Huh, guess you're just trolling then. But for the record, no, I don't need karma, I just like to poke fun at warmongers and the ocassional troll like yourself.
I did, did you? the obvious fact is that neither Bin Laden nor Al-Qaeda itself are definite 'end points' for the War on Terror and, as such, if your main reason to keep the US army "out there" is because the mission hasn't been "accomplished" yet and the world still isn't "safe", you'll keep them there for as long as you live so unless you like the sound of an endless war, you'll have to step up and bring them back while there's still *something* out there potentially dangerous for you and this point is as good as any.
I'm betting there's plenty of Afghans and Iraqis that can tell similar tales just with the US as the victimizer instead. But then again, when you hear about somebody being the "enemy" long enough, you stop seeing them as your fellow humans.
I'll celebrate this just as much as I'll do the death of Bush both Sr. and Jr.: not at all. This changes nothing, it's merely the latest chapter of this overly long conflict between two groups of revenge-filled murderers that just happen to follow a different religion.
And in the process doomed a large number of future patients when the pharmaceutical companies couldn't pay for the cost of producing future medications.
Prove it. And while you're at it, prove the number is larger than those Brazil's actions saved.
It always amazes me the kind of support Big Pharma gets here on Slashdot compared to the MPAA and RIAA, considering they're far more evil about both their goals and methods.
Parent post, in short: The "on a computer" suffix is still enough to make anything patentable.
You know, though? I'm tempted to grab the very same patent described in TFA, implement it on Conway's Game of Life then post the result online for the world to see just to see whether some scumbag lawyer tries to take it down for infringement.
Sure, software is math. I'll accept the point as stated.
Likewise, books are language. Can books be copyrighted? No one owns language.
Wrong. Words, when put together, form sentences which form paragraphs which form stories, which in turn can be copyrighted. But stories are not paragraphs, paragraphs are not sentences, and sentences are not words so the fact that words cannot be copyrighted by itself is not relevant to stories.
Mathematical formulae however, when put together they're still formulae, merely a longer (and probably more descriptive) one, and mathematical formulae cannot be copyrighted or patented.
There's a big difference between saying "you could probably do that with a computer" and actually doing it with a computer, which is what a software patent would cover.
Except this isn't saying "you could probably do that with a computer", this is saying "you can do that with a computer like this". Allowing software patents but denying math is much like allowing copyright over hexadecimal numbers but disallowing it for decimals: there exist a way to transform one into the other that's formally proven to work for any and all elements of either set, so anything that works for members of one set *must* work for the other and to declare otherwise is to automatically fall into a contradiction. If you'd study Math or CS it'd be much clearer as to how and why, if you must know, but that's kind of outside the context of this post.
But even if you are paying for a product/service (cable TV, movies, portable devices with 'exclusive' stores, etc) you may still be the product rather than the customer, it just may be harder to realize at first.
And then they try to say they don't add this because 90% of users wouldn't use it. So? Bury it deep down in a menu somewhere that only people that really care will find it. The fact is it would be simple, but Google just doesn't want the user to have this power over her device.
No, Google merely knows that people bitch much less when they can't do something on their device than when they can, but in a manner that's not entirely straightforward at first. Weirdly enough.
Compare and contrast OSX with Linux for a clear example.
No, they're just assuming they'll stick to their original "pay us for encoding, watching, hosting and/or supporting h.264 content" plan that was going to be in place until WebM posed a credible threat to their money-making scheme.
Some people think that's not evil, mostly out of a "I'm too small to sue for patent infringement" mindset, but those of us that like to stay within the bounds of the law believe differently.
Typical technophile mindset. The whole point of standards is that there *won't* be a next round, there's been dozens of superior technologies compared to JPEG, but nobody outside of a few nerds cared because JPEG is "good enough".
Both WebM and H.264 are "good enough" for video, they're both better than DivX which was becoming the de-facto standard until Flash came up. Problem is, regardless of your speech about devices irrelevant to the discussion, neither is pervasive enough that you'd avoid having a rehash of the days before Flash if you try to keep the standard codec-neutral. Or, more accurately, you'll just continue being stuck with Flash since it works, and works pretty much everywhere that matters for the web.
I love that link. It argues back and forth that it's impossible Apple copied the LG Prada and that it's entirely obvious that the Samsung F700 copied the iPhone, using the barely a month/entire month that passed between them as "proof".
As an argument it falls on its face right away, but as an entertainment piece it's actually pretty funny.
Except that companies have been making devices that look like iPhones from before the iPhone was even announced, yet Apple hasn't sued any of them. Obviousness is funny like that.
