The mantra on Slashdot is "patent stifle creativity, all creativity and innovation are going elsewhere" but then when someone asks "where?" no such evidence is forthcoming.
True; and I'm personally not a subscriber to that general school of thought, as you can see in some of my other posts on this thread and elsewhere. More to your point, I wasn't able to find any such evidence in a five minute google search, though I was able to find much speculation posing as fact. And as most countries that are on the same technological level as the US (or ahead of it) have patent systems with similar shortcomings (or advantages, depending on your perspective), it's unlikely that I will be able to find proof that less cumbersome systems are better.
However, equally as important -- lack of evidence doesn't prove causality. At best, it demonstrates that there/may/ be an positive correlative relationship between structured patent systems and innovation.
Unfortunately, you've passed byeond the limit of what I'm familiar with. Offhand, it sounds like you probably want WPA Personal, choose TKIP, and the "WPA Shared Key" is the "PSK" part of it -- that's the passphrase you need to enter on the device, and in Windows in order to connect to your network.
If at all an option, I would definitely say do NOT stick with WEP -- a quick search shows many, many howtos and tools available for breaing that encryption quickly and easily. Mac address filter is definitely good to have regardless, but it won't stop people from 'eavesdropping' on your data if they break encryption.
First, it wasn't an attack; it was intended in good humor. My apologies if you felt attacked. Second, it's difficult to argue when your opponent is using only generalizations and emotional arguments, interspersed with occasional facts and logical remarks. Some examples (not every point you've raised, because they're scattered across many posts):
Oh, but that's right, God created humans in his image and gave him dominion (read: power to exploit as see fit) over other creatures; it's 'natural' for A to eat non-A; and all that other bullshit.
First, God has nothing to do with it. Why bring him into it? I know many people who love meat (myself included) who don't use God as an excuse, if they even believe in a god. Personally, I think it's natural for a much simpler reason. There are very few animals which humans cannot safely eat; whereas there are literally thousands of varieties of vegetable and fungus which are poisonous, even fatal. Our evolution did not -- for whatever reason -- include an innate understanding of what plants can be eaten safely. This is not to say that we cannot survive on vegetables; only that we're not (made|evolved) to do so as a result of our environment.
Your subsequent slavery argument was also an emotional argument, indirectly equating meat-eaters to slaveowners. While you had a valid point as far as it went, you presented it in such a way that would provoke anemotional response, and not a logical one.
In another post you started to raise a very valid point about how animals are treated before being turned into meat; then raised another subject guaranteed to generate an emotional response -- cannibalism. To answer that point, by the way, there is NO reason not to engage in cannibalism, save that we have been socially conditioned against it throughout much of recorded history. Without that conditioning, it's quite possible that we would be cannibals as it is neither more nor less natural than eating cow.
I respect your decision to live as a vegetarian; while thinking over-long about some of the points you've raised will disturb mea little, it's not very much or for very long. Does that make me uncivilized? Perhaps, so -- because I believe that civilization is an illusion. It's a set of rules and behaviors that we collectively determine is acceptable, as a way to mask the fact that underneath it all, we're not very far away becoming the brutal savages from which we presumably descended. If you were hungry enough, and a living cow was the only possible food source, you'd m ost likely walk out alive. I am not belittling your convictions, but am only trying to point out that "civilization" is a luxury; and I personally feel that it's a only pretense. For a real good look at how thin the veneer of civilization is, watch a crowd of people at a fire, or look at the faces of the rubberneckers at an accident. (For the record, I steadfastly refuse to even look at an accident on the road, assuming help has arrived and the situation is under control -- not because I don't have the urge to do so, but because for all my talk, I, too, sometimes like to delude myself into thinking that being civilized has some meaning.)
That being said -- do I go around torturing kittens because I've come to terms with my inner savage? No, of course not. I take no pleasure in giving or observing pain; I have a clear sense of "right" and "wrong"; there are things I will not do, even though the cost to myself be death. There are other things I'm equally sure I/would/ do, if pushed hard enough and survival was at stake.
