Really? You are mister semantics now? What happened to "this is a conversation?'
Nothing you made a huge leap in logic and tried to put words in my mouth.
I said that on the internet "open" has always meant free and I cited RFCs in general.
And I said you were wrong because open meant fully documented, and pointed out that not all RFC reference totally free protocols.
You cite a couple of RFCs that were extremely weak exceptions to the general example.
One of many. You should really read up on this stuff.
That doesn't invalidate my original point that on the internet open means free even if that's not the case in other areas but here you are saying "just admit you made a mistake.
You haven't even come close to proving that "open" means "free". You can wish really really hard, but that doesn't count. You bring up RFCs but then again it's apparent that you don't fully understand their intent.
Congratulations - your focus on trivialities totally brought new insight to the "conversation."
Whatever. You can insult me all you want, but it still doesn't lend any credence to whatever point you were trying to prove.
Classic nube mistake to take the name literally. RFCs are part of a process that produces standards - not just defacto standards, but actual standards too. See rfc1796 [ietf.org] for a discussion of the process.
What? Just admit you were mistaken and move on... It's not a contest, just a conversation.
Ok, then for the first 30 years they were free to implement. Then somebody decided to redefine what an RFC was.
How so? RFC always and still stands for "Request For Comments" by the Network Working Group. Patents on software didn't exist until the 1980's, but nothing in the RFC prevented patented software from being used.
Not all RFCs were protocol definitions, some were operational notes like "Activity Reports", "How to handle documents", etc.
These were sharing of ideas amongst academia (and government scientists) and not all of them used components that were free.
On the internet it always has, all RFCs are free to implement.
Wrong. Take RFC 2281 (Cisco Hot Standby Router Protocol) for example:
US Patent number 5,473,599 [2], assigned to Cisco Systems, Inc. may
be applicable to HSRP. If an implementation requires the use of any
claims of patent no. 5,473,599, Cisco will license such claims on
reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms for use in practicing the
standard. More specifically, such license will be available for a
one-time, paid up fee.
Even better to this discussion is RFC 3984 - RTP Payload Format for H.264.
Considering Google's recent history with Java, I think Google's strategy is not to save money but to exert some power from being the new 800 lb gorilla.
Google doesn't make any money in the H.264 consortium therefore they will work against it. Not saying this is a terribly bad thing, but beware of the corporation willing to give you the shirt of their back.
Wrong. My argument is that there are good software patents in existence now, and the parent assumed that because the patent looked obvious to him after the fact doesn't necessarily mean the patent is bad.
I disagree. The problem with your argument is that hindsight is 20/20. Everyone can slap the forehead and go wow I didn't realize there was a need for that, and if I had created that invention then that's the way I'd do it. The real trick is being the one to come up with the invention.
There is ZERO reason for software patents other than greed.
Sure if you ignore the desire to recoup money spent to develop the software being patented. The concept of a software patent appears to be sound, but the implementation is fundamentally flawed. The main problem appears to be that the people involved in granting the patents are not qualified enough to understand what they are looking at in the patent application. I'm sure being understaffed and having a backlog of patent applications doesn't help either.
You assume that software appears out of thin air at no cost. Considering how easily it is to copy someone else's work, I think software patents are probably more important in the digital realm than the physical. What we should look at is why there is so many software patents being issued. Think about it, if we are suppose to only patent non-obvious and advance software technique then why are there so many? The skeptic in me thinks it's because the government does everything possible to help out the big corporate political contributors. The continued poor execution of issuing these patents has fundamentally changed the purpose of patents from allowing anybody to recoup their R&D expenses to keeping the little guys from competing against the established corporations.
I'm for software patent reform. We need better qualifications for patents, qualified patent clerks, and shorter duration patents for software related patents. I'm against abolishing all software patents, because throwing out the baby with the bath water is not a viable solution.
They rarely interact with anyone outside of their age group, and almost always segregate themselves into cliches as a result of the caste system described above.