The question is, then, why Samsung? and why now? it just so happens that "because they dare sell Android phones while doing business with them" answers the first nicely, leading to "because Android phones are outselling the iPhone" for the second.
How is this different from what any store does? If I go to Sears I may not be able to buy the same stuff I can get at Target. Walmart may choose not to stock albums by certain groups or NC-17 videos.
It's different in the way that you can go to Target to begin with.
And yes, the PS360Wii situation is similar, but people overall don't give a crap because most of the world sees consoles as overpriced toys rather than productivity tools. Which was how companies marketed smartphones, and PDAs before that, until the iPhone came around.
I've seen more people refuse to consider that an Apple product might be bought for idiotic reasons than the other way around. You say your MBP was the best bang for your buck you could find, ten people jump at you with not-so-comparable Dells and Toshibas while a Thinkpad user sulks in the corner.
You say your mother bought himself an iPhone as a fashion accessory, however, and a hundred people jump out of the woodworks to "correct" you on how the iPhone is really the best phone out in the market, and how she probably used those "trash" Nokias and Androids that nobody but dirty Apple haters would touch and she decided on the iPhone because she wanted something better than that and the incredible looks were just a bonus. In spite, of course, of having never even met your mother to begin with.
1. Remove the parts needed for a good desktop. 2. Make it the default desktop 3. FAIL!
You forgot to mention that the "desktop" in step 1 refers to a "desktop computer" while the "desktop" in step 2 refers to the OS' default UI and so it's not as illogical as you make it sound to be: they're simply prioritizing giving netbooks and mobile users a good user experience over users of fully-equipped desktop PCs that already have plenty of distros catering to them.
But it's Ubuntu - the fanbois (mostly people who never tried another linux distro) will be along momentarily to "re-educate" anyone who points out the truth. The usual crap-flood warning is now in effect.
It's kind of sad how many people confuse "[their] opinion" with "the truth". You are of course entitled to it, but just because someone holds a different one doesn't mean he's a "fanboi" out to "re-educate" you.
Erm, no, for deontology there's no such thing as an inmoral action, only an inmoral intent. Therefore, if they believe they're doing their part to make the world a better place and we consider that idea itself desireable, they're good people even if they're in effect treating everyone else as a criminal. You probably meant consequentialism or utilitarianism, where people are judged based on their actions and actions are judged based on its consequences.
The one they threw when they saw that the proposed specification required support for Ogg Theora for the video tag.
Not just inefficient, broken. TFA states that he could hardly get a balloon-pop game, right out of a Flash beginners guide, to work right. I'll grant you that if they get it to work right and they can make it efficient enough to sip battery power instead of guzzling it, it would be a boon. If that were the case, however, would Apple keep it out ? The conspiracy theory says yes, I don't buy it though.
They would, as they've done with every other interpreter that's tried to get inside the Apple prison regardless of quality.
I don't buy that argument either but lets not go into the whole h.264 thing except to say that that race has been run and h.264 came out on top much like mp3 did. The difference with Flash is that where Flash is wholly closed at least in the combo with HTML5 you've got the choice of easily swapping out h.264 with WebM if you support it on the client.
Yeah, let's not talk about h.264 except I'm right and you're not. The problem with HTML5/h.264 is that both content producers *and* content consumers need to ensure they're properly licensed for it, which can cost quite a bit of money. With Flash, you can be sure at least that Adobe has that covered so while producers are still screwed, end users can have some marginal peace of mind with it.
Not really. You may notice no one's actually advocating the creation of more Flash content, and that's because we have HTML5 here, which even after Apple crippled it with its tantrums to the W3C it remains a much superior choice for interactive web content.
The thing with Flash however is just that, well, support for even outdated and inefficient formats like Flash is one of the advantages of an open ecosystem such as Android's over Steve Jobs' walled prison, and is an example popular and simple enough that it won't go over the layman's head (as would, for instance, the ability to develop in any language you choose).
Well, that and the fact that what Apple's proposing in its stead (HTML5/h.264) is in many ways worse from a freedom standpoint than Flash itself so really, freedom advocates are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place in this Adobe vs Apple fight.
Well, true, but your comment is hardly the first instance of somebody incapable of long-term thinking, so if anything the turn towards pathetic happened quite some time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, guess you're just trolling then. But for the record, no, I don't need karma, I just like to poke fun at warmongers and the ocassional troll like yourself.
Such an ignorant, biased and hate-filled comment, you do your country proud.
Try living outside the US for a while, or just hit the history books sometime. They won't bite you.
