Hahaha, you are kidding, right? Go read at the WIPO site as well as the New Zealand Min. of Econ. Development and educate yourself on difference between the right to exclude others from making/using/selling the invention nationally and internationally.
I am so disgusted with you that I even went to this link to pull a quote for you:
"A patent will only protect your invention within New Zealand. To obtain overseas patent protection, two options are available:
* Filing applications with intellectual property offices in overseas countries of interest; or
* Filing an International Application under the Patent Co-Operation Treaty (PCT).
"
Now stop talking about how cheap is it to obtain internationally applicable patent protection through the New Zealand system and instead fuck off, pardon my French.
Similarities in the instruction sets which the/. article is talking about. The ability to execute a certain set of instructions is caused directly by hardware-level architecture. Perhaps you are confused.
As the article posting comments: "due to the fact that the new Xeon is not an exact copy of the AMD64's microarchitecture, Intel has not broken the law."
This directly implies what I just said. In order for Intel to implement an instruction set to catch up, they had to implement the microarchitecture. But due to liability issues, they had to introduce differences. Perhaps you are the one confused about how reverse engineering is done.
The page you linked to (repeating here) contains only documentation regarding instructions and programming the processor, NOT the processor's architecture.
Stop misleading people. Your post does nothing other than that it shows how incompetent you are...
By the way, I must say I totally agree with you on the fact that today's cars are economically unfriendly. As someone already pointed out elsewhere, the lobby for keeping the oil business running is quite strong.
Regarding communism, I agree that inefficiency will cease to be a problem, but as far as I remember communism, I believe it was "to everyone according to his wants", but to implement it, everyone has to have a civil duty. And even though I believe technology advancement and energy sufficiency will replace the necessity of humans to perform their "civil duty" to allow for production of goods and services to satisfy needs, I think we still have an extraordinary amount of time to reach that point. But I'm straying away now.
Every dollar you spend on your car means two wasted dollars that could have been spent on improving human lives. -- This is totally true, I completely agree. The same way how I also believe that energy will be made for $0 dollars, advances in autonomous robotic technologies will get rid of human labor in manufacturing, advanced artificial intelligence technologies will help coordinate logistics of service processes (non-manufacturing processes) and humans will be left with doing what they are so far best at doing: technology-aided R&D.
Well, of course, only until R&D will be completely automated too.:-) I guess I'm getting way too sci-fi here, but my point is, it's all possible.
So back on track. Just like the information revolution and improvement of individual freedoms, the next step in society becoming more liberated throught becoming more energy-efficient is going to happen when a smart person (or a group) develops an autonomous system for producing energy for buildings (maybe based on solar technology) - each building would have its own and thus be energy-self-sufficient. And the second thing to develop will be better accumulators (rechargable battery cells) that hold enough charge at one time to power a car long enough to compete with current combustion engine-based cars. The challenge there, in my understanding, is the material of such cells, the weight of which is prohibitive to installation into a moving vehicle.
I think the above-described trend has already started surfacing. The market has shown us the hybrid cars - a shift to a commercially acceptable electric car. Obviously, this shift is not complete currently, the Prius still needs gas, but the development of a hybrid car is a clear sign that the moment a battery is light enough to store enough electricity, the gas combustion engine will eventually be completely eliminated.
[...] make it a conflict of interest for anyone with a law degree to be a member of a legislative body.
Are you serious??? And instead, who would sit on the legislative body and create laws that apply to all of us? People "from the field" perhaps?? Say, criminal law would be created by criminals? Nice going, Shaggy.:-))
Solar is the future. I am not sure why you believe that there is no such hting as renewable source of energy, you haven't explaned that.
If the reason is your belief that the energy consumption is just way too high to be satisfied by solar energy, I think you again need out-of-the-box thinking.
Solar used to be only 4% efficient. Then advances in the material sciences came by and we can currently run solar cells with up to 17% efficiency (Japanese research teams) in production systems.
Give it a break, will ya? For the purposes of human kind, solar is not only renewable but also non-depletable. Renewable sources of energy are defined as those that "can be replenished in a short period of time".
DOE publishes sunfall tables where you can see how much solar energy reaches earth. You can see the numbers there. Strategically positioned earth-based collectors with at least 80% efficiency (once the technology gets there in the coming decades) will cover energy needs of people several times. And I haven't even started talking about producing energy outside of earth, say in Earth's orbit.
