OK guys and gals, the gist of the offer: this guy provides a filter that will throw off emails containing file attachments, HTML (assumed by the use of both characters in the email), quoted printable content, percent signs, dollar signs, numbers, URLs and email addresses (includes items like.this and like@this).
Since we all know that no legitimate emails ever contain those items, this is sure the way to go.
Can't use Miranda, since it refuses to work for me on a restricted account. Can't use Kopete, since, well, I'm on Windows... and I hate Kopete's UI. Though as far as UI goes, these two clients are worth each other - they both suck, albeit differently.
Whatever the original intent of the patent was, it is now used as a means to protect your designs.
Exactly. The question is - why should it?
Yet, if I get pas that point and develop a superior design, I do not want anybody just taking an exact carbon copy of my work and profiting from it.
Of course you don't, why would you. There are however other factors besides your interests;-) (BTW, as far as software goes, you could protect your work using copyright, though copyright deserves a topic of its own.)
I don't believe in patents fostering innovation (as in being the cause of it) - I believe in patents promoting the dissemination of new ideas, which benefits society. Remember, people had been immensely creative ages before the patent system was established. Innovation is just there, patents or not.
(Moreover, if you got your temporary monopoly, it's tempting just to sit on it and not do anything else - in that way patents may even be an inhibitor.)
As someone else has already pointed out, if I can easily figure out your idea from your implementation, chances are it is only a slight modification of previous knowledge, and therefore I don't think it deserves a large compensation. Meanwhile, society already reaps its benefits in this case, therefore it need not compensate you. Your desire to get maximum profit with minimum investments is understandable, but I don't see why it should be satisfied.
The advantage of my model is that it doesn't let you sell air easily. First, you cannot "impose" payment for your design on everybody else, as it is with patents - you have to actively sell it, investing some effort. Second, there is only one sale - the first and final one. Which to me is fair: if you have, say, one hammer, you can sell it only once. If somebody wants another hammer, it has to be produced -> there are costs associated with it. This somebody can choose to produce it himself or have you produce it and sell it to him. But if the cost of producing another hammer is zero, why should he choose to buy it from you for a non-zero amount?
All in all, you tend to perceive compensation for ideas as a natural right, which it isn't.
The question to ask here is: why should Tom the Orange Lover automatically feel entitled to profit just because an idea came to his mind? Tom would like to sell me his idea, right? OK with me, but I only buy things I don't have. If by looking at Tom's orange peeler I can't figure out his idea, then Tom indeed has something to sell me. If I can, it means that I now have this idea, too, and therefore don't need to buy it from Tom.
Again, motive for the patent system was disclosure of the ideas to the society in cases where they couldn't be derived from the end merchandise (which is the essense of the situation with trade secrets). Author compensation was just a means to this end - not an end in itself. If, however, I can see the idea from the end result, then disclosure has already occured, and additional measures are not required.
As far as compensation goes, you can get it anyway. Find an entity bigger than yourself with financial muscle to produce your peeler and sign an agreement with them that:
1) Makes them pay you a certain sum for producing peelers with the features you claim to be your invention, unless they can prove that a product embodying those features or a design (an idea) thereof has existed before;
2) Prohibits them from disclosing your peeler's design to anybody else in case they choose not to produce it and provides for penalties for such disclosure - again, unless they can prove that a product embodying those features or a design (an idea) thereof has existed before;
Having signed this agreement, show them the peeler and act according to the agreement.
The result: you are compensated (that is, if your idea is innovative), they are first to market, your idea is disclosed to society (which it would be anyway). The fact that nobody gets the artificial monopoly promotes further inventions instead of capitalizing on the past ones.
When you have something as a trade secret, you already profit from it anyway. The government wants to give you financial incentive to disclose your idea (proportional to its usefullness), but want others to pay for it directly, therefore the awkward system of granting you a temporarily monopoly for your idea. Patents are an OK mechanism - just don't give it too large a scope.
Patents were originally there to prevent ideas theft
Sorry, but this is wrong, because:
1. Ideas can't be stolen. Period. 2. Actually, patents were originally there to promote disclosure of useful ideas instead of keeping them forever as trade secrets.
BTW, 2. really should be used as one of the criteria of patentability: the thing should be patentable only if it can be successfully kept as a trade secret. Trivially reverse-engineered or analysed things should not be patentable. If by looking at the thing I can easily tell what is the essence of the patent, this thing doesn't deserve to be patented - because disclosure does not add anything useful to my observation. (The "ease" has of course to be somehow quantified, but this is a solvable technical question.)
Maybe some day we can accept that copying a program you don't have a license for is theft - just a different kind that most people are used to.
