ummm... duh. So please tell me, how does that make the grandparent's post of 'Congress can't amend the Constitution' any more correct since Congress is who gets the ball rolling? Yeah, it doesn't.
If Congress doesn't propose amendments, then how does the Constitution get amdended? Magic? The grandparent implies that Congress isn't in control of the amendment process, which is flat out wrong. See my other reply in this thread, numbnuts, especially since my original reply included "propose." You might want to consider reading my post all the way through to the end as well as look up the phrase 'reading comprehension.'
And I ackowlegde this by my post. Note I included "propose" in my quote. Had the grandparent said "Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself then I wouldn't have posted what I did. But a blanket statement of "Congress can't amend the Constitution" is misleading since they get the amendment process rolling to begin with.
This is nothing new. Every movie (or really any piece of media for that matter) gets a lot of hype beforehand. It's been the norm for at least the last decade.
Especially now it's more true than ever. Movies get hyped and then rushed into production. Finally they release an inferior product that is not only far from what the promise was but also full of shitty special effects and no plot.
It's the problem with the media-age: make a crappy product and ship it as soon as the test-audience give the thumbs up (but with minimal amount of viewing) and release the Director's Cut on DVD later.
So far this year I haven't seen a single movie that has lived up to the hype. Not even Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, even though it was a half-decent story it did not come close to the hype surrounding it.
As I said, this is not only limited to mainstream movies. Look at every product that indy media/etc has released in the last 5-6 years. They promise to revolutionize the world, but it's the same boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-wins-girl-back, in a slightly new package.
to find evidence of frame dragging when Ballmer is evidence enough of distortions in space-time. Holy christ. How does this guy survive??
Spoon boy : Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo : What truth?
Spoon boy : There is no spoon.
Ballmer: Spoon? I only see a chicken with a dog's tail and a bulldozerhead Neo: Wow. This guy is the one.
-truth
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
I have thought KaZaA to be amoral from the first time I saw it.
Sorry to nitpick, but amoral or immoral? The first is without morals, be they good or bad. The second is going against good morals. I personally am in the latter camp, as it sounds you are.
Hmmm... I appreciate your response, but I never ran OS9, so I don't really have a good comparison. That said, I can surmise that OS9 ran pretty well on my hardware since that was around the time OS9 was being phased out (i.e., my machine was top of the line for OS9).
God, what a bunch of fucking liars and hypocrites! In the last few years, I haven't met a single computer geek who hadn't a huge collection of downloaded MP3s. And most people here say they've got almost no illegal MP3s. Sure thing, guys. I guess those millions of users on the P2P networks don't really exist either, eh?
You forgot the group of geeks who used to do it and wised up. I used to owns Gigs of DL'ed stuff. Then I realized I didn't agree with downloading it for free (this was pre-lawsuit era too) because, regardless of the RIAA, I was depriving, at some small level, someone that entertained me of a paycheck. I'm not an RIAA sympathizer, but now I realize that if I want it, I'll pay for it. If I don't, I won't bother downloading it. Why get something I am not willing to pay $10 for while giving the RIAA ammo?
Honestly, Best Buy has done more to curb my piracy than anything. Most of their CDs are $10-$12. That's dirt cheap. And if I do want a couple songs, or only one track, I go to iTMS. If you can't be bothered to shell out $10 for the album, then you're just too cheap and only care about getting soemthing for nothing. The only thing I'll really download now is live performances, and that is ONLY if legit copies cannot be bought from the band (or if the band allows taping).
I have a G3 700MHz iBook currently running panther and getting a little long in the tooth.
A) What performance increases am I likely to see running YDL (real numbers, not "OMFG it is liek teh fastest")?
B) Never having used Mac-on-Linux, would I really be able to squeeze YDL and MOL onto my measely 20 Gig drive? I currently only have a couple gigs left, but that is mainly due to installing fink and darwinports to get linux functionality. What is the performance of MOL? Better than VPC performance I would hope (since there is no endian conversion).
I'm just a little leary of wiping my iBook, which is my primary machine, to install YDL if I'm not going to see a significant performance gain and cannot reasonably run my Mac apps when I need to.
AFAIK, SCO is just going after the copyright claims since they have no patent cliams to the software. That's the big hubub around "show me the infringing code" since for copyright (and I am quickly getting out of my area of expertise) you need to show a clearly derivative work in that you have to go beyond function. That Linux infringes patents is a scare tactic, but I don't know if it has to do with SCO, or just the anti-OSS movement in general. I think it was actually brought up by the OSRM guys.
The patent just has to give the general idea of how to implement the patented idea. It doesn't have to reveal the specific program that the patent filer is protecting; that usually remains a trade secret. A lot of software patents have little more than a block diagram describing the algorithm at a very high level.