You don't need a personal car for most of the time and it can be cheaper, more environmentally friendly, more convinient and more comfortable[...] (bolding mine)
You should finally get your head out of your ass and think out of the box.
With the advent of renewable and clean sources of energy, do you really think that environmental friendliness is going to be an issue? This is the second time in this thread you are basing your conclusion on the assumption that somehow, environmental friendliness will be an unsolved problem. Get real.
I think that it is extremely important to keep the communications flowing, so that western policy-makers can decide how to help the Iranian people based upon information flowing from a wide spectrum of Iranians.
Sorry, but the truth is western policy makers will rarely need information from the Iranian people to make decisions about how they will "help" them (read: not Iranians, but their western interests).
If you took Microsoft, Real, SCO, De Beers, and the Russian Mafia, and rolled them all into one big monopoly, they would still be less evil than telstra.
Parent is far way too overrated...
You obviously do not know anything about Russian mafia. I am just glad for you that you don't have to find out the hard way.
If it was up to me, I'd give a promotion to everyone with a villa on a private island if they please. But in this case, I just think you will not get promoted.
There are several reasons why a competent manager would refuse to promote you.
First, by your little "on-the-side development", you have entered into a state of conflict of interest. Part of your job (and in the best interest of the employer) is that you don't get distracted by heavy work on the side and you are expected to show up to work refreshed, stimulated and motivated to be productive, and not groggy, demotivated because you're doing a rewrite anyway, so it doesn't matter how well you do your "regular" work.
Secondly, if the approach that you are practicing as the on-the-side work is the better one than your regular daytime work load, you are knowingly depriving the on-the-side process from flourishing in full productivity. In other words, if your code rewrite was actually done as your main job, it could be even more efficient, more clean and even more beneficial than it will be once you finish it by working evenings with limited (human or technological) resources.
As a manager, I do not want to keep an employee who doesn't understand the business value of his own work and who practices self-destructive efficiency-decreasing methods of "attemting to shine in the end". You would, however, get promoted if you came up to me with a proposal upfront justifying to me why it's not worth fixing the mess but instead it's much more beneficial to do the rewrite. If I, as a manager didn't think it you justified well, I'd just say 'no' and we'd move on, continuing with fixing the code mess as before. At that point, if you still believed a rewrite was more reasonable and that your manager was wrong, you would simply patiently continue with the work the way it was suggested, cash your paychecks and next time an opportunity to get promoted pops up, you'd try to make it happen again.
But continuing with such schizofrenia is both hurtful to the business (through damage to your productivity from extra burden as well as decreased motivation to commit to quality of fixing the existing code) as well as to your relationship with your manager who tends to look at the long-term bottom line.
"It is not the employer who pays the wages. He only handles the money. It is the customers that pays the wages." -- Henry Ford
If one company has a product you need to buy and there is no real competition against this product than you get screwed unless the government steps in.
And here, you have hit the crux of the issue with the word "need". You have successfully covered up in your anti-monopolist propaganda the difference between a "need" and a "want". Not to say that there is a clear distinction, but you have failed to acknowledge the freedomns of capitalism to organize and strive for competitive critial mass. Otherwise, you can go back to government-controlled centralized communism and have them enrule and enforce who will have a freedom to do what. Thank you very much.
They come out with a similar product, bundle it in the OS and then force/threaten their OEM's not to install the competitors. That is what is wrong.
And how is that 'wrong'!!?
And don't give me that "market" crap. A fair market is what people are willing (demand) to pay for the scarce supply to satisfy their needs and wants. The fair market doesn't solve the 'right' or 'wrong' question. If you can't win on the market, that means you are simply not skillful enough, big enough or smart enough. Just because someone is ahead of you with an advantage doesn't make him a 'wrongful' person.
It's disgusting to hear people whine like kids in the sandbox, "But it's not faaaaiirr...."
I have job security because i work for state government (state government don't lay off employees)
Aaah, that's just simply not right...
This again only underscores that government employees are not motivated to perform, because they can rely on their "job security".
One would hope that the government would strive to become better through becoming more efficient, and more productive.
If you are not dealing with extremely confidential information (such as national secrets), there is no reason to keep a policy that guarantees you job safety within the state government.
If they say (paraphrased) "we are close to finding out what consumers are looking for...", I bet this rings a bell to 99% of people to realize that MSN's technology is probably nowhere close to success to beat Google.
