My original post was modded troll because I had the temerity to say something positive about Bush. Some real fair and objective moderation going on here. But that's the left, get their viewpoint across and squelch others by any means necessary -
No, it's both sides. Neither of them wants you to get the other one's message. Of course most people only notice when it's the message they agree with that's being blocked.
Then again when the message is, as at election times, just saying how bad the other lot are then who wants it?
I can't speak for the others, but I know of how my mother was treated when she needed hospital treatment here in the UK. If the patient can't easily arrange transport to or from hospital then that can be provided free. This can be by volunteer drivers, ambulance, or even taxis. As for food I think it's true that hospitals like to make sure their inpatients have eaten before going home, but that may only be normal meal times. So it really comes down to how the discharge is time in relation to meal times. I'd be surprised if any hospital actually gave a patient money, but it's not impossible. As for the 70 year old mentioned it's possible she had said she'd already got transport arranged, but either she hadn't or someone didn't turn up. As to the exact reason that's anyone's guess and obviously it should have been made sure that she was alright. Unfortunately no system is going to be perfect and some times it will fall short of ideal.
... what free market dictates as the doctrine of the best product being the best selling one
The doctrine, or even dogma, may claim that, but the reality is different. The best selling product will be the best marketed product which is not necessarily the best product.
Now you seem one of those sad men that instead of searching for what unites looks for what divides.
Most people call them politicians. Without division the politicians, in all their guises both religious and secular, can't create separate groups which they can then control.
Of course it's pure hypocrisy, what did you expect? No company would ever say that they support junk patents because they want to make money out of them. What companies, especially the biggest ones, really want is an "improved" system which they will then use to justify their patents, but which still issues them with the same old junk.
Actually, if Ars Technica is to be believed, the French Office of Defense has done a comparitive security analysis, and Open Office lost badly.
The article is very short and light of any detail. It makes one real statement and that is that OpenOffice doesn't put up enough warning messages for potentially insecure operations in macros. If you assume that people will always read warning messages and respond accordingly then this might have a point.
The kinds of bugs the OO.o had were design bugs; these are file handling bugs. If equivalent design bugs existed in Office, they'd be the ones exploited, not the harder to find and exploit data validation bugs.
The idea that a warning message somehow equates to security is ridiculous. The warning message is a band aid for the underlying problem with the insecure macro functions. The real solution is either to remove the functions or fix them. As to the type of insecurities I'm quite sure that any that can be found will be exploited. You should never assume a problem does not exist merely because it may not have been found yet.
It hackers targetted OpenOffice as often, you'd likely see the same number, if not more exploits (than MS Office).
You can't honestly say that. All you can really say is that there may be more exploits found. More people looking for exploits doesn't mean that they will either find them or that they are there to be found. Even then, with more unknown flaws existing in OpenOffice, you can't make a quantitative comparison between the two totally unrelated code bases.
Theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See {Thief}.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See {Larceny}, and the Note under {Robbery}.
Copyright infringement is therefore not theft as no part of the item is ever removed. I can understand the conflation of the two ideas for propaganda purposes, but from a legal and factual perspective it has no merit.
Of course you feel the USPTO did a good job, you got what you wanted. Now what if in fact they were initially right and you were wrong? What if they simply allowed themselves to be persuaded by inadequate arguments in order to save time and get the application processed? It's easy enough to be happy with a system that gives you exactly what you want, but that isn't evidence that it's working.
Whether she knows what proper safety equipment is may be beside the point. I haven't seen her site, but I'd be surprised if they were using any safety equipment at all.
I remember a TV programme over here, UK, investigating building site malpractise. It was found that in some of the cases safety equipment was only brought to a building site when it was known there would be an official inspection. Even then it wasn't often used, but at other times it wasn't even available.
So what? This wouldn't be a replacement for copyright, but an addition to it. Copyright would still exist on the specific work. There would also be patent "protection" on the plot ideas contained in it. There would then be no remotely similar works for a period of 20 years, unless the other authors or publishers were willing to pay license fees.
