The screed continues. Substitute "research team" for the magic words "patent portfolio". Now the complaint actually focuses on the ability of corporations to concentrate and organize research and development within a single entity that may not want to place nice with its competition. Unfortunately, this is hardly the province of patent law.
The problem isn't that corporations can concentrate R&D for better results, and more patents. The problem is this: most of the true innovations in software have occurred outside the provence of corporations, and is very rarely patented at all. (Think email, the internet, the web, etc.)
Now, corporations pick up on this essentially publicly-constructed infrastructure, add a few simple additions, patent those additions, and lock out those who created the infrastructure in the first place.
The problem with the patent system isn't that corporations can concentrate R it's that corporations are the only ones with enough resources to turn R&D into patents. There's *plenty* of R&D going on in universities, darkened bedrooms, and businesses interested in contributing the Common Good (whatever that might be).
Yes, there's a lot of misinformation going on about our patent system. I'm glad you are here to correct it, and knowledgable enough to do so. But your interpretation of the motives behind the hate for the patent system is equally wrong.
It's not jealousy of the ability of corporations for R it's the ability of corporations to easily abuse the system for profit, patenting many things that should never have passed review in the first place. And that *is* the province of patent law.
It's time for patent reform in this country (the US, "Land of the Free"), and in all countries who have emulated the US.
None of the pro-patent rhetoric bandied about these days ever addresses the topic of making software patents sensible, either. I can only imagine it's because it's impractical under our current system.
I believe a lot of us wouldn't mind seeing patents for truly brilliant methods, if we could be assured there wouldn't be one million bad patents for every one good one.
But, just to issue *my* anti-patent rhetoric:
Imagine if our criminal system convicted 99 innocent people for every true criminal, and attempts at reform have proven ineffective. Would you continue to pursue reform, when the damage done far outweighs the good?
The same holds for our patent system. If one patent in a hundred is good, and protects the rights granted by US law, those 99 other patents infringe on *my* rights (and the rights of millions of others) to freely use my knowledge.
That is a nontrivial right. In fact, it is fundamental to freedom.
So, our current patent system is indefensible. It destroys more rights than it protects, and should probably be dismantled, since attempts at reform have failed.
Don't mix up data integrity with business logic. You don't need a stored procedure to do all that; stored procedures make sure the billing address makes sense (like ensuring the zip code and city match).
Stored procedures are great when you have complex relationships between data than can't be defined by simple constraints. Any time you need to apply procedural logic to ensure data integrity, you need a stored procedure.
Taking the aggregate information and dealing with it is the job of the business logic, which is the middle tier. But the middle tier should be unable to insert data that is incorrect, no matter how poorly written the middle tier is.
In the short term it's annoying but in the long term it's not that big a deal.
Are you insane? 15 years is a long, long time for computers. 15 years ago was 1989. That year, the 80486 was introduced. The web was two years off. Microsoft sales topped one billion dollars for the first time. The internet tops 100,000 hosts. IRC is introduced. Seymour Cray developed the Cray 3. MCI and Compuserve become the first corporations with email connections to the internet.
See what I'm getting at? A "limited" monopoly can be harmful, not just annoying. Even dangerous, when you are talking about the future of the most flexible tool known to man-- knowledge.
I think the difference in methodology is based more on project goals. Some projects work well with the well-defined, UML-capable development. Financial database applications are a perfect example of this sort of project.
Other projects aren't suited to this sort of development model. Usually, these include things like compilers, operating systems, and games. Often, these are much more interesting to more people than the financial applications. (There are people who prefer to code financial apps, of course. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
These "best practices" you mention are only the best practices as determined by someone else, and drawn only from the practices we've developed so far. If we follow only these "best practices," we'll never develop better practices. I don't advocate avoiding them; they are, after all, the best we have so far. But I certainly don't think we should follow them as iron-clad laws.
The world needs both kinds of developers. Me, I affine to the craftsmen. I think engineers work on boring problems.
But what do I know? I'm too busy banging out Perl code on Emacs to be very smart about these things.
