What you fail to realize is that you will not lose your rights due to complacency, but rather you will forfeit them enthusiastically to protect yourself and your loved ones.
So the gradual encroachment of governmental power over the rights of citizens is slowed yet again.
But doesn't the mere fact that the government has the power to limit itself signal that such limitations are arbitrary and subject only to the whims and needs of those in power? While "protecting the children" may not be as crucial as personal privacy to some European people, isn't it just a matter of time until the priorities become reversed and the erosion of rights will again begin in earnest?
How can a government be the arbiter of rights unless it has the power to take them away?
It's probably easy to go ahead and call you a sexist because of your comment, but I think that it does a great disservice to women to do so. There is nothing wrong with being attractive. Palin's attractiveness does not in any way diminish her abilities to govern nor does it negate her intelligence.
Her public comments, on the other hand, may not be helping her so much.
WTF? Did you actually think that was worth posting?
I appreciate the diversity of thought and opinion here at Slashdot, and I encourage people of all stripes to post here. But that post was just retarded.
The article quotes on of the leads as saying that they have no legacy restrictions, so they are probably going to go with something very fast and very state of the art.
Ah, but you can create a program to "manufacture" another program. Dreamweaver and Frontpage are examples of programs that "manufacture" programs based on designer input. Certainly you should be able to patent the means of manufacture!
And are programs really so intangible? They have a physical representation in magnetic bits on a physical hard disk, and they have a physical representation in electrical signals when loaded in memory. These physical representations are just too small for you to see, and their usage characteristics are far more important than their physical representation. But this is just arguing about trivialities (though slashbots are eager to head down this dead end).
Let's say you are an architect. Your individual schematics are protected by copyright, but not patentable because, as you have noted, the work is a creative work and has copyright to protect it. Then one day you have a flash of brilliance and design a support column that can bear 10 times the weight of current designs with only half the necessary material. That is a patentable idea, of course. Then you go and use your patented idea in your designs, and your customers are ecstatic and your competition is ground to dust (those who choose not to license your patent).
How is this any different from the software solution that provides a new way to do something that is faster, lighter, or more convenient than the currently known methods? Is it just because the "stuff" is ephemeral bits and not a solid marble column?
if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious
And assuming that the entirety of patents would contain all "steps" that have been made that can be patented, a step that has not yet been patented would be non-obvious, right?
If you are a programmer, you probably come up with a myriad of ideas that are already patented by someone else. This is because your circle of knowledge encompasses programming and there are certain patterns and solutions that seem to emerge in the course of development.
Is it not also true for other circles of knowledge as well? There are only a few gun designs, but there are many types of guns. Same with refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts. If you are an expert in any of those circles of knowledge, then any new patented invention will seem obvious and trivial.
So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious? Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?
"Unlimited internet access" is not for the casual user. The casual user who wants to check email while on the go doesn't need 3Gb of data per day. They need a few kilobytes of packets on a sporadic basis. Per-packet plans can help these users just fine.
It is business users and heavy users who need unlimited access. And if these users need this kind of access at all, they need it all the time. Having a daily rate, even a weekly rate, makes very little sense since these users will be requiring the service all the time.
But then again, these are PAYG plans. These users will most likely already be signed up to a long-term contract plan.
So if there is any point that I'm missing, it's the point of having this kind of plan in the first place.
Assuming you check your webmail once a day on your phone, the daily rate will run you 60lbs a month.
The only package that really makes any sense is the 30 day plan:
30 Day For customers that will use mobile broadband regularly but do not want to commit to a year-long contract, Mobile Broadband 30 Day is the option. Mobile Broadband for thirty days offers unlimited broadband access for only £20.
Still, you're living in the UK, so it's not all wine and roses.
Slashdot Mirror
What YOU fail to realize is that not everyone in the U.S. has succumbed to the "bread and circuses" mentality
In a democracy, it doesn't take everyone to vote yea. It only takes enough.
What you fail to realize is that you will not lose your rights due to complacency, but rather you will forfeit them enthusiastically to protect yourself and your loved ones.
So the gradual encroachment of governmental power over the rights of citizens is slowed yet again.
But doesn't the mere fact that the government has the power to limit itself signal that such limitations are arbitrary and subject only to the whims and needs of those in power? While "protecting the children" may not be as crucial as personal privacy to some European people, isn't it just a matter of time until the priorities become reversed and the erosion of rights will again begin in earnest?
How can a government be the arbiter of rights unless it has the power to take them away?
