I envy you having the time to read up on multiple articles for the same topic. I usually try and read between the lines, but do not have the time to read two+ articles for one story:(
1)Invent something original and place it open source if you choose to. This prevents from IBM patenting it and suing the users
2)Come out with a work around. If you can't use nesting selectable options in a menu, come out with a better method
3)The most important issue - the patent office hire people who are qualified, and not overburdeoned to rush - who will register legitimate patents - not retarded ones (hmm can I patent the method for breathing air???):)
Nope I have no idea of economics - non whatsoever (pfft).
What I do know: Some Company X makes a product that costs them some amount of dollars (investment). They work to intellectually protect their product *god forbid* & investment. Then they go to produce (supply) and sell (sell cost) to make the most amount of profit.
Consumer A - views the product, determines if he wants it (demand). If the demand value is equal to or greater then the price (sell cost) the consumer buys it. Hopefully the sell cost >= investment.
Now if Company X wants to sell a product that has less functionality then a four digit calculater for $500.00 and someone buys it - whose fault is that? Some other company Y can come out and invent a NEW product that is better then Company X's product. They can sell it for less or sell it for more.
It's that simple. We show all this angst and snot towards software companies from making profits on their product - and then we turn around trying to make as much money as possible when we go to work.
Eliminate the product for a moment (software). In the end, some company is trying to make a profit - just like *YOU* do when you go to your boss and ask for a raise.
Take that into account.
software developers and corporations were open-minded and generous enough to give away their inventions/creations for the benefit of everybody,
In all honesty, the only way this will work is in a community where everyone is given an equal quality of living, and everyone contributes. This assumes two things:
1) People are not greedy and want more then everyone else (i.e. you have $10.00 I want $30.00)
2) Everyone contributes (i.e. we are not lazy, and by our very atomic nature, let alone human nature, we all desire to be lazy).
While I would love to be a part of this society, it only works in Star Trek (and barely at that).
In reality, you cannot expect some company that spent millions of dollars in R&D to give the stuff away for free. They have families to support, goals to reach, etc...
In other words, put it in this perspective. Would you go to work everyday and not get paid for it? Unless your answer to that is "Yes" then you cannot expect someone else to do the same (unless you are an idiot, and I do not think you are).
You know, I have to break out my discrete math books to try and decipher this thing.
Ok so parliament WANTS software patents?
Netherlands does NOT want software patents?
Netherland minister voted in FAVOR of software patents?
Netherland gov't smacked the Netherland minister and said RETRACT your vote?
I don't consider myself to be the smartest person in the world, but I am not dumb either - it just took me about 15 posts to realize who was voting which way - damn gov'ts and their trickery. I hate double negatives.
unless he just misunderstood their wishes. There are so many things discussed, conveyed, requested and demanded - mistakes happen. It's OK - as long as it can be corrected and nobody was hurt - no big deal.
God forbid someone re-evaluating their decision and changing their vote. What is wrong with this? They generally have a time-frame. So the minister made a vote, the other politicians that he represents didn't like his choice, and told him to do otherwise.
I would rather have our politicians have the ability to change their vote, then to force them to stick with a vote that could be a mistake.
Imagine this - a politician votes today on passing a law - tomorrow it dawns on him that the law is TERRIBLE...wouldn't it be a shame if he couldn't go back and change his vote for the better? Maybe I am just optimistic...
Then why did you read the associated article? The only way to get the real facts is to be there and witness it, otherwise, you are reading/listening to someones take on the story - and that could be maligned in many ways (be it purely accidental or on purpose).
This law they are trying to pass will allow companies to patent the software (intellectual property) that they have written?
Just like any other company that does R&D (the most costly aspect of producing a product) what is the problem with it being patented?
Let them recoup their costs. If I write some software, I be damned if someone is going to tell me how to market/sell/utilize it (short of national security breach).
The upcoming USA election should be interesting.