No. Influencing, maybe, but control would require you to be aware of the exact way I would respond.
in real time,
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
in an interactive process. Did I launch an external application to write this?
Probably. *8)
Are these words manipulating your perceptions and thoughts?
No. Influencing, maybe, but to manipulate would, again, require knowledge of how I would react.
PINK ELEPHANTS! Are we not interacting?
Again, no. You were acting, posting, I was reacting to the post, while reading it. It's possible that my reply makes it interaction. It's also possible that I am now acting and you will react to that when you read it. To my way of seeing it interaction requires, at least, two way, simultaneous or near simultaneous action and reaction.
Let's assume what you say about the first to file system is correct. Say you invent something. Someone else invents it later, but gets their patent application in first. As you made the invention first your work counts as prior art and invalidates their patent application. But surely this means the system is really one of first to invent? You have to prove prior invention just as you would with first to invent, and so there would be no effective difference between the two systems. That is unless I've misunderstood what you're saying.
It seems to me that the whole point of first to file is that prior invention is made irrelevant. Therefore no need or opportunity to prove precedence of invetion at all. This isn't the same as saying all prior art should be ignored, but that it has to have been published openly to qualify as such.
Well I agree it does look like that on the face of it. Certainly the arguments resemble the ones used against the GPL. Comoditise the product and it's value is undermined universally. That might have some small validity with software, but not creative or information content, eg. journalism.
There are great writers, there are even great journalists. Their writing and insights will be sort out because of the quality of the writing or the deeper understanding gained by reading it. Because of this their work will always have an intrinsic value.
Then, of course, there are the hacks. People with no special talent or deep knowledge. In fact a fairly ordinary person with some experience and maybe some training. Given that and the right information there are plenty of people that could do just as well. OK, so most CC isn't going to be even that good, but some of it undoutedly will be. There are plenty of hacks that may be given quite a run for their money by CC material.
So as I see it there is FUD, yes. Not just the stuff people like Andrew Orlowski are trying to spread, but their own. Their doubt in their own ability, their uncertainty over a continuing market, and ultimately their fear.
Maybe that is how he was seen by the Tory MPs, I don't know. I doubt very much it's how the majority of the electorate saw him. Even so you could still say his appeal was in not actually being Thatcher.
Do you really think the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament lost the election for Labour in 1992? I suspect it had more to do with the threats, mainly put out by The Sun and it's ilk, about huge tax hikes. Of course the Tories blew that by hiking taxes anyway. Not that it was anything, but unavoidable as government finances were bad at the time. Of course it did serve to destroy once and for all the myth that the Tories are better managers of the economy. Much more important to the average voter than nuclear weapons that we could never practically use or need.
"... he would swing with every random thought that came into his head"? Thatcher never had to contend with a sub 100 majority. Major had 22 at the general election and less by 1997. Or in other words only 12 MPs out of the 336 might be needed to defeat him. It's no surprise that he was the victim of that minority to whom anti-europeanism was more important than anything else.
BTW having looked back at the results I find that Major did get a lower proportion of the vote, but a more of the electorate as a whole than Thatcher. This was because of the high turn out in 1992. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm
"At the next election, it was vote that Conservative idiot out". I'm not saying this wasn't the case. However taxes, sleaze, and the state of the public services also had a big impact. Also add in the fact that the Tories couldn't get off their split over Europe.
Major was not the only or even main reason for the Labour victory in 1997.
Really? Let's have a look at the Thatcher elections.
1979 - Well what else was going to happen after the "Winter of Discontent", etc? Anybody could have won that as Tory leader.
1983 - Falklands Factor. Thatcher was perceived as the strong leader defending British citizens and their freedom.
1987 - Well, where was Labour? Tearing itself apart over Militant, the party in a party. There wasn't enough opposition to mount a challenge.