You evidently didn't attend public school and eat lunch, go to football games, or participate in extracurricular activities.
Top of the spelling bee.
Top of the geography bee.
Top in their college classes.
I think "idiots" is a poor choice of words. In fact most of the great people in history were homeschooled. And I'm not sure why you bring-up "rapture" - what's that have to do with anything?
I agree. Idiots is a very poor choice of words for home schoolers.
A small number of them have shown proficiency at remembering facts like geography and vocabulary. Since home schoolers have the time and the parents have the money to attend these spelling bees, you'll find a disproportionate number of home schoolers attending these events. Not to mention that they have to overcome the stereotype of a lesser educational background, therefore they have more of an incentive to publicly prove their academic achievements. I'm pretty confident that this proficiency for memorization will serve them well in college, since the majority of their coursework involves regurgitation these days.
Home schoolers in general have stunted social skills and are not always exposed to other cultures, belief systems, or ideas in general.
As for the "great people in history" being home schooled, let's not forget that there weren't that many schools back then, and it didn't take much intelligence to do the right thing. It's not like they had to save mankind by recalibrating deflector shields....
Yes it is coincidence. I think it's probably more of cultural thing.
When I was in the maritime industry, I had a greek ship master demand that I put the average ship channel depth in writing. I refused and referred him to the NOAA charts. Besides I hired bar pilots for all of my ships anyway. He insisted that he needed something stating how large a draft his vessel could safely acquire. I grew suspicious since our port captains calculated all our cargo layouts and my stevedores monitor the watermark on the side of the vessel during loading anyway. The charter operators had to threaten legal action to get him to disembark with our cargo.
Later I was notified that this wasn't the first occurrence with the vessel owners and, this being the last voyage under the current charter, they were attempting the stunt again. Basically they wanted to order extra bunker (fuel) after loading operations had concluded and expense it to the charterer. The problem being that they ran the risk of running aground (or having to wait until next high tide) with the extra fuel. They wanted legal fodder to try to make collecting any reimbursements from their shenanigans difficult. This is one of many examples.
Believe it or not there is a difference between filing frivolous lawsuits to make a quick buck, and abusing the legal system to harass or seek retribution. None do it better and with more flair than the greeks.
While using Google during the holidays, I was having the first three pages of result filled with those damn click-through sites. This morning I tried the same search keys and they are no longer in the results.
I think the spammers were taking advantage of everyone taking holiday leave at Google.
This is standard operating procedure for some Greek companies. I used to have to deal with them all the time. They are very litigious and get irritated when you charge them accordingly. I had personal experience with these companies and most were a P.I.T.A.
I'm surprised that Paul Allen had the balls to sue AOL over this. After all AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were giving people hyperlinked images and sound before the world wide web was a household name and definitely before Gore cosponsored a bill that gave consumer access to the internet in '92 with the Information and Infrastructure Act.
The Fairness Doctrine is being leveraged to ensure that there are only two viable political parties. It ensconces in law that there are two, AND ONLY TWO, political viewpoints which are eligible for "fairness" enforcement. If there is an issue in which a particular viewpoint is expressed over broadcast media, the burden on the broadcaster is to provide equal time for "the opposing viewpoint"... as if there is just one. As far as the Fairness Doctrine is concerned, there are no Libertarians, no Greens, no Peace&Freedom, no John Birch, no Tea Party, no American Communists... only "conservatives" (Republicans) and "liberals" (Democrats). This is part of how the two main parties ensure that they're the only ones who get to play. And there has even been talk of using the law to shut down conservative talk radio altogether, to reduce the number of broadcast viewpoints to exactly one.
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished by the FCC in August 1987. This is why partisan talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck exists.
