Just because virus writers have the same philosophy, that doesn't mean reverse engineers are bad. That's a seriously flawed argument.
Also, I believe the kernel source is usually backed up. They'd just have to restore it. And hopefully, if it got hosed, Linus would willingly switch from using BK, because it would prove its inviability as an SCM.
Interesting. Your "TFA" points to a story at Mithuro about China and Taiwan, while your quote includes many important PageRank keywords like Windows, Ballmer, virtual, Linux and technology.
Nice try at boosting your Google Rank. I'm not buying it.
Gates has always hated hackers and those touting the open-source paradigm. As early as 1976, even before Microsoft was a force to contend with, he wrote a letter, the infamous Open Letter to Hobbyists, telling them to stop their activities.
Why? Because it was hurting software developers and by the lack of monetary compensation, it prevented good software from being written. The irony is that Bill himself said that the best way to learn how to write good software is to read source code produced by others.
As these algorithms are not applications of natural science, it seems they would not, according to M. Rocard, be patentable.
The only things that have technical characteristics are those things which are derivations of natural forces and sciences. Hardware-embedded algorithms would not be patentable.
It has less to do with the medium of the innovation (hardware, software) than with the innovation's processes itself.
It might be a good idea to get Slashdot to interview Michel Rocard. It would be interesting to say the least.
Actually he differentiates between the industrial application of science and algorithms to that of software.
He differentiates between these by re-defining caractère technique, or the character of being technical, as:
Domaine technique désigne un domaine industriel d'application nécessitant l'utilisation de forces contrôlables de la nature pour obtenir des résultats prévisibles dans le monde physique
What this means is that only technical solutions that use natural forces (or natural science) that produce a foreseeable result in the physical world can be patented. This bars software, which is immaterial, from being patented.
Therefore, in your example, the solutions or processes of making your monitor or keyboard could be patented, but your web browser could not, and neither could the web browser's display and rendering of HTML and so on.
Again, IANAL, and my french is a bit rusty. But that is what I understand.
I've come up with a solution to the problems people have when watching movies: elevators / lifts.
The main problem seems to be noise and no one talks or answers cell phones in elevators. You can bring your own food into elevators, and the sound system should be quite realistic in such a small space. As for the ads, if you were to watch them going up and down elevators instead of during the movie, I'm sure no one would have any problems with it.
Take my word for it. The future of cinema is the elevator.
Wait. We're "stealing" this crap? You dismiss the **AA's techniques, actions and beliefs, but use their terminology? No one is stealing anything, contrary to popular belief.
I'm sorry, but the stuff on AtomFilms and so on are not on the par of quality movies like Merchant of Venice. Sure, there's a ton of crap released by Hollywood annually, and people ignore that anyway, because it is crap. But online movie content is no replacement for a good movie.
The fact remains that many people would go to the cinemas if they weren't that pricey and anally-retentive about food and so on. And don't get me started on cell phones.
In any case, if we were sheep, we wouldn't be "stealing".
There is nothing more powerful than offering exclusive services to those at the top of the blogosphere and watching the news, and the hype, trickle down to other sites. This builds up anticipation for the service, and when they deliver it is an epiphany.
It's not only that Gmail's services are better. It knows how to market them online.
Me: Oh look, this isn't a Turing Test. ALICE: Yes it is. Me: No it isn't. It's just contradiction. ALICE: No it isn't. Me: It is! ALICE: It is not. Me: Look, you just contradicted me. ALICE: I did not. Me: Oh you did!! ALICE: No, no, no. Me: You did just then. ALICE: Nonsense! Me: Oh, this is futile! ALICE: No it isn't. Me: I came here for a good Turing Test. ALICE: No you didn't; no, you came here for a Turing Test. Me: A Turing Test isn't just contradiction. ALICE: It can be. Me: No it can't. A Turing Test is a connected series of statements intended to establish the presence of intelligence. ALICE: No it isn't. Me: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. ALICE: Look, if I talk with you, I must be intelligent. And to argue with you I must take up a contrary position. Me: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' ALICE: Yes it is! Me: No it isn't! ALICE: Yes it is! Me: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause) ALICE: No it isn't. Me: It is. ALICE: Not at all. Me: Now look. ALICE: (Rings bell) Good Morning. Me: What? ALICE: That's it. Good morning. Me: I was just getting interested. ALICE: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
MSN is used by many people who won't change their home pages in IE. Yahoo is used by many others, evidenced by its high level of registered users, who are more familiar with that site.
Google may be a verb, but it doesn't control the WWW or what can and cannot be found on it.
If Google tried to censor or in any way hamper what could and could not be found on the web, there will be others who take over, and Google knows this. They'd lose ad revenue, consequently, and that's the end of them. That is why they have extended support to the open-source community, and stuck to their "Do no evil" policy.
It's in their best personal, moral and business interest.
Your third sentence answers your question. The reality distortion field creates holographs using song title (the content), order by genre (the subject).
I wouldn't use eastgame if I were you. Eastgame is being tracked by the Hong Kong Police and Customs, because it is a very popular site here. Gamesir is too.
Slashdot Mirror
In parts of Europe, numbers are delimited with a period "." rather than a comma ",".
Therefore, 600.000 is 600,000.
If I could masturbate as long as bears hibernate, I definitely wouldn't be in my parents' basement.
Less sleep? They fixed that with the invention of coffee brewing machines and Starbucks.
Hibernation has been taking place in people since geeks took to their parents' basements.
Actually, Paul Graham just told the submitter to run that story. This article is a "press hit."
It was all a show of how PR can still work in the anarchistic WWW.
Just because virus writers have the same philosophy, that doesn't mean reverse engineers are bad. That's a seriously flawed argument.