Fine! In addition to that, I'll accept that this "theft" cases you a loss - just a different kind of loss than most people are used to. But then you have to accept that the compensation for this "loss" may also be something different that you are used to;-)
Well, as a Russian, I would say, the business culture here still leaves much to be desired in many respects. But: Can you cite an example that would support your words specifically regarding RSA? AFAIK their track record is good.
I dunno, but where I live there are plenty of free services like that (such as http://www.mheart.ru/ with quasi-real-time messaging. They're making money mostly on advertising and profile bumps (you get your profile first in the list by sending to them an SMS costing you about $1), and some additional services. Other than that, you don't pay a dime. And you don't really need to bump your profile - you can search for the ones who *you* like:-)
Gosh, those pesky spammers manage to squeeze their cheap Viagra ads everywhere.
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'll worry when there's a few thousand deaths. Until then, eat healthy food, exercise and keep that immune system running. If you're not one of the typical flu victims (elderly, very young or compromised immune system from other causes), you'll have an excellent chance to shrug it off, even if it does spread.
While I'm not in a position to judge whether it's true or not, but just yesterday I read in a newspaper that H5N1 has especially high lethal rate among healthy young people, and that this is caused not by the virus itself, but by the extremely strong immune response of the organism to this virus. Basically, our immune system kills ourselves! Therefore, the stronger your immune system (above a certain threshold), the more likely that you'll die from this disease.
The icon theme is called Humility. It's a new theme developed for Ubuntu, and while it's at 0.3 currently, it's pretty comprehensive. You can find it in Breezy Universe.
While I also find KDE translations more accurate and concise, this advantage is IMHO negated by overall clutter that currently exists in KDE. Just look at Settings menu: a zillion of options beginning with the word "Configure"...
Slashdot Mirror
OK guys and gals, the gist of the offer: this guy provides a filter that will throw off emails containing file attachments, HTML (assumed by the use of both characters in the email), quoted printable content, percent signs, dollar signs, numbers, URLs and email addresses (includes items like.this and like@this).
Since we all know that no legitimate emails ever contain those items, this is sure the way to go.
still doesn't work for me. Which sucks :-(
Can't use Miranda, since it refuses to work for me on a restricted account. Can't use Kopete, since, well, I'm on Windows... and I hate Kopete's UI. Though as far as UI goes, these two clients are worth each other - they both suck, albeit differently.
Before making this weak attempt at sarcasm you should have consulted a dictionary and understood the difference between patents and trademarks.
Whatever the original intent of the patent was, it is now used as a means to protect your designs.
;-) (BTW, as far as software goes, you could protect your work using copyright, though copyright deserves a topic of its own.)
Exactly. The question is - why should it?
Yet, if I get pas that point and develop a superior design, I do not want anybody just taking an exact carbon copy of my work and profiting from it.
Of course you don't, why would you. There are however other factors besides your interests
I don't believe in patents fostering innovation (as in being the cause of it) - I believe in patents promoting the dissemination of new ideas, which benefits society. Remember, people had been immensely creative ages before the patent system was established. Innovation is just there, patents or not.
(Moreover, if you got your temporary monopoly, it's tempting just to sit on it and not do anything else - in that way patents may even be an inhibitor.)
As someone else has already pointed out, if I can easily figure out your idea from your implementation, chances are it is only a slight modification of previous knowledge, and therefore I don't think it deserves a large compensation. Meanwhile, society already reaps its benefits in this case, therefore it need not compensate you. Your desire to get maximum profit with minimum investments is understandable, but I don't see why it should be satisfied.
The advantage of my model is that it doesn't let you sell air easily. First, you cannot "impose" payment for your design on everybody else, as it is with patents - you have to actively sell it, investing some effort. Second, there is only one sale - the first and final one. Which to me is fair: if you have, say, one hammer, you can sell it only once. If somebody wants another hammer, it has to be produced -> there are costs associated with it. This somebody can choose to produce it himself or have you produce it and sell it to him. But if the cost of producing another hammer is zero, why should he choose to buy it from you for a non-zero amount?
All in all, you tend to perceive compensation for ideas as a natural right, which it isn't.
The question to ask here is: why should Tom the Orange Lover automatically feel entitled to profit just because an idea came to his mind? Tom would like to sell me his idea, right? OK with me, but I only buy things I don't have. If by looking at Tom's orange peeler I can't figure out his idea, then Tom indeed has something to sell me. If I can, it means that I now have this idea, too, and therefore don't need to buy it from Tom.
Again, motive for the patent system was disclosure of the ideas to the society in cases where they couldn't be derived from the end merchandise (which is the essense of the situation with trade secrets). Author compensation was just a means to this end - not an end in itself. If, however, I can see the idea from the end result, then disclosure has already occured, and additional measures are not required.
