I'm not sure what to mod it though. It's obviously flame bait, but it is funny. Unfortunately, there is also a good chance it is true, which I guess would make it insightful.
My problem is not with it's obviousness. I think in 1996 it was a very novel idea. But I have two problems with the lawsuit.
1) The Idea had previously been novel, but at this point, 11 years after filing, the idea has become extremely obvious with a large number of public and private investments and markets already coming to play with absolutely no opposition from the patent holder. Personally, I don't think patents should cover anything for more than 5 years. I also think that any organization that doesn't make any effort to defend their patents should lose them (that is not to say that an organization must attack any and all offenders, just that the must make a minimal consorted effort to show that the offenders were aware of the infringment).
2) It is an IDEA. Sure, they stuck the word "system" in there, but they have no device, no code, no product. I'm all for people patenting things. Tangible things. Or exacting specifications and directions on how to build things (source code, blue prints, schematics, etc...) But an idea??? Come on. This isn't even psuedo code. I wouldn't even call it a passable design spec. This is more like an excessively wordy RFP, and a RFP is a looooong freaking way from anything patentable.
I, Jim-Bob Mirror Manufacture Inc, demand that GM stop the unfair process of installing their rear view mirrors on their entire line up so that my product: "Jim-Bob's ultimate rear view mirror" can compete fairly in this market!
This is completely bull crap. I have Google tool bar and I'm a huge fan of Google desktop search, I think it is by far the superior product. But to force another company to remove basic functionality from their system is just asinine. There is no need to remove the built in MS search because it in no way prevents you from using the Google search.
The intent may have been different, but the text of the bill is pretty unambiguous.
Which is EXACTLY my point. Clinton singed this bill into law with one set of intentions. Because of the wording of the law a later president can use the law to an entirely different end. To further prove that point, look at the very link you posted, Clinton financed $8 million to support groups opposed to the current regime. Compared to the hundreds of billions (not sure on the total up-front cost of the war, nor the long term projections) of dollars that Bush has spent. Anyone with the empathy of a dung beattle can see that the Bush administration is focusing on the wording of the law to avoid the spirit of the law.
That is what I am most fearful of from the Bush administration. All it would take is a president with even lower moral qualities than Bush and we could be on the brink of losing our democracy.
I have never said that Signing statements are bad. I said that increasing presidential power was bad. Using signing statements to systematically castrate Congress is bad. In my opinion, some of Bush's use of signing statements has been perfectly acceptable. Unfortunatly, I also feel that the vast majority of them have been unethical or at least unbecoming for the leader of the free world.
Like it or not, Bush is our president. The democrates are too spinless to give him the boot, and the people are too brainwashed to vote for libertarians, so we're stuck with him.
Ahh well, it's late and I'm tired. Catch ya later.
(would actually be 2 years ago, because we invaded Iraq in 03, and Clinton left office in 01, but let's not accuracy enter the discussion)
Yeah, I'd hate it if some one accidentally mentioned that the bill was signed in 1998 and that Bush started citing it for his build up to the war in 2002. Ya know, what with someone bringing accuracy into the discussion.
And this is an excellent example of why presidential power is so dangerous. The INTENT of the policy was to fund, inform, and motivate actors in the region to bring about a regime change. The intention was to SUPPORT that change where there was a new and up coming power structure.
What Bush did was take that law and use it as a reason for enacting Regime removal. His desired outcome may have been the same (a western friendly government and a permanent US Military installation in the middle east) but his means were a long way from Clinton's original intent.
And that is what scares me the most about Bush. Sure, he's done some crappy things that I abhor, but they don't scare me. What scares me is the amount of power he has recouped into the presidency. The laws and signing statements he is making today can and likely will be abused (heavily) by future presidents. That is why I can not vote for a status-quo republicrat (Barrack/Hillary) in the next ellection. Sure, they would make fine presidents, but being republicrats, I wouldn't trust either of them to reduce the amount of power the president has. I would vote full libertarian if they could get a candidate into the running. But at the moment, Edwards is probably our best shot for reelling in the presidential excess.
What you BELIEVE Bush "did wrong" is hype with no substance.
What we have is a lot of evidence of cover-ups and perjury. Unfortunately, the administration's efforts to cover up the underlying crimes has been rather effective. Thus the reason why people are getting charged with perjury instead of high crimes.
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had.