Several holes in your theory, most of which have to do with real life not supporting it.
The US has *always* had a teenage pregnancy problem, compared to the rest of the world. We've also had a fair problem with teen violence, and not just in the last 20 years; it's just that in the last 20 years, it's bled over into the middle- and upper-class families.
WRT teen pregnancy, there is a direct correlation between condom education and condom use; there is no correlation between abstinance education and abstinance use. To sum up: statistics suggest it is probable that educating teens about sex, and the proper prevention of pregnancy, is much more effective than *not* teaching teens about sex, and *not* teaching them the proper prevention of pregnancy.
Huh. Go figure.
Violence in the US has been more of an economic burden than teen pregnancy has *ever* been. Consider the economic effect of violence in urban America, what with the killing of people and all. Not only do housing prices plummet, but evidence suggest that poverty and violence go hand-in-hand; and poverty-stricken areas in the US receive poorer education, leaving the kids with less opportunity, than their wealthier peers. This leads to a wonderful cycle which is hard to break, compounding the economic and social damage done by violence.
I suppose those liberals will be happy now that SATA will get rid of "master/slave" term us racist geeks use with our racist computer devices.
Good lord, it's not the scary, scary liberals who are up in arms about the "master/slave" term; it's the equally-scary, scary conservatives, because it reminds them of bondage and dominance, and that nanny they once had, the one with the leather outfits and that ever-so-intrusive rod.
Why should I pity the large corporations who have a habit of thumbing their nose at both the law and the consumers?
I agree with most of what you say, to some extent. But, we're citizens, not consumers. As soon as you let them label us as consumers instead of citizens, they win.
As citizens, we control them. As consumers, we are controlled.
This 3% is the same whether it's Justin Timberlake (who does absolutely nothing), or Todd Rudgren, who does everything (plays every instrument, mixes, records, *works* for a living).
The *artist* is the writer, the engineer, the session musicians, the people who do the actual work. They generally see a flat fee, no matter what, usually a good wage, but nothing like the recording companies take in. The point is, the laws aren't there to protect the artist (like they claim), but to protect their own interest.
The way things are going, it will be impossible for artists to record their own work and distribute it over the internet, because the only legal distribution channels will be through the current media companies. Sure, the artist can provide their own MP3s, but what good will that be when MP3s are illegal? When the only recordings that are legal are those that are signed by some big business that can afford the signature block?
*That's* the point. I'm arguing against two things: the laws themselves, and the rhetoric that these laws somehow protect "the artist."
I don't give a fuck what the artists get paid; the entered into that deal themselves. I just want them to have an option for producing and selling their music without entering into the deal in the first place.
Then maybe it's time for a bill that requires the industry to pay the artists?
Right now, most recording artists see 3%-6% of the profits of their works. Most book-length authors see about 10%-15% of the profit from their work.
I'm not saying laws protecting copyright aren't welcome; but the laws protecting copyright are already in place.
It's disingenuous of the people backing these laws to claim they are doing it for the artists. It is rarely the artists themselves backing the bills, nor is it often the artist unions; no, it's the distributors.
If a large number of artists came out in support of any of these bills, I'd gladly back it. But when the only artist voices I hear are saying it sucks as much as *we* think it sucks, it's usually not a bill in their best interest.
Sorry. I think the whole, "Artists deserve to get paid!" arguments are right up there with, "We have to do this for our *children*." It's a baldface lie, and I'm offended they think I'm stupid enough to believe it.
The rights of no citizens are being infringed upon, as they never had the "right" to install a modchip in their PS2's.
This is the heart of the debate. Do you own the item you purchase, or do you merely license it?
When you purchase a PS2, under traditional law, you purchase the item itself; at that point, it is yours to use and abuse, however you see fit, assuming you break no laws in the process. This is fundamental to capitalism.
The laws that are used to make the mod chips illegal are recent, and not based on a traditional understanding of law; they are laws that are based on interpretation of rights of a corporation trumping the rights of an individual.
