Re:Patents are exchanges of power for publication
on
One Click Patent News
·
· Score: 1
"Change, however, occurs communally."
On what planet?
In any case... what in the world gave you the idea I was sitting on my ass?
I have a few things planned.
As for bitching and moaning.. it's a discussion. I made a comment I expanded it I refined my position. Are you calling THAT a waste of time?
Re:Patents are exchanges of power for publication
on
One Click Patent News
·
· Score: 1
I continued the discussion on #slashdot on irc.openprojects.net
The gist at the end was that yes I was a bit harsh, but I needed to start from the other extreme and work backwards to a solution.
Maybe companies shouldn't be dismantled. However, I'm tired of shareholders "getting away with murder".
As for the business of doing things for the greater good, Ayn Rand said, "Do not expect a moral man to idly stand by and remain a totally moral man in a society where the looters rule and force is the deciding factor".
As much as I hate Ayn Rand Societies, I have yet to find anything wrong with her philosophy of exchanging work for wealth and focusing on goals instead of groupthink.
Don't forget that we don't actually have laissez-faire capitalism. Patenteers aren't practicing anything even resembling it. The patenteers work to stop others from working which doesn't guarantee that they will profit since they don't actually do any work afterwards.
Because companies are owned by shareholders, CEOs have TO DO STUPID THINGS. The public is pretty much the most ignorant, moronic, opinionated, species on this planet.
Consumers are morons. The only people who should have shares are those who actually have a clue or know someone who has a damned clue.
Then you'd see things less evil.
Patents are exchanges of power for publication
on
One Click Patent News
·
· Score: 2
No one should be allowed to prevent someone from working... That's why there's a time limit. Should anyone be allowed to own highways so that anyone can put up road blocks?
Whether it's any benefit to society is irrelevant. Society is definitely not beneficial to society. It's hypocritical for anyone to ask for all decisions to be based on whether there's benefit to society. For example, not one of the organizations concerned about world hunger ever talks about doing the dirty work of making sure governments don't import the food or resources that undeveloped countries need in order to begin to grow. It's all one bloody (speaking figuratively of course) pointless crusade like the bloody (speaking not so figuratively) drug war.
The problem is that we allow a vocal uneducated group known as The Shareholders(TM) to control what companies do. I think that if a company is publicly owned beyond a certain percent it should be dismantled. A piece of land would be horribly ruined if many people shared it as it would no longer be managed properly and would fail to perform its function in agriculture. Similarly after many stab wounds a human being dies.
Take any machine and give too many people control and it falls to pieces.
Public shareholding is too communistic in my opinion for it to work. That why the system fails.
I think it's time shareholders were required to obtain some sort of certification. It's no longer corporations' fault or the Patent Office's fault. The value of a stock will rise whenever some company pulls something like one-click or IBM's mock wheel patent, regardless whether that IP ever actually leads directly to profit. Nevermind the fact we're not talking about products or inventions but solutions. It's like patenting a particular book used to hold up an unbalanced table.
You go try finishing a project when not one person knows what the bloody fuck you're talking about.
If hackers were users:
"I have memory, 20 Gigs of it. All the memory in the world for MP3s."
"You broke the cd-rom. How am I supposed to do my spreadsheets without Microsoft? Now I have to buy another cd-rom."
If that's confusing it's because the user called the computer the cdrom and called Excel Microsoft.
Hacker = builder came first. You're living in the 1980-2000 time frame. Computer operating systems have been around for decades. The computer itself was invented over 100 years ago. The automobile even before that.
Hacking is dealing with the raw reality of what you are creating. Some people might call that roughing it... that's not what I'm suggesting. Roughing it means willingly getting rid of useful items. Hacking means starting from scratch because the currently available tools are stale, rusted, and clumsy. When someone builds an operating system they don't have any API or documentation or tools to work with.
They only have basic principles like generality, stability, efficiency. There IS NO ROADMAP.
Programmers simply build products.
Hacking = ER
Programming = Presribing cold medicine.
Bloody hell DC can own what they didn't make
on
CueCat At It Again
·
· Score: 1
Drivers are the nuts and bolts of the machine. If I make nuts and bolts for something I bought they're mine.
Just once I'd like to see these knee jerk lawyers get sued for not representing a company intelligently in an elightened community.
It would take just a simple one line clause in the contract when hiring of a firm that specifically says that guerilla lawyering risks termination of the defense contract with the company.
That seems fair to me.
Napster is a search tool, dumbass. Napster is also the company that oversees said search tool. People put stuff on the net by telling Napster to index their directories. The DRIVER is the tool, not the compiler. By compiling the CODE for the DRIVER, SUN has USED said code. BY publishing the DRIVER, SUN is yet AGAIN using the code. Hence, SUN is the USER. Therefore, they have a responsibility to RELEASE the CODE, especially since there is NO other reliable way of knowing whether SUN did or didn't change the CODE.