Bush has said, and is continuing to say many things that have been PROVEN false. He said things in the build up to the war that had already been proven false. He did NOT have the same intelligence everyone had, he had his own private intelligence group that fed him information that had been refuted by (almost) every other respectable intelligence agency working for the US at the time. Unfortunately, political pressure and motivation kept many of those people quiet. And those that didn't keep quite... well, we all know that story.
Clinton himself thought he had WMD.
And Reagan sold him Guns, what's your point? That we should base all of our foreign policy on what some oaf thought 4 years ago?
Further, he signed a bill AUTHORIZING regime change in Iraq while he was in office!
Hmm, I'd like to know which bill that was.
Long and short of it, Bush's policies and decisions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, eroded our civil liberties, politicized the justice department, substantially increased the power of the president, and brought serious harm to America's standing on the World's stage.
Somewhat, at least, not in a business sense. I don't know the details of their agreement, and I would wager a guess that you don't either. Companies buy out other companies every day, and it doesn't change a thing. Sure AMD may have sat down with the heads of ATI and said "We want you to include Linux drivers in your release cycle" but it is still the ATI management that passes those wishes on down. I haven't heard of any mass layoffs or upper echelon retirements from ATI, so I'm guessing that other than a slight reorganization and a few new titles, ATI is virtually the same entity it was prior to AMD's buy out.
And to stay on the original topic, AMD is branded for recognition in processors, ATI is branded for graphics cards. That's why you are still buying an ATI graphics card, NOT and AMD graphics card. Even the new cards being produced are still "ATI Radeon" cards, they just have the AMD logo tossed on the box. I stand by my original statement, the title is misleading. And it'll take a good amount of advertising and re-branding to get AMD's name to be synonymous with ATI's in the realm of graphics cards.
Did AMD replace all of ATI's developers? Did AMD take control of the ATI development systems? Did AMD assume all responsibilities of ATI's driver development?
Yes, AMD owns ATI, I am very much aware of that. But again, what does AMD have to do with this? If the article was about Linux drivers for AMD chipset based mother boards, it would make sense.
Yeah, in the same way that Mazda is a part of the big Ford company. But you wouldn't submit and article called "How Ford Builds Cars" and then cover only the Mazda factor's stereo installation.
Nah, ya just need one. Just tell him to put the call on hold for a few seconds, then speak in a different voice. It's especially entertaining when the intern goes from his "Tim the half deaf lumberjack" voice to his "Valry the heavy breathing transvestite" voice.
I wonder what would happen if someone from the RIAA/Gov actually demanded to see those prints years from now only to discover that each print card had a mushroom print across all five boxes...
I think what the parent was trying to say is that IF there were a system in place that trading companies had to warn you that a stock had been the target of a fraudulent advertising campaign prior to selling you the stock, it would cause a lower trading rate for that stock, which could drop the price is people were trying to unload the stock while purchasers were being warned about buying the stock.
The purpose I would imagine would be to attempt to limit a competitor's financial flexibility. Even if it doesn't tank their stock, it could reduce growth possibilities.
Uhh, USB2 runs at 480Mbps and in practice can push 40MBps (320Mbps) for bulk transfer (ie USB Hard drives).
So for them to claim that this device can push 100Mbps really isn't that surprising. So long as the little processor can burn through the logic checks fast enough, the bus can definitely handle the load.
I don't think it was intended.;) He was showing off their latest wifi gear and it had the ability to determine weak signal points and boost signals in certain directions. They had like 6 antenas on the floor and they automatically configured themselves to maximize coverage. The bathroom just happened to be in side the coverage area.
And another gem FTA... "Whatever one might say about the strength of MySQL's backers, the fact that the company is not publicly traded means the financials are not required by law to be a matter of public record."
So we're going to have to trust the software company that won't show us their code, but will show us their books instead of the company that will show us the code, but not the books?!?
The 8 reasons are completely bunk, I thought I might actually learn something reading that article as we are about to increase our MySQL presence here, but that was a complete was of time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what to mod it though. It's obviously flame bait, but it is funny. Unfortunately, there is also a good chance it is true, which I guess would make it insightful.
-Rick
My problem is not with it's obviousness. I think in 1996 it was a very novel idea. But I have two problems with the lawsuit.
