
There is a solution: more men could stay home and take care of the kids. Of course, as a general trend, women tend to be better at nurturing, and as a general trend, men get paid more. Sucks, but those are the facts of life. Faced with those facts, the decisions most families make is pretty straight-forward.
I think women should be able to excel in a specialized career, as long as they realize that they could end up unmarried at 40 (especially if they go into CS). Or married, with no time for the kids, subject to the scorn that comes with being a bad mother.
So you're saying that someone who realizes they will be on welfare for the rest of their lives shouldn't be protected from interstate underage rape? Or are you saying that if you are raped (which wasn't the case here, luckily), that you shouldn't be allowed to get any sort of compensation?
[a few seconds later]
Err: Oh man, it looks like he gave you the finger first.
Um, do you know how much money it takes to set up and maintain a campaign webpage? About $100/mo for colo fees, tops, plus the donated time of a web jockey who would love to get "worked for X campaign" on his resume. How is this going to exclude third parties and everyone but the "very, very rich or those who are funded by corporations"? The Internet is an extraordinarily flat playing field. I could run an Internet campaign with the change I found in my couch today.
Actually, Troi was born on Betazed, which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near Greece.