Bell South plans to offer such a service in the near future, for an extra fee. Your constant stream of nonsense encrypted traffic will be prioritized over other types of traffic and routed to Google.
We do NOT "torture" our prisoners! Polls show conclusively that we, the American People, would never stand for that, nosiree, not even if used against accused persons that government says definitely might be terrorists perhaps. Torture is never justified. That's why our compassionate conservative brave and righteous leader would never do it. He told us so -- looked us sqaure in the eye and assured us that they only use "alternative interrogation techniques."
So, like, geez -- what's the big deal? Heil Dubya!
It doesn't change my mind about how I want it to turn out, no. It certainly makes me look less favorably on him, but the position he is advocating today still matches with what I want to see come to pass.
The result matters more to me than who is pushing for it. Especially since I have the benefit of not living in Maryland, and thus not knowing anything about this governor aside from his position on this one issue. A position of ignorance, yes, but that's because I'm basing it exclusively on the outcome, not the motives of the polititions involved. (If I could only be on the side of politicians that I think are nice, honest, decent people -- I'd have to ignore politics altogether).;)
Here, here! Nobody who knows me has any illusions about which side of the isle I am on, and it isn't the republican side. But if the governor in MD wants to scrap unreliable electronic voting machines and go to a simple, readable, paper ballot, then I'm all for it.
Now, if Maryland's machines are already of the sort that have an electronic interface but produce a paper ballot that the voter can examine and then put in the ballot box, then it seems less of a big deal to me, and is probably a stunt to distract from something else. But since Diebold seems to own the electronic voting industry, I'm going to assume the machines aren't of that sort.
So, just this once, and for this one issue only, I say, "Go red team!"
What strikes me about the whole situation is how the "All Hail The Global Free Market" mentality seems to work in only one direction. If a company can manufacture its goods at a fraction of the cost by moving operations to Singapore, or hire an army of call-center workers in India to take your drive-through order at McDonalds stores throughout the American midwest, or have their software written by programmers working remotely from China for the equivalent of a few bucks an hour, that is all supposed to be well and good, and everyone who loses their job to the outsourcing or experiences a decline in wages is told that they just haven't remained competetive in the global marketplace, and need to accept their new place in the world economy. Tariffs are bad, they artificially segregate the market!
But if the consumer can obtain that companies goods for a fraction of the cost by purchasing it in Singapore, India, or China. . . well, that just can't be tolerated! It's an act of piracy to get things from another region because they are cheaper! The government should do something!
Region coding is one of the most transparently hypocritical piles of corporate BS there is. If the price they want to charge people in well-off nations like the US and the UK won't sell anywhere else in the world, Boo Hoo for them. They just haven't remained competetive in the global marketplace, and need to accept their new place in the world economy. If you want to make it more affordable for people world-wide, then make it more affordable for everyone world-wide. Region coding is bad, it artificially segregates the market.
I still use my home-built PVR for recording a few shows off of tv, and I always skip the commercials as best I am able. But if you really want to get rid of them, the route to go with is Netflix (or blockbuster, or any of the other clones). Most of the "TV" I now watch comes on DVD. With all the commercials totally stripped out, I can watch TWO "hour-long" episodes in 75 minutes, always see the episodes in order, and never have to wait for the second part of a cliff-hanger.
It's gotten to the point where when I hear about a series that sounds interesting, I avoid it so I can save it until the series is done.:)
And it was bull, then too. The US didn't pass it to protect free trade with the EU, and Australia didn't pass it to protect free-trade with the US.
Both passed it as a big wet blowjob for corporate interests, in the hopes that they'd leave a fifty on the nightstand.
So just handle these laws the way we do in the US. Speak up against them, fight them in court, and vote out anyone who supports them. And since none of that will actually make a spec of difference, ignore them.
It really doesn't. It creates vibrations in the air molecules surrounding it, which propagate as waves. Those waves do not become "sound" until your brain uses them as input in a complicated set of calculations to infer things about your surroundings.
