First off, I'm not necessarily pro-patents here, I'm just trying to explore the ground a bit better. I do think that the patents are granted too easily and that they should be restricted tighter. What restrictions should be placed and how to enforce them... thats another issue. Also, Baer has lots and lots of patents, over 50 US and several hundred worldwide... I'm not exactly a Baer expert, it was just an example.
Perhaps there should be some middle-line between patents and copyrights so that whatever your idea is (lets say you come up with a software method that sorts your code through the processor in a better organized fashion, letting you run more complicated processes faster on the same machine [lets ignore technical facets of this example]) it can be used by everyone for the good of all, but still provide ample recognition and credit for the person who made it possible. I think they do deserve compensation, though there doesn't seem to be any alternative to financial compensation. However, I do think the power that patents gives is a bit too strong, too long lasting and too over ruling. Maybe there can be a Patent Lite. My intuition tells me that just destroying the patent isn't the best solution.
The iPod has become trendy, even fashionable. The company and the individual product have a large following. Were you surprised that the X-Box was successful? Granted, the surprise is caused by short term success. I guess the term I would give is impressive. I live near a college campus and I've heard a good bit of buzz from the students about the video iPod. I think Apple will fair much better with portable video than Sony did with its PSP. (Come on, 40 dollars for some of the UMD movies?!?)
Its a strong company with a strong following. When a decent device is offered in an area that hasn't yet had a good device to take the spotlight, I think this kind of response, though large, is reasonable.
I think everyone is being awfully hard on these guys. Trying to come up with something interesting and worthwhile to say on a repeated basis is a hard thing to do. Sure, there are no major repurcussions if they slacked off and didn't update as often, but they made a personal commitment. They decided to do it, and they did it. I think that is pretty impressive when compared to the majority of projects that I see. I think that calling them whiners is a bit harsh, definitely derogatory, and by saying that you don't have to post, you're just pushing them to give up on their commitment. Instead, it appears that they put in some work and thought, and they pulled it through, without giving up. Unfortunately, for their work, they've become whiners.
I agree that as a press release, talking in terms that a layman would understand is necessary in order to perform its function: to communicate. However, I can't see a good reason not to use Celsius other than we've always been using Fahrenheit. The same goes for meters over feet. I think the best course of action here is to state the temperature in Celsius, and provide a paranthetical for the corresponding Fahrenheit temperature. That shows support for Celsius while still maintaining the ease of getting the information while allowing people to make connections between Celsius and Fahrenheit to facilitate the transfer.
Not that press releases are, or should be, a medium for change or for teaching, but hey...
Oh, I'll be the first (would have been the first...) to admit that there is a problem here in regards to who decides what is what. The problem is that this is a problem all across the world. The fact that responsibility falls on people and people in the business world are prone to succumb to stupidity, bias, irrationality, unintelligence (I know I already said it, but its a big one) and inconsistency.
I think the first major address to this issue, that I'm aware of, was by John Milton in the Areopagitica where he talks about censorship, and notes that a real problem with censorship is that it is someone who does the censoring, and that is unavoidable. Well, its unavoidable that someone would have to decide boundaries between copyrights and patents, whats a novel patent, what deserves this or that. Thats a world problem. What we can do is set guidelines and policies and alongside some precedents, it will be better than what we started with, albeit not perfect.
There isn't a shortage of ideas. I can probably come up with ten ideas in the next sixty seconds. For some reason, the first idea I tried to create involved combining a hot dog, ice cream, and cabbage. Seriously. The real problem is with *good* ideas. I'm thinking of someone, for example, and this may not be a perfect example but still gets the point, like Ralph Baer. I'll admit, I don't know the specifics of Baer's patents, but I believe it has to do with how to manage input/output and the interaction there. That use of software was novel. He essentially invented video games. From our viewpoint now, it seems rudimentary, but this all started in the late 60's. A copyright would protect Pong to a certain degree (protect as in to give credit for, ensure possession over, etc) but the patent covers the very basis for what it is. The idea and method that made that particular piece of software possible.
I can't say that I agree with the idea to remove software patents. Where I can see that copyright will protect your program, what if its a novel idea in software design that you want to patent? It seems to me that copyrights protect individual works, but patents protect novel ideas and inventions. Perhaps what needs to be done is not to eliminate software patents, but re-define the borders of what is granted a patent and what isn't, and make it more difficult to obtain erroneous patents.
I'm going out on a limb and assuming that somehow, telemarketing is an important part of the economy. A lot of places get advertising that way and make connections. Anyways, in what ways is banning you from using the telephone like banning you from expressing what you want to say? Isn't this a little bit like cutting some freedom of speech? The only other angle I can see is that repeated calls could be considered harassment. In some ways, I concur with being able to be added to the list, but not with a set time lock. The issue is unclear to me as of yet.