Yes and no. A patent has to have an enabling description such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. This means that someone should be able to pick up the patent, sit down at a computer and bang out some code that implements the methods. You are correct that it does not have to give the actual code, and yes, generally applications are filed with block diagram level descriptions, but I don't think you could keep it secret enough to gain trade secret rights without gving an sufficiently enabling description. *shrug* Not my area of expertise, just hypothesizing.
All you need is to get a few software "experts" (10+ years experience or post-doctorate equivalent of study) to take a look at the abstract to help convince them that something is wrong - especially if the abstract covers something that would be fairly obvious or standardized.
I disagree completely. Though the abstract may be a rough rough guide to an application, the claims may have been narrowed during prosectuion to the point of being a very novel approach to a particular problem, while the abstract, which is normally not revised at all after filing, may speak to a much broader application. Sorry, but the abstract is at best decent for getting a 10,000 foot view of a patent. Basically it is the equivalent of basing your opion about an article on the slashdot post that mentioned it.
Reading the first independent claim is a much better use of your time.
a) copyright is pretty narrow on software these days. It has to be a direct copy or clearly a derivative work since most software protection is shifting towards patents.
b) I don't know how something patented can be a trade secret. Part of being a trade secret is that you have to keep it a secret. Patenting something is the complete opposite: you are disclosing the invention to the world in exchange for a limited monopoly.
I could be wrong, so please show me a case where a company successfully litigated a patented invention as both a patent infringment and a violation/misappropriation of a trade secret.
While I have only read the abstracts on the patent,
Then you haven't read the patent. At all. If you are going to read one thing, read the claims. The abstract can be completely irrelevant to the claimed invention, and the claims are what defines the scope of what a party can sue another for infringing on.
I made a copy of one of Bach's 2-part inventions the other day. Did I have a right to use Bach's song any way I wanted? Why or why not?
If you copied from a person that fixed it in a medium, or that performed it, then no, you did not have a right to. The performer has the Intellectual Property right in the recording (or producer, or whatever deal they worked out). If you performed it, then the copyright is yours because the copyright on Bach's work has expired. It is still there in theory, but it is unenforceable.
Please don't equate black slavery and the persecution of the the Jews to copyright infringement. It does an extreme disservice to the people that died and suffered. When it boils down to it, copyright infringement is just about money. Slavery and the holocaust are about people's lives. That being said...
When people perform a work, and it is fixed in a medium, they have a right to control the distribution of that medium. When you go to work and produce something, whether it is code, or service to your customers, or whatever, the work and thought you put into it are your property which your employer is benefitting from, and compensating you for (and likely acquiring the rights to). Is it moral for him to not pay you for the work you produce? And I don't mean the tangible output, but I mean the time you spend working for them. No, it would not be since you are conferring a benefit on your emplyer and should justly be compensated for it on pre-agreed to-terms.
Copyright is the law. A changeable law, but the law nontheless. If you don't like it, fight it. But fight it in the streets. Fight it in Congress. Do not fight it in your basement by downloading crap off the web. You may dent the pockets of the **AA, but you also give them ammo for their cries to congress that piracy must be stopped. Can you imagine if every single person downloading crap off the web said "F' the RIAA. I won't even download their crap. I'll just boycott." The RIAA would still lose the same amount of money (because, you know "I wasn't going to buy it anyway") and they would have no reason to seek "protection" from Congress. Congress would say "*shrug* Looks like no one likes your business model. Bummer. Next topic is..."
People that download shit off the web are their own worst enemy. They avoid spending the measely $15 on the movie or CD that, I'm sorry, you just do not need to own to survive, and then get mad when the RIAA bitches that piracy is hurting their business model. Don't think it is worth $15? Tough. That's the set price. If your boss turned around and said, "you know, I don't think your work-product is worth what you think it is. Today I'm going to pay you $0.05. For the three days after that, I'll pay you nothing, and if I really like your work-product neext Tuesday, I might pay you full price. But I'm also trying this try-before-I-buy model where you work and then I decide if I want to pay you for it. Cool?" Would that be ok?
Simple solution. Don't pirate crap. Really, most of is crap. I mean, if its not worth paying for it, do you really want it? Then the RIAA will have no scapegoat and they will really have to come around to the fact that they produce 95% garbage and people aren't even willing to steal it. It all boils down to: You do not have a right to be entertained.
You are comparing fat cat CEO's lining their pockets by denying the masses the right to information with the plight of minorities? I think that a disingenuous line of reasoning.