Now I've wandered so far offtopic that I 've forgotten what I was trying to say... ah, right! It's not that I disagree with your points; some of them are quite valid, and as a 'civilized' human being I have no answer for them. (Though I also I don't feel a need to have an answer for them.) I do, however, object to your means of presenting these arguments: begin with a rational statement, make an wei
Yes. And this defeats the purpose of the patent entirely; even requiring a working implementation before a patent is granted won't prevent a Big Company from doing exactly that. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any easy way around this -- though another comment in this thread is a promising idea: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194994 &cid=15981038
Intriguing idea. It preserves what I presume to be the intent of the current system (encouraging innovation while protecting the innovator), without precluding others from carrying innovations further. In this situation, overly-broad patents wouldn't be nearly as bad a thing as they are now.
No argument here. Based on your response andn a couple others, I think I wasn't clear in my intent. Overly-broad patents can stifle innovation, which is contrary to the spirit of the patent system. I was more referring to the means by which innovation is actively encouraged as a good thing -- ie the limited-time monopoly. When it's overly-broad AND a limited-time monopoly, it's a bad combination.
And if mousetraps were software, Small Research Shop would build a better mousetrap, but then get their asses sued off because Big Corp has patented mousetraps, leaving no one able to make better ones because mousetraps as a whole are patented. That's what patenting something as broad as "speech recognition software" is.
Thus ignoring the only point I was trying to make, or perhaps it was just poor explanation on my part. All I'm saying is I think your interpretation of how patents encourage innovation is mistaken... THis isn't to say that broad patents can't restrict innovation, because they clearly can.
It wasn't accurate? Do you have specifics, or just the blanket statement?
And yes, there are dozens of scripting languages out there. But AFAIK, there is only one that MS supports out of box. Of course you can run perl.exe on Windows; but that rather defeats the purpose of my admittedly unremarkable attempt at humor, now doesn't it?
But you haven't answered the basic question -- if not through that temporary monopoly, how does a patent encourage innovation? Without that incentive, it just becomes an optional beaurocracy.
he point I'm driving at is it's all very well saying "Everyone is responsible for their own behaviour and must face the consequences if it's illegal", but history has shown that prison isn't a terribly good way to stop people from reoffending - and to my mind it therefore seems that it's not a particularly effective consequence as far as deterrents go.
Alright, but I just want to note we've moved on to a different topic than I posted about -- you're right in that I beileve everyone should face the consequences for their behavior (legal/illegal notwithstanding); but that wasn't the specific topic at hand.
Now that I've said that, I agree with you to an extent. The problem is our system is rigged to prevent reform from occurring within jail. Once you're in jail, you've eliminated 99% of your future job opportunities -- even if all you did was make a stupid mistake. I believe that jail can be an effective remedy, if and only if any associated conviction is expunged from all public record upon release. The crime has been paid for -- a person should not continue paying for it until death. So if you make that correction, and ensure that any convict has full access to resources that wil let them become contributing members of society upon release, rehabilitation is a lot more likely.
For 3x+ repeat offenders, under the revised system above, you're right -- jail won't help. drown them; exile them; use them for medical experiment; I don't care but get them OFF of the taxpayer dollar. No, I'm not joking. Some people cannot or will not be rehabilitated, no matter the opportunity they're given.
This is over-simplified in that it doesnt' take into account the extremes: repeat offenders for marijuanna use, or at the other end of the scale the behaviors that may be virtually impossible to rehabilitate: pedophiles and rapists.
Please note that I'm not speaking of software patents right now -- I'm discussing patents in general.
That being said: how do you encourage an inventor to be productive? If he's not financially motivated, he will be productive regardless. If he is financially motivated, the patent system is built to allow and encourage that -- so he will invent more things in the future. Simple positive reinforcement. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if you've anything to back it up.
Hm -- from the faq:
Help me prove that I thought of my idea first.
This site is a place for people to talk about each other's goofy ideas; it's not a legal service.
While I had been thinking of a way to discuss/improve upon ideas posted, I primarily want this to a) serve as direct or indirect prior-art proof and b) [maybe] require posters to specifically forfeit the right to a patent to the idea; the understanding being that posting these ideas prevents anybody from patenting them now and forever, and that anyone is free to implement the idea.
