It goes without saying that BellSouth are probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, gateways between IPs in US and the rest of the world. But what about their Global reach?
Will traffic between EU addresss be affected by this? EU and Japan? China? Middle east? India? Are Canadian content providers going to have to pay BellSouth extortion money to host for customers outside of the US?
Anyone have any ideas on this? How long has his arm grown while the armies of good lay sleeping?
Actually is is using more horizontal space as well, due to the rectangular nature of Slashdot comments. But I do stand corrected, and my petty rebuttals are no real excuse.
Please stop cutting off your text lines with inserts. It takes up vastly more space than a paragraph with no line breaks would. As you can see this comment is taking up far more horizontal space than it normally would. If this get's modded up, it will dominate a substantial percentage of the total area of this comments page. That would be an abuse of the Slashcode. In Future please do not insert overly many line breaks into your comments. It's OK to seperate paragraphs using line breaks, but it's not OK to separate sentences using them. OK?
I believe the word democracy is the worst villain in tyranny.
I don't know. Autocracies, dictatorships, theocracies, plutocracies, etc, etc, all give democracy a run for its money.
Here's a relevant quote from our old pal, Winston Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
I'll go farther. Democracy works. It works well. No other form of government has ever been so successful for such a sustained period of time.
Consider the United States. The country went from colonial backwater to the worlds most powerful country in less than 200 years. Immigration, untapped natural resources, climate, international conflict. All these played a part.
But these factors were apparent in almost every other country in the americas, and are still apparent in many countries today. Yet the United States surpassed all around it. I would argue this was because the United States was a democracy, and just as importantly, a free society. A lot of people spin this as rhetoric, but it really was the foundation on which the entire country was built.
There's already a few comments openly questioning and in some cases deriding the concept of dark energy. I think this could well be fallout from String Theory's current fall from grace.
It's looking more and more like String Theorists are on the wrong track. I think this may have bred a new skeptisism in people with regard to the more "out there" physics theories.
The whole debate about Intelligent Design may also be playing a part. There's been a very public question about "what is science". String Theory has already come under fire from this, and it's understandable that some other theories such as Dark Energy might also be brought under the spotlight of a new skeptisism.
This might be stifling for scientists, paticularly those with more outlandish sounding, but still reasonable hypotheses. But ultimately I think it will be good for science. No one should blindly accept any scientific theory without sufficient evidence. And supplying that evidence can only further validate the theory. In this sense, skeptics are good for science.
It's true that the USPTO could have done better with the resources at its disposal. But it's possible that it just hasn't been given enough resources to meet its responsibilities.
In either case, the USPTO is incompetant and incapable of doing its job. It should stop issuing patents immediately.
That's like saying you can't patent the implementation of a microchip because all it is is mathematical formulas.
A microchip is a physical assembly of circuits, transistors and silicon. It performs a physical function. Like everything else its operation is based on physical and mathematical laws. But it is not a mathematical algorithim.
Software adapts mathematics (be it simple boolean operations or complex searching and sorting algorithms) to a specific form and function. If an adaptation was sufficiently unique, non-obvious and usefull, then it might be reasonable to patent it.
It isn't reasonable. If you assemble a collection of mathematical algorithms into a larger algorithim, you still have a mathematical algorithim. Therefore, you cannot patent it.
The word "non-obvious" has been completey removed as a screening criteria from the patent process.
Sir, here at the USPTO we take pride in granting patents without consideration of trifling concepts such as; gross obviousness, unoriginality and indeed patentability itself.
A process is not a tangible thing. It does not operate on specific components. no matter how specific you make it, a process is not a tangible, "hold in your hand" item. It doesn't do anything, not by itself at any rate. A process is an abstract concept, and patenting abstract concepts used to be disallowed.
It would be bad enough if the process was well defined, but with half the process patents out there, what was originally meant to be applied to computer chip manufacture is so vauge taht it could just as easily be used to sue a kid selling lemonade to passers by.