Not it won't. It is going to be totally boring, probably more-so then the last one. Very unimpressive, by sub-par candidates
I wouldn't so much say that IE is inferior to the other browsers (ducks the rocks) but its just that since there are more people using it - there are more people trying to hack it. Imagine if the majority of users were utilizing Mozilla - a majority of the bad hackers out there would be finding ways to exploit that program.
Good, thats how it should be. Sorry I am not into the boring - lay on your back, spread your legs and give me two minutes, thanks goodnight ma'am.- I want some good fun thats adventerous, interesting, erotic and lasts for a long time. If my woman has a problem with that, then she shouldn't wonder if I dump her ass.:)
Damn what school do you teach that gives kids laptops? We were lucky to have Apple II-e's and logwriter:)
As for complexes ---plastic surgeons love the porn industry - which I think helped raise the bar in a good way (i.e. shave between your legs men and women):)
After reading the summary I was just left with this thought "How on gods green earth do they let a judge make a decision in a field that he has no clue about?"
The judge probably thinks this is the same as the phone number portability - IDIOT!
Ok now I need to go RTFA:)
Differing cultures, even before global communication, helps to prove that there is a universal (at least Terran based) set of moral codes that people tend to agree upon. So actually, it is correct on many levels.
Now, more advanced sets of ethics (i.e. drinking and driving) is not inherent into our nature, but things like killing for no other reason is considered a universally ingrained policy.
Even some mammels agree with some of these codes of ethics (i.e. primates).
And yes people can have intellectual disagreements over ethics/morality and not be considered evil or immoral. Those who are considered evil or immoral are those who prove themselves to be oppressive zealots. Those who force their ethics on others.
But again, I stress to you, that some ethical codes are inherent into our human nature. That is why things like "smiling" are universal (as well as laughing, crying, making faces of pain, etc.)
Doesn't the smoke help transfer the light? It seemed to be a part of it - then again, just fireworks exploding without the smoke might be cool.
Actually smoke would occur when the sparks go boom:)
Wrong! This is based on an old model of "smart", that there is a single, linear measure of intelligence, one's IQ
Eh, Right! You are putting an assumption as to what I referred to as "smart." My reference of "smart enough" is someone who is capable of utilizing a computer, searching for a hack script, and then running it with the intent of causing some harm. Plus - as I stated, someone who does not have mental retardation (i.e. idiot savants) The person doesn't need to be a genious (for your IQ system 150), but the person does need to be reasonably intelligent (above 70 IQ).
While people who are on a higher intelligence scale may have an easier time understanding complex issues, such as advanced ethics, a person does not have to be a genius to understand basic ethics. Hacking with the intent to cause harm is fairly basic. Script kiddies tend to realize that what they are about to do is going to cause someon e grief. Let's not assume because a person is a "script kiddie" that they are not smart enough to realize between right and wrong.
As much as we like to make fun of script kiddie's, they are not THAT dumb. It still takes a level of intelligence to run a script. It is not something that is so basic. It may be as easy as double clicking on an exe file, but you need to find that file.
*I* cannot put down the intelligence of a script kiddie to the level of someone who is mentally retarded or a four year old (and even four year olds have a basic sense of write or wrong).
Anyone who is smart enough to hack, is smart enough (save for those with mental problems) to realize the difference between right and wrong.
Anyone who wants to take an ethics class obviously has some ethics (what you think someone lacking morales will be taking an ethics class to hope improving himself)???
What they should offer is a class that teaches non-techies what is a hacker - so they learn that not all hackers are evil people bent on ruling the world (not there is anything inherently wrong with this..I mean if I ran the world, it would be a much better place - for you and me....well more me, but it's all good)
Slashdot Mirror
I envy you having the time to read up on multiple articles for the same topic. I usually try and read between the lines, but do not have the time to read two+ articles for one story :(
1)Invent something original and place it open source if you choose to. This prevents from IBM patenting it and suing the users :)
2)Come out with a work around. If you can't use nesting selectable options in a menu, come out with a better method
3)The most important issue - the patent office hire people who are qualified, and not overburdeoned to rush - who will register legitimate patents - not retarded ones (hmm can I patent the method for breathing air???)