God I feel sorry for Ayn Rand to have such idiots as followers.
A new company may enter the arena at any time and choose to gain marketshare by selling the same product for a lot less; it's the risk that the price-fixers take.
Nah they'd be sued for used sales. Fucking Garth Brooks and his "I don't get paid when you sell my album".
Second price-fixing is just the tip of the iceberg. RIAA almost got away with calling all audio work works for hire. No amount of competiton can remedy such bull shit.
Third, IS IT THE RIGHT OF BUSINESS TO MAKE ME HIRE LAWYERS JUST TO FUCKING BREAK EVEN!?
Am I going to have to start quartering lawyers in my home?
So I use other methods to get the music I want, and I use other methods to reimburse the artists.
That's great for artists who don't still owe the RIAA money.
But you're likely to get the artist dropped if you send even a dime.
They are controlling far more than prices. They are controlling income that they have no rights to.
IS IT THE RIGHT OF PUBLICLY OWNED BUSINESSES TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PERSONS PRODUCING ARTWORK AND THEIR INCOME?
In short, grow up. Don't be a looter.
In short, get your head out of your ass. Refrain from using the word marketshare in the context of a case (RIAA price fixing case) that has very little to do with it.
You're almost as bad as the full blown commies on this site. Try a little realism for a change. Isn't that what objectivism is about?
I wrote a letter to these freaks of nature. God what morons. I use capalert everyday for my home viewing decisions, just not necessarily the way nature intended.
"its a patent on a single software packages that integrates the entire process of making an international purchase."
Integration is not innovation, it costs very little to accomplish, and everyone does it by straight-forward principles. Hint: Puting a nail into a piece of wood is integration. He's done nothing more than that.
Or another example, you can patent an engine, you cannot patent a car.
3) Make it illegal for corporations like the IRS (you terminology nazis back off it's sarcasm) to force people to keep information about themeselves for an extended period of time.
I hate fucking paper chases. Nothing in the world other than the equations for general relativity require so much paper. State your case simply and I may have the info.
Slashdot Mirror
"Change, however, occurs communally."
On what planet?
In any case... what in the world gave you the idea I was sitting on my ass?
I have a few things planned.
As for bitching and moaning.. it's a discussion. I made a comment I expanded it I refined my position. Are you calling THAT a waste of time?
I continued the discussion on #slashdot on irc.openprojects.net
The gist at the end was that yes I was a bit harsh, but I needed to start from the other extreme and work backwards to a solution.
Maybe companies shouldn't be dismantled. However, I'm tired of shareholders "getting away with murder".
As for the business of doing things for the greater good, Ayn Rand said, "Do not expect a moral man to idly stand by and remain a totally moral man in a society where the looters rule and force is the deciding factor".
As much as I hate Ayn Rand Societies, I have yet to find anything wrong with her philosophy of exchanging work for wealth and focusing on goals instead of groupthink.
Don't forget that we don't actually have laissez-faire capitalism. Patenteers aren't practicing anything even resembling it. The patenteers work to stop others from working which doesn't guarantee that they will profit since they don't actually do any work afterwards.
Because companies are owned by shareholders, CEOs have TO DO STUPID THINGS. The public is pretty much the most ignorant, moronic, opinionated, species on this planet.
Consumers are morons. The only people who should have shares are those who actually have a clue or know someone who has a damned clue.
Then you'd see things less evil.
No one should be allowed to prevent someone from working. .. That's why there's a time limit. Should anyone be allowed to own highways so that anyone can put up road blocks?
Whether it's any benefit to society is irrelevant. Society is definitely not beneficial to society. It's hypocritical for anyone to ask for all decisions to be based on whether there's benefit to society. For example, not one of the organizations concerned about world hunger ever talks about doing the dirty work of making sure governments don't import the food or resources that undeveloped countries need in order to begin to grow. It's all one bloody (speaking figuratively of course) pointless crusade like the bloody (speaking not so figuratively) drug war.
The problem is that we allow a vocal uneducated group known as The Shareholders(TM) to control what companies do. I think that if a company is publicly owned beyond a certain percent it should be dismantled. A piece of land would be horribly ruined if many people shared it as it would no longer be managed properly and would fail to perform its function in agriculture. Similarly after many stab wounds a human being dies.
Take any machine and give too many people control and it falls to pieces.
Public shareholding is too communistic in my opinion for it to work. That why the system fails.
I think it's time shareholders were required to obtain some sort of certification. It's no longer corporations' fault or the Patent Office's fault. The value of a stock will rise whenever some company pulls something like one-click or IBM's mock wheel patent, regardless whether that IP ever actually leads directly to profit. Nevermind the fact we're not talking about products or inventions but solutions. It's like patenting a particular book used to hold up an unbalanced table.
In your own reply he says most. What is your point?