I don't have any 1cm thick business cards
Loser. I have hundreds!
It's probably easy to go ahead and call you a sexist because of your comment, but I think that it does a great disservice to women to do so. There is nothing wrong with being attractive. Palin's attractiveness does not in any way diminish her abilities to govern nor does it negate her intelligence.
Her public comments, on the other hand, may not be helping her so much.
Gore could have maybe won his home state and made the whole recount moot.
Or maybe people just didn't like that insufferable douchebag.
If the election had gone the other way 8 years ago, we wouldn't be in Iraq fighting an unwinnable war.
building a taller building has no real benefit, that is there is no reason not to build a wide building
There is, if you like windows.
Uh...
WTF? Did you actually think that was worth posting?
I appreciate the diversity of thought and opinion here at Slashdot, and I encourage people of all stripes to post here. But that post was just retarded.
Why do you hate America?
The article quotes on of the leads as saying that they have no legacy restrictions, so they are probably going to go with something very fast and very state of the art.
IOW, ForthOS.
What would Muslims need a supercomputer to simulate?
Darth Vader?
What is the deal with all these base-7 solutions?
When I was a kid, I had a friend who only had 7 fingers, but his hands were deformed. Is that the case with you "14 year limit" guys too?
Ah, but you can create a program to "manufacture" another program. Dreamweaver and Frontpage are examples of programs that "manufacture" programs based on designer input. Certainly you should be able to patent the means of manufacture!
And are programs really so intangible? They have a physical representation in magnetic bits on a physical hard disk, and they have a physical representation in electrical signals when loaded in memory. These physical representations are just too small for you to see, and their usage characteristics are far more important than their physical representation. But this is just arguing about trivialities (though slashbots are eager to head down this dead end).
Let's say you are an architect. Your individual schematics are protected by copyright, but not patentable because, as you have noted, the work is a creative work and has copyright to protect it. Then one day you have a flash of brilliance and design a support column that can bear 10 times the weight of current designs with only half the necessary material. That is a patentable idea, of course. Then you go and use your patented idea in your designs, and your customers are ecstatic and your competition is ground to dust (those who choose not to license your patent).
How is this any different from the software solution that provides a new way to do something that is faster, lighter, or more convenient than the currently known methods? Is it just because the "stuff" is ephemeral bits and not a solid marble column?
That is a bit closeminded, I think.
if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious
And assuming that the entirety of patents would contain all "steps" that have been made that can be patented, a step that has not yet been patented would be non-obvious, right?
We should also have official Day of Linux Desktop.
It's okay. Next year we have a whole year planned for that.
If you are a programmer, you probably come up with a myriad of ideas that are already patented by someone else. This is because your circle of knowledge encompasses programming and there are certain patterns and solutions that seem to emerge in the course of development.
Is it not also true for other circles of knowledge as well? There are only a few gun designs, but there are many types of guns. Same with refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts. If you are an expert in any of those circles of knowledge, then any new patented invention will seem obvious and trivial.
So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious? Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?
I think you're missing the point.
"Unlimited internet access" is not for the casual user. The casual user who wants to check email while on the go doesn't need 3Gb of data per day. They need a few kilobytes of packets on a sporadic basis. Per-packet plans can help these users just fine.
It is business users and heavy users who need unlimited access. And if these users need this kind of access at all, they need it all the time. Having a daily rate, even a weekly rate, makes very little sense since these users will be requiring the service all the time.
But then again, these are PAYG plans. These users will most likely already be signed up to a long-term contract plan.
So if there is any point that I'm missing, it's the point of having this kind of plan in the first place.
Can you buy a 3G radio card for £20?
Assuming you check your webmail once a day on your phone, the daily rate will run you 60lbs a month.
The only package that really makes any sense is the 30 day plan:
30 Day
For customers that will use mobile broadband regularly but do not want to commit to a year-long contract, Mobile Broadband 30 Day is the option. Mobile Broadband for thirty days offers unlimited broadband access for only £20.
Still, you're living in the UK, so it's not all wine and roses.
From what I recall, most of them did report it.
Now I'm intrigued by your use of "most".
Does anyone else find "patron goddess" ironic? Patron comes from the Latin word "Pater" meaning "Father".
With some things I've accidentally downloaded off the Internet, I don't think there's any irony here at all.
Moreno's reputation took a hammering too, at least in the popular press.
I'd be interested to hear your definition of "popular press".
A long cylindrical object accompanied by two nearby orbs?
I'm surprised they chose an Hawaiian name over an African one.