-Da3vid-
The question is where do you cut the line with telemarketers? Do we define telemarketer as a person calling your phone in order to persuade you to buy something? Do political parties count? What about non-profit organizations that are trying to gain your support? What if the call is intended to be informative? What if its a company that you somehow were within 2 miles radius of and wants to know your opinion?
I realize that we have made a lot of these decisions in the US legally, I don't know how they stand in other countries. I'm not particularly asking what the law *is* but what it should be.
On an unrelated note, should the telephone infrastructure be treated similar to internet infrastructure? Should it be a sort of public forum, with free speech rights? Is making your phone ring considered an intrusion on privacy? Or is it that repeated ringing amounts to something like harassment?
I'm not claiming to have answers yet, I'm just highlighting questions.
-Da3vid-
I have nothing against the iPod. My point is that Apple made a point in 1984 against the very thing that they're doing. I make no claim to what is right or wrong.
What I think is interesting is the famous 1984 commercial that went against the current computer monopoly, now that Apple is a famous wide known brand, where are their old ideals?
What about the iPod? I'm a college student that lives near a college campus, and the only music I see anyone listen to is on their iPod, their home computer, or in their car. The fact that the iPod alone has made such an impact, and that Apple's big brother competitor is Microsoft, the company scrutinized for near monopoly status, is amusing when you consider it together.
Some philosophers have claimed that we will always be able to distinguish human simulation from true humans because of speech. It's been claimed that an android could not formulate sentences like we do. A humanoid robot will always be a simulation of a human, never simulacra.
I believe the problem is with imagination. There is something about communicating via language that isn't purely mathematical. It requires some finesse to create sentences. Furthermore, what if take a look at what might be considered the most complicated output of language: poetry. Would a robot be able to make poetry? Could it even comprehend poetry? I'm not sure. I guess it boils down to creativity. Taken literally, humans have the ability to create, or to bring things into existence in the form of ideas. Can a robot form new ideas? I'm sure one could reach a conclusion such as A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, but I think there is a fine distinction there. I think the idea of creativity leads into machine consciousness, and if we even go so far as to say it exists, or could exists, to what end would it be like human consciousness? What abilities come with that sort of consciousness? The ability to create, to imagine, to dream, to feel, to love? I think thats where the question leads to logically, and I think its a question that can only be answered empirically.
I think this is a good point. It highlights what we might call an arrogance of our species. Why are we so much higher than everything else? Not that I'm promoting the never-kill-a-single-lifeform nonsense, but I'm curious as to why people place human lives over every other life form.
There are a lot of cases that we could intervene to save a fetus, or as suggested above, save genetic material to reimbue it into a human form to continue to pass along its genetic code. Are those two situations dramatically different? I'm not so sure. There are a lot of times where the only way the child will survive is with our help and support, we have to nurture it into a free child. If that is the case, how human is it? Are we not merely saving a child, but creating one? Sure, most of the creation had been done, but in taking a third trimester baby and keeping it alive with medical equipment, are we not taking the last step of creation?
Actually, gene therapy can be targeted to germ cells (not to confuse terminology, germ cells refer to gametes, gametocytes, zygotes, etc...) the problem is targeting the location of gene therapy within the germ cell. We can add stuff into those cells, just we're not very good at where it goes. We can blindly fire the pieces of DNA we want at the chromosome and hope it lands where we want it to sometime. There are methods to target them better, but its more efficient doing the trial and error version, which isn't very efficient at all to begin with.
Even though the Randi foundation may not be the vehicle for proof, I think it does do a good job for showing us that the people who claim to have paranormal powers (not including people who merely believe that paranormal powers do or could possibly exist) don't have the capacity (or desire) to show the powers they claim to have.
I think if people have the ability to make use of paranormal powers, if they exist, that we do not have the ability at this time. I grant the possibility (even if I personally consider many paranormal powers extremely unlikely) that in the future it may be so. If we did have the ability to use such powers now (as a lot of people claim to), why not do it in a controlled environment?
But isn't it partly the point that people claim to have powers that they can use, but they can never show anyone. I won't deny that the possibility of the power may exist, but what of all these people claiming to have these powers? If people claim they can levitate, why don't they do it under controlled conditions? If people can read minds, why don't they do it under controlled conditions? Et cetera. I think the point of the above about radio waves (although not well executed) has merit. We had no conception of radio waves 200 years ago. Once we did, we were able to find them and show them. The point is that people have claimed to have found paranormal powers. Now, we want to see them.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I'm not necessarily pro-patents here, I'm just trying to explore the ground a bit better. I do think that the patents are granted too easily and that they should be restricted tighter. What restrictions should be placed and how to enforce them... thats another issue. Also, Baer has lots and lots of patents, over 50 US and several hundred worldwide... I'm not exactly a Baer expert, it was just an example.