I think their idea is to keep trying again and again until we get sick and tired of protesting it.
That's exactly it. The IP companies only need to get lucky once, the rest of us have to be lucky time and time and time again. Eventually, they'll get through, and then we'll be stuck with software patents forever, as to atempt to dislodge them would be "theft" of IP rights.
This subversive will be dealt with quickly and harshly. Already the muck rakers are fervently searching for mud to fling at this commu-terrorist.
We are the IP companies. Fire your lawyers and prepare to be sued. We shall add your intellectualy distictive property portfolio to our own. Justice is futile.
This message brought to you in association with: "The USPTO. For a more prosperous, litigious future."
It seems to me that I could simply line the pockets of my actual wallet with foil...this would have several benefits over the duct-tape wallet:
it would also last about five hours before wearing and needing replacement. I'd wager a properly constructed duct tape wallet with the foil embedded would last an order of magnitude longer than a quick fix foil solution.
It's all a moot point anyway as RFID technology will quickly pass the point where simply tin foil will prevent remote snooping.
I knew the difference between sight and cite, but for some unbeknownst reason, as I was typing the paragraph, my brain "heard" cite, but decided to spell it sight.
It would be interesting to find out why this happens, paticularly in regard to words like "there","their","they're","whether","weather" etc. Some people aregue that as the english language evolves, such spellings will become redundant, and meaning will be gleaned from context, as it is in speech. This seems somehow wrong to me.
You will get the odd person who simply does not know that the word "cite" exists, but continues to use "sight" in its place. The argument goes that the number of such people will only increase if standards are allowed to slip. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, if it decreases the ability of people to correctly express themselves online, then yes, it is a bad thing.
A lot of people lament the increasing rise of "AIM english". It is in itself expressive at times, but I'm with the lamenters here. "r u ther","c u" and "that wuz kewl" grate on me severely. But does it grate on me enough that I proofread my posts on Slashdot? No.
What am I trying to say here? It's not that I don't care about my writing. I do. I just don't care enough about Slashdot is all!
I've never been a huge fan of Integrated Development Enviornments. The learning curve is usually quite steep, each has its own peculiarities, and each does things you originally had no intention of doing.
Case in point, Anjuta, on the creation of a new app, creates a 500K config file and I have no idea what it's doing. Each IDE also has a tendency to create its own directory hierarchy, make file or equivilent, and if versioning is included, will pick its own scheme.
What this usually entails for me is loss of control over the project. I sort of feel trapped within the IDE, and unable to get out. The Visual Studio effect; I don't know where my code ends and the automatically generated stuff begins.
As such, I prefer keeping it simple. I use a bare text editor where possible. Syntac highlighting is a must for me, and I've found very few editors that do this correctly. Emacs will work if your colour scheme is OK, but Emacs is a quasi-IDE to begin with.
I find writing computer programs to be just that. Writing. It's a personalised sort of thing. A few personally written shell scripts, a handmade makefile, the command line and a decent editor can go a long, long way. You are intimately aquainted with all aspects of the project. On the downside, you are intimately aquainted with all aspects of the project.
Your milage may vary, considerably. But before you begin to use an IDE, as what it is giving you, good and bad, that a personalised DE is not. There's a trend towards monolithic IDE programs that do it all in one, but do they really deliver on their promise. Are you really more productive. Your troubles with Eclipse could be symptoms that IDE are really not for you.
Your legal precendents are no match for our crack team of high priced lawyers.
To ensure this fact, we have purchased the rights to the rights to the facts concerned in the cases you sight. As a result, any lawyer or judge who considers them will be forced to retire, without pension.
If you object to this, make moves to object, are seen or heard to object, or are seen or heard to be in a position facilitating objection, we reserve the right to legally force you in bankruptcy and/or exile and/or prision and/or Guantanamo Bay.
This is only a good think if his regime is replaced by a better one. Iraq now tetters on the edge of civil war and law and order have broken down. There is a good chance another dictatorship will arise, or that a theocracy will emerge. If either of these things happen, then the war will ahve been for nothing on the regime change front.