And finally, I think publicpriorart.org will be limited to software patents. Generally speaking, patents serve good purpose; I don't want every idea under the sun posted to the site simply because there are people in the world who believe everything should be free.
Most software patents are way too broad, and thus stifle creativity instead of encourage it like patents are meant to do
While I agree with most of what you've said, I think you're misinterpreting how patents are meant to encourage innovation. The primary intent is to make sure that the inventor has exclusive rights to his invention, for a period of time. This encourages inventors to invent. With it, the small research shop would invent a better mouse trap, and Big Corp has to license that idea from them in order to produce it -- thus rewarding the innovator. Without it, the small research shop invents the better mouse trap, and Big Corp sees it for sale in limited number, and mass-produces a copy for less money. Small Research Shop not only has not been rewarded, they are quite likely now out of business.
(Don't mind me, just spouting ideas here so I don't forget them... though I encourage comments/thoughts/idea/etc.) Could such a site also be used to document prior art for existing patents (like one-click payments...), giving a good source of information to patent lawyers and the like?
This thread has inspired me to register the domain "publicpriorart.org" -- the intention is to build a database of ideas, thoughts, algorithms,etc in a public place, strictly for the purpose of preventing patents from being filed for them in the future. Anyone interested in helping? Or can point me to an existing effort, so I don't waste my time?
(And I literally just got the domain when I read this thread, so there's nothing there at the moment)
Erase that "?" after "stupid". I just read the actual judgement. It turns out that this... genius... wiped her hard drive once when receiving the request from the plaintiff requesting inspection. The beautiful part comes when she does it a month later, after the court granted the plaintiff's motion to force her to allow inspection. What that says to me is that she was stupid enough to continue downloading after being served with the suit!
Damn. I had a whole thing written up, then I closed the wrong window. Quick answer: I believe that on a consumer device like that router, WPA implies WPA-PSK. If you have the option of entering a password on the router -- after you've selected WPA -- then it's WPA-PSK. (PSK is "preshared key"; the password is that key, stored on the router and on anything connecting to it.)
Just make sure not to use a dictionary word, and the longer your phrase is the better (over 8 characters max of 64. using > 8 makes sure it will get converted to a hash IIRC). You'll also want to change it regularly (maybe 1 time a month or so).
Slashdot Mirror
That'd work in a pinch.
The mantra on Slashdot is "patent stifle creativity, all creativity and innovation are going elsewhere" but then when someone asks "where?" no such evidence is forthcoming. True; and I'm personally not a subscriber to that general school of thought, as you can see in some of my other posts on this thread and elsewhere. More to your point, I wasn't able to find any such evidence in a five minute google search, though I was able to find much speculation posing as fact. And as most countries that are on the same technological level as the US (or ahead of it) have patent systems with similar shortcomings (or advantages, depending on your perspective), it's unlikely that I will be able to find proof that less cumbersome systems are better.
However, equally as important -- lack of evidence doesn't prove causality. At best, it demonstrates that there /may/ be an positive correlative relationship between structured patent systems and innovation.
If at all an option, I would definitely say do NOT stick with WEP -- a quick search shows many, many howtos and tools available for breaing that encryption quickly and easily. Mac address filter is definitely good to have regardless, but it won't stop people from 'eavesdropping' on your data if they break encryption.
First, God has nothing to do with it. Why bring him into it? I know many people who love meat (myself included) who don't use God as an excuse, if they even believe in a god. Personally, I think it's natural for a much simpler reason. There are very few animals which humans cannot safely eat; whereas there are literally thousands of varieties of vegetable and fungus which are poisonous, even fatal. Our evolution did not -- for whatever reason -- include an innate understanding of what plants can be eaten safely. This is not to say that we cannot survive on vegetables; only that we're not (made|evolved) to do so as a result of our environment.
Your subsequent slavery argument was also an emotional argument, indirectly equating meat-eaters to slaveowners. While you had a valid point as far as it went, you presented it in such a way that would provoke anemotional response, and not a logical one.