Nope I have no idea of economics - non whatsoever (pfft).
What I do know: Some Company X makes a product that costs them some amount of dollars (investment). They work to intellectually protect their product *god forbid* & investment. Then they go to produce (supply) and sell (sell cost) to make the most amount of profit.
Consumer A - views the product, determines if he wants it (demand). If the demand value is equal to or greater then the price (sell cost) the consumer buys it. Hopefully the sell cost >= investment.
Now if Company X wants to sell a product that has less functionality then a four digit calculater for $500.00 and someone buys it - whose fault is that? Some other company Y can come out and invent a NEW product that is better then Company X's product. They can sell it for less or sell it for more.
It's that simple. We show all this angst and snot towards software companies from making profits on their product - and then we turn around trying to make as much money as possible when we go to work.
Eliminate the product for a moment (software). In the end, some company is trying to make a profit - just like *YOU* do when you go to your boss and ask for a raise.
Take that into account.
software developers and corporations were open-minded and generous enough to give away their inventions/creations for the benefit of everybody,
In all honesty, the only way this will work is in a community where everyone is given an equal quality of living, and everyone contributes. This assumes two things:
1) People are not greedy and want more then everyone else (i.e. you have $10.00 I want $30.00) 2) Everyone contributes (i.e. we are not lazy, and by our very atomic nature, let alone human nature, we all desire to be lazy).
While I would love to be a part of this society, it only works in Star Trek (and barely at that).
In reality, you cannot expect some company that spent millions of dollars in R&D to give the stuff away for free. They have families to support, goals to reach, etc...
In other words, put it in this perspective. Would you go to work everyday and not get paid for it? Unless your answer to that is "Yes" then you cannot expect someone else to do the same (unless you are an idiot, and I do not think you are).
You know, I have to break out my discrete math books to try and decipher this thing.
Ok so parliament WANTS software patents?
Netherlands does NOT want software patents?
Netherland minister voted in FAVOR of software patents?
Netherland gov't smacked the Netherland minister and said RETRACT your vote?
I don't consider myself to be the smartest person in the world, but I am not dumb either - it just took me about 15 posts to realize who was voting which way - damn gov'ts and their trickery. I hate double negatives.
unless he just misunderstood their wishes. There are so many things discussed, conveyed, requested and demanded - mistakes happen. It's OK - as long as it can be corrected and nobody was hurt - no big deal.
God forbid someone re-evaluating their decision and changing their vote. What is wrong with this? They generally have a time-frame. So the minister made a vote, the other politicians that he represents didn't like his choice, and told him to do otherwise.
I would rather have our politicians have the ability to change their vote, then to force them to stick with a vote that could be a mistake.
Imagine this - a politician votes today on passing a law - tomorrow it dawns on him that the law is TERRIBLE...wouldn't it be a shame if he couldn't go back and change his vote for the better? Maybe I am just optimistic...
Then why did you read the associated article? The only way to get the real facts is to be there and witness it, otherwise, you are reading/listening to someones take on the story - and that could be maligned in many ways (be it purely accidental or on purpose).
This law they are trying to pass will allow companies to patent the software (intellectual property) that they have written?
Just like any other company that does R&D (the most costly aspect of producing a product) what is the problem with it being patented?
Let them recoup their costs. If I write some software, I be damned if someone is going to tell me how to market/sell/utilize it (short of national security breach).
The upcoming USA election should be interesting.
