I think it's a case of two mistakes being used together by unscrupulous people in such a way that it appears to be one big mistake. You're right that it is certainly a major problem that large companies can wield so much legal power that no individual has a chance of winning against them, but the patent system clearly has its own problems. Algorithms shouldn't be patentable, and as the article points out, patents actually can't mention the word "algorithm". Algorithm patents just try to make the patent sound like it is covering something mechanical in nature, and all of a sudden, due to different wording, the patent is valid.
I get the impression that the "founding fathers of the USA" were pretty good blokes with the best of intentions. Certainly very different from the politicians in power in the US today.
I think their patent system was a mistake, though. Patents are a mistake simply because large companies have so much legal power compared to individuals that it is almost impossible for an individual to win a case against a large company. This was probably a difficult thing to imagine when patents were invented, since really big companies wouldn't have existed back then, and the legal system was probably also quite different. There was probably no such thing as "expensive lawyers".
Why? I'm a Debian user, and I appreciate how well EVERYTHING works. I'd hate for them to sacrifice the quality of most of the software I use just so they can release twice as often.
I don't really trust distributions that guarantee a release every 6 months, because I get the impression they must be rushing things. I'd prefer something quality, even if it's usually "behind the pack".
I'm a happy Debian user, too. I just thought I should point out that a leader who wants quicker release cycles doesn't necessarily imply quicker release cycles.
What makes you think that? I mean, sure, he stated that he wants to get releases out quicker, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be able to. I imagine that has more to do with the independent, unpaid Debian developers rather than the project leader. It's rather likely that the previous Debian project leader also wanted a shorter release cycle.
This is one of the problems with free software. If developers are less accountable, fixed release dates are more difficult to achieve. On the other hand, almost all proprietary software seems to be facing the same problem, and sometimes to a greater degree...
No. Ordinary people still won't care, no matter which way you explain it to them. The only example they will understand is when they get burnt by it, and even then most of them probably won't realise why things are so difficult, or that they could be easier.
If Apple were more daring, they could sell as many iTunes songs as they could between now and the release of Vista, and then not release an iTunes client for Vista. Since there is a good chance the current version of iTunes won't work on the final version of Vista, people would be forced to either give up their library of songs from iTunes, or upgrade from WinXP to OSX rather than Vista.
Of course, Apple won't do this because it is better for them (for the time being) to have people locked into iPods rather than risking people actually giving up their library of iTunes music by making it not supported in Vista.
The Sydney Morning Herald struggles with computer-related articles. The range of topics they cover is interesting. Sometimes they even have articles about Linux kernel news. Their accuracy usually isn't very good, though. I've reported a couple of errors to them in the past month or so. In one article, they got Electronic Frontiers Australia mixed up with Electronic Frontier Foundation, but still used the acronym for the other organisation.
I'm curious about whether these inaccuracies are limited to science/computers. It's entirely possible that the media sources we trust to be accurate are actually riddled with errors.
Anyone who goes to Microsoft for Linux advice deserves the misinformation/FUD that they're going to get. It's kinda like going to kernel.org for Windows help.
This is how Bill Gates *REALLY* works. Microsoft is having a tough time beating Sony, so they buy up the game companies and surprise, surprise, everything is "only on xbox".
I currently spend $0 a month on music. I don't want DRM files from iTunes (I couldn't get them if I wanted to - I run Debian), and most of the CDs I want might have copy protection on them, so I don't buy them. I actually don't download much music off P2P networks, either, because I've already got plenty on my computer.
In addition to all of that, I calmly educate any non-technical friends about why they shouldn't buy CDs or buy from iTunes.
If Google launched a music store that had music I liked without DRM, I'd certainly start buying plenty from them, and I would encourage all of my friends to, as well.
I think the solution to racism is to legalise and regulate it.
There should be a department that operates a bit like match.com and matches together two people who want to kill each other. Then you put them in a room together and let one of the idiots kill the other idiot. This way it is off the streets and racists can eliminate each other in a way that does not affect reasonable people.
Considering this new bill, surely even if you're not a Greens supporter, you can at least agree that having a few more Greens politicians in parliament wouldn't be a bad idea, right?
I don't really see what you mean by "loony", though. Everything they do seems to be in the interests of the people. Yes, maybe their policies wouldn't be "the best thing for the economy", but have you ever considered that always doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?
Forget the economy. There are more important things in life than money.
You've got good reasons to be biased and you disagree. Not too surprising. It's fine that you have an opinion, but surely you can't expect anyone to take you too seriously unless you back up your argument with some verifiable facts. A study has been done, you probably haven't read it, and yet you're waving it away as FUD.
An increase from 1 person getting cancer to 2.4 people getting cancer is pretty serious. If the risk is linear, maybe 20% of your customers are doubling their chance of getting cancer with their usage, and maybe 50% of your customers are getting an extra 60% chance of cancer. That's still serious and something that people will want to know about.
Be careful what you tell your customers, because one day the mobile phone companies might be getting sued a bit like the cigarette companies were.
It's Microsoft. What do you think it will be? I'm betting it's free as in "here's some buggy software... oh, and subscribe to our virus scanner for only $50/year!"
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista currently has a rather poor backward-compatibility. (about 40%) It will definitely improve before the final release, but it probably won't get past 70% - 80%.
The purpose of DRM isn't to stop people copying. That is just the stated purpose. There are other motives involved.