You go try finishing a project when not one person knows what the bloody fuck you're talking about. If hackers were users: "I have memory, 20 Gigs of it. All the memory in the world for MP3s." "You broke the cd-rom. How am I supposed to do my spreadsheets without Microsoft? Now I have to buy another cd-rom." If that's confusing it's because the user called the computer the cdrom and called Excel Microsoft. Hacker = builder came first. You're living in the 1980-2000 time frame. Computer operating systems have been around for decades. The computer itself was invented over 100 years ago. The automobile even before that. Hacking is dealing with the raw reality of what you are creating. Some people might call that roughing it... that's not what I'm suggesting. Roughing it means willingly getting rid of useful items. Hacking means starting from scratch because the currently available tools are stale, rusted, and clumsy. When someone builds an operating system they don't have any API or documentation or tools to work with. They only have basic principles like generality, stability, efficiency. There IS NO ROADMAP. Programmers simply build products. Hacking = ER Programming = Presribing cold medicine.
Drivers are the nuts and bolts of the machine. If I make nuts and bolts for something I bought they're mine.
invertibrate-lawyers. Score -1: Redundant.
Talk about making yourself the laughing stock of the tech industry.
Just once I'd like to see these knee jerk lawyers get sued for not representing a company intelligently in an elightened community. It would take just a simple one line clause in the contract when hiring of a firm that specifically says that guerilla lawyering risks termination of the defense contract with the company. That seems fair to me.
Napster is a search tool, dumbass. Napster is also the company that oversees said search tool. People put stuff on the net by telling Napster to index their directories. The DRIVER is the tool, not the compiler. By compiling the CODE for the DRIVER, SUN has USED said code. BY publishing the DRIVER, SUN is yet AGAIN using the code. Hence, SUN is the USER. Therefore, they have a responsibility to RELEASE the CODE, especially since there is NO other reliable way of knowing whether SUN did or didn't change the CODE.
Those 18 and under may not use the Internet without adult supervision, preferably that of their parent or guardian?"
They built bbses and the Net in the first place asshole.
They are the ones who put it on the net against the license just AS ANY NAPSTER USER puts stuff on the Net.
Recap:
Napster case: User=He who puts stuff on the net
Sun case: Sun put stuff on the net
THEREFORE SUN IS THE USER
You picked the analogy I blew it out of the water, no use crying...
I merely meant that "info" "ration" came to mind.
Your typo is telling. Nice one.
God I feel sorry for Ayn Rand to have such idiots as followers.
A new company may enter the arena at any time and choose to gain marketshare by selling the same product for a lot less; it's the risk that the price-fixers take.
Nah they'd be sued for used sales. Fucking Garth Brooks and his "I don't get paid when you sell my album".
Second price-fixing is just the tip of the iceberg. RIAA almost got away with calling all audio work works for hire. No amount of competiton can remedy such bull shit.
Third, IS IT THE RIGHT OF BUSINESS TO MAKE ME HIRE LAWYERS JUST TO FUCKING BREAK EVEN!?
Am I going to have to start quartering lawyers in my home?
So I use other methods to get the music I want, and I use other methods to reimburse the artists.
That's great for artists who don't still owe the RIAA money.
But you're likely to get the artist dropped if you send even a dime.
They are controlling far more than prices. They are controlling income that they have no rights to.
IS IT THE RIGHT OF PUBLICLY OWNED BUSINESSES TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PERSONS PRODUCING ARTWORK AND THEIR INCOME?
In short, grow up. Don't be a looter.
In short, get your head out of your ass. Refrain from using the word marketshare in the context of a case (RIAA price fixing case) that has very little to do with it.
You're almost as bad as the full blown commies on this site. Try a little realism for a change. Isn't that what objectivism is about?
A little change in wording makes the problem quite clear.
I wrote a letter to these freaks of nature. God what morons. I use capalert everyday for my home viewing decisions, just not necessarily the way nature intended.
"its a patent on a single software packages that integrates the entire process of making an international purchase."
Integration is not innovation, it costs very little to accomplish, and everyone does it by straight-forward principles. Hint: Puting a nail into a piece of wood is integration. He's done nothing more than that.
Or another example, you can patent an engine, you cannot patent a car.
He's patenting a car.
Opinions suck. Save it for springer.
Careful with printer drivers?
That is so fucking esoteric to the administrative tasks that are crucial to the network the business depends on.
Windows is like George Bush Sr. Careful not to feed it brocolli.
How about being careful with ports?
How about changing default passwords?
Bugs should be fixed not entered into the administrative manuals.
Administration should not be babysitting. It should be deployment and defense.
Like Clipper?
3) Make it illegal for corporations like the IRS (you terminology nazis back off it's sarcasm) to force people to keep information about themeselves for an extended period of time.
I hate fucking paper chases. Nothing in the world other than the equations for general relativity require so much paper. State your case simply and I may have the info.
What prey tell rider did the Civil Liberty groups propose?
None. Stop talking outta your ass.
They just showed up at the discussion table.