And if the jobs are created won't they just go to India anyway because low level tech support is always shipped overseas because customer support means shit in America and it is cheaper, though they don't mind charging $300 per help desk ticket (yay M$).
Well, some jobs will have to stay here, they demand physical presence.
Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs
...in tech support.
Yea, neither TFA or the study itself say what jobs will be created. Actually they both more about saving money, job creation has nothing to do with it.
Its very hard to run an online business on dial up.
Ah but what businesses, and jobs, will be created? TFA says 2.4 million jobs will be created but it does not name 1 job. All it is really about is money saved and not jobs created. Then again the study itself does not say what jobs wll be created.
And what jobs are those? TFA doesn't say. Sure some temporary jobs would be created to build the infrastructure and a few more permanent jobs will be created to maintain it but what other jobs will be created?/.'s title is a bad one as TFA is more about money saved not jobs created.
I know people who have 4000 square feet and no kids. That's just insane. even 4000 feet with kids is insane unless you have a lot of kids. People think they need to have huge, flashy things which are huger and flashier than the next guy's things. Nobody seems to be willing to accept "enough", they always want "more".
Oh I agree, many people do get bigger homes than they need but that doesn't mean everyone gets a big home to begin with.
Maybe if an attorney had to look at the raw cases all the time there would be a grass roots legal movement to simplify law rather than constantly add to it.
I propose a new amendment to the Constitution of the USA, all laws have to be written so the average person can read and understand it in 5 minutes.
I wonder how fast he's going to get sued by the legal publishers that the article refers to as "more expensive", and thus quite successful and profitable?
These businesses already have had some competition for years and it's still available so unless he copies what they offer directly, summaries and such, I don't think it's very likely he'll be sued. Findlaw does this, for instance searching for "John Gilmore" has the ruling in his case as well as commentary on it.
Hey thanks for the tip - I've been evaluating various antivirus things and that ZoneAlarm seems really nice. It actually found a virus on my system that two other "big name" programs missed.
Are you using the free or paid version of ZoneAlarm? I started with the free version, and liked it so when I saw it boxed in a store I went ahead and bought it. I liked it even more, one of the things I like was that it allows users to block some websites from using javascript or objects while allowing others to use them. On my Windows PC I wanted to block websites from using javascript and objects but some websites require them. Even Firefox doesn't allow me to do this, it's all or nothing, but ZoneAlarm does. Now if only Zone Labs released a version of ZoneAlarm for Macs.
So, no, Google shouldn't be allowed to patent their PageRank system.
You're also saying that h.264/AVC shouldn't exist. You're also saying 802.11 shouldn't exist. In fact, you're saying NO open standards should exist...
There are two problems with this argument. The first is Google's PageRank can be protected via Trade Secrets. The second is open source software. If patents were needed there would be no open source software.
By saying you don't want any software patents at all, you're saying you long for the (bad) old days of RealPlayer, 4DTV, TwinVQ/VQF, Cinepak, and everything else proprietary.
By saying you want software patents you say you want Microsoft and SCO holding a sledgehammer over the heads of everyone else.
Recall that most of Microsoft's meteoric rise took place during a time when software was not patentable.
That's an excellent example of why software patents are not needed, MS made it big without them. On the other hand, patents is harming FOOS, look at SCO accusing all of these companies of violating SCO's rights. How many large corporations was SCO able to extort money from hanging the treat of patent infringements over their heads?
Software patents give the original innovator the power to stop that strategy in its tracks.
As as stated with the SCO case, it harms more than helps.
I believe that what Slashdot readers truly dislike are bad patents, not software patents per se.
Software and business processes are simply two more media within which invention may occur. It makes no sense to try to put certain media off limit to patents.
BS! Both software and business processes already enjoy legal protection. For software it's called copyrights, and for business processes it's called trade secrets. Copyrights won't stop anyone any from implementing an idea in another way, neither will trade secrets.
Not if life saving drugs stop being developed, because the pharmaceutical companies spend millions proving a particular chemical is safe and effective and then get massively undercut by a third party manufacturer producing the same chemical via a different process.
