I've heard rants from OSX86 users about how Apple has terrible hardware/driver support. As much trouble as I have taking them seriously, I think it points to something Apple might lose here.
I fully believe in Voltaire's classic quotation on freedom of speech and belief. But in this instance, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to defend the "Creation Museum's" right to make up whatever crazy "facts" they want.
Some nutter can rant all he wants about how he knows pi is rational. What he doesn't get to do is teach that in school.
"You can't patent on-off on-off code in the abstract, can you?"
-- Scalia
"I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?"
-- Breyer
The Supreme Court on the whole also seems leery of the idea that software is patentable, but they can't rule on it until they hear a case where patentability of software is disputed.
Unless it's a BSD/MIT-style license, where you only have to credit the developers for their work, but can do pretty much whatever you want with derivative works (even make them closed source).
We tried confusing ballots in Florida a few years ago. Even though people had trouble casting the vote they wanted, the votes they cast were still valid.
Guess we better try again.
Well, I'm not a networking expert (not by a long shot), so can you explain why doing QoS with your routers requires your peer's routers need to do anything but send packets?
Maybe he also uses it for things other than gaming? My laptop is my gaming machine. It's also my coding machine, my web browsing machine, and my general work machine. Sometimes I like to do these things at places other than my desk.
Otherwise, when a customer starts up BitTorrent, their TV is going to cut out when their broadband connection becomes saturated, because everything is degraded equally (net neutrality).
It's not about treating traffic the same regardless of type. It's about treating it the same regardless of source/destination. Giving low priority to BitTorrent and high priority to streaming video is fine. Giving low priority to Yahoo! and high priority to Google is not.
It would be absolutely absurd (and completely impractical to manage and implement) for an ISP to deliberately degrade random web sites' services, when the data pipes aren't congested.
And yet, they say they intend to do just that. They've always tried to screw us over for an extra buck, even if they haven't always been straightforward about saying so. Now, shouldn't we believe them when they come right out and say they want to?
So Google will be available to cable users only? I don't see how that helps Google or regular consumers. And then you have to assume that the other major ISPs won't just match AT&T's offer (there's a good chance they'll do just that).
That solution will just split up the internet as far as consumers are concerned. Here's the sites you can get through AT&T: {__,__,__,...}; here's the sites you can get through Comcast: (__,__,__,...}; here's the sites you can get through Verizon: {__,__,__,...}; etc.
Their ISP will assure them of connectivity, and suffer complaints if they don't provide it.
Unless Google's ISP runs cable from google to you, Google's ISP cannot guarantee that you and Google can connect.
In any case, Google should only be paying Google's ISP, and you should only be paying your ISP. AT&T shouldn't be collecting money from Google in exchange for giving its own customers reasonably quick access to Google. You say Google will complain to their ISP? What's Google's ISP going to do to AT&T? Cry and beg?
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction between success and being "anti-establishment." I didn't know being anti-establishment meant taking a vow of poverty. Considering how they've responded to the law and government, I'd say they're not in the government's or the recording industry's pockets.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps lecture; they always say that it takes risk to get ahead and that they're just reaping the benefit they earned from taking that risk. Sure, I don't think I've heard it directly from a recording industry executive, but the aversion to risk I see from people who say risk is how you get ahead makes me suspicious.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
By giving people access to that den of thieves called the internet?
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Enough asking for more laws. How much law does it take to stop them? We already have laws against it, and it's still widespread.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music.
I'll have to take your word for it on P2P, though the internet as a whole seems to be a great place to find it. In any case, music stores aren't "hotbeds for discovering new music" either.
For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away.
What did it take to make them start producing "manufactured celebrities"? As far as I can tell, they were the norm before file sharing became widespread, so it must be something other than file sharing that induces this manufacturing.
If Russia launched missiles at the U.S., they would not fly over Europe. If Iran launched missiles at the U.S., they would fly over Eastern Europe. Go check an azimuthal map and see for yourself.
TFA says the patent was granted in 2001 and covers the use of "any 'embedded program object' that runs inside a browser." I thought we had Java Applets and Javascript doing that well before then.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard rants from OSX86 users about how Apple has terrible hardware/driver support. As much trouble as I have taking them seriously, I think it points to something Apple might lose here.
Check your count.
Genesis 7:2-3
-- Scalia
"I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?"
-- Breyer
The Supreme Court on the whole also seems leery of the idea that software is patentable, but they can't rule on it until they hear a case where patentability of software is disputed.
(IANAL)
... but if prior art is there, greasing the right palms might still get a patent granted.
Well, legally speaking, terrorists (a.k.a. "enemy combatants") are whoever the White House says are terrorists.
Unless it's a BSD/MIT-style license, where you only have to credit the developers for their work, but can do pretty much whatever you want with derivative works (even make them closed source).
We tried confusing ballots in Florida a few years ago. Even though people had trouble casting the vote they wanted, the votes they cast were still valid.
Guess we better try again.
And if you assume a significant level of competition, your only problem is a serious disconnect from reality.
And what will the customers do? Move to Verizonland?
Well, I'm not a networking expert (not by a long shot), so can you explain why doing QoS with your routers requires your peer's routers need to do anything but send packets?
Maybe he also uses it for things other than gaming? My laptop is my gaming machine. It's also my coding machine, my web browsing machine, and my general work machine. Sometimes I like to do these things at places other than my desk.
What's really disturbing is that the only way I can tell the video is parody is Whitacre's lack of tact and the caricature proportions.
And yet, they say they intend to do just that. They've always tried to screw us over for an extra buck, even if they haven't always been straightforward about saying so. Now, shouldn't we believe them when they come right out and say they want to?
So Google will be available to cable users only? I don't see how that helps Google or regular consumers. And then you have to assume that the other major ISPs won't just match AT&T's offer (there's a good chance they'll do just that).
That solution will just split up the internet as far as consumers are concerned. Here's the sites you can get through AT&T: {__,__,__,...}; here's the sites you can get through Comcast: (__,__,__,...}; here's the sites you can get through Verizon: {__,__,__,...}; etc.
In any case, Google should only be paying Google's ISP, and you should only be paying your ISP. AT&T shouldn't be collecting money from Google in exchange for giving its own customers reasonably quick access to Google. You say Google will complain to their ISP? What's Google's ISP going to do to AT&T? Cry and beg?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps lecture; they always say that it takes risk to get ahead and that they're just reaping the benefit they earned from taking that risk. Sure, I don't think I've heard it directly from a recording industry executive, but the aversion to risk I see from people who say risk is how you get ahead makes me suspicious.
By giving people access to that den of thieves called the internet?
Enough asking for more laws. How much law does it take to stop them? We already have laws against it, and it's still widespread.
I'll have to take your word for it on P2P, though the internet as a whole seems to be a great place to find it. In any case, music stores aren't "hotbeds for discovering new music" either.
He'd be spinning both clockwise and counterclockwise until you observe him.
And you can't just go to the hardware store and make a copy of your own legitimate key.
I am worried about such low rates. People seem inclined to believe anything a sufficiently large computer says.
I don't know if Iran has them, and I don't know if the Pentagon things Iran has them, but if they do, that's a fine spot for interceptor missiles.
*shrug*
Last time I was at a game, it didn't say that, but I can imagine that being commonplace in the Major Leagues.
TFA says the patent was granted in 2001 and covers the use of "any 'embedded program object' that runs inside a browser." I thought we had Java Applets and Javascript doing that well before then.