... that isn't wrong with the entire patent system.
Anyone who agrees that patents should exist will have to agree that there are some software innovations that are worthy of being patented - for example if someone invented a superquick way to sort a string of numbers, say, or when someone invented the concept of indices on database tables.
The problems you have with software patents apply to other areas too: the discrimination between poor and wealthy companies as far as patent application and enforcement is concerned, the cost of validating patents, the stupid patents that slip through the cracks, the cost of doing a patent search prior to development, etc.
I don't think you will do very well trying to make a case against software patents on those grounds to someone who has considered those arguments and believes the patent system is beneficial - unless you're pitching to the average politician who is incapable of logical thought and therefore won't extrapolate on the arguments you are making.
The free market only benefits the consumer as long as laws and senators are not for sale.
This may sound like Flamebait but I have always maintained that if the senators are indeed for sale, that is a sign that the country is not ready for democracy.
The population still has the ability to vote in whoever they want. The fact is that, regardless of how much money a vested interest pays a senator, they still only have one vote per person. So if a majority of people want to vote in a particular person, no amount of money can do anything about it. However, when a population is not educated or intelligent enough, it is possible to sway their opinion based on campaigning and advertising. If people continue to elect a senator who acts in a way contrary to what they want him to do, it is only their fault. People deserve the politicians they get.
What a load of crap! Censorship is when an authority can restrict ideas,thoughts and speech regardless of who created it.
DRM is designed to allow the creator to restrict distribution - certainly not the same as censorship. In the Tiananmen Square example, the government would only be able to restrict distribution of that picture if it was the Chinese government who created the picture. And yes, the government can always make it a law allowing them to pull rights but that is a failure of the constitutional system, not the technology. Remember the government has the technology to nuke its own population or arrest anyone they want to based on its control of the army but that doesn't mean that we live in fear of that happening.
When you use words like censorship to exaggerate what's happening you rapidly lose credibility.
My point was just that it is not a bribe (unless there's something we dont' know about) because a bribe is given to benefit the officers while this is going towards the city with no obvious personal benefit for the officers.
I don't think the city should be making laws about this. Theaters are private property and it should be up to the property owners to make rules about cellphone usage, etc. If the owners of the theater are ok with people using cellphones, it is none of the city's business.
Personally, I hate idiots using cellphones during performances and would make an effort to support theaters which ban their use over other theaters. However, I just don't see this as being part of the governments jursidiction.
A lot of cities and their respective police departments have a "no gift" policy. In other words, an officer or government official cannot accept a gift - as it could be seen as a bribe. (emphasis mine)
It is not ok for an officer to accept a gift for themselves. This is a gift to the city. There's a HUGE difference.
Why does everyone on Slashdot assume that the SPIRIT of the contract is different from the LETTER? If the contract was intended to convey that no other OS should be installed, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't say that.
Dell and Microsoft have a pretty long partnership. I seriously doubt Dell would jeopardize that by not at least talking to them first about it.
Pass that crack pipe over a little bit. You've held on to it too long.
How the hell does this have anything to do with a Republican president? Most of these things have been occuring far longer than that.
It really gets me that there are stupid people like you on this planet. Idiots who come up with ridiculous hypotheses and then justify them to themselves because they are just too dumb to realize they are wrong.
Sorry, that last sentence got cut off. It should have read:
Get as much money out of you by convincing you that the wedding is the most important day of your life (that part is usually true) and that that somehow implies that it is extremely important that you have a fabulous, beautiful ceremony with a great dress and perfect flowers and all that crap which has no bearing on how good or bad your relationship will be.
I went through the exact same conundrum about 6 months ago. I hate the idea of spending that much money on something so meaningless as a diamond as much as my fellow geek and share a similar distaste for the idea that De Beers has successfully forced a large part of the worlds population to act like mindless sheep based on their marketing tactics.
However, the bottomline was that there was no getting away from it. In general, girls want to receive diamond rings from their fiance-suitors for the following reasons: 1. They can use the diamond to show off to other girls. Women like to brag about how much their fiances love them and diamonds are somehow a sign of that. The prettier and bigger the diamond, the more they have to brag about. 2. They see it as a sign of how much you are interested in them. How much money would you be willing to spend on them is how they guage that and unfortunately the diamond is one of the measures they use for that. 3. Diamonds are pretty and they like them for that reason. 4. It's "tradition". Their dreams of prince charming have always included a nice diamond and if you hope to be that prince, you better play the part with the diamond.