I think it's a case of two mistakes being used together by unscrupulous people in such a way that it appears to be one big mistake. You're right that it is certainly a major problem that large companies can wield so much legal power that no individual has a chance of winning against them, but the patent system clearly has its own problems. Algorithms shouldn't be patentable, and as the article points out, patents actually can't mention the word "algorithm". Algorithm patents just try to make the patent sound like it is covering something mechanical in nature, and all of a sudden, due to different wording, the patent is valid.
There's more than one problem.
I get the impression that the "founding fathers of the USA" were pretty good blokes with the best of intentions. Certainly very different from the politicians in power in the US today.
I think their patent system was a mistake, though. Patents are a mistake simply because large companies have so much legal power compared to individuals that it is almost impossible for an individual to win a case against a large company. This was probably a difficult thing to imagine when patents were invented, since really big companies wouldn't have existed back then, and the legal system was probably also quite different. There was probably no such thing as "expensive lawyers".
Why? I'm a Debian user, and I appreciate how well EVERYTHING works. I'd hate for them to sacrifice the quality of most of the software I use just so they can release twice as often.
I don't really trust distributions that guarantee a release every 6 months, because I get the impression they must be rushing things. I'd prefer something quality, even if it's usually "behind the pack".
I'm a happy Debian user, too. I just thought I should point out that a leader who wants quicker release cycles doesn't necessarily imply quicker release cycles.
What makes you think that? I mean, sure, he stated that he wants to get releases out quicker, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be able to. I imagine that has more to do with the independent, unpaid Debian developers rather than the project leader. It's rather likely that the previous Debian project leader also wanted a shorter release cycle.
This is one of the problems with free software. If developers are less accountable, fixed release dates are more difficult to achieve. On the other hand, almost all proprietary software seems to be facing the same problem, and sometimes to a greater degree...
It's here and the faq says it is now planned for a mid-2006 release.
DOC, iTunes, SWF, MOV, etc, etc.
No. Ordinary people still won't care, no matter which way you explain it to them. The only example they will understand is when they get burnt by it, and even then most of them probably won't realise why things are so difficult, or that they could be easier.
If Apple were more daring, they could sell as many iTunes songs as they could between now and the release of Vista, and then not release an iTunes client for Vista. Since there is a good chance the current version of iTunes won't work on the final version of Vista, people would be forced to either give up their library of songs from iTunes, or upgrade from WinXP to OSX rather than Vista.
Of course, Apple won't do this because it is better for them (for the time being) to have people locked into iPods rather than risking people actually giving up their library of iTunes music by making it not supported in Vista.
The Sydney Morning Herald struggles with computer-related articles. The range of topics they cover is interesting. Sometimes they even have articles about Linux kernel news. Their accuracy usually isn't very good, though. I've reported a couple of errors to them in the past month or so. In one article, they got Electronic Frontiers Australia mixed up with Electronic Frontier Foundation, but still used the acronym for the other organisation.
I'm curious about whether these inaccuracies are limited to science/computers. It's entirely possible that the media sources we trust to be accurate are actually riddled with errors.
Wow. I think you've discovered a way to go from -1 troll to +5 insightful.
Hang on, let me see if I can go from -1 redundant to +5 funny...
(now watch as I get modded redundant...)
Anyone who goes to Microsoft for Linux advice deserves the misinformation/FUD that they're going to get. It's kinda like going to kernel.org for Windows help.
Don't worry because Sony will compete in the same way?! That's a bad thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This is how Bill Gates *REALLY* works. Microsoft is having a tough time beating Sony, so they buy up the game companies and surprise, surprise, everything is "only on xbox".
... and he also left out the fact that he eats babies for breakfast.
Sounds like Netflix is going to sue the shit out of your local library, to me. Prior art or not...
I currently spend $0 a month on music. I don't want DRM files from iTunes (I couldn't get them if I wanted to - I run Debian), and most of the CDs I want might have copy protection on them, so I don't buy them. I actually don't download much music off P2P networks, either, because I've already got plenty on my computer.
In addition to all of that, I calmly educate any non-technical friends about why they shouldn't buy CDs or buy from iTunes.
If Google launched a music store that had music I liked without DRM, I'd certainly start buying plenty from them, and I would encourage all of my friends to, as well.
How do we know that they're making group decisions rather than hypnotizing each other?
(you may recall a slashdot article about wasps stinging cockroaches to hypnotize them...)
I think the solution to racism is to legalise and regulate it.
There should be a department that operates a bit like match.com and matches together two people who want to kill each other. Then you put them in a room together and let one of the idiots kill the other idiot. This way it is off the streets and racists can eliminate each other in a way that does not affect reasonable people.
Considering this new bill, surely even if you're not a Greens supporter, you can at least agree that having a few more Greens politicians in parliament wouldn't be a bad idea, right?
I don't really see what you mean by "loony", though. Everything they do seems to be in the interests of the people. Yes, maybe their policies wouldn't be "the best thing for the economy", but have you ever considered that always doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?
Forget the economy. There are more important things in life than money.
You've got good reasons to be biased and you disagree. Not too surprising. It's fine that you have an opinion, but surely you can't expect anyone to take you too seriously unless you back up your argument with some verifiable facts. A study has been done, you probably haven't read it, and yet you're waving it away as FUD.
An increase from 1 person getting cancer to 2.4 people getting cancer is pretty serious. If the risk is linear, maybe 20% of your customers are doubling their chance of getting cancer with their usage, and maybe 50% of your customers are getting an extra 60% chance of cancer. That's still serious and something that people will want to know about.
Be careful what you tell your customers, because one day the mobile phone companies might be getting sued a bit like the cigarette companies were.
It's Microsoft. What do you think it will be? I'm betting it's free as in "here's some buggy software... oh, and subscribe to our virus scanner for only $50/year!"