Not it won't. It is going to be totally boring, probably more-so then the last one. Very unimpressive, by sub-par candidates
ASININE
Whenever i get modded down, I like to think it is because the mod's are jealous they didn't think of it first :)
Mod: 2 Points - JEALOUS
Thanks for the example chum. :D
Sheesh and I thought I could find friends on the geek community - STOP RUINING MY FANTASIES
For the inept :) Then again I know a few women (no offense) who could really use this. Especially suburbanites :)
I wouldn't so much say that IE is inferior to the other browsers (ducks the rocks) but its just that since there are more people using it - there are more people trying to hack it. Imagine if the majority of users were utilizing Mozilla - a majority of the bad hackers out there would be finding ways to exploit that program.
ever heard of a plow? Build it with some crazy sloping roof so the snow slides off and someone scoops it up with a bulldozer...damn
act like pornstar in the bedroom
:) :) :)
Good, thats how it should be. Sorry I am not into the boring - lay on your back, spread your legs and give me two minutes, thanks goodnight ma'am.- I want some good fun thats adventerous, interesting, erotic and lasts for a long time. If my woman has a problem with that, then she shouldn't wonder if I dump her ass.
Damn what school do you teach that gives kids laptops? We were lucky to have Apple II-e's and logwriter
As for complexes ---plastic surgeons love the porn industry - which I think helped raise the bar in a good way (i.e. shave between your legs men and women)
After reading the summary I was just left with this thought "How on gods green earth do they let a judge make a decision in a field that he has no clue about?" :)
The judge probably thinks this is the same as the phone number portability - IDIOT!
Ok now I need to go RTFA
What i meant to say is what is the difference between the three (typing and eating don't mix)
Between Mozilla, Firefox and thunderbird? I just d/l'd Mozilla last night (I used a very very long time ago, early 90's.
Differing cultures, even before global communication, helps to prove that there is a universal (at least Terran based) set of moral codes that people tend to agree upon. So actually, it is correct on many levels.
Now, more advanced sets of ethics (i.e. drinking and driving) is not inherent into our nature, but things like killing for no other reason is considered a universally ingrained policy.
Even some mammels agree with some of these codes of ethics (i.e. primates).
And yes people can have intellectual disagreements over ethics/morality and not be considered evil or immoral. Those who are considered evil or immoral are those who prove themselves to be oppressive zealots. Those who force their ethics on others.
But again, I stress to you, that some ethical codes are inherent into our human nature. That is why things like "smiling" are universal (as well as laughing, crying, making faces of pain, etc.)
Doesn't the smoke help transfer the light? It seemed to be a part of it - then again, just fireworks exploding without the smoke might be cool. :)
Actually smoke would occur when the sparks go boom
Wrong! This is based on an old model of "smart", that there is a single, linear measure of intelligence, one's IQ
Eh, Right! You are putting an assumption as to what I referred to as "smart." My reference of "smart enough" is someone who is capable of utilizing a computer, searching for a hack script, and then running it with the intent of causing some harm. Plus - as I stated, someone who does not have mental retardation (i.e. idiot savants) The person doesn't need to be a genious (for your IQ system 150), but the person does need to be reasonably intelligent (above 70 IQ).
While people who are on a higher intelligence scale may have an easier time understanding complex issues, such as advanced ethics, a person does not have to be a genius to understand basic ethics. Hacking with the intent to cause harm is fairly basic. Script kiddies tend to realize that what they are about to do is going to cause someon e grief. Let's not assume because a person is a "script kiddie" that they are not smart enough to realize between right and wrong.
As much as we like to make fun of script kiddie's, they are not THAT dumb. It still takes a level of intelligence to run a script. It is not something that is so basic. It may be as easy as double clicking on an exe file, but you need to find that file.
*I* cannot put down the intelligence of a script kiddie to the level of someone who is mentally retarded or a four year old (and even four year olds have a basic sense of write or wrong).
Anyone who is smart enough to hack, is smart enough (save for those with mental problems) to realize the difference between right and wrong.
Anyone who wants to take an ethics class obviously has some ethics (what you think someone lacking morales will be taking an ethics class to hope improving himself)???
What they should offer is a class that teaches non-techies what is a hacker - so they learn that not all hackers are evil people bent on ruling the world (not there is anything inherently wrong with this..I mean if I ran the world, it would be a much better place - for you and me....well more me, but it's all good)