I caved and split for the cash.
Let me warn you, however. The diamond is not the end of it. It's only the beginning. I figured I'd spend a load of cash on the diamond and that would be the end of that. Almost from the minute you get engaged, starts the big wedding planning ritual. Thanks to mass-brainwashing by media, their mothers and their friends, women seem to believe that it is very important to have a big, pretty wedding that everyone and their aunt is invited to.
Somehow, they place it at a higher priority than, say getting the down payment on a house. And then there are the magazines. There is a whole industry around wedding magazines, wedding stores and wedding supplies. It's a finely honed marketing machine which has one objective: Get as much money out of you by
Granted, the real motivation is to demonstrate to Pakistan and China that they have missi^H^H^H^H^H launch vehicles capable of reaching escape velocity, and thus, any targe^H^H^H^H^Hlocation on the planet.
India already has demonstrated the capability to launch polar and geostationary satellites. That's pretty much all you need (apart from the guidance system) to do what you are suggesting - unless you want to attack Pakistans moon base.
Don't forget all the money given by Sun, Oracle and AOL. Microsoft has historically always been a very poor campaign financer and lobbier. It was the campaign contributions from those companies that caused the DOJ to bring the original case.
The article [usdoj.gov] is a DOJ (US Department of Justice) article
No, you moron. It is not an "article". It is an affidavit submitted by one person. It is not a DOJ article. In fact, the affidavit shows no sign of sponsorship by the DOJ.
Being a nice guy, you decide to warn the world now and give everybody a few years to prepare before revealing the discovery.
This sounds suspiciously similar to "It".
Please, if you actually have something worthy of talking about just say what it is. People who come to me promising a revolution in the future but refuse to talk about what it actually is give me a bad Amway feeling.
Democracy cannot work with large populations because ultimately the policies follow the money.
That's a ridiculous theory. With an intelligent, educated populace, the politics will never follow the money - rather they will be issue based and the government will be the voice of the people.
However, when the population does not have a proper grasp of the issues involved and is easily swayed by advertising - (that's all campaign contributions are good for, btw they can't be used directly in any way) - that's when I say the populace is incapable of participating in a democracy.
Corporations don't have a vote. Only the people do. Corporations can donate as much money as they want to candidates to use to influence people but they can't actually vote.
The people have full and complete power here. It's only that some people are idiots but that's always been a problem with democracy.
I think that speaks about the people in Missouri more than it does for Ashcroft - Especially since he was leading in the polls before the other guy died.
Democracy and the right to vote are privileges. Some people don't deserve those privileges and should have them revoked.
Wow! Jon Katz must be jealous. An entire post full of nothing but inane drivel, a ludicruous hypothesis and equally far-fetched metaphors used to justify it.
Grow up! They are not prosecuting people who are exchanging music they developed. There is no element of individuality to music swapping. They are doing it with songs that were created by someone else and which belong to someone else.
I should clarify. The complexities are why they haven't been arrested yet. They will be. Soon.
The public wants blood now but the justice department has to be careful and measured in proceeding or the charges won't stick and the guilty will get away on some stupid technicality invented by some liberal judge.
And once again - WHY AREN'T THESE FSCKING IDIOTS IN JAIL?
Because it needs more than a few idiots on Slashdot accusing you of being guilty before you can actually be put in jail - and that's a good thing.
Accounting irregularities are complex things. You need to identify who knew what and when they knew it. Then you need to identify intent and prove that they knew what they were doing. The government can't start arresting people without a good reason - just like you can't be arrested because some kid in your class bounced a check for 100 bucks and you somehow knew that kid.
Interesting.. maybe people are substituting what they used to do with cigarettes with drinks instead? I know many smokers who say they smoke because they like having something in their mouth to suck on and something to hold because that made them feel more comfortable. Maybe drinks are what people are using to substitute that urge now.
In genral drink sizes in India are a lot smaller than in the US. Most sodas used to be 250ml until they recently started having "super sized" ones at about 330ml. The "large" they serve you with a meal at McDonalds in India is almost as big as the "small" in the US and no free refills of course.
However, in general the sodas in India tend to be much stronger flavored and have much more carbonation - I would usually have a hard time finishing the smaller sizes that they had - and you would never think about putting maybe more than a cube or two of ice in your drinks - wouldn't want to dilute it!
Slashdot Mirror
... that isn't wrong with the entire patent system.
Anyone who agrees that patents should exist will have to agree that there are some software innovations that are worthy of being patented - for example if someone invented a superquick way to sort a string of numbers, say, or when someone invented the concept of indices on database tables.