I dare to categorize this action of MS as nothing but a brutal business attempt to undermine the capital strength of Google once it goes IPO. Investor confidence is not just a coke-sniffing Wall Street stockbroker's fancy dictionary, it is something that will DRIVE the perceived value of Google either up or down.
And it should be obvious that this type of PR coming from Microsoft at this time is nothing more but an attempt to make that direction 'down' instead of 'up'.
What are web forms for?? You set up a web-based form on the website and upon submissions, the server-side script sends you an email.
Think before you write.
There is nothing that they should be required. Because if you *really* think about it, in your scenario, the company will go out of business.
What you are forgetting in your analogy is that people using Kazaa do want to share, while targets of prank calls don't want to engage in such calls.
I just can't understand how parent could've gotten modded up all the way to 5 and insightful... You and your mods need a lesson in mathematical logic and practice creating analogies...
Furthermore, a free market tends to develop the wrong drugs: drugs that make money are not the drugs that we have the greatest need for.
I'm sorry, but you forgot to think the simple fact of economics that choices are made by supply and demand. Supply of HIV-infected people will create demand for HIV pills. Supply of short-dicked men who are frustrated by it will create demand for penis enlargement pills (if such a thing can actually work).
I mean, come on! You have to admit that in the drug industry, what people feel is more important to them to "cure" will drive innovation anyway, regardless of the money aspect. Not to sound harsh on people with rare and terrible deseases, but there are very few of them and I would like to help them all. But when I make my moral decision as to whom to help, I'll go by the rule of maximizing the benefits, so I'll choose the one that impacts most people.
Yes, and that's about the level of thoughtfullness you seem to have regarding patents: that of a six year old on the playground.
Don't operate with flaimbait arguments against your parent posts, because that approach is the one that is of a six-year-old. Constructive criticism counts, noone cares about flaimbaits.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, you are kidding, right? Go read at the WIPO site as well as the New Zealand Min. of Econ. Development and educate yourself on difference between the right to exclude others from making/using/selling the invention nationally and internationally.
I am so disgusted with you that I even went to this link to pull a quote for you:
"A patent will only protect your invention within New Zealand. To obtain overseas patent protection, two options are available:
* Filing applications with intellectual property offices in overseas countries of interest; or
* Filing an International Application under the Patent Co-Operation Treaty (PCT). "
Now stop talking about how cheap is it to obtain internationally applicable patent protection through the New Zealand system and instead fuck off, pardon my French.
And since when did filing a patent in New Zealand become crucial to world-wide market penetration...?
Similarities in the instruction sets which the /. article is talking about. The ability to execute a certain set of instructions is caused directly by hardware-level architecture. Perhaps you are confused.
As the article posting comments: "due to the fact that the new Xeon is not an exact copy of the AMD64's microarchitecture, Intel has not broken the law."
This directly implies what I just said. In order for Intel to implement an instruction set to catch up, they had to implement the microarchitecture. But due to liability issues, they had to introduce differences. Perhaps you are the one confused about how reverse engineering is done.
The page you linked to (repeating here) contains only documentation regarding instructions and programming the processor, NOT the processor's architecture.
Stop misleading people. Your post does nothing other than that it shows how incompetent you are...
You're a karma whore.
Alrighty.
By the way, I must say I totally agree with you on the fact that today's cars are economically unfriendly. As someone already pointed out elsewhere, the lobby for keeping the oil business running is quite strong.
Regarding communism, I agree that inefficiency will cease to be a problem, but as far as I remember communism, I believe it was "to everyone according to his wants", but to implement it, everyone has to have a civil duty. And even though I believe technology advancement and energy sufficiency will replace the necessity of humans to perform their "civil duty" to allow for production of goods and services to satisfy needs, I think we still have an extraordinary amount of time to reach that point. But I'm straying away now.
Every dollar you spend on your car means two wasted dollars that could have been spent on improving human lives. -- This is totally true, I completely agree. The same way how I also believe that energy will be made for $0 dollars, advances in autonomous robotic technologies will get rid of human labor in manufacturing, advanced artificial intelligence technologies will help coordinate logistics of service processes (non-manufacturing processes) and humans will be left with doing what they are so far best at doing: technology-aided R&D.
Well, of course, only until R&D will be completely automated too. :-) I guess I'm getting way too sci-fi here, but my point is, it's all possible.