2. WMD.
A farce from start to finish. There were no WMD's. There was no deployment capabilty. They lied. The west faced a greater threat from chicken pox than it did from a WMD strike from Saddam. It's a dead horse.
3. Afganistan just wasn't big enough or hard enough to defeat to send the message we wanted to send to the world.
And the message was? The war has done nothing but destroy the once prestidgous US reputation and has assurred the dictatorial regimes of the world that the US simply does not pose a threat to them. Iran has been emboldened by the ongoing display of US impotence and has resumed nuclear research. It would never have done so if Iraq had not been invaded.
4. But the big one was the Drain the Swamp stategy. Iraq was and is ideally suited for remaking into a Republic at peace with itself and its neighbors.
Iraq, as a nation and political entity, does not actually exist. What we call Iraq, derives from a general geographical description of a region in mesopotamia. The ethnic conflict ongoing in Iraq at this very moment clearly shows the that the country is not one homogeneous entity. it is a ficticious nation, created I believe by the british after the collapse of th ottoman empire. One only has to look at the suspiciously straight borders to realise this.
The single biggest reason for the war in Iraq, was jingoism.
Slashdot Mirror
But we are the lamb. CorpGovMedia is the Lion.
I guess that would make Slashdot the Valley of Darkness.
It goes without saying that BellSouth are probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, gateways between IPs in US and the rest of the world. But what about their Global reach?
Will traffic between EU addresss be affected by this? EU and Japan? China? Middle east? India? Are Canadian content providers going to have to pay BellSouth extortion money to host for customers outside of the US?
Anyone have any ideas on this? How long has his arm grown while the armies of good lay sleeping?
Not if LobbyMan! and the Lawyer Justice Leauge has anything to do about it. To the Slime Cave!
At least it wasn't posted by **(You know who).
ScuttleMonkey, please take five and get some coffee, and try reading the front page every once in a while.
Actually is is using more horizontal space as well, due to the rectangular nature of Slashdot comments. But I do stand corrected, and my petty rebuttals are no real excuse.
Please stop cutting off your
text lines with inserts. It
takes up vastly more space
than a paragraph with no line
breaks would. As you can see
this comment is taking up far
more horizontal space than it
normally would. If this get's
modded up, it will dominate a
substantial percentage of the
total area of this comments
page. That would be an abuse
of the Slashcode. In Future
please do not insert overly
many line breaks into your
comments. It's OK to seperate
paragraphs using line breaks,
but it's not OK to separate
sentences using them. OK?
I don't know. Autocracies, dictatorships, theocracies, plutocracies, etc, etc, all give democracy a run for its money.
Here's a relevant quote from our old pal, Winston Churchill:
I'll go farther. Democracy works. It works well. No other form of government has ever been so successful for such a sustained period of time.
Consider the United States. The country went from colonial backwater to the worlds most powerful country in less than 200 years. Immigration, untapped natural resources, climate, international conflict. All these played a part.
But these factors were apparent in almost every other country in the americas, and are still apparent in many countries today. Yet the United States surpassed all around it. I would argue this was because the United States was a democracy, and just as importantly, a free society. A lot of people spin this as rhetoric, but it really was the foundation on which the entire country was built.
There's already a few comments openly questioning and in some cases deriding the concept of dark energy. I think this could well be fallout from String Theory's current fall from grace.
It's looking more and more like String Theorists are on the wrong track. I think this may have bred a new skeptisism in people with regard to the more "out there" physics theories.
The whole debate about Intelligent Design may also be playing a part. There's been a very public question about "what is science". String Theory has already come under fire from this, and it's understandable that some other theories such as Dark Energy might also be brought under the spotlight of a new skeptisism.
