for some it was religious faith that gave them strength of spirit to overcome adversity or to become greater than they already are.
I don't think faith is a bad thing. Blind faith against all proof is a bad thing. Scientologists going off their meds being an example that easily comes to mind; now that's bad. But that's organized religion for you, it's dumb. When we get together and just discuss our philosophies and the nature of humanity that at it's core is good regardless of where you come from. That takes down barriers and brings human nature back into focus. But faith in something that flies against what we know factually is bad.
I'm not a religous guy anymore (but deep down I believe), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to bash on religion in general. That's a bit unfair to those who need religion and aren't in this camp of "My faith vs your science". They aren't all like that. So I'm all on the side against the fundies that try to discredit science with theories like ID but when you trash on religion in general that's a step to far.
From the hypothetical G being as done in Futurerama: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
The reality is if there was a proven observable god; you wouldn't need faith you would simple just know and take it for granted. "Oh there goes god again doing stuff..." God turns into a very mundane and run of the mill entity. So I don't think there will ever be an end to the "does god exist?" arguement.
Here's another point I love to make on this topic. Considering that the easiest explanation is most likely... isn't it more plausible with intelligent design that Aliens and not God are responsible for creation? I have to admit, I think it would.:D
But the GP was trying to say that if an event occurred that PROVED god existed then it's no longer faith, it's fact. I wouldn't have faith that god exists, I would no because I observed it.
In your Jesus example, archaelogical proof of Jesus doesn't show that god exists just that Jesus did. Therefore it would still require faith, albiet blostered, to believe in god.
That would be Joe Public. What pisses me off is that since the media is controlled by the special interests in this that we get a filtered view of the issue. The public has no idea that all this change to copyright (and abuse of patents et al) are eroding things like fair use, innovation and in fact creates barriers to entry. Oh well, aparantly we the public don't know what's best for us.:P
Here's the catch to what you said though. IF I don't have some mechanism (like a patent) to protect my ideas so I can develop them they WILL be developed by individuals who can (and faster since most likely it would be done by a large corporation). So it becomes a whole new barrier for entry because no smaller player could ever compete with a larger company with greater resources. As soon as an idea spills out to the public it's developed. That's the whole reason for patent expiry. I think the flaw with patents is that someone can file a patent and half ass develop it and then sue half the world that try to do anything similar. That's what doesn't benefit society or the consumer and don't even get me started about the nonsense about copyright!
Anyways, saying abolish the system I think is a bit extreme. We need to give protections for innovators of new techonologies but that protection needs to be reasonable and realistic. I think the problem really isn't concept of a patent it's how the implementation of patents can be (and have) abused much as you've outlined.
Oh let's not forget when someone patents something vague like 1-click; seriously, how much money and time was wasted in the courts to defend a patent that should never have been given. I digress. Sometimes, a patent just makes sense to protect innovation (I have the patent on the car that runs on flamebait comments on slashdot so I have time to develop it before anyone else does). The intent of patents is to protect inventors so they can make money off their ideas before anyone else can. IIRC patents, copyright et al are supposed to expire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects because the advancement of society is so dependent on the further developement of old ideas. So the way things are supposed to go is I have an invention, I make a sketch or diagram or whatever and go to file it. Then I go out into the world with my patent try to develop it with some investment dollars and such and get it to market. If over the time I make money on my product great but once the patent expires anyone else can improve upon your idea and try to cash in.
I think if the manufactures couldn't sit on their patents then they'd be more likely to collaborate more and develop standards. Standard formats and methods are good for consumers, IMHO. But sitting on a technology is insanity and the approach of some companies as of late to file as many patents as possible is just a brazen attempt to lock out competition. Which of course, creates barriers to competition which all the "free market" types are supposed to hate so much.
Anyways, I agree with you completely I just had to vent. In regards to phone technology we're pretty much stuck it's all just too new and some of those patents are legitimate. What's interesting is how this article about what the ultimate consumer goody would be turned into something quite different.
And I've heard of things like that before. IIRC (but I may have this wrong), for some people certain activities triggers a release of serotonin and they keep coming back to that same activity again and again.
The way I should have phrased my original response as "I still find the idea of people being addicted to video games explaining all these behaviors a stretch". I really think most instances of percieved video game addiction are really do to folks who have some level of obsessive compulsive engaged in their pattern of choice. The people I've known who have been "hooked" on video games were previously hooked on RPGs, collectible card games (I remember refering to a game once as Magic the addiction), legos... you name it. There was always something that they were hooked on. The pattern may change but the underlying behavior was the same.
Or is the percieved behavior actually the result of some obsessive compulsive tendency? I still find the idea of people being addicted to video games a stretch.
