My take:
"Citizens it is time for the national lottery. In these democratic times we must democracy to rid ourselves of bad things. And the results are in. With an overwhelming 1,234,567,890 votes, the Neo-Nazi Hall of Fame site is tonight's winner. Already cybertroops are flooding the site's computers. And they're off...
And now for a message from our sponsor.
For great Justice - Use BackOrifice 2000 (popular cracking and remote system control hijacking tool as well as a legit remote admin tool).
How the hell can they refuse to release detail?
The patent is a means to release knowledge to the public.
I know a lot of people think that the patent office is some sort of test of ingenuity for inventions and if you win you get to keep everyone from building your invention.
However, that has nothing to do with reality. Just because you think something belongs to you, doesn't mean it's yours.
In reality, if you don't realease details then people will need to be as creative as you to invent the same thing.
Rule 1. Nothing in reality prevents anyone from inventing the same thing, except cost and lack of talent.
Rule 2. If you release the documentation then anyone can make a copy.
Rule 3. Most would not release or would release only to neighbors since it would be costly to release everywhere even if they wanted to.
In reality, though we may have technologies to maximize sharing possibilities, we have several things that drain resources.
1. We need food, clothes, water, and property. We are not plants, stones, hard skinned animals, nor programs..
2. We need cash to get all these things.
3. We need jobs to get cash.
Abusing patents hurts the job market which cascades and forces companies to abuse patents even more.
The odd thing is that a company that abuses a patent often has no other recourse to shut up ignorant shareholders. Even if the abuse of the patent will not result in greater revenue, idiot investors will set a value for the company higher than it's truly worth.
Frankly, refusing to release patent details should negate the patent.
He didn't provide any arguments. Just naive statements.
As for being mentally insane, his "enthusiasm" about his post, well that just needs to be punished. Sorry, people need to look around before they go on crusades like that.
He really thinks that people sit in front of the mirror every day and say, "I'm worried about my safety, because a, b, and c."
I've seen kids smarter than that. As I said, people simply don't care enough to be aware that the world around them doesn't follow the See Spot Run logic they hold dear.
1. Britain was brought up as a topic in the story.
2. We talk about Britain because we have a clear context.
3. Britain is especially appropriate because the discussed condition (cameras) is widespread.
4. Would you rather we talk about surveilance problems using Eskimo villages as an example?
Talk about flame bait. Let's just examine your statements one by one shall we?
No. You haven't had your meds. How can you have your pondering if you haven't had any meds?
If you'd like to report on any country (surely you don't expect everyone to cover inch of the world at the same time), please visit a psychiatrist for your medication, and then post some research.
Oh my bad you had more to say (lad you may need a lobotomy)
Gee Martha, I'm not worried about my kids being shot in their classrooms or being mugged in the streets, I'm only worried about the perception of them being shot or mugged."
Anyone who is truly worried about something does his or her own research. The public constantly knee-jerks asks for action and then once they feel safe they tune out and never respond to criticism coherently if at all. In the US we recognize that the general public is irresponsible. The public is a scared stray cat without any clue about the world around it.
People who care research. They know all that's black and white and read all over isn't the truth.
I suppose you see people in libraries researching every little thing that goes on in your neighborhood. Earth to George.
The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too.
Yeah, yeah in the future we'll Budweiser conversations like:
"Wazzaaap!"
"Robbing a bank. Where's dookie? Yo dookie, Wazzaaap."
"Nothin' man, just doin my duty man... Once I get finished raping a few goats, screaming fire in a crowded theater, and mooning all the cameras in town, I can go home and pimp my woman on the street."
"True true."
Get a grip. Violence goes up and down. Not a single camera will ever change that.
countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category.
I must have been dreaming then when I was walking at midnight in a town I did not know at all. And it's a state with no gun control to top it off.
Perhaps societies like the US
Go home. Come back when you've grown out of this socialist crap.
Societies do not exist on a national level in the US. Every collective movement here has serious backlashes, for better and for worse. I kinda like it here.
Drunk people don't care if there's a camera.
Watch your whole camera experiment go down the tubes when your new generations find ways to survive psychologically in a world that suspects them.
I can't wait 'til some kid cracks your networks and makes a business of publishing any camera you want to see on TV for entertainment.
Ok. I've slept a bit. I won't bite this time. The post did have a certain the old way isn't structured and disciplined enough for the Lord kind of tone to it. The bit about it being too US centric set me off because lately I've dealt with a lot of people who don't use the net much but bitch all day about it. It's disturbing to say the least.