So back on track. Just like the information revolution and improvement of individual freedoms, the next step in society becoming more liberated throught becoming more energy-efficient is going to happen when a smart person (or a group) develops an autonomous system for producing energy for buildings (maybe based on solar technology) - each building would have its own and thus be energy-self-sufficient. And the second thing to develop will be better accumulators (rechargable battery cells) that hold enough charge at one time to power a car long enough to compete with current combustion engine-based cars. The challenge there, in my understanding, is the material of such cells, the weight of which is prohibitive to installation into a moving vehicle.
I think the above-described trend has already started surfacing. The market has shown us the hybrid cars - a shift to a commercially acceptable electric car. Obviously, this shift is not complete currently, the Prius still needs gas, but the development of a hybrid car is a clear sign that the moment a battery is light enough to store enough electricity, the gas combustion engine will eventually be completely eliminated.
[...] make it a conflict of interest for anyone with a law degree to be a member of a legislative body.
Are you serious??? And instead, who would sit on the legislative body and create laws that apply to all of us? People "from the field" perhaps?? Say, criminal law would be created by criminals? Nice going, Shaggy. :-))
Sorry if I offended you previously.
Solar is the future. I am not sure why you believe that there is no such hting as renewable source of energy, you haven't explaned that.
If the reason is your belief that the energy consumption is just way too high to be satisfied by solar energy, I think you again need out-of-the-box thinking.
Solar used to be only 4% efficient. Then advances in the material sciences came by and we can currently run solar cells with up to 17% efficiency (Japanese research teams) in production systems.
Give it a break, will ya? For the purposes of human kind, solar is not only renewable but also non-depletable. Renewable sources of energy are defined as those that "can be replenished in a short period of time".
DOE publishes sunfall tables where you can see how much solar energy reaches earth. You can see the numbers there. Strategically positioned earth-based collectors with at least 80% efficiency (once the technology gets there in the coming decades) will cover energy needs of people several times. And I haven't even started talking about producing energy outside of earth, say in Earth's orbit.
You don't need a personal car for most of the time and it can be cheaper, more environmentally friendly, more convinient and more comfortable[...] (bolding mine)
You should finally get your head out of your ass and think out of the box.
With the advent of renewable and clean sources of energy, do you really think that environmental friendliness is going to be an issue? This is the second time in this thread you are basing your conclusion on the assumption that somehow, environmental friendliness will be an unsolved problem. Get real.
A bit off-topic, but shouldn't it be "seek and ye shall find" instead of "find and ye shall seek"??
I think that it is extremely important to keep the communications flowing, so that western policy-makers can decide how to help the Iranian people based upon information flowing from a wide spectrum of Iranians.
Sorry, but the truth is western policy makers will rarely need information from the Iranian people to make decisions about how they will "help" them (read: not Iranians, but their western interests).
If you took Microsoft, Real, SCO, De Beers, and the Russian Mafia, and rolled them all into one big monopoly, they would still be less evil than telstra.
Parent is far way too overrated...
You obviously do not know anything about Russian mafia. I am just glad for you that you don't have to find out the hard way.
There are several reasons why a competent manager would refuse to promote you.
I find it humorous that management's perspective is being given by someone whose username is fingerfucker.
Humor is the spice of life.
If it was up to me, I'd give a promotion to everyone with a villa on a private island if they please. But in this case, I just think you will not get promoted.
There are several reasons why a competent manager would refuse to promote you.
First, by your little "on-the-side development", you have entered into a state of conflict of interest. Part of your job (and in the best interest of the employer) is that you don't get distracted by heavy work on the side and you are expected to show up to work refreshed, stimulated and motivated to be productive, and not groggy, demotivated because you're doing a rewrite anyway, so it doesn't matter how well you do your "regular" work.
Secondly, if the approach that you are practicing as the on-the-side work is the better one than your regular daytime work load, you are knowingly depriving the on-the-side process from flourishing in full productivity. In other words, if your code rewrite was actually done as your main job, it could be even more efficient, more clean and even more beneficial than it will be once you finish it by working evenings with limited (human or technological) resources.
As a manager, I do not want to keep an employee who doesn't understand the business value of his own work and who practices self-destructive efficiency-decreasing methods of "attemting to shine in the end". You would, however, get promoted if you came up to me with a proposal upfront justifying to me why it's not worth fixing the mess but instead it's much more beneficial to do the rewrite. If I, as a manager didn't think it you justified well, I'd just say 'no' and we'd move on, continuing with fixing the code mess as before. At that point, if you still believed a rewrite was more reasonable and that your manager was wrong, you would simply patiently continue with the work the way it was suggested, cash your paychecks and next time an opportunity to get promoted pops up, you'd try to make it happen again.