It doesn't go like that, pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. Not only that but government does a lot of research as well. According to this, "An alternative to pharmaceutical patents", in Europe the bulk of research is paid for by government. Now I don't know if that's true but in the US the federal government pays millions for research as well. An excellent example of this is Taxol. The NCI, National Institute of Cancer, part of the NIH or National Institutes of Health a government agency spend $183 million in taxpayers' money to develop Taxol. What did the NCI do with it? After spending all that money to develop and test the drug as a cancer treatment the NCI "sold", gave it away is more like it, all the data needed to win FDA approval of Taxol as a drug to Bristol-Myers Squibb for $43 million. In other words taxpayers paid more the $140 more than they got. And how much does BMS make selling Taxol? In 2000 BMS made almost $1 billion and they were expected to make more each year thereafter. Now I don't know how many doses are needed for one treatment with Taxol but while BMS has been able to lower the cost of making one dose to under $1 a full treatment costs a few thousand dollars to someone needing it or their insurance.
A difference in my terminology I guess - when I see the word "socialism"
Well I used "socialism", "socialistic", wrong myself. Socialism was when government owned the means of production. A person could still own their own home but the factory they worked in was owned by the government. People do the same today with "liberalism". Liberalism means individual liberty and small government, but somehow some distorted the meaning.
Good. I can then go to the tax board and have my SEV reduced.
SEV? I don't know what that is but if it's anything like property taxes, do you really think government will reduce the value of your property without you fighting them over it?
I'm not sure why people are so bugged about having their property values decrease.
They don't want their property value to go down because they are then hurt. Much as you may dislike it, I do myself, much of the world runs on finances.
I think it comes down to people thinking they've got to keep buying bigger and bigger houses. That's ridiculous. Buy a house and live in it. If it gets too small, you probably have too much crap and should get rid of some of it.
So you've never bought a small house as a single or recently married then had your family expand? Most people start with a small house then buy a bigger one when their family expands, it's called a starter home. What a smart or intelligent person will do is first buy a small home, then when they have children buy a bigger one. Or if they can afford it they will go ahead and get a larger house then rent out one or more bedrooms until they have children. And when the nest is emptied of children buy a small home again.
Yes, it's true that some individual people do benefit from business process and software patents, but they do nothing to encourage innovation. In fact, they end up stifling innovation. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, not stifle it.
Do you actually believe this? Patents, from the very beginning, were devised to protect existing technology. Vested interests write the law, not some non-existent altruistic ideal handed down from the heavens.
Yes because patents were meant to encourage progress. Originally Thomas Jefferson, who didn't like corporations, opposed patents however his friend James Madison convinced him they could encourage progress.
it seems very counter-intuitive to me that a socialistic idea like "intellectual property" which limits competition is going to encourage innovation.
IP is the opposite of socialistic. IP says a person or entity, other than government owns property. Socialism on the other hand means the government owns it. As for a study on whether patents work or not compare the advances made by the Soviet Union and the US. Which allowed patents and which advanced more in technology?
If there are fraudulent transactions a lot of banks won't do anything if you can't show that you took steps to prevent it. So stuff like not writing down PINs, picking secure passwords and with online banking using a firewall & anti-virus are important for that reason alone.
Yea but GP said virus scanners weren't needed. Personally no matter what OS I use I use both a firewall and AV, well except my Linux PC and haven't used it much. I don't know of good firewall and AV software for Linux. On Windows I use ZoneAlarm, the paid version for my firewall and Norton AV. On my Mac I use Intego NetBarrier and VirusBarrier. For pins and passwords I something easy for me to remember, I won't write them down however my memory is bad because of an injury, so I mix alphanumeric digits.
If they hadn't lent so much money to people who they KNEW wouldn't be able to pay when their ARM reset, then they wouldn't be in this mess. Again, no sympathy for multi-billion dollar multinationals who should know better (or who have the money to be able to pay someone to figure it out.)
I agree but you missed where you also end up paying when your neighbor defaults.
Good. Overpriced houses are overpriced.
The neighbor's house also declines in value, that's your house if you're the neighbor. And it doesn't later if you bought it 20 years ago when prices were low. Fact is is foreclosed houses in a neighborhood devalues all the houses there.
And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment? They'll roll the dice that the borrower will figure it out, because it's cheaper to let them sink than to help them swim. If they DO default and end up getting repossessed, then the lender can write off the bad debt and recover whatever they can at auction.
They lose when they can't sell the house for more than whats owned on the house. Actually the only way some of these mortgage lenders were able to make loans was because they were able to package the loans in with a bunch of other loans into derivatives. Normally these derivatives lower risk but too many loans that were risky were made. Because of defaults on loans getting credit is harder even for those who can afford it.
And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment?
Yes, lenders do it all the tyme. Lenders work with borrowers when they have problems paying off mortgages. "For most people who fall behind on their mortgage, their first instinct is to avoid all contact with the lender. But that's a mistake, consumer counselors and others say, because it's likely those financial problems will only get worse, making it harder to work out the best repayment terms." While I'm no expert on it myself there are experts in my family. My sister's a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, who runs her own accounting business and my brother-in-law's a Certified Financial Planner.