This might be stifling for scientists, paticularly those with more outlandish sounding, but still reasonable hypotheses. But ultimately I think it will be good for science. No one should blindly accept any scientific theory without sufficient evidence. And supplying that evidence can only further validate the theory. In this sense, skeptics are good for science.
It's true that the USPTO could have done better with the resources at its disposal. But it's possible that it just hasn't been given enough resources to meet its responsibilities.
In either case, the USPTO is incompetant and incapable of doing its job. It should stop issuing patents immediately.
That's like saying you can't patent the implementation of a microchip because all it is is mathematical formulas.
A microchip is a physical assembly of circuits, transistors and silicon. It performs a physical function. Like everything else its operation is based on physical and mathematical laws. But it is not a mathematical algorithim.
Software adapts mathematics (be it simple boolean operations or complex searching and sorting algorithms) to a specific form and function. If an adaptation was sufficiently unique, non-obvious and usefull, then it might be reasonable to patent it.
It isn't reasonable. If you assemble a collection of mathematical algorithms into a larger algorithim, you still have a mathematical algorithim. Therefore, you cannot patent it.
Mathematical algorithms cannot be patented.
All software programs are mathematical algorithims.
Ergo, software programs cannot be patented.
Disclaimer: The above relies on the issuing patent body being in some way competant. Does not apply to USPTO.
The word "non-obvious" has been completey removed as a screening criteria from the patent process.
Sir, here at the USPTO we take pride in granting patents without consideration of trifling concepts such as; gross obviousness, unoriginality and indeed patentability itself.
The tide is never going to turn in countries that let themselves be ruled by lobbyists.
Unless we lobby Congress to put things right!!
I agree you should be able to patent a process.
I don't.
A process is not a tangible thing. It does not operate on specific components. no matter how specific you make it, a process is not a tangible, "hold in your hand" item. It doesn't do anything, not by itself at any rate. A process is an abstract concept, and patenting abstract concepts used to be disallowed.
It would be bad enough if the process was well defined, but with half the process patents out there, what was originally meant to be applied to computer chip manufacture is so vauge taht it could just as easily be used to sue a kid selling lemonade to passers by.
I think their idea is to keep trying again and again until we get sick and tired of protesting it.
That's exactly it. The IP companies only need to get lucky once, the rest of us have to be lucky time and time and time again. Eventually, they'll get through, and then we'll be stuck with software patents forever, as to atempt to dislodge them would be "theft" of IP rights.
May I bask in your verve? Please?
No, I'm afraid that basking in my verve has already been patented.
"Is the Tide Turning?"
No.
This subversive will be dealt with quickly and harshly. Already the muck rakers are fervently searching for mud to fling at this commu-terrorist.
We are the IP companies. Fire your lawyers and prepare to be sued. We shall add your intellectualy distictive property portfolio to our own. Justice is futile.
This message brought to you in association with: "The USPTO. For a more prosperous, litigious future."
Does this mean we're all going to turn into Mel Gibson and Tina Turner lookalikes?
Well, even Master-Blaster would be an improvement for most Slashdotters.
It seems to me that I could simply line the pockets of my actual wallet with foil...this would have several benefits over the duct-tape wallet:
it would also last about five hours before wearing and needing replacement. I'd wager a properly constructed duct tape wallet with the foil embedded would last an order of magnitude longer than a quick fix foil solution.
It's all a moot point anyway as RFID technology will quickly pass the point where simply tin foil will prevent remote snooping.
I knew the difference between sight and cite, but for some unbeknownst reason, as I was typing the paragraph, my brain "heard" cite, but decided to spell it sight.
It would be interesting to find out why this happens, paticularly in regard to words like "there","their","they're","whether","weather" etc. Some people aregue that as the english language evolves, such spellings will become redundant, and meaning will be gleaned from context, as it is in speech. This seems somehow wrong to me.
You will get the odd person who simply does not know that the word "cite" exists, but continues to use "sight" in its place. The argument goes that the number of such people will only increase if standards are allowed to slip. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, if it decreases the ability of people to correctly express themselves online, then yes, it is a bad thing.