Yes, and at the peak of popularity... or at least the percieved peak since the show isn't allowed to continue. But lets be fair, Sci-Fi needs to keep the schedule clear for all those great mini-series they want to do... oh yes, endless mini-series.
Damnit! And you're on Sisters of Elune too! You must be one of those guys vexing me in the Battlegrounds! Curses! Now it's happening on Slashdot! Foiled again...
HA! I one upped you! I patented RNAML a markup language used to model RNA and DNAML and anything like it. You'll all screwed as you can no longer describe what you want to patent.
It's a living organism not a bunch of lego's. Molecular biology is still very young and our knowledge of the interactions at that level is still limited. Sure one strand of DNA is a piece but the consequence that piece can have is profound and has considerable risk when introduced in the food chain. We need to fully understand those consequences and risks be for we look at the commercial application and that day and understanding is years away, so best to ban GMO's until we do.
I was just saying that if you're banning the terminator gene you may as well ban all GMO's. I would prefer a ban on pesticides and herbicides and etc; I just thought it'd be out of context to say it. Our friend who farms organically produces quite a lot of food and at a reasonable cost so I don't think coventional or modern methods are so much more improved.
As for the worlds population, I couldn't agree with you more.
Oh really? If a set of rules were out on the internet for playing a game with your hockey cards (and we played them back in they day 30 years ago) does that make your hockey cards a collectible card game? Go ahead and argue that there are no rules packaged with the cards but the reality is that the same can be said for a booster pack. The idea was nothing original they're bloody trading cards! Is the game original!? NO! It's just the style of play and the mechanics was original. You can protect your game in it's mechanics but much like the the CCG patent this constructible game patent seems to be too broad.
The other thing to consider is that patents, trademarks, copyrights, and etc have an impact on society and it's supposed to be up to society when it's beneficial to grant or repeal these things. That too, isn't always clear. Can an organization sit on a patent or copyright or some other piece of IP and not develop it? Technically yes. Is that's what's best for society? No, all current ideas are built on previous ideas this is how we develop culturally.
I'll caveat my response with "I have no love for genetic engineering as it's being pursued today". I truly believe that genetically modifying foods is a bad idea and we shouldn't stop at terminator genes. Taking one gene from one organism to get a trait in another has HUGE consequences; my favorite being splicing fish DNA into tomatos to make them frost resistant, yum fishmato. How can they actually sell us this food when we don't fully understand the end result? Really, is it nutritionally the same? I never understood why we take our food so lightly but we regulate drugs so heavily.
Further, the whole Monsanto thing unfortunately gave Canola a bad name. Too many folks attribute Canola to being some kind of Frankenfood when it's a cultivar - it was bred not spliced or at least it wasn't spliced originally before Monsanto thought to improve on it. A friend of our family is an organic farmer and some of the things that he and other farmers are trying to do were really amazing to us and the techniques didn't require labs or millions to accomplish, just patience and breeding. Anyways, I don't think we need to be producing genetically modified foods and at a minimum our food should be clearly labelled if it is a GMO.
I dunno, when I read the story I thought more along the lines of Extortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion/ to me it fits in better. They're not saying "Pay us or we'll sue" but they are saying "do as you're told and you'll be treated well if you don't we'll squash you like bug". Mind you, I never heard of Xandros until today and the idea that microsoft is so willing to pay out to get such small players to fall in line boggles my mind.
But this whole thing has been absurd in my opinion from SCO to MS and so on. This whole idea of being able to sue people over IP like this is dumb. I only hope that one day all of us who work in technology form a lobby or organization that can properly send a message to government about issues like this and how they should be handled.
And aparantly his need to have more than one button to power on and off a device deserves an insightful bonus?!?! And of all the things that are actually wrong he harped on about there only being one button?? It's blowing my mind how many people are focused on that. How is it a real problem? Your observation is bang on by the way.
I have a similar issue with this but different. For me this device is too underpowered (capability-wise) to stand alone and too overpowered/overpriced as an extension to a pre-existing smartphone. This can really only cater to a niche market.
I don't expect this to break palm but it will disrupt things for some time. I'm shocked they even went this route. I love my treo but I'm constantly annoyed that I don't have Wi-Fi built in and other annoyances. A was really expecting something more different considering the hype and it turned out to be a non-standalone not so laptop? How about give me the bleeding edge smartphone first? Since that area is where the competition is heating up.
Slashdot Mirror
for some it was religious faith that gave them strength of spirit to overcome adversity or to become greater than they already are.
I don't think faith is a bad thing. Blind faith against all proof is a bad thing. Scientologists going off their meds being an example that easily comes to mind; now that's bad. But that's organized religion for you, it's dumb. When we get together and just discuss our philosophies and the nature of humanity that at it's core is good regardless of where you come from. That takes down barriers and brings human nature back into focus. But faith in something that flies against what we know factually is bad.