In another post you started to raise a very valid point about how animals are treated before being turned into meat; then raised another subject guaranteed to generate an emotional response -- cannibalism. To answer that point, by the way, there is NO reason not to engage in cannibalism, save that we have been socially conditioned against it throughout much of recorded history. Without that conditioning, it's quite possible that we would be cannibals as it is neither more nor less natural than eating cow.
I respect your decision to live as a vegetarian; while thinking over-long about some of the points you've raised will disturb mea little, it's not very much or for very long. Does that make me uncivilized? Perhaps, so -- because I believe that civilization is an illusion. It's a set of rules and behaviors that we collectively determine is acceptable, as a way to mask the fact that underneath it all, we're not very far away becoming the brutal savages from which we presumably descended. If you were hungry enough, and a living cow was the only possible food source, you'd m ost likely walk out alive. I am not belittling your convictions, but am only trying to point out that "civilization" is a luxury; and I personally feel that it's a only pretense. For a real good look at how thin the veneer of civilization is, watch a crowd of people at a fire, or look at the faces of the rubberneckers at an accident. (For the record, I steadfastly refuse to even look at an accident on the road, assuming help has arrived and the situation is under control -- not because I don't have the urge to do so, but because for all my talk, I, too, sometimes like to delude myself into thinking that being civilized has some meaning.)
That being said -- do I go around torturing kittens because I've come to terms with my inner savage? No, of course not. I take no pleasure in giving or observing pain; I have a clear sense of "right" and "wrong"; there are things I will not do, even though the cost to myself be death. There are other things I'm equally sure I /would/ do, if pushed hard enough and survival was at stake.
Now I've wandered so far offtopic that I 've forgotten what I was trying to say... ah, right! It's not that I disagree with your points; some of them are quite valid, and as a 'civilized' human being I have no answer for them. (Though I also I don't feel a need to have an answer for them.) I do, however, object to your means of presenting these arguments: begin with a rational statement, make an wei
I can't arbitrarily name any starving children in Uganda, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
While I thnk your point has merit, making it in this way will obscure that.
Yes. And this defeats the purpose of the patent entirely; even requiring a working implementation before a patent is granted won't prevent a Big Company from doing exactly that. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any easy way around this -- though another comment in this thread is a promising idea: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194994 &cid=15981038
Intriguing idea. It preserves what I presume to be the intent of the current system (encouraging innovation while protecting the innovator), without precluding others from carrying innovations further. In this situation, overly-broad patents wouldn't be nearly as bad a thing as they are now.
No argument here. Based on your response andn a couple others, I think I wasn't clear in my intent. Overly-broad patents can stifle innovation, which is contrary to the spirit of the patent system. I was more referring to the means by which innovation is actively encouraged as a good thing -- ie the limited-time monopoly. When it's overly-broad AND a limited-time monopoly, it's a bad combination.
And if mousetraps were software, Small Research Shop would build a better mousetrap, but then get their asses sued off because Big Corp has patented mousetraps, leaving no one able to make better ones because mousetraps as a whole are patented. That's what patenting something as broad as "speech recognition software" is.
Thus ignoring the only point I was trying to make, or perhaps it was just poor explanation on my part. All I'm saying is I think your interpretation of how patents encourage innovation is mistaken... THis isn't to say that broad patents can't restrict innovation, because they clearly can.
It wasn't accurate? Do you have specifics, or just the blanket statement?
And yes, there are dozens of scripting languages out there. But AFAIK, there is only one that MS supports out of box. Of course you can run perl.exe on Windows; but that rather defeats the purpose of my admittedly unremarkable attempt at humor, now doesn't it?
Me too. In an indirect fashion, that was my point ;)
But you haven't answered the basic question -- if not through that temporary monopoly, how does a patent encourage innovation? Without that incentive, it just becomes an optional beaurocracy.
he point I'm driving at is it's all very well saying "Everyone is responsible for their own behaviour and must face the consequences if it's illegal", but history has shown that prison isn't a terribly good way to stop people from reoffending - and to my mind it therefore seems that it's not a particularly effective consequence as far as deterrents go.
Alright, but I just want to note we've moved on to a different topic than I posted about -- you're right in that I beileve everyone should face the consequences for their behavior (legal/illegal notwithstanding); but that wasn't the specific topic at hand.