This in turn leads to questions of the "rights" of corporations. Traditionalists (such as I) believe that corporations deserve only the rights granted to them by the citizens of the country which grants their charter.
However, this is a debate that is much deeper than I'm willing to delve.
Both Apache and Sendmail predate similar offerings from Microsoft. If they are able to castrate both of these fine products via the legal system, I will help form the armed revolt myself.
This is not about cost-free software; it's about the ability of garage coders to continue to code freely.
And where do businesses get money? Why, from the people creating the goods or providing the services off which companies profit.
You may have been correct in your original post. I won't argue that point. (You're wrong, though.) However, even if businesses do provide all that, it doesn't preclude the rightness of providing assistance to those who cannot make the salaries of people who could afford to go to Harvard in the first place.
Our business-oriented system is geared to rewarding those who are already in positions of power, and punishes those who are not. Businesses *may* be the machinery of economics; it doesn't mean they also don't cause most of the problems in our society.
That's how you change things. Not bitching about it on Slashdot. Run for Congress.
That's a slap to the face.
You are completely correct.
I realize running for congress is rather senseless, as there is a direct correlation between money spent on a campaign the winning the campaign; but you are right. Activism is not sitting on my ass bitching in a/. forum.
Oh, for fuck's sake, people, this is not about our right to privacy; it's about the government's right to monitor its (presumably innocent) citizens.
Do we want a government powerful enough to track us wherever we go? I don't. They *don't* need this power to do their jobs of attempting to protect us. (Nobody can "protect" us, they can only *try* to protect us.)
Liberty is not only about our rights as citizens, but more about our rights to be free of a government that feels free to track and control us. That's why "free speech zones" are an abomination, and this surveillance is a slap in the face.
If we allow our government to control us instead of us controlling it, we are no longer a democracy. (Are we a democracy?)
That's an easy one: the right of the government to the constant surveillance of its own citizens.
I don't think they have the right. As the government is only imbued with the powers we as citizens allow it to have, I hope to convince everyone else they don't have that right, either.
Every single thing in this country that we have is courtesy of business.
Incorrect, Sir. Everything we have in this country is courtesy of *people.* Many things have happened that have nothing to do with business; take, for instance, Linux and many other Free Software projects. Business has grown around them, but that is secondary to the original, non-commercial project. Or, there's the millions of people who volunteer in their community *every day,* whether providing help at school or cooking food for homeless shelters, or assisting at hospitals.
Self-righteous selfishness aside, we are all in this together. Very few people earn what they make; CEOs make more money than they deserve, in most cases. *I* make more money than I deserve. Businesses leach off the productivity of the people cooperating within the business framework. In that respect only, businesses are good: the provide a framework for organisation, and in most cases, I do not think the "leaching" is that undeserved.
In too many cases, though, businesses have abused their position to fuck over large portions of the citizens of this country, and of the world. Enron is just one case in which a company used their position to fleece billions of dollars. (Most companies don't have the resources to steal that much, of course.)
Plus, the government gives more welfare to corporations than to citizens. Seems to me without the billions of dollars the government spends every year propping up business, either through DoD contracts or directly as handouts, "business" wouldn't be doing much at all.
(And, yes, the $175B in corporate welfare kicks the ass of the $150B cost of social services.)
Slashdot Mirror
The screed continues. Substitute "research team" for the magic words "patent portfolio". Now the complaint actually focuses on the ability of corporations to concentrate and organize research and development within a single entity that may not want to place nice with its competition. Unfortunately, this is hardly the province of patent law.
The problem isn't that corporations can concentrate R&D for better results, and more patents. The problem is this: most of the true innovations in software have occurred outside the provence of corporations, and is very rarely patented at all. (Think email, the internet, the web, etc.)
Now, corporations pick up on this essentially publicly-constructed infrastructure, add a few simple additions, patent those additions, and lock out those who created the infrastructure in the first place.
The problem with the patent system isn't that corporations can concentrate R it's that corporations are the only ones with enough resources to turn R&D into patents. There's *plenty* of R&D going on in universities, darkened bedrooms, and businesses interested in contributing the Common Good (whatever that might be).