Man, I hope you wake up in 40 years, look around and see that America is still a free democracy, and look back on this time and laugh.
I don't have to wake up in 40 years, I've already lived through 40 years and things are worse now than then. About the only thing that's better now, which if some so called Christians get their way things will get worse again, is freedom of religion. I recall seeing and experiencing rulers forcibly applied to children's hands when I was in a public elementary school because the pledge of allegiance wasn't said with "under God". Now we have members of congress sworn in with the Koran instead of the Bible. But in other aspects things are worse than before.
Ignore what? The fact that we are headed into a totalitarian dictatorship? That we are going to need to rise up, as our forefathers did, and defend the constitution by force if necessary?
Totalitarian yes. And don't think a democracy can't become a dictatorship, Germany was a democracy when the NAZIs came to power, they were one of a number of political parties. As was El Duce, Benito Mussolini'sNational Fascist Party. Other examples exist as well. As for the US population raising up, that's hardly likely to happen. Half the US was against war in Iraq yet we're there. Many protested against the Bush admin spying on citizens yet Bush wants to continue spying on Americans, without a warrant. Fact is is too many people in the US don't think it affects them, and won't until it bites them in the ass. But as Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
When there is a REAL threat to my ability to publish anonymously, wake me up because I will fight that battle with you at your side to the end. But right now there is no such battle.
If people aren't willing to fight to guaranty the right now it will be too late later. You only enjoy the right now because others are willing to fight to make sure those rights aren't taken away from you. And if you don't think a battle hasn't been fought you either must be too young or don't recall Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, or COINTELPRO.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the jobs are created won't they just go to India anyway because low level tech support is always shipped overseas because customer support means shit in America and it is cheaper, though they don't mind charging $300 per help desk ticket (yay M$).
Well, some jobs will have to stay here, they demand physical presence.
FalconIncreased US Broadband Adoption Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs
...in tech support.
Yea, neither TFA or the study itself say what jobs will be created. Actually they both more about saving money, job creation has nothing to do with it.
FalconIts very hard to run an online business on dial up.
Ah but what businesses, and jobs, will be created? TFA says 2.4 million jobs will be created but it does not name 1 job. All it is really about is money saved and not jobs created. Then again the study itself does not say what jobs wll be created.
Falcon2.4 million jobs.
And what jobs are those? TFA doesn't say. Sure some temporary jobs would be created to build the infrastructure and a few more permanent jobs will be created to maintain it but what other jobs will be created? /.'s title is a bad one as TFA is more about money saved not jobs created.
Falconper site
Thanks.
FalconI know people who have 4000 square feet and no kids. That's just insane. even 4000 feet with kids is insane unless you have a lot of kids. People think they need to have huge, flashy things which are huger and flashier than the next guy's things. Nobody seems to be willing to accept "enough", they always want "more".
Oh I agree, many people do get bigger homes than they need but that doesn't mean everyone gets a big home to begin with.
FalconMaybe if an attorney had to look at the raw cases all the time there would be a grass roots legal movement to simplify law rather than constantly add to it.
I propose a new amendment to the Constitution of the USA, all laws have to be written so the average person can read and understand it in 5 minutes.
FalconYea, I've been using Findlaw for years.
FalconI wonder how fast he's going to get sued by the legal publishers that the article refers to as "more expensive", and thus quite successful and profitable?
These businesses already have had some competition for years and it's still available so unless he copies what they offer directly, summaries and such, I don't think it's very likely he'll be sued. Findlaw does this, for instance searching for "John Gilmore" has the ruling in his case as well as commentary on it.
FalconHey thanks for the tip - I've been evaluating various antivirus things and that ZoneAlarm seems really nice. It actually found a virus on my system that two other "big name" programs missed.
Are you using the free or paid version of ZoneAlarm? I started with the free version, and liked it so when I saw it boxed in a store I went ahead and bought it. I liked it even more, one of the things I like was that it allows users to block some websites from using javascript or objects while allowing others to use them. On my Windows PC I wanted to block websites from using javascript and objects but some websites require them. Even Firefox doesn't allow me to do this, it's all or nothing, but ZoneAlarm does. Now if only Zone Labs released a version of ZoneAlarm for Macs.
FalconSo, no, Google shouldn't be allowed to patent their PageRank system.
You're also saying that h.264/AVC shouldn't exist. You're also saying 802.11 shouldn't exist. In fact, you're saying NO open standards should exist...