Now that I've said that, I agree with you to an extent. The problem is our system is rigged to prevent reform from occurring within jail. Once you're in jail, you've eliminated 99% of your future job opportunities -- even if all you did was make a stupid mistake. I believe that jail can be an effective remedy, if and only if any associated conviction is expunged from all public record upon release. The crime has been paid for -- a person should not continue paying for it until death. So if you make that correction, and ensure that any convict has full access to resources that wil let them become contributing members of society upon release, rehabilitation is a lot more likely.
For 3x+ repeat offenders, under the revised system above, you're right -- jail won't help. drown them; exile them; use them for medical experiment; I don't care but get them OFF of the taxpayer dollar. No, I'm not joking. Some people cannot or will not be rehabilitated, no matter the opportunity they're given.
This is over-simplified in that it doesnt' take into account the extremes: repeat offenders for marijuanna use, or at the other end of the scale the behaviors that may be virtually impossible to rehabilitate: pedophiles and rapists.
Please note that I'm not speaking of software patents right now -- I'm discussing patents in general.
That being said: how do you encourage an inventor to be productive? If he's not financially motivated, he will be productive regardless. If he is financially motivated, the patent system is built to allow and encourage that -- so he will invent more things in the future. Simple positive reinforcement. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if you've anything to back it up.
Hm -- from the faq: Help me prove that I thought of my idea first. This site is a place for people to talk about each other's goofy ideas; it's not a legal service.
While I had been thinking of a way to discuss/improve upon ideas posted, I primarily want this to a) serve as direct or indirect prior-art proof and b) [maybe] require posters to specifically forfeit the right to a patent to the idea; the understanding being that posting these ideas prevents anybody from patenting them now and forever, and that anyone is free to implement the idea.
And finally, I think publicpriorart.org will be limited to software patents. Generally speaking, patents serve good purpose; I don't want every idea under the sun posted to the site simply because there are people in the world who believe everything should be free.
Cool; thanks
Or a big dog. Or a big gun. Or both.
Most software patents are way too broad, and thus stifle creativity instead of encourage it like patents are meant to do
While I agree with most of what you've said, I think you're misinterpreting how patents are meant to encourage innovation. The primary intent is to make sure that the inventor has exclusive rights to his invention, for a period of time. This encourages inventors to invent. With it, the small research shop would invent a better mouse trap, and Big Corp has to license that idea from them in order to produce it -- thus rewarding the innovator. Without it, the small research shop invents the better mouse trap, and Big Corp sees it for sale in limited number, and mass-produces a copy for less money. Small Research Shop not only has not been rewarded, they are quite likely now out of business.
Wow. You, sir, sure do have your rhetoric down pat. PETA pamphlets?
(Don't mind me, just spouting ideas here so I don't forget them... though I encourage comments/thoughts/idea/etc.) Could such a site also be used to document prior art for existing patents (like one-click payments...), giving a good source of information to patent lawyers and the like?
You were close - with the advent of dot net, you could replace your let statement with Bandwidth -= 1
Ahh, the marvels of modern technology.
(And I literally just got the domain when I read this thread, so there's nothing there at the moment)
Erase that "?" after "stupid". I just read the actual judgement. It turns out that this... genius... wiped her hard drive once when receiving the request from the plaintiff requesting inspection. The beautiful part comes when she does it a month later, after the court granted the plaintiff's motion to force her to allow inspection. What that says to me is that she was stupid enough to continue downloading after being served with the suit!
If you have to wonder, you're a lot more optimistic than I am.
Damn. I had a whole thing written up, then I closed the wrong window. Quick answer: I believe that on a consumer device like that router, WPA implies WPA-PSK. If you have the option of entering a password on the router -- after you've selected WPA -- then it's WPA-PSK. (PSK is "preshared key"; the password is that key, stored on the router and on anything connecting to it.)
Just make sure not to use a dictionary word, and the longer your phrase is the better (over 8 characters max of 64. using > 8 makes sure it will get converted to a hash IIRC). You'll also want to change it regularly (maybe 1 time a month or so).