The problems you have with software patents apply to other areas too: the discrimination between poor and wealthy companies as far as patent application and enforcement is concerned, the cost of validating patents, the stupid patents that slip through the cracks, the cost of doing a patent search prior to development, etc.
I don't think you will do very well trying to make a case against software patents on those grounds to someone who has considered those arguments and believes the patent system is beneficial - unless you're pitching to the average politician who is incapable of logical thought and therefore won't extrapolate on the arguments you are making.
The name is cnn.com, not cnnforwindows.com!
Ironic, that this is the same company that owns Netscape.
The free market only benefits the consumer as long as laws and senators are not for sale.
This may sound like Flamebait but I have always maintained that if the senators are indeed for sale, that is a sign that the country is not ready for democracy.
The population still has the ability to vote in whoever they want. The fact is that, regardless of how much money a vested interest pays a senator, they still only have one vote per person. So if a majority of people want to vote in a particular person, no amount of money can do anything about it. However, when a population is not educated or intelligent enough, it is possible to sway their opinion based on campaigning and advertising. If people continue to elect a senator who acts in a way contrary to what they want him to do, it is only their fault. People deserve the politicians they get.
What a load of crap! Censorship is when an authority can restrict ideas,thoughts and speech regardless of who created it.
DRM is designed to allow the creator to restrict distribution - certainly not the same as censorship. In the Tiananmen Square example, the government would only be able to restrict distribution of that picture if it was the Chinese government who created the picture. And yes, the government can always make it a law allowing them to pull rights but that is a failure of the constitutional system, not the technology. Remember the government has the technology to nuke its own population or arrest anyone they want to based on its control of the army but that doesn't mean that we live in fear of that happening.
When you use words like censorship to exaggerate what's happening you rapidly lose credibility.
My point was just that it is not a bribe (unless there's something we dont' know about) because a bribe is given to benefit the officers while this is going towards the city with no obvious personal benefit for the officers.
So it may not be a gift, but it's not a bribe.
I don't think the city should be making laws about this. Theaters are private property and it should be up to the property owners to make rules about cellphone usage, etc. If the owners of the theater are ok with people using cellphones, it is none of the city's business.
Personally, I hate idiots using cellphones during performances and would make an effort to support theaters which ban their use over other theaters. However, I just don't see this as being part of the governments jursidiction.
A lot of cities and their respective police departments have a "no gift" policy. In other words, an officer or government official cannot accept a gift - as it could be seen as a bribe.
(emphasis mine)
It is not ok for an officer to accept a gift for themselves. This is a gift to the city. There's a HUGE difference.
Very clueful explanation of contracts.
Why does everyone on Slashdot assume that the SPIRIT of the contract is different from the LETTER? If the contract was intended to convey that no other OS should be installed, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't say that.
Dell and Microsoft have a pretty long partnership. I seriously doubt Dell would jeopardize that by not at least talking to them first about it.
Pass that crack pipe over a little bit. You've held on to it too long.
How the hell does this have anything to do with a Republican president? Most of these things have been occuring far longer than that.
It really gets me that there are stupid people like you on this planet. Idiots who come up with ridiculous hypotheses and then justify them to themselves because they are just too dumb to realize they are wrong.
I don't think God will have a case there. There's plenty of prior art to indicate that the concept was made up by humans before he even existed.
Sorry, that last sentence got cut off. It should have read:
Get as much money out of you by convincing you that the wedding is the most important day of your life (that part is usually true) and that that somehow implies that it is extremely important that you have a fabulous, beautiful ceremony with a great dress and perfect flowers and all that crap which has no bearing on how good or bad your relationship will be.
I went through the exact same conundrum about 6 months ago. I hate the idea of spending that much money on something so meaningless as a diamond as much as my fellow geek and share a similar distaste for the idea that De Beers has successfully forced a large part of the worlds population to act like mindless sheep based on their marketing tactics.
However, the bottomline was that there was no getting away from it. In general, girls want to receive diamond rings from their fiance-suitors for the following reasons:
1. They can use the diamond to show off to other girls. Women like to brag about how much their fiances love them and diamonds are somehow a sign of that. The prettier and bigger the diamond, the more they have to brag about.
2. They see it as a sign of how much you are interested in them. How much money would you be willing to spend on them is how they guage that and unfortunately the diamond is one of the measures they use for that.