Then by the time Major lead the Tories into the 1992 election Thatcher had become a liability. Mostly things like the poll tax, but also her increasing disconnection from reality.
1992 - Major's main, or only, virtue was not being Thatcher. Labour seem to have helped him win too.
Interestingly Major got a higher proportion of the vote than Thatcher, but a hugely reduced majority. That made him the hostage of the anti-Europeans. The split that revealed coupled with more and more sleaze stories made the Tories unelectable in 1997.
Re:The Secret the Government Doesn't Want You to K
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Not long ago there was a review of BBC internet activities. It decided that certain areas where commercial activity existed should be removed from the BBC's site. The latest victim of this process is the Cult TV section. The record executives are hoping to have this reasoning extended to them. They're not suing, but still hope the restriction will be imposed on their behalf.
It's the same argument any company might use that wants to produce a lower quality product, but sell it for a high price. For example I'm sure some software companies would like to use it against OSS.
Well they didn't correct the old ones. That is used English spelling, licence, rather than the American/Websterised English, license. Perhaps it should be called dewebsterising?
Slashdot Mirror
My original post was modded troll because I had the temerity to say something positive about Bush. Some real fair and objective moderation going on here. But that's the left, get their viewpoint across and squelch others by any means necessary -
No, it's both sides. Neither of them wants you to get the other one's message. Of course most people only notice when it's the message they agree with that's being blocked. Then again when the message is, as at election times, just saying how bad the other lot are then who wants it?
I can't speak for the others, but I know of how my mother was treated when she needed hospital treatment here in the UK. If the patient can't easily arrange transport to or from hospital then that can be provided free. This can be by volunteer drivers, ambulance, or even taxis. As for food I think it's true that hospitals like to make sure their inpatients have eaten before going home, but that may only be normal meal times. So it really comes down to how the discharge is time in relation to meal times. I'd be surprised if any hospital actually gave a patient money, but it's not impossible. As for the 70 year old mentioned it's possible she had said she'd already got transport arranged, but either she hadn't or someone didn't turn up. As to the exact reason that's anyone's guess and obviously it should have been made sure that she was alright. Unfortunately no system is going to be perfect and some times it will fall short of ideal.
Of course it's pure hypocrisy, what did you expect? No company would ever say that they support junk patents because they want to make money out of them. What companies, especially the biggest ones, really want is an "improved" system which they will then use to justify their patents, but which still issues them with the same old junk.
To most people it means "eXtensible". To some it mean "Patentable eXtensions", where the P can be kept invisible for as long as possible.
Of course you feel the USPTO did a good job, you got what you wanted. Now what if in fact they were initially right and you were wrong? What if they simply allowed themselves to be persuaded by inadequate arguments in order to save time and get the application processed? It's easy enough to be happy with a system that gives you exactly what you want, but that isn't evidence that it's working.
Whether she knows what proper safety equipment is may be beside the point. I haven't seen her site, but I'd be surprised if they were using any safety equipment at all.
I remember a TV programme over here, UK, investigating building site malpractise. It was found that in some of the cases safety equipment was only brought to a building site when it was known there would be an official inspection. Even then it wasn't often used, but at other times it wasn't even available.
So what? This wouldn't be a replacement for copyright, but an addition to it. Copyright would still exist on the specific work. There would also be patent "protection" on the plot ideas contained in it. There would then be no remotely similar works for a period of 20 years, unless the other authors or publishers were willing to pay license fees.
Yes, the internet will never be the same again. It's always been like that.
Let's assume what you say about the first to file system is correct. Say you invent something. Someone else invents it later, but gets their patent application in first. As you made the invention first your work counts as prior art and invalidates their patent application. But surely this means the system is really one of first to invent? You have to prove prior invention just as you would with first to invent, and so there would be no effective difference between the two systems. That is unless I've misunderstood what you're saying.
It seems to me that the whole point of first to file is that prior invention is made irrelevant. Therefore no need or opportunity to prove precedence of invetion at all. This isn't the same as saying all prior art should be ignored, but that it has to have been published openly to qualify as such.