One of the reasons the other parties don't do well on radio is because an over whelming majority of the nation consider the examples that you gave as fringe groups. I could comment on your poor choice of examples, but it would be more diplomatic to point out the main reason radical ideas don't do well on radio is age. People who listen to non-music radio tend to be older, and the vast number of those older individuals are already set in their political leanings. When they were in their impressionable 20's the current two parties were firmly in power and to consider yourself as someone other than a Democrat or Republican was considered unpatriotic.
FYI the other reasons are lack of organization, money, and clear message that wins the hearts of minds of the average american. The 20-something adults that associate themselves with these groups (that I met) do it to be fashionable and to rebel against the establishment. The few that are sincere members of these groups soon realize that the group isn't really compatible with their beliefs and either join another party or more often just become an apathetic slashdot commenter.
Slashdot Mirror
The UI is clean, its responsive on my system, and I like the RSS reader.
Yours truly,
$DEITY
Nothing you made a huge leap in logic and tried to put words in my mouth.
And I said you were wrong because open meant fully documented, and pointed out that not all RFC reference totally free protocols.
One of many. You should really read up on this stuff.
You haven't even come close to proving that "open" means "free". You can wish really really hard, but that doesn't count. You bring up RFCs but then again it's apparent that you don't fully understand their intent.
Whatever. You can insult me all you want, but it still doesn't lend any credence to whatever point you were trying to prove.
Sorry Dirty Jobs beat them to it.
Which part of my conversation did I say that?
What? Just admit you were mistaken and move on... It's not a contest, just a conversation.
How so? RFC always and still stands for "Request For Comments" by the Network Working Group. Patents on software didn't exist until the 1980's, but nothing in the RFC prevented patented software from being used.
Not all RFCs were protocol definitions, some were operational notes like "Activity Reports", "How to handle documents", etc.
These were sharing of ideas amongst academia (and government scientists) and not all of them used components that were free.
Wrong. Take RFC 2281 (Cisco Hot Standby Router Protocol) for example:
US Patent number 5,473,599 [2], assigned to Cisco Systems, Inc. may be applicable to HSRP. If an implementation requires the use of any claims of patent no. 5,473,599, Cisco will license such claims on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms for use in practicing the standard. More specifically, such license will be available for a one-time, paid up fee.
Even better to this discussion is RFC 3984 - RTP Payload Format for H.264.
You can look that one up.
Open didn't mean free.
Ugh.. Software patents were created in the 80's. Having to pay a royalty has nothing to do with being fully documented.
Considering Google's recent history with Java, I think Google's strategy is not to save money but to exert some power from being the new 800 lb gorilla.
Google doesn't make any money in the H.264 consortium therefore they will work against it. Not saying this is a terribly bad thing, but beware of the corporation willing to give you the shirt of their back.
It seems the new-speak has redefined "open". Remember the good ole days when "open" meant fully documented?
Tesla is dead. I doubt he cares now...
I'm pretty sure I'm more competent than you.
Wrong. My argument is that there are good software patents in existence now, and the parent assumed that because the patent looked obvious to him after the fact doesn't necessarily mean the patent is bad.
I disagree. The problem with your argument is that hindsight is 20/20. Everyone can slap the forehead and go wow I didn't realize there was a need for that, and if I had created that invention then that's the way I'd do it. The real trick is being the one to come up with the invention.
Sure if you ignore the desire to recoup money spent to develop the software being patented. The concept of a software patent appears to be sound, but the implementation is fundamentally flawed. The main problem appears to be that the people involved in granting the patents are not qualified enough to understand what they are looking at in the patent application. I'm sure being understaffed and having a backlog of patent applications doesn't help either.
You assume that software appears out of thin air at no cost. Considering how easily it is to copy someone else's work, I think software patents are probably more important in the digital realm than the physical. What we should look at is why there is so many software patents being issued. Think about it, if we are suppose to only patent non-obvious and advance software technique then why are there so many? The skeptic in me thinks it's because the government does everything possible to help out the big corporate political contributors. The continued poor execution of issuing these patents has fundamentally changed the purpose of patents from allowing anybody to recoup their R&D expenses to keeping the little guys from competing against the established corporations.