But enough projecting.
The reason I said it would cost more money and more resources had nothing to do with how many bits are sent accross the network. It had to do with his goal of allowing local laws to have some force on the Net.
Simply setting things up by country and state code won't accomplish that goal.
Think about it. A server is in Texas. How does calling it bizname.co.tx.us help in any way to apply the laws of Paris, France where the contents might be viewed?
It doesn't. It has literally no consequence. Except perhaps to remind people that not everyone lives in their little bubble.
Now assuming we wanted this change to be useful, then the tx.us suffix has to have some meaning related to laws. For example, tx.us might mean the bizname.com version intended for Texans.
Otherwise it's just a pointless suffix just like.firm,.pro,.guru,.gnu (I can't believe RMS actually pushed that),.tv.
To say adding tx.us has any bearing on the rights of the viewer in Paris is to say that by adding.tv the site magically becomes television.
It's really just an example of a bit too much faith in symbols that have no physical connection with what they're supposed to represent. Humans are like that. Logic by association not by argument. It's quite frightening how we do that unconsciously.
And so that's where I started with my post.
I wasn't saying that he was suggesting to have a server for every region. I meant that if he wanted a tool for enhancing the applicability of laws on the net, that those costly steps would be necessary.
*.com, *.org, *.net, *.gov, *.mil and *.gov. These are all US-centric
You're on crack. There's all sorts of.coms and.orgs etc that are not in the US. That's the whole point of leaving out geographical suffixes.
And guess what the net was built by the US. Get off your fucking high horse.
First your entire setup drives up the resource cost for every corporation, organization, educational institution, and network service provider on the planet.
Second your entire setup makes international trade over the net impossible or comically expensive. It even blocks interstate trade. Do us all a favor and control yourself. The net doesn't belong to you.
What does the suffix apply to? The server or the client machine?
For the server:
You expect everybody to buy a server in every state they operate in?
It's the same company or organization. All those machines would be redundant. They would be out of reach of the central headquarters. You'd have to depend on generic ISPs to keep every server functional instead of being able to guarantee that companies that specialize in that sort of maintenance keep the machines intact. You'd swamp said ISPs with multiple machines that are unnecessary. You'd drive operating costs through the roof. You'd make it even less likely that less developed communities would get net access.
For the client:
Exactly as above. Only now you force companies to
buy names for every different region of the net that might view certain content even if they don't operate there.
For trade:
serverside -
If the laws in one state make it illegal to display AIDS information or contraceptive information, you force me to buy a machine in every state I put my content so each server can comply with those laws.
clientside -
Now you force every organization to load rules for their machines to act differently in every region.
Let each region deal with content as they see fit.
Think about it. I wouldn't be allowed to look at anything but linux.com.biblebelt in the bible belt of the US from the bible belt of the US.
I'd have to first drive out of the bible belt to see linux.com and still I'd only see linux.com.middle-of-nowhere.
You really are a moron you know that.
(I keep mentioning the US, because that's where I live. Get over it.)
All suffixes should be removed in my opinion. They have no relevant meaning whatsoever. As if adding.pro makes you a professional.
Nobody wants to take responsibility so they invent all these little umbrella rules. Get a clue or stop babbling.
Slashdot Mirror
My take:
"Citizens it is time for the national lottery. In these democratic times we must democracy to rid ourselves of bad things. And the results are in. With an overwhelming 1,234,567,890 votes, the Neo-Nazi Hall of Fame site is tonight's winner. Already cybertroops are flooding the site's computers. And they're off...
And now for a message from our sponsor.
For great Justice - Use BackOrifice 2000 (popular cracking and remote system control hijacking tool as well as a legit remote admin tool).
"
Microsoft is in trouble because, it has to ignore some good ideas in the Linux space in order to please investors.
Kinda feel sorry for them.
How the hell can they refuse to release detail?
The patent is a means to release knowledge to the public.
I know a lot of people think that the patent office is some sort of test of ingenuity for inventions and if you win you get to keep everyone from building your invention.
However, that has nothing to do with reality. Just because you think something belongs to you, doesn't mean it's yours.
In reality, if you don't realease details then people will need to be as creative as you to invent the same thing.
Rule 1. Nothing in reality prevents anyone from inventing the same thing, except cost and lack of talent.
Rule 2. If you release the documentation then anyone can make a copy.
Rule 3. Most would not release or would release only to neighbors since it would be costly to release everywhere even if they wanted to.