I'm just applying my personal definition of what a "sound" is, of course, but it seems to me that a tree falling never makes a sound. A brain does.
Try this instead: If a tree falls in the forest and nothing is there to see it, does it make a sight?
Okay, first of all, you have some good points. But you're tearing into me over points I haven't really raised. AGAIN, I AM AGAINST THE PATENTING OF BUSINESS PROCESSES.
But when you claim that their business methods are just trade secrets and not patentable, hey -- you're just wrong. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE, but under existing law, since 1998, they are. Bummer for everybody.
On the issue of whether it's novel or non-obvious, we just have a legitimate difference of opinion. I personally consider it to be acceptably "novel" when someone takes an existing concept like a rentals or a lending library, and solves the problems associated with applying it in a different direction, or on a much larger scale. Novel enough to be patented? Under the law, maybe -- we'll see. I don't know, and I don't think business methods should ever be patentable. But since they are, and using similar standards of novelty as would apply to a real invention, it doesn't seem out of the question.
It is important to realize that just thinking something up, doesn't constitute prior art, and neither do things that achieve a similar purpose in a different way. You have to be able to make it work for it to be new. All your examples of "prior art" in science fiction works are not relevant. Are you suggesting that when someone invents the transporter, the holodeck, a jump gate, or a time machine that they won't be patentable because somebody wrote about them in a work of fiction once?
One can apply the definition of originality or novelty very strictly or very loosely, and under yours nothing is ever novel. Jet engine airplane? Just another flying machine, we had them with propellers already and someone just applied a new technology to it. The light bulb? Big deal, we already had oil lamps, it's basically the same thing.
Now, granted, Netflix's business method patents are worded in a ridiculously general way, so as to make them apply to just about anything -- because that's how ALL patents are written. The lawyers draw them up to cover everything they can possibly get past the approval board, and your right, worded the way they are they are ridiculous. But I am not advocating them. The question of whether what they've done is novel is separate from the question of whether their claims are valid.
I hope the court upholds their patent on the shipping envelope, and throws out the one on their business method. I want competition in the online rental market. But that won't stop me from being impressed with Netflix for creating that market.
Even still, it is irrelevant to me whether it was 'novel' or 'original' or 'obvious' - the consequence of a judge ruling in Netflix' favor would be disastrous. It would be an open invitation for every "first entrant" under the sun to have a defacto monopoly, you'd begin to see patent filings left and right by all sorts of past first entrants under "prior art" and I hesitate to even wonder where that would send us.
I can't disagree with you here, except to point out that a ruling for Netflix in this case would not be setting the precedent you fear -- it would be in keeping with the precedent which has already been set. Bad precedent, sure, but let's not make the mistake of thinking this case is the first one to raise the issue.
The barn door is open, and the horses are long gone.
Netflix overcame that "hurdle" by the very, very fraudulent practice of throttling. I wouldn't call that an innovation.
No, I was referring to the fact that it took several attempts to find a means of packaging the dvd itself that didn't cost too much to make, didn't weigh too much to mail cheaply, could be processed by all of the post offices machines (mail that can't be handled by the machines gets sorted by hand and thus takes longer to reach the destination), and wouldn't be broken by those same machines. Oh, and for the same package to be reusable as a return envelope.
As someone else pointed out, the patent on their packaging is one of the 2 patents in question, and I happen to agree with that one.
I don't agree with the fact that they can patent the business method itself (unlimited rentals, no late fees, prioritizing your list of movies, blah, blah, blah) but legally, they can. The patent could maybe be thrown out, if there were prior art, but the underlying concept of "renting movies out" wouldn't be enough, and neither would similar services from other countries or services that don't involve exchanges via the mail.
Again, just to make my personal opinion clear -- I don't think business practices should be patentable. The packaging, yes, but the business model, NO. But to say the Netflix model was unoriginal or obvious is just wrong. And so, under the current law as I understand it (IANAL), they certainly have standing to bring the case.