I'm for software patent reform. We need better qualifications for patents, qualified patent clerks, and shorter duration patents for software related patents. I'm against abolishing all software patents, because throwing out the baby with the bath water is not a viable solution.
If your point was that you nothing about what you are talking about... then yes.
You evidently didn't attend public school and eat lunch, go to football games, or participate in extracurricular activities.
I agree. Idiots is a very poor choice of words for home schoolers.
A small number of them have shown proficiency at remembering facts like geography and vocabulary. Since home schoolers have the time and the parents have the money to attend these spelling bees, you'll find a disproportionate number of home schoolers attending these events. Not to mention that they have to overcome the stereotype of a lesser educational background, therefore they have more of an incentive to publicly prove their academic achievements. I'm pretty confident that this proficiency for memorization will serve them well in college, since the majority of their coursework involves regurgitation these days.
Home schoolers in general have stunted social skills and are not always exposed to other cultures, belief systems, or ideas in general.
As for the "great people in history" being home schooled, let's not forget that there weren't that many schools back then, and it didn't take much intelligence to do the right thing. It's not like they had to save mankind by recalibrating deflector shields....
Yes it is coincidence. I think it's probably more of cultural thing.
When I was in the maritime industry, I had a greek ship master demand that I put the average ship channel depth in writing. I refused and referred him to the NOAA charts. Besides I hired bar pilots for all of my ships anyway. He insisted that he needed something stating how large a draft his vessel could safely acquire. I grew suspicious since our port captains calculated all our cargo layouts and my stevedores monitor the watermark on the side of the vessel during loading anyway. The charter operators had to threaten legal action to get him to disembark with our cargo.
Later I was notified that this wasn't the first occurrence with the vessel owners and, this being the last voyage under the current charter, they were attempting the stunt again. Basically they wanted to order extra bunker (fuel) after loading operations had concluded and expense it to the charterer. The problem being that they ran the risk of running aground (or having to wait until next high tide) with the extra fuel. They wanted legal fodder to try to make collecting any reimbursements from their shenanigans difficult. This is one of many examples.
Believe it or not there is a difference between filing frivolous lawsuits to make a quick buck, and abusing the legal system to harass or seek retribution. None do it better and with more flair than the greeks.
While using Google during the holidays, I was having the first three pages of result filled with those damn click-through sites. This morning I tried the same search keys and they are no longer in the results. I think the spammers were taking advantage of everyone taking holiday leave at Google.
This is standard operating procedure for some Greek companies. I used to have to deal with them all the time. They are very litigious and get irritated when you charge them accordingly. I had personal experience with these companies and most were a P.I.T.A.
I'm surprised that Paul Allen had the balls to sue AOL over this. After all AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were giving people hyperlinked images and sound before the world wide web was a household name and definitely before Gore cosponsored a bill that gave consumer access to the internet in '92 with the Information and Infrastructure Act.
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished by the FCC in August 1987. This is why partisan talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck exists.
One of the reasons the other parties don't do well on radio is because an over whelming majority of the nation consider the examples that you gave as fringe groups. I could comment on your poor choice of examples, but it would be more diplomatic to point out the main reason radical ideas don't do well on radio is age. People who listen to non-music radio tend to be older, and the vast number of those older individuals are already set in their political leanings. When they were in their impressionable 20's the current two parties were firmly in power and to consider yourself as someone other than a Democrat or Republican was considered unpatriotic.
FYI the other reasons are lack of organization, money, and clear message that wins the hearts of minds of the average american. The 20-something adults that associate themselves with these groups (that I met) do it to be fashionable and to rebel against the establishment. The few that are sincere members of these groups soon realize that the group isn't really compatible with their beliefs and either join another party or more often just become an apathetic slashdot commenter.
and they want their WebTV back.