I'm not a religous guy anymore (but deep down I believe), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to bash on religion in general. That's a bit unfair to those who need religion and aren't in this camp of "My faith vs your science". They aren't all like that. So I'm all on the side against the fundies that try to discredit science with theories like ID but when you trash on religion in general that's a step to far.
From the hypothetical G being as done in Futurerama: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
:D
The reality is if there was a proven observable god; you wouldn't need faith you would simple just know and take it for granted. "Oh there goes god again doing stuff..." God turns into a very mundane and run of the mill entity. So I don't think there will ever be an end to the "does god exist?" arguement.
Here's another point I love to make on this topic. Considering that the easiest explanation is most likely... isn't it more plausible with intelligent design that Aliens and not God are responsible for creation? I have to admit, I think it would.
But the GP was trying to say that if an event occurred that PROVED god existed then it's no longer faith, it's fact. I wouldn't have faith that god exists, I would no because I observed it.
In your Jesus example, archaelogical proof of Jesus doesn't show that god exists just that Jesus did. Therefore it would still require faith, albiet blostered, to believe in god.
I need mod points! This deserves an informative at least!
That would be Joe Public. What pisses me off is that since the media is controlled by the special interests in this that we get a filtered view of the issue. The public has no idea that all this change to copyright (and abuse of patents et al) are eroding things like fair use, innovation and in fact creates barriers to entry. Oh well, aparantly we the public don't know what's best for us. :P
I'll have to say, you're unfairly moderated.
Here's the catch to what you said though. IF I don't have some mechanism (like a patent) to protect my ideas so I can develop them they WILL be developed by individuals who can (and faster since most likely it would be done by a large corporation). So it becomes a whole new barrier for entry because no smaller player could ever compete with a larger company with greater resources. As soon as an idea spills out to the public it's developed. That's the whole reason for patent expiry. I think the flaw with patents is that someone can file a patent and half ass develop it and then sue half the world that try to do anything similar. That's what doesn't benefit society or the consumer and don't even get me started about the nonsense about copyright!
Anyways, saying abolish the system I think is a bit extreme. We need to give protections for innovators of new techonologies but that protection needs to be reasonable and realistic. I think the problem really isn't concept of a patent it's how the implementation of patents can be (and have) abused much as you've outlined.
Oh let's not forget when someone patents something vague like 1-click; seriously, how much money and time was wasted in the courts to defend a patent that should never have been given. I digress. Sometimes, a patent just makes sense to protect innovation (I have the patent on the car that runs on flamebait comments on slashdot so I have time to develop it before anyone else does). The intent of patents is to protect inventors so they can make money off their ideas before anyone else can. IIRC patents, copyright et al are supposed to expire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects because the advancement of society is so dependent on the further developement of old ideas. So the way things are supposed to go is I have an invention, I make a sketch or diagram or whatever and go to file it. Then I go out into the world with my patent try to develop it with some investment dollars and such and get it to market. If over the time I make money on my product great but once the patent expires anyone else can improve upon your idea and try to cash in.
I think if the manufactures couldn't sit on their patents then they'd be more likely to collaborate more and develop standards. Standard formats and methods are good for consumers, IMHO. But sitting on a technology is insanity and the approach of some companies as of late to file as many patents as possible is just a brazen attempt to lock out competition. Which of course, creates barriers to competition which all the "free market" types are supposed to hate so much.
Anyways, I agree with you completely I just had to vent. In regards to phone technology we're pretty much stuck it's all just too new and some of those patents are legitimate. What's interesting is how this article about what the ultimate consumer goody would be turned into something quite different.
Let's find out, all slashdotters that have a love of pokemon... spam this post!
Oh man! Now I have to go play this for 2000 hours... stupid temptation.
And I've heard of things like that before. IIRC (but I may have this wrong), for some people certain activities triggers a release of serotonin and they keep coming back to that same activity again and again.
The way I should have phrased my original response as "I still find the idea of people being addicted to video games explaining all these behaviors a stretch". I really think most instances of percieved video game addiction are really do to folks who have some level of obsessive compulsive engaged in their pattern of choice. The people I've known who have been "hooked" on video games were previously hooked on RPGs, collectible card games (I remember refering to a game once as Magic the addiction), legos... you name it. There was always something that they were hooked on. The pattern may change but the underlying behavior was the same.
Or is the percieved behavior actually the result of some obsessive compulsive tendency? I still find the idea of people being addicted to video games a stretch.
Well that explains everything... they're geeks with short attention spans!
Yes, and at the peak of popularity... or at least the percieved peak since the show isn't allowed to continue. But lets be fair, Sci-Fi needs to keep the schedule clear for all those great mini-series they want to do... oh yes, endless mini-series.