Throttling is another issue entirely, and is a perfect example of why I would like Blockbuster and the others to survive as well, so I can bail on Netflix if they get cocky.
Maybe it doesn't seem original now that everyone is getting in on the act, but original and novel is exactly what it was. Know of any companies that were using that business model before Netflix? I sure don't. The fact is, it was a brilliant idea that seems obvious in retrospect, as most good ideas do. And they had to overcome several hurdles and solve a lot of problems before it became workable and profitable -- such as finding a way to send dvds through the mail without incurring overly frequent breakage, or paying too much in shipping costs to offer the service at a reasonable price.
I don't know if any of that is patentable, and I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be, (which is too bad, because I fscking hate Blockbuster), but it might be. I'm pretty sure I've heard of other cases involving patented business methods.
For the record, I use Netflix, I like Netflix, and I hope they remain successful. It seems to me that whenever someone comes up with a great new service, some other company barges into the market, undercuts them out of existence, then jacks their prices, cuts their quality of service, and starts finding ways to force additional product down your throat that you don't want. Or ads.
That being said, I hope Blockbuster and the others remain successful too. Somebody has to keep Netflix honest and give me somewhere to turn if Netflix starts mistreating me.;)
Yes, but why should the carrier have to do it? Someone could easily manufacture a phone that is not locked to a particular carrier, which hosts 2 completely different SIM cards. The two lines could even be with different carriers. What I am thinking of here has nothing to do with carriers. From a purely hardware standpoint, it shouldn't be hard to do this. It would be like having two different phones, except they are in the same shell and share the same screen, buttons, speakers, and microphone, etc.
I've always kinda wondered why nobody has marketed a phone (or maybe they have and I've never seen it) that has 2 slots for SIM cards. It would ring for either number, and you'd be able to switch the one used for outgoing calls via the menu or a shortcut key. Seems like there would be a market for it, but I've never seen such a thing.
Oh, and if I'm the first one to think of it, then PATENT PENDING! Patent pending, patent pending, patent pending.
Please. They don't listen to input from those of us who live here, either. In theory, they are supposed to represent our interests, or get voted out at the next election. In practice, the population is utterly ignorant about the positions and voting records of their elected representatives, there is a 98% re-election rate for incumbents, and whoever spends the most money wins.
Our representatives could pass a law saying that each of us is legally the property of the dominant air carrier in our region, and obliged to compensate them in full for every flight we decide NOT to take, and those representatives would STILL get re-elected -- the airlines would give them a life-sized solid platinum replica of a 757 filled with cash to campaign on, and the portion of the citizenry that voted for them in the first place would convince themselves that being owned by the airline is what's best for us all, and proceed to declare that loudly, just to avoid admitting that they voted wrong before.
At some point, we screwed up. We quit paying attention. We fed the government after midnight, and it turned all slimy and mean, and now we can't contain it.
My advice to all of you on the outside? Keep avoiding this freedom-eating zombie government, but please don't mistake the victims for the oppressors. And when the time comes, be ready to toss us a rope and open your home to a fleeing American refugee.
Hey, no arguments from me. I know my explanation was tremendously oversimplified, but the question I was responding to was at a very basic level itself, and I was just trying to make it clear that processing language is not a simple "one-stop-shopping" task that gets magically handled by a single piece of the brain. It is an enormously complex computational task, and I was not qualified to relate all the details of what we know and don't know about it, so I just wanted to give an impression of why this discovery does not "invalidate" Broca's area.
After all, IANA Neurolinguist -- just a nerd who's read a lot of Stephen Pinker.