3. Diamonds are pretty and they like them for that reason.
4. It's "tradition". Their dreams of prince charming have always included a nice diamond and if you hope to be that prince, you better play the part with the diamond.
I caved and split for the cash.
Let me warn you, however. The diamond is not the end of it. It's only the beginning. I figured I'd spend a load of cash on the diamond and that would be the end of that. Almost from the minute you get engaged, starts the big wedding planning ritual. Thanks to mass-brainwashing by media, their mothers and their friends, women seem to believe that it is very important to have a big, pretty wedding that everyone and their aunt is invited to.
Somehow, they place it at a higher priority than, say getting the down payment on a house. And then there are the magazines. There is a whole industry around wedding magazines, wedding stores and wedding supplies. It's a finely honed marketing machine which has one objective: Get as much money out of you by
Granted, the real motivation is to demonstrate to Pakistan and China that they have missi^H^H^H^H^H launch vehicles capable of reaching escape velocity, and thus, any targe^H^H^H^H^Hlocation on the planet.
India already has demonstrated the capability to launch polar and geostationary satellites. That's pretty much all you need (apart from the guidance system) to do what you are suggesting - unless you want to attack Pakistans moon base.
Don't forget all the money given by Sun, Oracle and AOL. Microsoft has historically always been a very poor campaign financer and lobbier. It was the campaign contributions from those companies that caused the DOJ to bring the original case.
The article [usdoj.gov] is a DOJ (US Department of Justice) article
No, you moron. It is not an "article". It is an affidavit submitted by one person. It is not a DOJ article. In fact, the affidavit shows no sign of sponsorship by the DOJ.
Being a nice guy, you decide to warn the world now and give everybody a few years to prepare before revealing the discovery.
This sounds suspiciously similar to "It".
Please, if you actually have something worthy of talking about just say what it is. People who come to me promising a revolution in the future but refuse to talk about what it actually is give me a bad Amway feeling.
Democracy cannot work with large populations because ultimately the policies follow the money.
That's a ridiculous theory. With an intelligent, educated populace, the politics will never follow the money - rather they will be issue based and the government will be the voice of the people.
However, when the population does not have a proper grasp of the issues involved and is easily swayed by advertising - (that's all campaign contributions are good for, btw they can't be used directly in any way) - that's when I say the populace is incapable of participating in a democracy.
Corporations don't have a vote. Only the people do. Corporations can donate as much money as they want to candidates to use to influence people but they can't actually vote.
The people have full and complete power here. It's only that some people are idiots but that's always been a problem with democracy.
I think that speaks about the people in Missouri more than it does for Ashcroft - Especially since he was leading in the polls before the other guy died.
Democracy and the right to vote are privileges. Some people don't deserve those privileges and should have them revoked.
Wow! Jon Katz must be jealous. An entire post full of nothing but inane drivel, a ludicruous hypothesis and equally far-fetched metaphors used to justify it.
Grow up! They are not prosecuting people who are exchanging music they developed. There is no element of individuality to music swapping. They are doing it with songs that were created by someone else and which belong to someone else.
I should clarify. The complexities are why they haven't been arrested yet. They will be. Soon.
The public wants blood now but the justice department has to be careful and measured in proceeding or the charges won't stick and the guilty will get away on some stupid technicality invented by some liberal judge.
And once again - WHY AREN'T THESE FSCKING IDIOTS IN JAIL?
Because it needs more than a few idiots on Slashdot accusing you of being guilty before you can actually be put in jail - and that's a good thing.
Accounting irregularities are complex things. You need to identify who knew what and when they knew it. Then you need to identify intent and prove that they knew what they were doing. The government can't start arresting people without a good reason - just like you can't be arrested because some kid in your class bounced a check for 100 bucks and you somehow knew that kid.
Hope todays dose of clue helps.
Interesting.. maybe people are substituting what they used to do with cigarettes with drinks instead? I know many smokers who say they smoke because they like having something in their mouth to suck on and something to hold because that made them feel more comfortable. Maybe drinks are what people are using to substitute that urge now.
In genral drink sizes in India are a lot smaller than in the US. Most sodas used to be 250ml until they recently started having "super sized" ones at about 330ml. The "large" they serve you with a meal at McDonalds in India is almost as big as the "small" in the US and no free refills of course.
However, in general the sodas in India tend to be much stronger flavored and have much more carbonation - I would usually have a hard time finishing the smaller sizes that they had - and you would never think about putting maybe more than a cube or two of ice in your drinks - wouldn't want to dilute it!