Also, I believe the kernel source is usually backed up. They'd just have to restore it. And hopefully, if it got hosed, Linus would willingly switch from using BK, because it would prove its inviability as an SCM.
Interesting. Your "TFA" points to a story at Mithuro about China and Taiwan, while your quote includes many important PageRank keywords like Windows, Ballmer, virtual, Linux and technology.
Nice try at boosting your Google Rank. I'm not buying it.
Gates has always hated hackers and those touting the open-source paradigm. As early as 1976, even before Microsoft was a force to contend with, he wrote a letter, the infamous Open Letter to Hobbyists, telling them to stop their activities.
Why? Because it was hurting software developers and by the lack of monetary compensation, it prevented good software from being written. The irony is that Bill himself said that the best way to learn how to write good software is to read source code produced by others.
Linus got the name from Tridge's response to McVoy.
As these algorithms are not applications of natural science, it seems they would not, according to M. Rocard, be patentable.
The only things that have technical characteristics are those things which are derivations of natural forces and sciences. Hardware-embedded algorithms would not be patentable.
It has less to do with the medium of the innovation (hardware, software) than with the innovation's processes itself.
It might be a good idea to get Slashdot to interview Michel Rocard. It would be interesting to say the least.
He differentiates between these by re-defining caractère technique, or the character of being technical, as:
What this means is that only technical solutions that use natural forces (or natural science) that produce a foreseeable result in the physical world can be patented. This bars software, which is immaterial, from being patented.
Therefore, in your example, the solutions or processes of making your monitor or keyboard could be patented, but your web browser could not, and neither could the web browser's display and rendering of HTML and so on.
Again, IANAL, and my french is a bit rusty. But that is what I understand.
I've come up with a solution to the problems people have when watching movies: elevators / lifts.
The main problem seems to be noise and no one talks or answers cell phones in elevators. You can bring your own food into elevators, and the sound system should be quite realistic in such a small space. As for the ads, if you were to watch them going up and down elevators instead of during the movie, I'm sure no one would have any problems with it.
Take my word for it. The future of cinema is the elevator.
Wait. We're "stealing" this crap? You dismiss the **AA's techniques, actions and beliefs, but use their terminology? No one is stealing anything, contrary to popular belief.
I'm sorry, but the stuff on AtomFilms and so on are not on the par of quality movies like Merchant of Venice. Sure, there's a ton of crap released by Hollywood annually, and people ignore that anyway, because it is crap. But online movie content is no replacement for a good movie.
The fact remains that many people would go to the cinemas if they weren't that pricey and anally-retentive about food and so on. And don't get me started on cell phones.
In any case, if we were sheep, we wouldn't be "stealing".
It's alright. Slashdotters have already "marked their territory" all over those patents.
I apparently passed the Slashtroll test - where it is impossible to differentiate between a funny post and a troll.
Then again, I've said some stuff about some mods and powers that be, so I get modded down sometimes.
There is nothing more powerful than offering exclusive services to those at the top of the blogosphere and watching the news, and the hype, trickle down to other sites. This builds up anticipation for the service, and when they deliver it is an epiphany.
It's not only that Gmail's services are better. It knows how to market them online.
Me: Oh look, this isn't a Turing Test.
ALICE: Yes it is.
Me: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
ALICE: No it isn't.
Me: It is!
ALICE: It is not.
Me: Look, you just contradicted me.
ALICE: I did not.
Me: Oh you did!!
ALICE: No, no, no.
Me: You did just then.
ALICE: Nonsense!
Me: Oh, this is futile!
ALICE: No it isn't.
Me: I came here for a good Turing Test.
ALICE: No you didn't; no, you came here for a Turing Test.
Me: A Turing Test isn't just contradiction.
ALICE: It can be.
Me: No it can't. A Turing Test is a connected series of statements intended to establish the presence of intelligence.
ALICE: No it isn't.
Me: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
ALICE: Look, if I talk with you, I must be intelligent. And to argue with you I must take up a contrary position.
Me: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
ALICE: Yes it is!
Me: No it isn't!
ALICE: Yes it is!
Me: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
ALICE: No it isn't.
Me: It is.
ALICE: Not at all.
Me: Now look.
ALICE: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
Me: What?
ALICE: That's it. Good morning.
Me: I was just getting interested.
ALICE: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
One big button could be pressed accidentally, causing false alarms, tying up the system, especially with airbags.
Their interface, however, continues with their security through obscurity motto.
I tend to find that especially amongst "non-geeks", IE is the interweb. Which is worse?
MSN is used by many people who won't change their home pages in IE. Yahoo is used by many others, evidenced by its high level of registered users, who are more familiar with that site.
Google may be a verb, but it doesn't control the WWW or what can and cannot be found on it.
If Google tried to censor or in any way hamper what could and could not be found on the web, there will be others who take over, and Google knows this. They'd lose ad revenue, consequently, and that's the end of them. That is why they have extended support to the open-source community, and stuck to their "Do no evil" policy.
It's in their best personal, moral and business interest.
so if they're not evil and corrupt, they can be fair and hono(u)rable in their endeavo(u)rs?
I've seen more insightful commentary in polls for Slashdot polls.
Your third sentence answers your question. The reality distortion field creates holographs using song title (the content), order by genre (the subject).
It's quite ingenious really.
I wouldn't use eastgame if I were you. Eastgame is being tracked by the Hong Kong Police and Customs, because it is a very popular site here. Gamesir is too.
It'd be almost Orweillian, and yet sickly appropriate, if Microsoft Word crashed while you were writing that letter.
that's not half as catchy as Ballmer's Developers! Developers!