Perhaps there should be some middle-line between patents and copyrights so that whatever your idea is (lets say you come up with a software method that sorts your code through the processor in a better organized fashion, letting you run more complicated processes faster on the same machine [lets ignore technical facets of this example]) it can be used by everyone for the good of all, but still provide ample recognition and credit for the person who made it possible. I think they do deserve compensation, though there doesn't seem to be any alternative to financial compensation. However, I do think the power that patents gives is a bit too strong, too long lasting and too over ruling. Maybe there can be a Patent Lite. My intuition tells me that just destroying the patent isn't the best solution.
-Da3vid-
The iPod has become trendy, even fashionable. The company and the individual product have a large following. Were you surprised that the X-Box was successful? Granted, the surprise is caused by short term success. I guess the term I would give is impressive. I live near a college campus and I've heard a good bit of buzz from the students about the video iPod. I think Apple will fair much better with portable video than Sony did with its PSP. (Come on, 40 dollars for some of the UMD movies?!?)
Its a strong company with a strong following. When a decent device is offered in an area that hasn't yet had a good device to take the spotlight, I think this kind of response, though large, is reasonable.
-Da3vid-
I think everyone is being awfully hard on these guys. Trying to come up with something interesting and worthwhile to say on a repeated basis is a hard thing to do. Sure, there are no major repurcussions if they slacked off and didn't update as often, but they made a personal commitment. They decided to do it, and they did it. I think that is pretty impressive when compared to the majority of projects that I see. I think that calling them whiners is a bit harsh, definitely derogatory, and by saying that you don't have to post, you're just pushing them to give up on their commitment. Instead, it appears that they put in some work and thought, and they pulled it through, without giving up. Unfortunately, for their work, they've become whiners.
In my opinion, the whiners did a fine job.
-Da3vid-
I agree that as a press release, talking in terms that a layman would understand is necessary in order to perform its function: to communicate. However, I can't see a good reason not to use Celsius other than we've always been using Fahrenheit. The same goes for meters over feet. I think the best course of action here is to state the temperature in Celsius, and provide a paranthetical for the corresponding Fahrenheit temperature. That shows support for Celsius while still maintaining the ease of getting the information while allowing people to make connections between Celsius and Fahrenheit to facilitate the transfer.
Not that press releases are, or should be, a medium for change or for teaching, but hey...
-Da3vid-
Oh, I'll be the first (would have been the first...) to admit that there is a problem here in regards to who decides what is what. The problem is that this is a problem all across the world. The fact that responsibility falls on people and people in the business world are prone to succumb to stupidity, bias, irrationality, unintelligence (I know I already said it, but its a big one) and inconsistency.
I think the first major address to this issue, that I'm aware of, was by John Milton in the Areopagitica where he talks about censorship, and notes that a real problem with censorship is that it is someone who does the censoring, and that is unavoidable. Well, its unavoidable that someone would have to decide boundaries between copyrights and patents, whats a novel patent, what deserves this or that. Thats a world problem. What we can do is set guidelines and policies and alongside some precedents, it will be better than what we started with, albeit not perfect.
-Da3vid-
There isn't a shortage of ideas. I can probably come up with ten ideas in the next sixty seconds. For some reason, the first idea I tried to create involved combining a hot dog, ice cream, and cabbage. Seriously. The real problem is with *good* ideas. I'm thinking of someone, for example, and this may not be a perfect example but still gets the point, like Ralph Baer. I'll admit, I don't know the specifics of Baer's patents, but I believe it has to do with how to manage input/output and the interaction there. That use of software was novel. He essentially invented video games. From our viewpoint now, it seems rudimentary, but this all started in the late 60's. A copyright would protect Pong to a certain degree (protect as in to give credit for, ensure possession over, etc) but the patent covers the very basis for what it is. The idea and method that made that particular piece of software possible.
-Da3vid-
I can't say that I agree with the idea to remove software patents. Where I can see that copyright will protect your program, what if its a novel idea in software design that you want to patent? It seems to me that copyrights protect individual works, but patents protect novel ideas and inventions. Perhaps what needs to be done is not to eliminate software patents, but re-define the borders of what is granted a patent and what isn't, and make it more difficult to obtain erroneous patents.