I did, did you? the obvious fact is that neither Bin Laden nor Al-Qaeda itself are definite 'end points' for the War on Terror and, as such, if your main reason to keep the US army "out there" is because the mission hasn't been "accomplished" yet and the world still isn't "safe", you'll keep them there for as long as you live so unless you like the sound of an endless war, you'll have to step up and bring them back while there's still *something* out there potentially dangerous for you and this point is as good as any.
I'm betting there's plenty of Afghans and Iraqis that can tell similar tales just with the US as the victimizer instead. But then again, when you hear about somebody being the "enemy" long enough, you stop seeing them as your fellow humans.
I'll celebrate this just as much as I'll do the death of Bush both Sr. and Jr.: not at all. This changes nothing, it's merely the latest chapter of this overly long conflict between two groups of revenge-filled murderers that just happen to follow a different religion.
Do you think that just by destroying Al-Qaeda terrorism will just magically vanish?
Then again, that's the beauty of it.
And in the process doomed a large number of future patients when the pharmaceutical companies couldn't pay for the cost of producing future medications.
Prove it. And while you're at it, prove the number is larger than those Brazil's actions saved.
It always amazes me the kind of support Big Pharma gets here on Slashdot compared to the MPAA and RIAA, considering they're far more evil about both their goals and methods.
Parent post, in short: The "on a computer" suffix is still enough to make anything patentable.
You know, though? I'm tempted to grab the very same patent described in TFA, implement it on Conway's Game of Life then post the result online for the world to see just to see whether some scumbag lawyer tries to take it down for infringement.
Yeah, your Lambda Calculus classes at your friendly neighbor University.
Sure, software is math. I'll accept the point as stated.
Likewise, books are language. Can books be copyrighted? No one owns language.
Wrong. Words, when put together, form sentences which form paragraphs which form stories, which in turn can be copyrighted. But stories are not paragraphs, paragraphs are not sentences, and sentences are not words so the fact that words cannot be copyrighted by itself is not relevant to stories.
Mathematical formulae however, when put together they're still formulae, merely a longer (and probably more descriptive) one, and mathematical formulae cannot be copyrighted or patented.
There's a big difference between saying "you could probably do that with a computer" and actually doing it with a computer, which is what a software patent would cover.
Except this isn't saying "you could probably do that with a computer", this is saying "you can do that with a computer like this". Allowing software patents but denying math is much like allowing copyright over hexadecimal numbers but disallowing it for decimals: there exist a way to transform one into the other that's formally proven to work for any and all elements of either set, so anything that works for members of one set *must* work for the other and to declare otherwise is to automatically fall into a contradiction. If you'd study Math or CS it'd be much clearer as to how and why, if you must know, but that's kind of outside the context of this post.
But even if you are paying for a product/service (cable TV, movies, portable devices with 'exclusive' stores, etc) you may still be the product rather than the customer, it just may be harder to realize at first.
And then they try to say they don't add this because 90% of users wouldn't use it. So? Bury it deep down in a menu somewhere that only people that really care will find it. The fact is it would be simple, but Google just doesn't want the user to have this power over her device.
No, Google merely knows that people bitch much less when they can't do something on their device than when they can, but in a manner that's not entirely straightforward at first. Weirdly enough.
Compare and contrast OSX with Linux for a clear example.
No, they're just assuming they'll stick to their original "pay us for encoding, watching, hosting and/or supporting h.264 content" plan that was going to be in place until WebM posed a credible threat to their money-making scheme.
Some people think that's not evil, mostly out of a "I'm too small to sue for patent infringement" mindset, but those of us that like to stay within the bounds of the law believe differently.
Typical technophile mindset. The whole point of standards is that there *won't* be a next round, there's been dozens of superior technologies compared to JPEG, but nobody outside of a few nerds cared because JPEG is "good enough".
Both WebM and H.264 are "good enough" for video, they're both better than DivX which was becoming the de-facto standard until Flash came up. Problem is, regardless of your speech about devices irrelevant to the discussion, neither is pervasive enough that you'd avoid having a rehash of the days before Flash if you try to keep the standard codec-neutral. Or, more accurately, you'll just continue being stuck with Flash since it works, and works pretty much everywhere that matters for the web.
I love that link. It argues back and forth that it's impossible Apple copied the LG Prada and that it's entirely obvious that the Samsung F700 copied the iPhone, using the barely a month/entire month that passed between them as "proof".
As an argument it falls on its face right away, but as an entertainment piece it's actually pretty funny.
Except that companies have been making devices that look like iPhones from before the iPhone was even announced, yet Apple hasn't sued any of them. Obviousness is funny like that.
The question is, then, why Samsung? and why now? it just so happens that "because they dare sell Android phones while doing business with them" answers the first nicely, leading to "because Android phones are outselling the iPhone" for the second.
