Who ever said troll == lawyer? I interpret the term 'patent troll' as an entity that possesses a patent for the purpose of licensing and not production. In that sense, a troll isn't by necessity of lawyer, though it is (of course) a sufficient cause.;p
What if some aids infected inmate had decided to make one of my buddies his new girlfriend for the night? That would have been a lot worse than having your rights trampled per having a judge issue a subpeona to get your GWB bobblehead dool surfing habits revealed. Or is there someone out there who would rather have had the aids?
What an argument! If we allow secret subpoenas to occur in this country, we can prevent the spread of AIDs.
Okay, no, that's silly to even ponder. Apple will eventually switch over from HD-based supercapacity players to flash-based. Both harddrive and flash players are increasing in size. There is a large market for reasonably-priced, extremely small music players and HD-based players don't fit that bill. Any increase in size will only make the market more willing to purchase from Apple and if that means some cannabilization of the HD lineup, so be it. Apple can shift their production priorities to match market trends, they won't just sit there like a dummy and wonder where their HD iPod sales went.
Lenovo still uses IBM for support, so nothing has changed on that front, hence it is pointless to argue that a 'Chinese' company--that is, in fact, multinational (as is IBM)--cannot handle support.
Lenovo still uses IBM for design, "" "". The keyboards are the same.
If you all have anything more to say, stop dodging your true insecurities and slot it under xenophobia.
He doesn't need to get angry, he's probably got a clause in his will specifically pertaining to usage of competitor's products and revocation of inheritance. Just let the lawyers handle it all.
Their rhetoric implies that at some point in the future, these things will be regulated in the name of 'political speech.' Do you all realize how broad that phrase really is? It has no basis in reality, rather it is a variable waiting to be 'interpreted.' Bans on advertisements against political candidates (in x case at y time) is the logical precursor to bans on talking about political candidates (in x case at y time). How long do you suppose this will last? Until the next crisis? The next war? The next controversy? These regulations are not brick walls meant to prevent future incursions into our liberties, they are stepping stones.
The most likely reason (in my opinion) is pain versus gain. It is a lot easier to license a technology to a computer manufacturer and let them handle production, marketing, etc. than it is to produce your own universal form factor and manage the aforementioned necessary burdens. Chances are that if you license to a large number of computer manufacturers (and other areas), you will make a lot more money than if you sell to the (like it or not) niche market of those individuals willing to use a non-brandname, outboard power supply.
I am writing in reference to the article you penned on The Register entitled: "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'." Though, admittedly, much of the article amounts to banal slander acutely reminiscent of that for which you decry, you do make some arguments which I feel the need to refute.
I hope I get this right:
* The users of Wikipedia are not responsible for the content they write. Wikipedia has a responsibility to present fair and accurate information.
* Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia because a good deal of the information is inaccurate. Instead, Wikipedia is a piece of 'spontaneous graffiti.' Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it presents a slippery slope to unchecked libel and copyright infringement. If 'publication' by an 'encyclopedia' means anything, it means that you have to get those facts right.
* 'Publication' entails responsibility.
* Wikipedia cannot be trusted to present accurate information. It lacks 'social responsibility.'
I will try to address these in the order I presented them; however, in true Wikipedian fashion I may skip around a bit.
You claim that Wikipedia as an organization is in some way responsible for the information contained therein. How? Is eBay responsible for the legitimacy of the items they allow users to purchase? Is Google, then, responsible for the content of everything they index? The Wikimedia Foundation has created a framework for organizing information in the same manner, why are they held to a different standard than Google? Is it not acceptable to leave some things uncensored? As a responsible individual, I feel perfectly capable of making that decision because, as in all interpersonal transactions, caveat emptor (which Wikipedia tells me is Latin for 'let the buyer beware') applies. Wikipedia is a private organization, they have no public responsibility and they claim no public authority. The users who support the website edit freely and censor freely. In the end what wins out is consensus between private individuals. No one has a right to judge that objectively true or false.
Wikipedia is a source of libel and copyright infringement. More so than in the real world? Wikipedia has stated their policy on copyright infringement (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright), they have explained to users how to spot copyright infringement, and they also actively fight it to the limited degree with which they, as individuals, are able. Libel is another story. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving medium, it is not ever strictly 'published' hence there is no last word or definitive statement made in any of the articles. This is understood by Wikipedia users and is considered a necessary evil in order to attain the dynamism of content that Wikipedia is capable of.
What is this dynamism that I speak of you might wonder. Since the articles contained herein are freely editable, what we experience is a mini-internet. The true internet is just as dynamic: one can find breaking details on just about anything desired from the latest hurricane information to circa 1940 John Deere tractors to--you guessed it--libel and copyright infringed materials. Shall we call for the elimination or stricture of the internet? "Welcome to The Internet, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." What makes Wikipedia special is that it takes this experience and contains it within one search box and a standardized format all without limiting freedom of expression as most other websites do to some degree (be that due to policy or selectivity). It appears that Wikipedia's advantages present an ideal target for those against freedom of expression since the internet as a whole is a much more elusive target.