Yes, there's a lot of misinformation going on about our patent system. I'm glad you are here to correct it, and knowledgable enough to do so. But your interpretation of the motives behind the hate for the patent system is equally wrong.
It's not jealousy of the ability of corporations for R it's the ability of corporations to easily abuse the system for profit, patenting many things that should never have passed review in the first place. And that *is* the province of patent law.
It's time for patent reform in this country (the US, "Land of the Free"), and in all countries who have emulated the US.
He stated at the time that his aim was to have the hardware compatibility of linux, but get rid of X.
Those who do not understand X are condemned to reinvent it.
Poorly.
(Paraphrased from a Henry Spencer quote about Unix.)
None of the pro-patent rhetoric bandied about these days ever addresses the topic of making software patents sensible, either. I can only imagine it's because it's impractical under our current system.
I believe a lot of us wouldn't mind seeing patents for truly brilliant methods, if we could be assured there wouldn't be one million bad patents for every one good one.
But, just to issue *my* anti-patent rhetoric:
Imagine if our criminal system convicted 99 innocent people for every true criminal, and attempts at reform have proven ineffective. Would you continue to pursue reform, when the damage done far outweighs the good?
The same holds for our patent system. If one patent in a hundred is good, and protects the rights granted by US law, those 99 other patents infringe on *my* rights (and the rights of millions of others) to freely use my knowledge.
That is a nontrivial right. In fact, it is fundamental to freedom.
So, our current patent system is indefensible. It destroys more rights than it protects, and should probably be dismantled, since attempts at reform have failed.
Anyway, end of rhetoric, for this post.
Don't mix up data integrity with business logic. You don't need a stored procedure to do all that; stored procedures make sure the billing address makes sense (like ensuring the zip code and city match).
Stored procedures are great when you have complex relationships between data than can't be defined by simple constraints. Any time you need to apply procedural logic to ensure data integrity, you need a stored procedure.
Taking the aggregate information and dealing with it is the job of the business logic, which is the middle tier. But the middle tier should be unable to insert data that is incorrect, no matter how poorly written the middle tier is.
In the short term it's annoying but in the long term it's not that big a deal.
Are you insane? 15 years is a long, long time for computers. 15 years ago was 1989. That year, the 80486 was introduced. The web was two years off. Microsoft sales topped one billion dollars for the first time. The internet tops 100,000 hosts. IRC is introduced. Seymour Cray developed the Cray 3. MCI and Compuserve become the first corporations with email connections to the internet.
See what I'm getting at? A "limited" monopoly can be harmful, not just annoying. Even dangerous, when you are talking about the future of the most flexible tool known to man-- knowledge.
I think the difference in methodology is based more on project goals. Some projects work well with the well-defined, UML-capable development. Financial database applications are a perfect example of this sort of project.
Other projects aren't suited to this sort of development model. Usually, these include things like compilers, operating systems, and games. Often, these are much more interesting to more people than the financial applications. (There are people who prefer to code financial apps, of course. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
These "best practices" you mention are only the best practices as determined by someone else, and drawn only from the practices we've developed so far. If we follow only these "best practices," we'll never develop better practices. I don't advocate avoiding them; they are, after all, the best we have so far. But I certainly don't think we should follow them as iron-clad laws.
The world needs both kinds of developers. Me, I affine to the craftsmen. I think engineers work on boring problems.
But what do I know? I'm too busy banging out Perl code on Emacs to be very smart about these things.
Several holes in your theory, most of which have to do with real life not supporting it.
The US has *always* had a teenage pregnancy problem, compared to the rest of the world. We've also had a fair problem with teen violence, and not just in the last 20 years; it's just that in the last 20 years, it's bled over into the middle- and upper-class families.
WRT teen pregnancy, there is a direct correlation between condom education and condom use; there is no correlation between abstinance education and abstinance use. To sum up: statistics suggest it is probable that educating teens about sex, and the proper prevention of pregnancy, is much more effective than *not* teaching teens about sex, and *not* teaching them the proper prevention of pregnancy.