In reality, though we may have technologies to maximize sharing possibilities, we have several things that drain resources.
1. We need food, clothes, water, and property. We are not plants, stones, hard skinned animals, nor programs..
2. We need cash to get all these things.
3. We need jobs to get cash.
Abusing patents hurts the job market which cascades and forces companies to abuse patents even more.
The odd thing is that a company that abuses a patent often has no other recourse to shut up ignorant shareholders. Even if the abuse of the patent will not result in greater revenue, idiot investors will set a value for the company higher than it's truly worth.
Frankly, refusing to release patent details should negate the patent.
He didn't provide any arguments. Just naive statements.
As for being mentally insane, his "enthusiasm" about his post, well that just needs to be punished. Sorry, people need to look around before they go on crusades like that.
He really thinks that people sit in front of the mirror every day and say, "I'm worried about my safety, because a, b, and c."
I've seen kids smarter than that. As I said, people simply don't care enough to be aware that the world around them doesn't follow the See Spot Run logic they hold dear.
I guess that's why I hate utopians.
The president declared war, we're all innocent.
They're private cops. They spy on neighborhoods to save time. Get a clue.
The fact your post is 404 amuses me to no end.
Thx for the compliment.
1. Britain was brought up as a topic in the story.
2. We talk about Britain because we have a clear context.
3. Britain is especially appropriate because the discussed condition (cameras) is widespread.
4. Would you rather we talk about surveilance problems using Eskimo villages as an example?
Talk about flame bait. Let's just examine your statements one by one shall we?
No. You haven't had your meds. How can you have your pondering if you haven't had any meds?
If you'd like to report on any country (surely you don't expect everyone to cover inch of the world at the same time), please visit a psychiatrist for your medication, and then post some research.
Oh my bad you had more to say (lad you may need a lobotomy)
Gee Martha, I'm not worried about my kids being shot in their classrooms or being mugged in the streets, I'm only worried about the perception of them being shot or mugged."
Anyone who is truly worried about something does his or her own research. The public constantly knee-jerks asks for action and then once they feel safe they tune out and never respond to criticism coherently if at all. In the US we recognize that the general public is irresponsible. The public is a scared stray cat without any clue about the world around it.
People who care research. They know all that's black and white and read all over isn't the truth.
I suppose you see people in libraries researching every little thing that goes on in your neighborhood. Earth to George.
The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too.
Yeah, yeah in the future we'll Budweiser conversations like:
"Wazzaaap!"
"Robbing a bank. Where's dookie? Yo dookie, Wazzaaap."
"Nothin' man, just doin my duty man... Once I get finished raping a few goats, screaming fire in a crowded theater, and mooning all the cameras in town, I can go home and pimp my woman on the street."
"True true."
Get a grip. Violence goes up and down. Not a single camera will ever change that.
countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category.
I must have been dreaming then when I was walking at midnight in a town I did not know at all. And it's a state with no gun control to top it off.
Perhaps societies like the US
Go home. Come back when you've grown out of this socialist crap.
Societies do not exist on a national level in the US. Every collective movement here has serious backlashes, for better and for worse. I kinda like it here.
Drunk people don't care if there's a camera.
Watch your whole camera experiment go down the tubes when your new generations find ways to survive psychologically in a world that suspects them.
I can't wait 'til some kid cracks your networks and makes a business of publishing any camera you want to see on TV for entertainment.
Somebody set up us the Bong... er Boeing... er
<rant> The same people who argue that hardware is cheap enough to afford sloppy code are the same ones who later say "fear technology",</rant>
Folks this is what you get when you hire idiots who say, "but I just wanna make some money. I got um cert-t-tificate."
If employees have no interest in the product give them a job suited to the amount of effort they put in on a regular basis.
The Indrema didn't require a Net Yaroze type deal.
The Indrema crew told me in person on irc that I could go ahead and build games right from my Debian box.
Therefore the cost was zero.
Seriously, quit whoring.
I wasn't trolling. I've actually been following the Indrema platform unlike most of the /. speculate-and-talk-out-of-your-ass committee.
As a friend of mine suggested to Indrema:
You have a half price PC capable of bringing a profit. Get out of the console market. Consoles are a curse.
Had it not been for 3D spoiling the variety and quality of games, we would have seen a lot more titles and therefore more boxes.
Game companies are dropping the ball, not just console makers.