Different functions. Broca's area deals more with parsing grammar. What is a noun and what is a verb, word order, etc. It encodes the thought you want to communicate (or decodes the thought being commicated to you) from the brains inner "mentalese" language, into the grammatically correct sentence structure of whatever language you speak. But it doesn't deal with the semantic meaning of the words. If I say to you "The groglent fumbershun melloped into the borsk." you can tell that the sentance is grammatical, and can probably identify the nouns, verbs and adverbs. But the words don't mean anything.
Imagine that the dictionary in your brain comes in three volumes, and every word you know appears in each volume. Volume 1 only contains the pronunciation of the word. Volume 2 only contains its part of speech. And Volume 3 only contains the definition.
It's a perfect example of what I was saying though. The paper ballots were rigged, but it did require a massive conspiracy on the part of the poll workers and ballot counters, and the fraud was pretty much obvious. Probably because it is easy to "overcorrect" the results when you are adding your own ballots to the mix -- you don't know when you are carrying out the fraud how many real votors will turn up, or exactly how much of the "real" vote your candidate will get, so you can end up with blatantly incredible results.
Now imagine if instead of that, someone had been able to go to the polls, and with his/her minutes alone in the voting booth, patch the machine with malicious firmware that would keep the same voter turnout numbers, but swap a few hundred votes from one party to the other whenever the "desired" candidate fell below 50 percent?
I certainly wasn't trying to imply that paper ballots can't be rigged -- just that it would be awfully tough for a single fraudster to carry out, and much harder to cover up in any case.
These complex, expensive, and opaque electronic systems are a solution looking for a problem, IMO.
I'm not so sure that's true. You're simply letting your perspective as someone who is not evil limit your definition of "problem."
Problem: My lies and distortions echoed by the utterly cowed media are no longer sufficient to persuade the unwashed peasants who are my constituents to elect me to my position of power, and a verifiable voting record will surely see my fat ass kicked from its gilded pedestal.
Solution: Technology!
Okay, well, even I'm not quite cynical enough to lend credence to the above conspiracy theory, but the fact that results from these machines are untrustworthy stands.
Oh, and if you ARE evil, I apologize if I implied otherwise, and meant no disrespect to your system of beliefs. As Bender says, "Good, Evil -- they're both fine choices. Whatever floats your boat."
Ditto in Minnesota. And I think it's a Good Thing. As long as you remember to bring your ID and Social Security card, you don't have to worry about finding that your name has gone mysteriously missing from the voter rolls despite your having registered many times.
Slashdot Mirror
Bell South plans to offer such a service in the near future, for an extra fee. Your constant stream of nonsense encrypted traffic will be prioritized over other types of traffic and routed to Google.
So, like, geez -- what's the big deal? Heil Dubya!
The result matters more to me than who is pushing for it. Especially since I have the benefit of not living in Maryland, and thus not knowing anything about this governor aside from his position on this one issue. A position of ignorance, yes, but that's because I'm basing it exclusively on the outcome, not the motives of the polititions involved. (If I could only be on the side of politicians that I think are nice, honest, decent people -- I'd have to ignore politics altogether). ;)
Now, if Maryland's machines are already of the sort that have an electronic interface but produce a paper ballot that the voter can examine and then put in the ballot box, then it seems less of a big deal to me, and is probably a stunt to distract from something else. But since Diebold seems to own the electronic voting industry, I'm going to assume the machines aren't of that sort.
So, just this once, and for this one issue only, I say, "Go red team!"
But if the consumer can obtain that companies goods for a fraction of the cost by purchasing it in Singapore, India, or China. . . well, that just can't be tolerated! It's an act of piracy to get things from another region because they are cheaper! The government should do something!
Region coding is one of the most transparently hypocritical piles of corporate BS there is. If the price they want to charge people in well-off nations like the US and the UK won't sell anywhere else in the world, Boo Hoo for them. They just haven't remained competetive in the global marketplace, and need to accept their new place in the world economy. If you want to make it more affordable for people world-wide, then make it more affordable for everyone world-wide. Region coding is bad, it artificially segregates the market.