There are two problems with this argument. The first is Google's PageRank can be protected via Trade Secrets. The second is open source software. If patents were needed there would be no open source software.
By saying you don't want any software patents at all, you're saying you long for the (bad) old days of RealPlayer, 4DTV, TwinVQ/VQF, Cinepak, and everything else proprietary.
By saying you want software patents you say you want Microsoft and SCO holding a sledgehammer over the heads of everyone else.
FalconRecall that most of Microsoft's meteoric rise took place during a time when software was not patentable.
That's an excellent example of why software patents are not needed, MS made it big without them. On the other hand, patents is harming FOOS, look at SCO accusing all of these companies of violating SCO's rights. How many large corporations was SCO able to extort money from hanging the treat of patent infringements over their heads?
Software patents give the original innovator the power to stop that strategy in its tracks.
As as stated with the SCO case, it harms more than helps.
I believe that what Slashdot readers truly dislike are bad patents, not software patents per se.
I hate software patents period!
Software and business processes are simply two more media within which invention may occur. It makes no sense to try to put certain media off limit to patents.
BS! Both software and business processes already enjoy legal protection. For software it's called copyrights, and for business processes it's called trade secrets. Copyrights won't stop anyone any from implementing an idea in another way, neither will trade secrets.
FalconWhy reinvent when you're on a 2 week deadline and you know about a published solution.
Because it was patented. You use it without the authorization of the patent holder and you're infringing.
FalconIf you can't patent words then why should you be able to patent novels as they're nothing more than words.
You can't, at least in the US, patent novels. You can only copyright it.
FalconNot if life saving drugs stop being developed, because the pharmaceutical companies spend millions proving a particular chemical is safe and effective and then get massively undercut by a third party manufacturer producing the same chemical via a different process.
It doesn't go like that, pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. Not only that but government does a lot of research as well. According to this, "An alternative to pharmaceutical patents", in Europe the bulk of research is paid for by government. Now I don't know if that's true but in the US the federal government pays millions for research as well. An excellent example of this is Taxol. The NCI, National Institute of Cancer, part of the NIH or National Institutes of Health a government agency spend $183 million in taxpayers' money to develop Taxol. What did the NCI do with it? After spending all that money to develop and test the drug as a cancer treatment the NCI "sold", gave it away is more like it, all the data needed to win FDA approval of Taxol as a drug to Bristol-Myers Squibb for $43 million. In other words taxpayers paid more the $140 more than they got. And how much does BMS make selling Taxol? In 2000 BMS made almost $1 billion and they were expected to make more each year thereafter. Now I don't know how many doses are needed for one treatment with Taxol but while BMS has been able to lower the cost of making one dose to under $1 a full treatment costs a few thousand dollars to someone needing it or their insurance.
FalconAny decent innovator would know why such a patent should be revoked
Agreed however patent examiners and courts may not accept prior art.
Warning - your prior art search just might find that your innovation is already old. Is stifled innovation worse than proof of not being innovative?
Yes it is, at least with prior art you should still be able to use whatever it is.
As for patents themselves, I don't know whether they are still needed or not.
FalconA difference in my terminology I guess - when I see the word "socialism"
Well I used "socialism", "socialistic", wrong myself. Socialism was when government owned the means of production. A person could still own their own home but the factory they worked in was owned by the government. People do the same today with "liberalism". Liberalism means individual liberty and small government, but somehow some distorted the meaning.
FalconGood. I can then go to the tax board and have my SEV reduced.
SEV? I don't know what that is but if it's anything like property taxes, do you really think government will reduce the value of your property without you fighting them over it?
I'm not sure why people are so bugged about having their property values decrease.
They don't want their property value to go down because they are then hurt. Much as you may dislike it, I do myself, much of the world runs on finances.
I think it comes down to people thinking they've got to keep buying bigger and bigger houses. That's ridiculous. Buy a house and live in it. If it gets too small, you probably have too much crap and should get rid of some of it.
So you've never bought a small house as a single or recently married then had your family expand? Most people start with a small house then buy a bigger one when their family expands, it's called a starter home. What a smart or intelligent person will do is first buy a small home, then when they have children buy a bigger one. Or if they can afford it they will go ahead and get a larger house then rent out one or more bedrooms until they have children. And when the nest is emptied of children buy a small home again.
FalconYes, it's true that some individual people do benefit from business process and software patents, but they do nothing to encourage innovation. In fact, they end up stifling innovation. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, not stifle it.