1) The Idea had previously been novel, but at this point, 11 years after filing, the idea has become extremely obvious with a large number of public and private investments and markets already coming to play with absolutely no opposition from the patent holder. Personally, I don't think patents should cover anything for more than 5 years. I also think that any organization that doesn't make any effort to defend their patents should lose them (that is not to say that an organization must attack any and all offenders, just that the must make a minimal consorted effort to show that the offenders were aware of the infringment).
2) It is an IDEA. Sure, they stuck the word "system" in there, but they have no device, no code, no product. I'm all for people patenting things. Tangible things. Or exacting specifications and directions on how to build things (source code, blue prints, schematics, etc...) But an idea??? Come on. This isn't even psuedo code. I wouldn't even call it a passable design spec. This is more like an excessively wordy RFP, and a RFP is a looooong freaking way from anything patentable.
-Rick
Hey, I loved MI1 and MI2!!!
-Rick
Hey, if the President's IT Staff can lose e-mails, I'm sure the rest of us can too ;)
-Rick
I, Jim-Bob Mirror Manufacture Inc, demand that GM stop the unfair process of installing their rear view mirrors on their entire line up so that my product: "Jim-Bob's ultimate rear view mirror" can compete fairly in this market!
This is completely bull crap. I have Google tool bar and I'm a huge fan of Google desktop search, I think it is by far the superior product. But to force another company to remove basic functionality from their system is just asinine. There is no need to remove the built in MS search because it in no way prevents you from using the Google search.
-Rick
Oddly enough, last I heard his Dungeon Seige movie was like 4 1/2 hours and was getting split into 2 releases (thanks giving/x-mas).
-Rick
The intent may have been different, but the text of the bill is pretty unambiguous.
Which is EXACTLY my point. Clinton singed this bill into law with one set of intentions. Because of the wording of the law a later president can use the law to an entirely different end. To further prove that point, look at the very link you posted, Clinton financed $8 million to support groups opposed to the current regime. Compared to the hundreds of billions (not sure on the total up-front cost of the war, nor the long term projections) of dollars that Bush has spent. Anyone with the empathy of a dung beattle can see that the Bush administration is focusing on the wording of the law to avoid the spirit of the law.
That is what I am most fearful of from the Bush administration. All it would take is a president with even lower moral qualities than Bush and we could be on the brink of losing our democracy.
I have never said that Signing statements are bad. I said that increasing presidential power was bad. Using signing statements to systematically castrate Congress is bad. In my opinion, some of Bush's use of signing statements has been perfectly acceptable. Unfortunatly, I also feel that the vast majority of them have been unethical or at least unbecoming for the leader of the free world.
Like it or not, Bush is our president. The democrates are too spinless to give him the boot, and the people are too brainwashed to vote for libertarians, so we're stuck with him.
Ahh well, it's late and I'm tired. Catch ya later.
-Rick
(would actually be 2 years ago, because we invaded Iraq in 03, and Clinton left office in 01, but let's not accuracy enter the discussion)
Yeah, I'd hate it if some one accidentally mentioned that the bill was signed in 1998 and that Bush started citing it for his build up to the war in 2002. Ya know, what with someone bringing accuracy into the discussion.
-Rick
And this is an excellent example of why presidential power is so dangerous. The INTENT of the policy was to fund, inform, and motivate actors in the region to bring about a regime change. The intention was to SUPPORT that change where there was a new and up coming power structure.
What Bush did was take that law and use it as a reason for enacting Regime removal. His desired outcome may have been the same (a western friendly government and a permanent US Military installation in the middle east) but his means were a long way from Clinton's original intent.
And that is what scares me the most about Bush. Sure, he's done some crappy things that I abhor, but they don't scare me. What scares me is the amount of power he has recouped into the presidency. The laws and signing statements he is making today can and likely will be abused (heavily) by future presidents. That is why I can not vote for a status-quo republicrat (Barrack/Hillary) in the next ellection. Sure, they would make fine presidents, but being republicrats, I wouldn't trust either of them to reduce the amount of power the president has. I would vote full libertarian if they could get a candidate into the running. But at the moment, Edwards is probably our best shot for reelling in the presidential excess.
-Rick
What you BELIEVE Bush "did wrong" is hype with no substance.
What we have is a lot of evidence of cover-ups and perjury. Unfortunately, the administration's efforts to cover up the underlying crimes has been rather effective. Thus the reason why people are getting charged with perjury instead of high crimes.
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had.