A lot of people lament the increasing rise of "AIM english". It is in itself expressive at times, but I'm with the lamenters here. "r u ther","c u" and "that wuz kewl" grate on me severely. But does it grate on me enough that I proofread my posts on Slashdot? No.
What am I trying to say here? It's not that I don't care about my writing. I do. I just don't care enough about Slashdot is all!
I know this. The real question is; should I care enough to proofread posts on Slashdot. The answer, clearly, is no.
I've never been a huge fan of Integrated Development Enviornments. The learning curve is usually quite steep, each has its own peculiarities, and each does things you originally had no intention of doing.
Case in point, Anjuta, on the creation of a new app, creates a 500K config file and I have no idea what it's doing. Each IDE also has a tendency to create its own directory hierarchy, make file or equivilent, and if versioning is included, will pick its own scheme.
What this usually entails for me is loss of control over the project. I sort of feel trapped within the IDE, and unable to get out. The Visual Studio effect; I don't know where my code ends and the automatically generated stuff begins.
As such, I prefer keeping it simple. I use a bare text editor where possible. Syntac highlighting is a must for me, and I've found very few editors that do this correctly. Emacs will work if your colour scheme is OK, but Emacs is a quasi-IDE to begin with.
I find writing computer programs to be just that. Writing. It's a personalised sort of thing. A few personally written shell scripts, a handmade makefile, the command line and a decent editor can go a long, long way. You are intimately aquainted with all aspects of the project. On the downside, you are intimately aquainted with all aspects of the project.
Your milage may vary, considerably. But before you begin to use an IDE, as what it is giving you, good and bad, that a personalised DE is not. There's a trend towards monolithic IDE programs that do it all in one, but do they really deliver on their promise. Are you really more productive. Your troubles with Eclipse could be symptoms that IDE are really not for you.
Sir,
Your legal precendents are no match for our crack team of high priced lawyers.
To ensure this fact, we have purchased the rights to the rights to the facts concerned in the cases you sight. As a result, any lawyer or judge who considers them will be forced to retire, without pension.
If you object to this, make moves to object, are seen or heard to object, or are seen or heard to be in a position facilitating objection, we reserve the right to legally force you in bankruptcy and/or exile and/or prision and/or Guantanamo Bay.
Yours,
MLB Inc.
Thought For The Day: 'Greed Is Good.'
Shouldn't it be AppleRot then?
Why let one bad apple spoil the whole danm bunch?
The War had many reasons, all of them good ones
This should be good.
1. Finally getting rid of Saddam.
This is only a good think if his regime is replaced by a better one. Iraq now tetters on the edge of civil war and law and order have broken down. There is a good chance another dictatorship will arise, or that a theocracy will emerge. If either of these things happen, then the war will ahve been for nothing on the regime change front.
2. WMD.
A farce from start to finish. There were no WMD's. There was no deployment capabilty. They lied. The west faced a greater threat from chicken pox than it did from a WMD strike from Saddam. It's a dead horse.
3. Afganistan just wasn't big enough or hard enough to defeat to send the message we wanted to send to the world.
And the message was? The war has done nothing but destroy the once prestidgous US reputation and has assurred the dictatorial regimes of the world that the US simply does not pose a threat to them. Iran has been emboldened by the ongoing display of US impotence and has resumed nuclear research. It would never have done so if Iraq had not been invaded.
4. But the big one was the Drain the Swamp stategy. Iraq was and is ideally suited for remaking into a Republic at peace with itself and its neighbors.
Iraq, as a nation and political entity, does not actually exist. What we call Iraq, derives from a general geographical description of a region in mesopotamia. The ethnic conflict ongoing in Iraq at this very moment clearly shows the that the country is not one homogeneous entity. it is a ficticious nation, created I believe by the british after the collapse of th ottoman empire. One only has to look at the suspiciously straight borders to realise this.
The single biggest reason for the war in Iraq, was jingoism.