As far as compensation goes, you can get it anyway. Find an entity bigger than yourself with financial muscle to produce your peeler and sign an agreement with them that:
1) Makes them pay you a certain sum for producing peelers with the features you claim to be your invention, unless they can prove that a product embodying those features or a design (an idea) thereof has existed before;
2) Prohibits them from disclosing your peeler's design to anybody else in case they choose not to produce it and provides for penalties for such disclosure - again, unless they can prove that a product embodying those features or a design (an idea) thereof has existed before;
Having signed this agreement, show them the peeler and act according to the agreement.
The result: you are compensated (that is, if your idea is innovative), they are first to market, your idea is disclosed to society (which it would be anyway). The fact that nobody gets the artificial monopoly promotes further inventions instead of capitalizing on the past ones.
When you have something as a trade secret, you already profit from it anyway. The government wants to give you financial incentive to disclose your idea (proportional to its usefullness), but want others to pay for it directly, therefore the awkward system of granting you a temporarily monopoly for your idea. Patents are an OK mechanism - just don't give it too large a scope.
Yep, that's what I say.
Patents were originally there to prevent ideas theft
Sorry, but this is wrong, because:
1. Ideas can't be stolen. Period.
2. Actually, patents were originally there to promote disclosure of useful ideas instead of keeping them forever as trade secrets.
BTW, 2. really should be used as one of the criteria of patentability: the thing should be patentable only if it can be successfully kept as a trade secret. Trivially reverse-engineered or analysed things should not be patentable. If by looking at the thing I can easily tell what is the essence of the patent, this thing doesn't deserve to be patented - because disclosure does not add anything useful to my observation. (The "ease" has of course to be somehow quantified, but this is a solvable technical question.)
Maybe some day we can accept that copying a program you don't have a license for is theft - just a different kind that most people are used to.
;-)
Fine! In addition to that, I'll accept that this "theft" cases you a loss - just a different kind of loss than most people are used to. But then you have to accept that the compensation for this "loss" may also be something different that you are used to
Well, as a Russian, I would say, the business culture here still leaves much to be desired in many respects. But: Can you cite an example that would support your words specifically regarding RSA? AFAIK their track record is good.
No, 88 is already reserved for Nazi propaganda: http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_88.asp
What, they're moving in to the vacuum cleaner business
Moving in? I thought they've been sucking all the time...
I'm racking my brain, but I cannot think of a negative reason to remove mosquitoes from cities.
Frogs eat moskitos. You leave frogs without food. Won't anybody please think of the frogs?
I hope the vacuuming would involve something else than the carpet!!!
:-)
Errr... vacuum cleaner?
I dunno, but where I live there are plenty of free services like that (such as http://www.mheart.ru/ with quasi-real-time messaging. They're making money mostly on advertising and profile bumps (you get your profile first in the list by sending to them an SMS costing you about $1), and some additional services. Other than that, you don't pay a dime. And you don't really need to bump your profile - you can search for the ones who *you* like :-)
You mean, a form of government? :-)
Yeah, but at first it'd have a horrible user interface.
:-D
Prolly, but this is still better than no interface at all, as it currently stands
That thing you mentioned is not a word. But we do have a word "hypocrisy".
Gosh, those pesky spammers manage to squeeze their cheap Viagra ads everywhere.
I'll worry when there's a few thousand deaths. Until then, eat healthy food, exercise and keep that immune system running. If you're not one of the typical flu victims (elderly, very young or compromised immune system from other causes), you'll have an excellent chance to shrug it off, even if it does spread.
While I'm not in a position to judge whether it's true or not, but just yesterday I read in a newspaper that H5N1 has especially high lethal rate among healthy young people, and that this is caused not by the virus itself, but by the extremely strong immune response of the organism to this virus. Basically, our immune system kills ourselves! Therefore, the stronger your immune system (above a certain threshold), the more likely that you'll die from this disease.
Your life must be so great... why are you so angry then? :-)
Win XP SP2 + Ubuntu here.
Please write a book that will become wildly popular.
Could you please describe hiw to do this in more detail?
The icon theme is called Humility. It's a new theme developed for Ubuntu, and while it's at 0.3 currently, it's pretty comprehensive. You can find it in Breezy Universe.
Here's a screenshot of my desktop: http://temcat.narod.ru/0.png
Ah, no, I wasn't specific enough: I mean the Settings menu of an app (say, Konqueror or Kopete).
While I also find KDE translations more accurate and concise, this advantage is IMHO negated by overall clutter that currently exists in KDE. Just look at Settings menu: a zillion of options beginning with the word "Configure"...
:-)
Yes, this is offtopic