Ok. I've slept a bit. I won't bite this time. The post did have a certain the old way isn't structured and disciplined enough for the Lord kind of tone to it. The bit about it being too US centric set me off because lately I've dealt with a lot of people who don't use the net much but bitch all day about it. It's disturbing to say the least.
.firm, .pro, .guru, .gnu (I can't believe RMS actually pushed that), .tv.
.tv the site magically becomes television.
But enough projecting.
The reason I said it would cost more money and more resources had nothing to do with how many bits are sent accross the network. It had to do with his goal of allowing local laws to have some force on the Net.
Simply setting things up by country and state code won't accomplish that goal.
Think about it. A server is in Texas. How does calling it bizname.co.tx.us help in any way to apply the laws of Paris, France where the contents might be viewed?
It doesn't. It has literally no consequence. Except perhaps to remind people that not everyone lives in their little bubble.
Now assuming we wanted this change to be useful, then the tx.us suffix has to have some meaning related to laws. For example, tx.us might mean the bizname.com version intended for Texans.
Otherwise it's just a pointless suffix just like
To say adding tx.us has any bearing on the rights of the viewer in Paris is to say that by adding
It's really just an example of a bit too much faith in symbols that have no physical connection with what they're supposed to represent. Humans are like that. Logic by association not by argument. It's quite frightening how we do that unconsciously.
And so that's where I started with my post.
I wasn't saying that he was suggesting to have a server for every region. I meant that if he wanted a tool for enhancing the applicability of laws on the net, that those costly steps would be necessary.
If only intelligence could be stored and copied...
alas in not this century.
Must be a slow day for trolls. Microsoft has no wrath. Just some lawyers can't get a decent policy write up done properly.
A link to Microsoft's site.
A link that will change when it is updated.
You're a sharp one.
Anyone got a copy of the original policy?
*.com, *.org, *.net, *.gov, *.mil and *.gov. These are all US-centric
.coms and .orgs etc that are not in the US. That's the whole point of leaving out geographical suffixes.
.pro makes you a professional.
You're on crack. There's all sorts of
And guess what the net was built by the US. Get off your fucking high horse.
First your entire setup drives up the resource cost for every corporation, organization, educational institution, and network service provider on the planet.
Second your entire setup makes international trade over the net impossible or comically expensive. It even blocks interstate trade. Do us all a favor and control yourself. The net doesn't belong to you.
What does the suffix apply to? The server or the client machine?
For the server:
You expect everybody to buy a server in every state they operate in?
It's the same company or organization. All those machines would be redundant. They would be out of reach of the central headquarters. You'd have to depend on generic ISPs to keep every server functional instead of being able to guarantee that companies that specialize in that sort of maintenance keep the machines intact. You'd swamp said ISPs with multiple machines that are unnecessary. You'd drive operating costs through the roof. You'd make it even less likely that less developed communities would get net access.
For the client:
Exactly as above. Only now you force companies to
buy names for every different region of the net that might view certain content even if they don't operate there.
For trade:
serverside -
If the laws in one state make it illegal to display AIDS information or contraceptive information, you force me to buy a machine in every state I put my content so each server can comply with those laws.
clientside -
Now you force every organization to load rules for their machines to act differently in every region.
Let each region deal with content as they see fit.
Think about it. I wouldn't be allowed to look at anything but linux.com.biblebelt in the bible belt of the US from the bible belt of the US.
I'd have to first drive out of the bible belt to see linux.com and still I'd only see linux.com.middle-of-nowhere.
You really are a moron you know that.
(I keep mentioning the US, because that's where I live. Get over it.)
All suffixes should be removed in my opinion. They have no relevant meaning whatsoever. As if adding
Nobody wants to take responsibility so they invent all these little umbrella rules. Get a clue or stop babbling.
No quite the opposite.
The current way to do things is by assembly. Every employee knows only one thing and they have to know to silly extremes of detail.
The XP (no it can't be... MS is fucking everybody)
way to do things is as I described.
Everyone knows what the goal is.
And they need to be good at overlapping tasks so that you don't need to hire interpreters.
The idea that everyone should know the needs of a job but be good at maybe 2 or 3 details is brilliant.
Most companies have to have interpreters for interpreters for departments.
Get the coders to do some of the grunt work. You'll actually have less coding to do!
s when they wrote that licensing agreement.
Deal with it.
If we don't get .sux soon...
THERE WON'T BE ANY FREE SPEECH TO DEFEND.
"a soft drink called Pepci or Coak would be a bad idea"
Oh fuck Ball Street. If it's not the same type of product trademarks aren't relevant.