Huh. Go figure.
Violence in the US has been more of an economic burden than teen pregnancy has *ever* been. Consider the economic effect of violence in urban America, what with the killing of people and all. Not only do housing prices plummet, but evidence suggest that poverty and violence go hand-in-hand; and poverty-stricken areas in the US receive poorer education, leaving the kids with less opportunity, than their wealthier peers. This leads to a wonderful cycle which is hard to break, compounding the economic and social damage done by violence.
The cost of teen pregnancy is highly exagerated.
I suppose those liberals will be happy now that SATA will get rid of "master/slave" term us racist geeks use with our racist computer devices.
Good lord, it's not the scary, scary liberals who are up in arms about the "master/slave" term; it's the equally-scary, scary conservatives, because it reminds them of bondage and dominance, and that nanny they once had, the one with the leather outfits and that ever-so-intrusive rod.
You know the one.
Why should I pity the large corporations who have a habit of thumbing their nose at both the law and the consumers?
I agree with most of what you say, to some extent. But, we're citizens, not consumers. As soon as you let them label us as consumers instead of citizens, they win.
As citizens, we control them. As consumers, we are controlled.
The Constitution was a document based on personal liberty and responsibility. How does enforcing the law of the land infringe on either of those?
Uhm... when the laws favor corporate autocracy over personal liberty?
And I know plenty of people who mod their consoles so they can develop homebrew games.
I know bongs are used to smoke quality tobacco, too. My argument isn't against bongs; it's against the argument for outlawing console mods.
Note I did say *mostly* used for illegal activity, which I think is probably true. Doesn't mean bongs should be outlawed.
So, who's the artist?
This 3% is the same whether it's Justin Timberlake (who does absolutely nothing), or Todd Rudgren, who does everything (plays every instrument, mixes, records, *works* for a living).
The *artist* is the writer, the engineer, the session musicians, the people who do the actual work. They generally see a flat fee, no matter what, usually a good wage, but nothing like the recording companies take in. The point is, the laws aren't there to protect the artist (like they claim), but to protect their own interest.
The way things are going, it will be impossible for artists to record their own work and distribute it over the internet, because the only legal distribution channels will be through the current media companies. Sure, the artist can provide their own MP3s, but what good will that be when MP3s are illegal? When the only recordings that are legal are those that are signed by some big business that can afford the signature block?
*That's* the point. I'm arguing against two things: the laws themselves, and the rhetoric that these laws somehow protect "the artist."
I don't give a fuck what the artists get paid; the entered into that deal themselves. I just want them to have an option for producing and selling their music without entering into the deal in the first place.
Artists deserve to be paid for their work.
Then maybe it's time for a bill that requires the industry to pay the artists?
Right now, most recording artists see 3%-6% of the profits of their works. Most book-length authors see about 10%-15% of the profit from their work.
I'm not saying laws protecting copyright aren't welcome; but the laws protecting copyright are already in place.
It's disingenuous of the people backing these laws to claim they are doing it for the artists. It is rarely the artists themselves backing the bills, nor is it often the artist unions; no, it's the distributors.
If a large number of artists came out in support of any of these bills, I'd gladly back it. But when the only artist voices I hear are saying it sucks as much as *we* think it sucks, it's usually not a bill in their best interest.
Sorry. I think the whole, "Artists deserve to get paid!" arguments are right up there with, "We have to do this for our *children*." It's a baldface lie, and I'm offended they think I'm stupid enough to believe it.
You know, bongs are perfectly legal. Smoking pot in the US is not. Why don't they outlaw bongs, as they are mostly used for an illegal activity?
The rights of no citizens are being infringed upon, as they never had the "right" to install a modchip in their PS2's.
This is the heart of the debate. Do you own the item you purchase, or do you merely license it?
When you purchase a PS2, under traditional law, you purchase the item itself; at that point, it is yours to use and abuse, however you see fit, assuming you break no laws in the process. This is fundamental to capitalism.