So here's an off topic reply for you. Perhaps they thought it was a moon of the planet Alderaan which wasn't there any more?
Well I agree it does look like that on the face of it. Certainly the arguments resemble the ones used against the GPL. Comoditise the product and it's value is undermined universally. That might have some small validity with software, but not creative or information content, eg. journalism.
There are great writers, there are even great journalists. Their writing and insights will be sort out because of the quality of the writing or the deeper understanding gained by reading it. Because of this their work will always have an intrinsic value.
Then, of course, there are the hacks. People with no special talent or deep knowledge. In fact a fairly ordinary person with some experience and maybe some training. Given that and the right information there are plenty of people that could do just as well. OK, so most CC isn't going to be even that good, but some of it undoutedly will be. There are plenty of hacks that may be given quite a run for their money by CC material.
So as I see it there is FUD, yes. Not just the stuff people like Andrew Orlowski are trying to spread, but their own. Their doubt in their own ability, their uncertainty over a continuing market, and ultimately their fear.
But monopolies can afford so many more of those campaign funding dollars.
Maybe that is how he was seen by the Tory MPs, I don't know. I doubt very much it's how the majority of the electorate saw him. Even so you could still say his appeal was in not actually being Thatcher.
Do you really think the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament lost the election for Labour in 1992? I suspect it had more to do with the threats, mainly put out by The Sun and it's ilk, about huge tax hikes. Of course the Tories blew that by hiking taxes anyway. Not that it was anything, but unavoidable as government finances were bad at the time. Of course it did serve to destroy once and for all the myth that the Tories are better managers of the economy. Much more important to the average voter than nuclear weapons that we could never practically use or need.
"... he would swing with every random thought that came into his head"? Thatcher never had to contend with a sub 100 majority. Major had 22 at the general election and less by 1997. Or in other words only 12 MPs out of the 336 might be needed to defeat him. It's no surprise that he was the victim of that minority to whom anti-europeanism was more important than anything else.
BTW having looked back at the results I find that Major did get a lower proportion of the vote, but a more of the electorate as a whole than Thatcher. This was because of the high turn out in 1992. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm
"At the next election, it was vote that Conservative idiot out". I'm not saying this wasn't the case. However taxes, sleaze, and the state of the public services also had a big impact. Also add in the fact that the Tories couldn't get off their split over Europe.
Major was not the only or even main reason for the Labour victory in 1997.
Really? Let's have a look at the Thatcher elections.
1979 - Well what else was going to happen after the "Winter of Discontent", etc? Anybody could have won that as Tory leader.
1983 - Falklands Factor. Thatcher was perceived as the strong leader defending British citizens and their freedom.
1987 - Well, where was Labour? Tearing itself apart over Militant, the party in a party. There wasn't enough opposition to mount a challenge.
Then by the time Major lead the Tories into the 1992 election Thatcher had become a liability. Mostly things like the poll tax, but also her increasing disconnection from reality.
1992 - Major's main, or only, virtue was not being Thatcher. Labour seem to have helped him win too.
Interestingly Major got a higher proportion of the vote than Thatcher, but a hugely reduced majority. That made him the hostage of the anti-Europeans. The split that revealed coupled with more and more sleaze stories made the Tories unelectable in 1997.
No. Somebody else is already doing that too.
Not long ago there was a review of BBC internet activities. It decided that certain areas where commercial activity existed should be removed from the BBC's site. The latest victim of this process is the Cult TV section. The record executives are hoping to have this reasoning extended to them. They're not suing, but still hope the restriction will be imposed on their behalf.
It's the same argument any company might use that wants to produce a lower quality product, but sell it for a high price. For example I'm sure some software companies would like to use it against OSS.
Well they didn't correct the old ones. That is used English spelling, licence, rather than the American/Websterised English, license. Perhaps it should be called dewebsterising?