"You have no right to other people's IP"
You may obtain a property right in that IP if you agree to the asked-for price. If you do not pay the asked-for price, you are misappropriating someone's property. Again, for the love of God, get it through your head, you have no right to someone's IP.
It may surprise many to know that patent officers are often promoted on
how many patents they reject, not how many they approve
No, they get a
"count" for sending the first Office Action. Then, if after the Final rejection, they get a count for a Request For Continued Examination. Then they
also get a count for issuing a patent. It is in their interest to reject the
patent at first, have the applicant narrow the scope of the patent, reject
that, applicant narrows again, and then approve it. Which brings me
to...
What [patent lawyers will] do, is that they'll draw up revision
after revision of the idea until the patent office is confused enough to
grant it.
Except the fact that all revisions have to be supported by
the original specification. You can make corrections to the specification to
clarify the subject matter, but you cannot add any. In fact, correcting the
specification in any way other that to fix a typo is frowned upon in general
and will make your patent much weaker in the event of litigation for the
very reason you are citing.
The applicants are making sure that there's
no way someone who doesn't have a very thorough education in the field of
the patent could understand that the idea is unpatentable.
Complete
bunk. In fact, the patent examiner will some times direct the applicant on
how to amend the claims so that they are allowable over the prior art
BECAUSE they see a distinguishing feature.
You are completely full of it
and it is obvious you have never prosecuted a single patent application in
your life. +5? Whatever
The "f" and "oo" is not accurate. Its covered under 35 USC Sec. 271(c) as a contributory infringer if the parts are specifically designed to be combined. Mea culpa.
The software developer and IBM/Redhat/bigLinuxVendor. Why IBM/Redhat? Deep pockets. Why name the developer just because? To scare people away. Adding another name to the Defendant list is no big deal if you're taking on Big Blue. The scare tactic is the one used by the RIAA. The RIAA is going after the little guy because the deterrent factor is much more valuable than the monetary settlement.
Just so I'm clear, if I create a dangerous situation, and you walk into it, I should be relieved of all liability? Like say I laid some electrical cables into a puddle of water and you, not thinking about it for whatever reason, walked into the water and were killed, I am off the hook? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
Religion is a whole other ball of wax. People martyred themselves because it meant eternal bliss. The same can hardly be said of people that supposedly choose to be gay.
Revolutionaries could lay down their arms if the fight was too much for them. Gay people can't do the same. Very very few people "recover" from being gay. The ones I've read about all either have "relapses" are are severly mentally disturbed from childhood trauma independent of them being gay.
Personally, I don't have all the answers of why someone is gay, but your johnson is your johnson, and you don't have much mental control over what he likes *shrug*
The portion of the brain that connects gay male's brain hemispheres is larger than an average males, being closer to a female's connector. Explain that?
People don't switch sexual orientations all the time. Sorry. If they do, its not because they choose to be gay. Often it is because they come from broken homes and don't know who they are.
Where is the gene that says my IQ will be X? Oh wait, there isn't one. Well maybe there is, but scientists haven't found it yet which could explain why decades of research haven't found a gay gene yet either. Kinda blows holes in your gener theory
AFAIK, this is all accurrate, but the superset of being right. Patent claims are analyzed on a claim by claim basis. It all depends on the claim language
For example: I patent a method of doing foo. You build an apparatus for doing foo, but you never really do foo, the customer at the end of the line practices the method. You do not infringe, the customer does. Similar scenario: I claim a system for doing foo. You sell "f" and "oo" but you do not sell "foo." Your customer buys each and assembles them into "foo." They infringe, you do not.
This is why a lot of patents have a method claim or two and an apparatus claim and maybe a "means for". The idea is to cover all possible infringers (though you never go after the customer because they are poor). That all being said, my case law is spotty, and IANAL, but that is how the initial analysis goes down. I actually think there is a case stating the opposite of of my combination example, i.e., if you make the parts and ship them into the US, you infringer, but I can't be sure.
Slashdot Mirror
If Congress doesn't propose amendments, then how does the Constitution get amdended? Magic? The grandparent implies that Congress isn't in control of the amendment process, which is flat out wrong. See my other reply in this thread, numbnuts, especially since my original reply included "propose." You might want to consider reading my post all the way through to the end as well as look up the phrase 'reading comprehension.'
-truth
-truth
Article V of the Constitution seems to disagree with you. Beginning of Article V:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."
How fucking sad that we don't even know what our Constitution says.
-truth
Who drive car?! Bear drive car! How can this be?
-truth
Especially now it's more true than ever. Movies get hyped and then rushed into production. Finally they release an inferior product that is not only far from what the promise was but also full of shitty special effects and no plot.