It's gotten to the point where when I hear about a series that sounds interesting, I avoid it so I can save it until the series is done. :)
It's been a number of years now since I played with MythTV, I should give it another look. Maybe it has reached the maturity level I need.
Both passed it as a big wet blowjob for corporate interests, in the hopes that they'd leave a fifty on the nightstand.
So just handle these laws the way we do in the US. Speak up against them, fight them in court, and vote out anyone who supports them. And since none of that will actually make a spec of difference, ignore them.
Your parents told you that since you didn't vote for Bush, you elected Kerry? They really need to pay more attention to the news.
If you are counting both planets and dwarf planets under the current definition, we already have 11. You forgot Ceres.
I'm just applying my personal definition of what a "sound" is, of course, but it seems to me that a tree falling never makes a sound. A brain does.
Try this instead: If a tree falls in the forest and nothing is there to see it, does it make a sight?
But when you claim that their business methods are just trade secrets and not patentable, hey -- you're just wrong. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE, but under existing law, since 1998, they are. Bummer for everybody.
On the issue of whether it's novel or non-obvious, we just have a legitimate difference of opinion. I personally consider it to be acceptably "novel" when someone takes an existing concept like a rentals or a lending library, and solves the problems associated with applying it in a different direction, or on a much larger scale. Novel enough to be patented? Under the law, maybe -- we'll see. I don't know, and I don't think business methods should ever be patentable. But since they are, and using similar standards of novelty as would apply to a real invention, it doesn't seem out of the question. It is important to realize that just thinking something up, doesn't constitute prior art, and neither do things that achieve a similar purpose in a different way. You have to be able to make it work for it to be new. All your examples of "prior art" in science fiction works are not relevant. Are you suggesting that when someone invents the transporter, the holodeck, a jump gate, or a time machine that they won't be patentable because somebody wrote about them in a work of fiction once?
One can apply the definition of originality or novelty very strictly or very loosely, and under yours nothing is ever novel. Jet engine airplane? Just another flying machine, we had them with propellers already and someone just applied a new technology to it. The light bulb? Big deal, we already had oil lamps, it's basically the same thing. Now, granted, Netflix's business method patents are worded in a ridiculously general way, so as to make them apply to just about anything -- because that's how ALL patents are written. The lawyers draw them up to cover everything they can possibly get past the approval board, and your right, worded the way they are they are ridiculous. But I am not advocating them. The question of whether what they've done is novel is separate from the question of whether their claims are valid.
I hope the court upholds their patent on the shipping envelope, and throws out the one on their business method. I want competition in the online rental market. But that won't stop me from being impressed with Netflix for creating that market.
I can't disagree with you here, except to point out that a ruling for Netflix in this case would not be setting the precedent you fear -- it would be in keeping with the precedent which has already been set. Bad precedent, sure, but let's not make the mistake of thinking this case is the first one to raise the issue.
The barn door is open, and the horses are long gone.
No, I was referring to the fact that it took several attempts to find a means of packaging the dvd itself that didn't cost too much to make, didn't weigh too much to mail cheaply, could be processed by all of the post offices machines (mail that can't be handled by the machines gets sorted by hand and thus takes longer to reach the destination), and wouldn't be broken by those same machines. Oh, and for the same package to be reusable as a return envelope.
As someone else pointed out, the patent on their packaging is one of the 2 patents in question, and I happen to agree with that one.
I don't agree with the fact that they can patent the business method itself (unlimited rentals, no late fees, prioritizing your list of movies, blah, blah, blah) but legally, they can. The patent could maybe be thrown out, if there were prior art, but the underlying concept of "renting movies out" wouldn't be enough, and neither would similar services from other countries or services that don't involve exchanges via the mail.
Again, just to make my personal opinion clear -- I don't think business practices should be patentable. The packaging, yes, but the business model, NO. But to say the Netflix model was unoriginal or obvious is just wrong. And so, under the current law as I understand it (IANAL), they certainly have standing to bring the case.