But continuing with such schizofrenia is both hurtful to the business (through damage to your productivity from extra burden as well as decreased motivation to commit to quality of fixing the existing code) as well as to your relationship with your manager who tends to look at the long-term bottom line.
"It is not the employer who pays the wages. He only handles the money. It is the customers that pays the wages." -- Henry Ford
Mod parent up, morons.
Oh no, don't tell me that I will have to listen to PMS symptoms twice a month now....
If one company has a product you need to buy and there is no real competition against this product than you get screwed unless the government steps in.
And here, you have hit the crux of the issue with the word "need". You have successfully covered up in your anti-monopolist propaganda the difference between a "need" and a "want". Not to say that there is a clear distinction, but you have failed to acknowledge the freedomns of capitalism to organize and strive for competitive critial mass. Otherwise, you can go back to government-controlled centralized communism and have them enrule and enforce who will have a freedom to do what. Thank you very much.
They come out with a similar product, bundle it in the OS and then force/threaten their OEM's not to install the competitors. That is what is wrong.
And how is that 'wrong'!!?
And don't give me that "market" crap. A fair market is what people are willing (demand) to pay for the scarce supply to satisfy their needs and wants. The fair market doesn't solve the 'right' or 'wrong' question. If you can't win on the market, that means you are simply not skillful enough, big enough or smart enough. Just because someone is ahead of you with an advantage doesn't make him a 'wrongful' person.
It's disgusting to hear people whine like kids in the sandbox, "But it's not faaaaiirr...."
I have job security because i work for state government (state government don't lay off employees)
Aaah, that's just simply not right...
This again only underscores that government employees are not motivated to perform, because they can rely on their "job security".
One would hope that the government would strive to become better through becoming more efficient, and more productive.
If you are not dealing with extremely confidential information (such as national secrets), there is no reason to keep a policy that guarantees you job safety within the state government.
If they say (paraphrased) "we are close to finding out what consumers are looking for...", I bet this rings a bell to 99% of people to realize that MSN's technology is probably nowhere close to success to beat Google.
I dare to categorize this action of MS as nothing but a brutal business attempt to undermine the capital strength of Google once it goes IPO. Investor confidence is not just a coke-sniffing Wall Street stockbroker's fancy dictionary, it is something that will DRIVE the perceived value of Google either up or down.
And it should be obvious that this type of PR coming from Microsoft at this time is nothing more but an attempt to make that direction 'down' instead of 'up'.
This is not personal, this is business.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=popul ace
What are web forms for?? You set up a web-based form on the website and upon submissions, the server-side script sends you an email. Think before you write.
There is nothing that they should be required. Because if you *really* think about it, in your scenario, the company will go out of business.
What you are forgetting in your analogy is that people using Kazaa do want to share, while targets of prank calls don't want to engage in such calls.
I just can't understand how parent could've gotten modded up all the way to 5 and insightful... You and your mods need a lesson in mathematical logic and practice creating analogies...
It was said before and I'll say it again:
Arguing on Slashdot is like participating in the special olympics. It doesn't matter who wins, because in the end, everyone is still a retard.
Furthermore, a free market tends to develop the wrong drugs: drugs that make money are not the drugs that we have the greatest need for.
I'm sorry, but you forgot to think the simple fact of economics that choices are made by supply and demand. Supply of HIV-infected people will create demand for HIV pills. Supply of short-dicked men who are frustrated by it will create demand for penis enlargement pills (if such a thing can actually work).
I mean, come on! You have to admit that in the drug industry, what people feel is more important to them to "cure" will drive innovation anyway, regardless of the money aspect. Not to sound harsh on people with rare and terrible deseases, but there are very few of them and I would like to help them all. But when I make my moral decision as to whom to help, I'll go by the rule of maximizing the benefits, so I'll choose the one that impacts most people.
Yes, and that's about the level of thoughtfullness you seem to have regarding patents: that of a six year old on the playground.
Don't operate with flaimbait arguments against your parent posts, because that approach is the one that is of a six-year-old. Constructive criticism counts, noone cares about flaimbaits.