The laws that are used to make the mod chips illegal are recent, and not based on a traditional understanding of law; they are laws that are based on interpretation of rights of a corporation trumping the rights of an individual.
This in turn leads to questions of the "rights" of corporations. Traditionalists (such as I) believe that corporations deserve only the rights granted to them by the citizens of the country which grants their charter.
However, this is a debate that is much deeper than I'm willing to delve.
Both Apache and Sendmail predate similar offerings from Microsoft. If they are able to castrate both of these fine products via the legal system, I will help form the armed revolt myself.
This is not about cost-free software; it's about the ability of garage coders to continue to code freely.
Call it what you like. You can still do it.
Not since the restraining order, I can't.
And where do businesses get money? Why, from the people creating the goods or providing the services off which companies profit.
You may have been correct in your original post. I won't argue that point. (You're wrong, though.) However, even if businesses do provide all that, it doesn't preclude the rightness of providing assistance to those who cannot make the salaries of people who could afford to go to Harvard in the first place.
Our business-oriented system is geared to rewarding those who are already in positions of power, and punishes those who are not. Businesses *may* be the machinery of economics; it doesn't mean they also don't cause most of the problems in our society.
That's how you change things. Not bitching about it on Slashdot. Run for Congress.
/. forum.
That's a slap to the face.
You are completely correct.
I realize running for congress is rather senseless, as there is a direct correlation between money spent on a campaign the winning the campaign; but you are right. Activism is not sitting on my ass bitching in a
But... I'm lazy. Changing things takes effort.
The yet to be named robot is about the same size as an 18-month-old child . . .
It *does* have a name:Twikki.
Duh.
So it's only 1/16th the OS as Linux, instead of 1/32nd?
That's reassuring.
And in PUBLIC places they do have that right and you do too.
I certainly do not have the right to surveil anyone I want. In fact, that's often called "stalking."
And I would vote for those who agree with me, but we only have a two-party system in which both parties are almost indistinguishable.
Oh, for fuck's sake, people, this is not about our right to privacy; it's about the government's right to monitor its (presumably innocent) citizens.
Do we want a government powerful enough to track us wherever we go? I don't. They *don't* need this power to do their jobs of attempting to protect us. (Nobody can "protect" us, they can only *try* to protect us.)
Liberty is not only about our rights as citizens, but more about our rights to be free of a government that feels free to track and control us. That's why "free speech zones" are an abomination, and this surveillance is a slap in the face.
If we allow our government to control us instead of us controlling it, we are no longer a democracy. (Are we a democracy?)
What rights are in question?
That's an easy one: the right of the government to the constant surveillance of its own citizens.
I don't think they have the right. As the government is only imbued with the powers we as citizens allow it to have, I hope to convince everyone else they don't have that right, either.
Every single thing in this country that we have is courtesy of business.
Incorrect, Sir. Everything we have in this country is courtesy of *people.* Many things have happened that have nothing to do with business; take, for instance, Linux and many other Free Software projects. Business has grown around them, but that is secondary to the original, non-commercial project. Or, there's the millions of people who volunteer in their community *every day,* whether providing help at school or cooking food for homeless shelters, or assisting at hospitals.
Self-righteous selfishness aside, we are all in this together. Very few people earn what they make; CEOs make more money than they deserve, in most cases. *I* make more money than I deserve. Businesses leach off the productivity of the people cooperating within the business framework. In that respect only, businesses are good: the provide a framework for organisation, and in most cases, I do not think the "leaching" is that undeserved.
In too many cases, though, businesses have abused their position to fuck over large portions of the citizens of this country, and of the world. Enron is just one case in which a company used their position to fleece billions of dollars. (Most companies don't have the resources to steal that much, of course.)
Plus, the government gives more welfare to corporations than to citizens. Seems to me without the billions of dollars the government spends every year propping up business, either through DoD contracts or directly as handouts, "business" wouldn't be doing much at all.
(And, yes, the $175B in corporate welfare kicks the ass of the $150B cost of social services.)