It's the problem with the media-age: make a crappy product and ship it as soon as the test-audience give the thumbs up (but with minimal amount of viewing) and release the Director's Cut on DVD later.
So far this year I haven't seen a single movie that has lived up to the hype. Not even Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, even though it was a half-decent story it did not come close to the hype surrounding it.
As I said, this is not only limited to mainstream movies. Look at every product that indy media/etc has released in the last 5-6 years. They promise to revolutionize the world, but it's the same boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-wins-girl-back, in a slightly new package.
[end of rant]
;-)
-truth
Spoon boy : Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo : What truth?
Spoon boy : There is no spoon.
Ballmer: Spoon? I only see a chicken with a dog's tail and a bulldozerhead
Neo: Wow. This guy is the one.
-truth
Sorry to nitpick, but amoral or immoral? The first is without morals, be they good or bad. The second is going against good morals. I personally am in the latter camp, as it sounds you are.
-truth
Good to know. Thanks.
-truth
You forgot the group of geeks who used to do it and wised up. I used to owns Gigs of DL'ed stuff. Then I realized I didn't agree with downloading it for free (this was pre-lawsuit era too) because, regardless of the RIAA, I was depriving, at some small level, someone that entertained me of a paycheck. I'm not an RIAA sympathizer, but now I realize that if I want it, I'll pay for it. If I don't, I won't bother downloading it. Why get something I am not willing to pay $10 for while giving the RIAA ammo?
Honestly, Best Buy has done more to curb my piracy than anything. Most of their CDs are $10-$12. That's dirt cheap. And if I do want a couple songs, or only one track, I go to iTMS. If you can't be bothered to shell out $10 for the album, then you're just too cheap and only care about getting soemthing for nothing. The only thing I'll really download now is live performances, and that is ONLY if legit copies cannot be bought from the band (or if the band allows taping).
-truth
A) What performance increases am I likely to see running YDL (real numbers, not "OMFG it is liek teh fastest")?
B) Never having used Mac-on-Linux, would I really be able to squeeze YDL and MOL onto my measely 20 Gig drive? I currently only have a couple gigs left, but that is mainly due to installing fink and darwinports to get linux functionality. What is the performance of MOL? Better than VPC performance I would hope (since there is no endian conversion).
I'm just a little leary of wiping my iBook, which is my primary machine, to install YDL if I'm not going to see a significant performance gain and cannot reasonably run my Mac apps when I need to.
-truth
-truth
Yes and no. A patent has to have an enabling description such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. This means that someone should be able to pick up the patent, sit down at a computer and bang out some code that implements the methods. You are correct that it does not have to give the actual code, and yes, generally applications are filed with block diagram level descriptions, but I don't think you could keep it secret enough to gain trade secret rights without gving an sufficiently enabling description. *shrug* Not my area of expertise, just hypothesizing.
-truth
I disagree completely. Though the abstract may be a rough rough guide to an application, the claims may have been narrowed during prosectuion to the point of being a very novel approach to a particular problem, while the abstract, which is normally not revised at all after filing, may speak to a much broader application. Sorry, but the abstract is at best decent for getting a 10,000 foot view of a patent. Basically it is the equivalent of basing your opion about an article on the slashdot post that mentioned it.
Reading the first independent claim is a much better use of your time.
-truth
b) I don't know how something patented can be a trade secret. Part of being a trade secret is that you have to keep it a secret. Patenting something is the complete opposite: you are disclosing the invention to the world in exchange for a limited monopoly.
I could be wrong, so please show me a case where a company successfully litigated a patented invention as both a patent infringment and a violation/misappropriation of a trade secret.
-truth
Then you haven't read the patent. At all. If you are going to read one thing, read the claims. The abstract can be completely irrelevant to the claimed invention, and the claims are what defines the scope of what a party can sue another for infringing on.
-truth
If you copied from a person that fixed it in a medium, or that performed it, then no, you did not have a right to. The performer has the Intellectual Property right in the recording (or producer, or whatever deal they worked out). If you performed it, then the copyright is yours because the copyright on Bach's work has expired. It is still there in theory, but it is unenforceable.
Please don't equate black slavery and the persecution of the the Jews to copyright infringement. It does an extreme disservice to the people that died and suffered. When it boils down to it, copyright infringement is just about money. Slavery and the holocaust are about people's lives. That being said...
When people perform a work, and it is fixed in a medium, they have a right to control the distribution of that medium. When you go to work and produce something, whether it is code, or service to your customers, or whatever, the work and thought you put into it are your property which your employer is benefitting from, and compensating you for (and likely acquiring the rights to). Is it moral for him to not pay you for the work you produce? And I don't mean the tangible output, but I mean the time you spend working for them. No, it would not be since you are conferring a benefit on your emplyer and should justly be compensated for it on pre-agreed to-terms.