It lacks the features I can easily get from a standalone app, and adds the features I cannot get without opening my browser in the first place.
I'm not one that appreciates this whole "integration" BS, but I admit at least their take has a bit more logic than Chrome's.
I can't tell whether you're providing an honest opinion or a parody of the hardcore Apple apologists on this forum, and that fact scares me.
Just so you know.
How is this different from what any store does? If I go to Sears I may not be able to buy the same stuff I can get at Target. Walmart may choose not to stock albums by certain groups or NC-17 videos.
It's different in the way that you can go to Target to begin with.
And yes, the PS360Wii situation is similar, but people overall don't give a crap because most of the world sees consoles as overpriced toys rather than productivity tools. Which was how companies marketed smartphones, and PDAs before that, until the iPhone came around.
I've seen more people refuse to consider that an Apple product might be bought for idiotic reasons than the other way around. You say your MBP was the best bang for your buck you could find, ten people jump at you with not-so-comparable Dells and Toshibas while a Thinkpad user sulks in the corner.
You say your mother bought himself an iPhone as a fashion accessory, however, and a hundred people jump out of the woodworks to "correct" you on how the iPhone is really the best phone out in the market, and how she probably used those "trash" Nokias and Androids that nobody but dirty Apple haters would touch and she decided on the iPhone because she wanted something better than that and the incredible looks were just a bonus. In spite, of course, of having never even met your mother to begin with.
In other words, you want either Yet Another Superhero Origin movie or no movie at all.
You do know it's people like you we have the problems noted in TFA, right?
1. Remove the parts needed for a good desktop.
2. Make it the default desktop
3. FAIL!
You forgot to mention that the "desktop" in step 1 refers to a "desktop computer" while the "desktop" in step 2 refers to the OS' default UI and so it's not as illogical as you make it sound to be: they're simply prioritizing giving netbooks and mobile users a good user experience over users of fully-equipped desktop PCs that already have plenty of distros catering to them.
But it's Ubuntu - the fanbois (mostly people who never tried another linux distro) will be along momentarily to "re-educate" anyone who points out the truth. The usual crap-flood warning is now in effect.
It's kind of sad how many people confuse "[their] opinion" with "the truth". You are of course entitled to it, but just because someone holds a different one doesn't mean he's a "fanboi" out to "re-educate" you.
Erm, no, for deontology there's no such thing as an inmoral action, only an inmoral intent. Therefore, if they believe they're doing their part to make the world a better place and we consider that idea itself desireable, they're good people even if they're in effect treating everyone else as a criminal. You probably meant consequentialism or utilitarianism, where people are judged based on their actions and actions are judged based on its consequences.
What tantrums are you referring to ?
The one they threw when they saw that the proposed specification required support for Ogg Theora for the video tag.
Not just inefficient, broken. TFA states that he could hardly get a balloon-pop game, right out of a Flash beginners guide, to work right. I'll grant you that if they get it to work right and they can make it efficient enough to sip battery power instead of guzzling it, it would be a boon. If that were the case, however, would Apple keep it out ? The conspiracy theory says yes, I don't buy it though.
They would, as they've done with every other interpreter that's tried to get inside the Apple prison regardless of quality.
I don't buy that argument either but lets not go into the whole h.264 thing except to say that that race has been run and h.264 came out on top much like mp3 did. The difference with Flash is that where Flash is wholly closed at least in the combo with HTML5 you've got the choice of easily swapping out h.264 with WebM if you support it on the client.
Yeah, let's not talk about h.264 except I'm right and you're not. The problem with HTML5/h.264 is that both content producers *and* content consumers need to ensure they're properly licensed for it, which can cost quite a bit of money. With Flash, you can be sure at least that Adobe has that covered so while producers are still screwed, end users can have some marginal peace of mind with it.
Not really. You may notice no one's actually advocating the creation of more Flash content, and that's because we have HTML5 here, which even after Apple crippled it with its tantrums to the W3C it remains a much superior choice for interactive web content.
The thing with Flash however is just that, well, support for even outdated and inefficient formats like Flash is one of the advantages of an open ecosystem such as Android's over Steve Jobs' walled prison, and is an example popular and simple enough that it won't go over the layman's head (as would, for instance, the ability to develop in any language you choose).
Well, that and the fact that what Apple's proposing in its stead (HTML5/h.264) is in many ways worse from a freedom standpoint than Flash itself so really, freedom advocates are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place in this Adobe vs Apple fight.
Well, true, but your comment is hardly the first instance of somebody incapable of long-term thinking, so if anything the turn towards pathetic happened quite some time ago.