Back to the subject. Wikipedia is not an 'encyclopedia,' it is and has always been a 'free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around th
Slashdot Mirror
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
Who ever said troll == lawyer? I interpret the term 'patent troll' as an entity that possesses a patent for the purpose of licensing and not production. In that sense, a troll isn't by necessity of lawyer, though it is (of course) a sufficient cause. ;p
What an argument! If we allow secret subpoenas to occur in this country, we can prevent the spread of AIDs.
Okay, no, that's silly to even ponder. Apple will eventually switch over from HD-based supercapacity players to flash-based. Both harddrive and flash players are increasing in size. There is a large market for reasonably-priced, extremely small music players and HD-based players don't fit that bill. Any increase in size will only make the market more willing to purchase from Apple and if that means some cannabilization of the HD lineup, so be it. Apple can shift their production priorities to match market trends, they won't just sit there like a dummy and wonder where their HD iPod sales went.
Lenovo still uses IBM for support, so nothing has changed on that front, hence it is pointless to argue that a 'Chinese' company--that is, in fact, multinational (as is IBM)--cannot handle support. Lenovo still uses IBM for design, "" "". The keyboards are the same. If you all have anything more to say, stop dodging your true insecurities and slot it under xenophobia.
He doesn't need to get angry, he's probably got a clause in his will specifically pertaining to usage of competitor's products and revocation of inheritance. Just let the lawyers handle it all.
Their rhetoric implies that at some point in the future, these things will be regulated in the name of 'political speech.' Do you all realize how broad that phrase really is? It has no basis in reality, rather it is a variable waiting to be 'interpreted.' Bans on advertisements against political candidates (in x case at y time) is the logical precursor to bans on talking about political candidates (in x case at y time). How long do you suppose this will last? Until the next crisis? The next war? The next controversy? These regulations are not brick walls meant to prevent future incursions into our liberties, they are stepping stones.
The most likely reason (in my opinion) is pain versus gain. It is a lot easier to license a technology to a computer manufacturer and let them handle production, marketing, etc. than it is to produce your own universal form factor and manage the aforementioned necessary burdens. Chances are that if you license to a large number of computer manufacturers (and other areas), you will make a lot more money than if you sell to the (like it or not) niche market of those individuals willing to use a non-brandname, outboard power supply.
I am writing in reference to the article you penned on The Register entitled: "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'." Though, admittedly, much of the article amounts to banal slander acutely reminiscent of that for which you decry, you do make some arguments which I feel the need to refute.
I hope I get this right:
* The users of Wikipedia are not responsible for the content they write. Wikipedia has a responsibility to present fair and accurate information.
* Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia because a good deal of the information is inaccurate. Instead, Wikipedia is a piece of 'spontaneous graffiti.' Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it presents a slippery slope to unchecked libel and copyright infringement. If 'publication' by an 'encyclopedia' means anything, it means that you have to get those facts right.
* 'Publication' entails responsibility.
* Wikipedia cannot be trusted to present accurate information. It lacks 'social responsibility.'
I will try to address these in the order I presented them; however, in true Wikipedian fashion I may skip around a bit.
You claim that Wikipedia as an organization is in some way responsible for the information contained therein. How? Is eBay responsible for the legitimacy of the items they allow users to purchase? Is Google, then, responsible for the content of everything they index? The Wikimedia Foundation has created a framework for organizing information in the same manner, why are they held to a different standard than Google? Is it not acceptable to leave some things uncensored? As a responsible individual, I feel perfectly capable of making that decision because, as in all interpersonal transactions, caveat emptor (which Wikipedia tells me is Latin for 'let the buyer beware') applies. Wikipedia is a private organization, they have no public responsibility and they claim no public authority. The users who support the website edit freely and censor freely. In the end what wins out is consensus between private individuals. No one has a right to judge that objectively true or false.
Wikipedia is a source of libel and copyright infringement. More so than in the real world? Wikipedia has stated their policy on copyright infringement (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright), they have explained to users how to spot copyright infringement, and they also actively fight it to the limited degree with which they, as individuals, are able. Libel is another story. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving medium, it is not ever strictly 'published' hence there is no last word or definitive statement made in any of the articles. This is understood by Wikipedia users and is considered a necessary evil in order to attain the dynamism of content that Wikipedia is capable of.
What is this dynamism that I speak of you might wonder. Since the articles contained herein are freely editable, what we experience is a mini-internet. The true internet is just as dynamic: one can find breaking details on just about anything desired from the latest hurricane information to circa 1940 John Deere tractors to--you guessed it--libel and copyright infringed materials. Shall we call for the elimination or stricture of the internet? "Welcome to The Internet, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." What makes Wikipedia special is that it takes this experience and contains it within one search box and a standardized format all without limiting freedom of expression as most other websites do to some degree (be that due to policy or selectivity). It appears that Wikipedia's advantages present an ideal target for those against freedom of expression since the internet as a whole is a much more elusive target.
Back to the subject. Wikipedia is not an 'encyclopedia,' it is and has always been a 'free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around th