Damnit! And you're on Sisters of Elune too! You must be one of those guys vexing me in the Battlegrounds! Curses! Now it's happening on Slashdot! Foiled again...
HA! I one upped you! I patented RNAML a markup language used to model RNA and DNAML and anything like it. You'll all screwed as you can no longer describe what you want to patent.
MUHAHAHAHAHA! MUHAHAHAHA!
Evil genius is me!
Come on, this line in context to the GP is freaking perfectly funny.
Yes it is. It cleans windows...... right off your hard drive.
It's a living organism not a bunch of lego's. Molecular biology is still very young and our knowledge of the interactions at that level is still limited. Sure one strand of DNA is a piece but the consequence that piece can have is profound and has considerable risk when introduced in the food chain. We need to fully understand those consequences and risks be for we look at the commercial application and that day and understanding is years away, so best to ban GMO's until we do.
I was just saying that if you're banning the terminator gene you may as well ban all GMO's. I would prefer a ban on pesticides and herbicides and etc; I just thought it'd be out of context to say it. Our friend who farms organically produces quite a lot of food and at a reasonable cost so I don't think coventional or modern methods are so much more improved.
As for the worlds population, I couldn't agree with you more.
Oh really? If a set of rules were out on the internet for playing a game with your hockey cards (and we played them back in they day 30 years ago) does that make your hockey cards a collectible card game? Go ahead and argue that there are no rules packaged with the cards but the reality is that the same can be said for a booster pack. The idea was nothing original they're bloody trading cards! Is the game original!? NO! It's just the style of play and the mechanics was original. You can protect your game in it's mechanics but much like the the CCG patent this constructible game patent seems to be too broad.
The other thing to consider is that patents, trademarks, copyrights, and etc have an impact on society and it's supposed to be up to society when it's beneficial to grant or repeal these things. That too, isn't always clear. Can an organization sit on a patent or copyright or some other piece of IP and not develop it? Technically yes. Is that's what's best for society? No, all current ideas are built on previous ideas this is how we develop culturally.
The patent should never have been granted.
I'll caveat my response with "I have no love for genetic engineering as it's being pursued today". I truly believe that genetically modifying foods is a bad idea and we shouldn't stop at terminator genes. Taking one gene from one organism to get a trait in another has HUGE consequences; my favorite being splicing fish DNA into tomatos to make them frost resistant, yum fishmato. How can they actually sell us this food when we don't fully understand the end result? Really, is it nutritionally the same? I never understood why we take our food so lightly but we regulate drugs so heavily.
Further, the whole Monsanto thing unfortunately gave Canola a bad name. Too many folks attribute Canola to being some kind of Frankenfood when it's a cultivar - it was bred not spliced or at least it wasn't spliced originally before Monsanto thought to improve on it. A friend of our family is an organic farmer and some of the things that he and other farmers are trying to do were really amazing to us and the techniques didn't require labs or millions to accomplish, just patience and breeding. Anyways, I don't think we need to be producing genetically modified foods and at a minimum our food should be clearly labelled if it is a GMO.
I dunno, when I read the story I thought more along the lines of Extortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion/ to me it fits in better. They're not saying "Pay us or we'll sue" but they are saying "do as you're told and you'll be treated well if you don't we'll squash you like bug". Mind you, I never heard of Xandros until today and the idea that microsoft is so willing to pay out to get such small players to fall in line boggles my mind.
But this whole thing has been absurd in my opinion from SCO to MS and so on. This whole idea of being able to sue people over IP like this is dumb. I only hope that one day all of us who work in technology form a lobby or organization that can properly send a message to government about issues like this and how they should be handled.
And aparantly his need to have more than one button to power on and off a device deserves an insightful bonus?!?! And of all the things that are actually wrong he harped on about there only being one button?? It's blowing my mind how many people are focused on that. How is it a real problem?
Your observation is bang on by the way.
I have a similar issue with this but different. For me this device is too underpowered (capability-wise) to stand alone and too overpowered/overpriced as an extension to a pre-existing smartphone. This can really only cater to a niche market.
I don't expect this to break palm but it will disrupt things for some time. I'm shocked they even went this route. I love my treo but I'm constantly annoyed that I don't have Wi-Fi built in and other annoyances. A was really expecting something more different considering the hype and it turned out to be a non-standalone not so laptop? How about give me the bleeding edge smartphone first? Since that area is where the competition is heating up.
Ok, you're scaring me. Well would houses have a natural predator?? Man, I don't want to get eatin' by my house getting eatin'!
My question would be when I'm in a bad mood and lip it off will it give me attitude or just be smug like nothing happened?