Bush has said, and is continuing to say many things that have been PROVEN false. He said things in the build up to the war that had already been proven false. He did NOT have the same intelligence everyone had, he had his own private intelligence group that fed him information that had been refuted by (almost) every other respectable intelligence agency working for the US at the time. Unfortunately, political pressure and motivation kept many of those people quiet. And those that didn't keep quite... well, we all know that story.
Clinton himself thought he had WMD.
And Reagan sold him Guns, what's your point? That we should base all of our foreign policy on what some oaf thought 4 years ago?
Further, he signed a bill AUTHORIZING regime change in Iraq while he was in office!
Hmm, I'd like to know which bill that was.
Long and short of it, Bush's policies and decisions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, eroded our civil liberties, politicized the justice department, substantially increased the power of the president, and brought serious harm to America's standing on the World's stage.
-Rick
Atleast there is still room for improvement. Let me know when you buy an AMD brand graphics card, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
-Rick
Somewhat, at least, not in a business sense. I don't know the details of their agreement, and I would wager a guess that you don't either. Companies buy out other companies every day, and it doesn't change a thing. Sure AMD may have sat down with the heads of ATI and said "We want you to include Linux drivers in your release cycle" but it is still the ATI management that passes those wishes on down. I haven't heard of any mass layoffs or upper echelon retirements from ATI, so I'm guessing that other than a slight reorganization and a few new titles, ATI is virtually the same entity it was prior to AMD's buy out.
And to stay on the original topic, AMD is branded for recognition in processors, ATI is branded for graphics cards. That's why you are still buying an ATI graphics card, NOT and AMD graphics card. Even the new cards being produced are still "ATI Radeon" cards, they just have the AMD logo tossed on the box. I stand by my original statement, the title is misleading. And it'll take a good amount of advertising and re-branding to get AMD's name to be synonymous with ATI's in the realm of graphics cards.
-Rick
Did AMD replace all of ATI's developers? Did AMD take control of the ATI development systems? Did AMD assume all responsibilities of ATI's driver development?
Yes, AMD owns ATI, I am very much aware of that. But again, what does AMD have to do with this? If the article was about Linux drivers for AMD chipset based mother boards, it would make sense.
-Rick
Yeah, in the same way that Mazda is a part of the big Ford company. But you wouldn't submit and article called "How Ford Builds Cars" and then cover only the Mazda factor's stereo installation.
-Rick
WTC does this have to do with AMD?
-Rick
"This call may be recorded for internet playback and ridicule."
-Rick
Ya know, with 2 phone and a conference call... that could be quite entertaining.
-Rick
Nah, ya just need one. Just tell him to put the call on hold for a few seconds, then speak in a different voice. It's especially entertaining when the intern goes from his "Tim the half deaf lumberjack" voice to his "Valry the heavy breathing transvestite" voice.
-Rick
I wonder what would happen if someone from the RIAA/Gov actually demanded to see those prints years from now only to discover that each print card had a mushroom print across all five boxes...
-Rick
I think what the parent was trying to say is that IF there were a system in place that trading companies had to warn you that a stock had been the target of a fraudulent advertising campaign prior to selling you the stock, it would cause a lower trading rate for that stock, which could drop the price is people were trying to unload the stock while purchasers were being warned about buying the stock.
The purpose I would imagine would be to attempt to limit a competitor's financial flexibility. Even if it doesn't tank their stock, it could reduce growth possibilities.
-Rick
Uhh, USB2 runs at 480Mbps and in practice can push 40MBps (320Mbps) for bulk transfer (ie USB Hard drives).
So for them to claim that this device can push 100Mbps really isn't that surprising. So long as the little processor can burn through the logic checks fast enough, the bus can definitely handle the load.
-Rick
I thought it was "Never trust a politician on a day ending in 'y'"
-Rick
Enron was a publicly traded company. /shrug
-Rick
I don't think it was intended. ;) He was showing off their latest wifi gear and it had the ability to determine weak signal points and boost signals in certain directions. They had like 6 antenas on the floor and they automatically configured themselves to maximize coverage. The bathroom just happened to be in side the coverage area.
-Rick
And another gem FTA... "Whatever one might say about the strength of MySQL's backers, the fact that the company is not publicly traded means the financials are not required by law to be a matter of public record."
So we're going to have to trust the software company that won't show us their code, but will show us their books instead of the company that will show us the code, but not the books?!?
The 8 reasons are completely bunk, I thought I might actually learn something reading that article as we are about to increase our MySQL presence here, but that was a complete was of time.
-Rick