Copyright is the law. A changeable law, but the law nontheless. If you don't like it, fight it. But fight it in the streets. Fight it in Congress. Do not fight it in your basement by downloading crap off the web. You may dent the pockets of the **AA, but you also give them ammo for their cries to congress that piracy must be stopped. Can you imagine if every single person downloading crap off the web said "F' the RIAA. I won't even download their crap. I'll just boycott." The RIAA would still lose the same amount of money (because, you know "I wasn't going to buy it anyway") and they would have no reason to seek "protection" from Congress. Congress would say "*shrug* Looks like no one likes your business model. Bummer. Next topic is..."
People that download shit off the web are their own worst enemy. They avoid spending the measely $15 on the movie or CD that, I'm sorry, you just do not need to own to survive, and then get mad when the RIAA bitches that piracy is hurting their business model. Don't think it is worth $15? Tough. That's the set price. If your boss turned around and said, "you know, I don't think your work-product is worth what you think it is. Today I'm going to pay you $0.05. For the three days after that, I'll pay you nothing, and if I really like your work-product neext Tuesday, I might pay you full price. But I'm also trying this try-before-I-buy model where you work and then I decide if I want to pay you for it. Cool?" Would that be ok?
Simple solution. Don't pirate crap. Really, most of is crap. I mean, if its not worth paying for it, do you really want it? Then the RIAA will have no scapegoat and they will really have to come around to the fact that they produce 95% garbage and people aren't even willing to steal it. It all boils down to: You do not have a right to be entertained.
-truth
"You have no right to other people's IP"
You may obtain a property right in that IP if you agree to the asked-for price. If you do not pay the asked-for price, you are misappropriating someone's property. Again, for the love of God, get it through your head, you have no right to someone's IP.
-truth
Copyright infingement can also be criminal matter
-truth
No, they get a "count" for sending the first Office Action. Then, if after the Final rejection, they get a count for a Request For Continued Examination. Then they also get a count for issuing a patent. It is in their interest to reject the patent at first, have the applicant narrow the scope of the patent, reject that, applicant narrows again, and then approve it. Which brings me to...
What [patent lawyers will] do, is that they'll draw up revision after revision of the idea until the patent office is confused enough to grant it.
Except the fact that all revisions have to be supported by the original specification. You can make corrections to the specification to clarify the subject matter, but you cannot add any. In fact, correcting the specification in any way other that to fix a typo is frowned upon in general and will make your patent much weaker in the event of litigation for the very reason you are citing.
The applicants are making sure that there's no way someone who doesn't have a very thorough education in the field of the patent could understand that the idea is unpatentable.
Complete bunk. In fact, the patent examiner will some times direct the applicant on how to amend the claims so that they are allowable over the prior art BECAUSE they see a distinguishing feature.
You are completely full of it and it is obvious you have never prosecuted a single patent application in your life. +5? Whatever
-truth
The "f" and "oo" is not accurate. Its covered under 35 USC Sec. 271(c) as a contributory infringer if the parts are specifically designed to be combined. Mea culpa.
-truth
-truth
Revolutionaries could lay down their arms if the fight was too much for them. Gay people can't do the same. Very very few people "recover" from being gay. The ones I've read about all either have "relapses" are are severly mentally disturbed from childhood trauma independent of them being gay.
Personally, I don't have all the answers of why someone is gay, but your johnson is your johnson, and you don't have much mental control over what he likes *shrug*
-truth
People don't switch sexual orientations all the time. Sorry. If they do, its not because they choose to be gay. Often it is because they come from broken homes and don't know who they are.
Where is the gene that says my IQ will be X? Oh wait, there isn't one. Well maybe there is, but scientists haven't found it yet which could explain why decades of research haven't found a gay gene yet either. Kinda blows holes in your gener theory
-truth
For example: I patent a method of doing foo. You build an apparatus for doing foo, but you never really do foo, the customer at the end of the line practices the method. You do not infringe, the customer does. Similar scenario: I claim a system for doing foo. You sell "f" and "oo" but you do not sell "foo." Your customer buys each and assembles them into "foo." They infringe, you do not.
This is why a lot of patents have a method claim or two and an apparatus claim and maybe a "means for". The idea is to cover all possible infringers (though you never go after the customer because they are poor). That all being said, my case law is spotty, and IANAL, but that is how the initial analysis goes down. I actually think there is a case stating the opposite of of my combination example, i.e., if you make the parts and ship them into the US, you infringer, but I can't be sure.
-truth