-Da3vid-
I'm going out on a limb and assuming that somehow, telemarketing is an important part of the economy. A lot of places get advertising that way and make connections. Anyways, in what ways is banning you from using the telephone like banning you from expressing what you want to say? Isn't this a little bit like cutting some freedom of speech? The only other angle I can see is that repeated calls could be considered harassment. In some ways, I concur with being able to be added to the list, but not with a set time lock. The issue is unclear to me as of yet.
-Da3vid-
The question is where do you cut the line with telemarketers? Do we define telemarketer as a person calling your phone in order to persuade you to buy something? Do political parties count? What about non-profit organizations that are trying to gain your support? What if the call is intended to be informative? What if its a company that you somehow were within 2 miles radius of and wants to know your opinion? I realize that we have made a lot of these decisions in the US legally, I don't know how they stand in other countries. I'm not particularly asking what the law *is* but what it should be. On an unrelated note, should the telephone infrastructure be treated similar to internet infrastructure? Should it be a sort of public forum, with free speech rights? Is making your phone ring considered an intrusion on privacy? Or is it that repeated ringing amounts to something like harassment? I'm not claiming to have answers yet, I'm just highlighting questions. -Da3vid-
I have nothing against the iPod. My point is that Apple made a point in 1984 against the very thing that they're doing. I make no claim to what is right or wrong.
What I think is interesting is the famous 1984 commercial that went against the current computer monopoly, now that Apple is a famous wide known brand, where are their old ideals? What about the iPod? I'm a college student that lives near a college campus, and the only music I see anyone listen to is on their iPod, their home computer, or in their car. The fact that the iPod alone has made such an impact, and that Apple's big brother competitor is Microsoft, the company scrutinized for near monopoly status, is amusing when you consider it together.
Some philosophers have claimed that we will always be able to distinguish human simulation from true humans because of speech. It's been claimed that an android could not formulate sentences like we do. A humanoid robot will always be a simulation of a human, never simulacra. I believe the problem is with imagination. There is something about communicating via language that isn't purely mathematical. It requires some finesse to create sentences. Furthermore, what if take a look at what might be considered the most complicated output of language: poetry. Would a robot be able to make poetry? Could it even comprehend poetry? I'm not sure. I guess it boils down to creativity. Taken literally, humans have the ability to create, or to bring things into existence in the form of ideas. Can a robot form new ideas? I'm sure one could reach a conclusion such as A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, but I think there is a fine distinction there. I think the idea of creativity leads into machine consciousness, and if we even go so far as to say it exists, or could exists, to what end would it be like human consciousness? What abilities come with that sort of consciousness? The ability to create, to imagine, to dream, to feel, to love? I think thats where the question leads to logically, and I think its a question that can only be answered empirically.
I think this is a good point. It highlights what we might call an arrogance of our species. Why are we so much higher than everything else? Not that I'm promoting the never-kill-a-single-lifeform nonsense, but I'm curious as to why people place human lives over every other life form. There are a lot of cases that we could intervene to save a fetus, or as suggested above, save genetic material to reimbue it into a human form to continue to pass along its genetic code. Are those two situations dramatically different? I'm not so sure. There are a lot of times where the only way the child will survive is with our help and support, we have to nurture it into a free child. If that is the case, how human is it? Are we not merely saving a child, but creating one? Sure, most of the creation had been done, but in taking a third trimester baby and keeping it alive with medical equipment, are we not taking the last step of creation?
Actually, gene therapy can be targeted to germ cells (not to confuse terminology, germ cells refer to gametes, gametocytes, zygotes, etc...) the problem is targeting the location of gene therapy within the germ cell. We can add stuff into those cells, just we're not very good at where it goes. We can blindly fire the pieces of DNA we want at the chromosome and hope it lands where we want it to sometime. There are methods to target them better, but its more efficient doing the trial and error version, which isn't very efficient at all to begin with.
Even though the Randi foundation may not be the vehicle for proof, I think it does do a good job for showing us that the people who claim to have paranormal powers (not including people who merely believe that paranormal powers do or could possibly exist) don't have the capacity (or desire) to show the powers they claim to have. I think if people have the ability to make use of paranormal powers, if they exist, that we do not have the ability at this time. I grant the possibility (even if I personally consider many paranormal powers extremely unlikely) that in the future it may be so. If we did have the ability to use such powers now (as a lot of people claim to), why not do it in a controlled environment?
But isn't it partly the point that people claim to have powers that they can use, but they can never show anyone. I won't deny that the possibility of the power may exist, but what of all these people claiming to have these powers? If people claim they can levitate, why don't they do it under controlled conditions? If people can read minds, why don't they do it under controlled conditions? Et cetera. I think the point of the above about radio waves (although not well executed) has merit. We had no conception of radio waves 200 years ago. Once we did, we were able to find them and show them. The point is that people have claimed to have found paranormal powers. Now, we want to see them.