Throttling is another issue entirely, and is a perfect example of why I would like Blockbuster and the others to survive as well, so I can bail on Netflix if they get cocky.
Yes, they do. They just renamed them "restocking fees" and made them flat instead of scaled to the amount of time by which the return was late.
I don't know if any of that is patentable, and I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be, (which is too bad, because I fscking hate Blockbuster), but it might be. I'm pretty sure I've heard of other cases involving patented business methods.
For the record, I use Netflix, I like Netflix, and I hope they remain successful. It seems to me that whenever someone comes up with a great new service, some other company barges into the market, undercuts them out of existence, then jacks their prices, cuts their quality of service, and starts finding ways to force additional product down your throat that you don't want. Or ads.
That being said, I hope Blockbuster and the others remain successful too. Somebody has to keep Netflix honest and give me somewhere to turn if Netflix starts mistreating me. ;)
Nice! If only I had mod points for you!
Yes, but why should the carrier have to do it? Someone could easily manufacture a phone that is not locked to a particular carrier, which hosts 2 completely different SIM cards. The two lines could even be with different carriers. What I am thinking of here has nothing to do with carriers. From a purely hardware standpoint, it shouldn't be hard to do this. It would be like having two different phones, except they are in the same shell and share the same screen, buttons, speakers, and microphone, etc.
Oh, and if I'm the first one to think of it, then PATENT PENDING! Patent pending, patent pending, patent pending.
Patent pending.
Our representatives could pass a law saying that each of us is legally the property of the dominant air carrier in our region, and obliged to compensate them in full for every flight we decide NOT to take, and those representatives would STILL get re-elected -- the airlines would give them a life-sized solid platinum replica of a 757 filled with cash to campaign on, and the portion of the citizenry that voted for them in the first place would convince themselves that being owned by the airline is what's best for us all, and proceed to declare that loudly, just to avoid admitting that they voted wrong before.
At some point, we screwed up. We quit paying attention. We fed the government after midnight, and it turned all slimy and mean, and now we can't contain it.
My advice to all of you on the outside? Keep avoiding this freedom-eating zombie government, but please don't mistake the victims for the oppressors. And when the time comes, be ready to toss us a rope and open your home to a fleeing American refugee.
After all, IANA Neurolinguist -- just a nerd who's read a lot of Stephen Pinker.
Imagine that the dictionary in your brain comes in three volumes, and every word you know appears in each volume. Volume 1 only contains the pronunciation of the word. Volume 2 only contains its part of speech. And Volume 3 only contains the definition.
Now imagine if instead of that, someone had been able to go to the polls, and with his/her minutes alone in the voting booth, patch the machine with malicious firmware that would keep the same voter turnout numbers, but swap a few hundred votes from one party to the other whenever the "desired" candidate fell below 50 percent?
I certainly wasn't trying to imply that paper ballots can't be rigged -- just that it would be awfully tough for a single fraudster to carry out, and much harder to cover up in any case.
I'm not so sure that's true. You're simply letting your perspective as someone who is not evil limit your definition of "problem."
Problem: My lies and distortions echoed by the utterly cowed media are no longer sufficient to persuade the unwashed peasants who are my constituents to elect me to my position of power, and a verifiable voting record will surely see my fat ass kicked from its gilded pedestal.
Solution: Technology!
Okay, well, even I'm not quite cynical enough to lend credence to the above conspiracy theory, but the fact that results from these machines are untrustworthy stands.
Oh, and if you ARE evil, I apologize if I implied otherwise, and meant no disrespect to your system of beliefs. As Bender says, "Good, Evil -- they're both fine choices. Whatever floats your boat."
Ditto in Minnesota. And I think it's a Good Thing. As long as you remember to bring your ID and Social Security card, you don't have to worry about finding that your name has gone mysteriously missing from the voter rolls despite your having registered many times.