Do you actually believe this? Patents, from the very beginning, were devised to protect existing technology. Vested interests write the law, not some non-existent altruistic ideal handed down from the heavens.
Yes because patents were meant to encourage progress. Originally Thomas Jefferson, who didn't like corporations, opposed patents however his friend James Madison convinced him they could encourage progress.
Falconit seems very counter-intuitive to me that a socialistic idea like "intellectual property" which limits competition is going to encourage innovation.
IP is the opposite of socialistic. IP says a person or entity, other than government owns property. Socialism on the other hand means the government owns it. As for a study on whether patents work or not compare the advances made by the Soviet Union and the US. Which allowed patents and which advanced more in technology?
FalconI guess that many programmers will be anti patent for a number of reasons:
You left out the biggest reasons to oppose software patents, they stifle innovation and they lockout others who come up with something innovative.
FalconIf there are fraudulent transactions a lot of banks won't do anything if you can't show that you took steps to prevent it. So stuff like not writing down PINs, picking secure passwords and with online banking using a firewall & anti-virus are important for that reason alone.
Yea but GP said virus scanners weren't needed. Personally no matter what OS I use I use both a firewall and AV, well except my Linux PC and haven't used it much. I don't know of good firewall and AV software for Linux. On Windows I use ZoneAlarm, the paid version for my firewall and Norton AV. On my Mac I use Intego NetBarrier and VirusBarrier. For pins and passwords I something easy for me to remember, I won't write them down however my memory is bad because of an injury, so I mix alphanumeric digits.
FalconIf they hadn't lent so much money to people who they KNEW wouldn't be able to pay when their ARM reset, then they wouldn't be in this mess. Again, no sympathy for multi-billion dollar multinationals who should know better (or who have the money to be able to pay someone to figure it out.)
I agree but you missed where you also end up paying when your neighbor defaults.
Good. Overpriced houses are overpriced.
The neighbor's house also declines in value, that's your house if you're the neighbor. And it doesn't later if you bought it 20 years ago when prices were low. Fact is is foreclosed houses in a neighborhood devalues all the houses there.
And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment? They'll roll the dice that the borrower will figure it out, because it's cheaper to let them sink than to help them swim. If they DO default and end up getting repossessed, then the lender can write off the bad debt and recover whatever they can at auction.
They lose when they can't sell the house for more than whats owned on the house. Actually the only way some of these mortgage lenders were able to make loans was because they were able to package the loans in with a bunch of other loans into derivatives. Normally these derivatives lower risk but too many loans that were risky were made. Because of defaults on loans getting credit is harder even for those who can afford it.
And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment?
Yes, lenders do it all the tyme. Lenders work with borrowers when they have problems paying off mortgages. "For most people who fall behind on their mortgage, their first instinct is to avoid all contact with the lender. But that's a mistake, consumer counselors and others say, because it's likely those financial problems will only get worse, making it harder to work out the best repayment terms." While I'm no expert on it myself there are experts in my family. My sister's a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, who runs her own accounting business and my brother-in-law's a Certified Financial Planner.
FalconMan, I hope you wake up in 40 years, look around and see that America is still a free democracy, and look back on this time and laugh.
I don't have to wake up in 40 years, I've already lived through 40 years and things are worse now than then. About the only thing that's better now, which if some so called Christians get their way things will get worse again, is freedom of religion. I recall seeing and experiencing rulers forcibly applied to children's hands when I was in a public elementary school because the pledge of allegiance wasn't said with "under God". Now we have members of congress sworn in with the Koran instead of the Bible. But in other aspects things are worse than before.
Ignore what? The fact that we are headed into a totalitarian dictatorship? That we are going to need to rise up, as our forefathers did, and defend the constitution by force if necessary?
Totalitarian yes. And don't think a democracy can't become a dictatorship, Germany was a democracy when the NAZIs came to power, they were one of a number of political parties. As was El Duce, Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party. Other examples exist as well. As for the US population raising up, that's hardly likely to happen. Half the US was against war in Iraq yet we're there. Many protested against the Bush admin spying on citizens yet Bush wants to continue spying on Americans, without a warrant. Fact is is too many people in the US don't think it affects them, and won't until it bites them in the ass. But as Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
When there is a REAL threat to my ability to publish anonymously, wake me up because I will fight that battle with you at your side to the end. But right now there is no such battle.
If people aren't willing to fight to guaranty the right now it will be too late later. You only enjoy the right now because others are willing to fight to make sure those rights aren't taken away from you. And if you don't think a battle hasn't been fought you either must be too young or don't recall Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, or COINTELPRO.
Falcon