I think the scientists forget the concept of context? Do things need to be exactly x number always to be right? I don't think it's really scientific to make broadbrush conclusions that if light varies to some degree, or gravity, or any other force, then everything must be wrong because clearly by seeing how our world isn't falling apart at the fundamental scales that's proof enough that Nature is robust compared to the mathematical models we humans construct to understand it. Remember, observation trumps mathematical modelling in every case. And because of that, principles that follow from the least number of premises with the least number of contigencies will tend to prevail as the best explanation for what is occuring, not Platonic Realm modeling and other Post-Modern/Exie tripe. Bleh! Where is Alan Sokal when you need him!
Bingo, you're getting what I'm saying but you still think it's a racist advert because it offends you. Remember, I stated it OFFENDS YOU, which means the concept that is OFFENDING resided in your noggin and not in the noggin of the advert's creators. Therefore, any claim that this is intrinsically a racist advert is W-R-O-N-G since you have not shown its connotation to be otherwise. What you've shown is your little cultural preconceptions trying to superimpose themselves on the culture of another. I would LOVE to see you impose your religious preconceptions on a religion from another time as well, it seems you're quite good at playing the 'my concepts are their concepts' game.:-P
No, because you're not fully recognizing that to someone from an Asian cultural background will not evoke the same feelings as you would being from the United States. For someone from Asia or the surrounding regions ethnicity follows language lines more closely than physical differentiation. Just take the different ethnicities in China proper, 65 are recognized with almost a hundred still in existence but unrecognized for various reasons. And trust me, if you had no background in linguistic differences in China, or cultural artifact differences, you would be boggled at the tiniest of issues someone from China would take contention with versus our naive assumptions about ethnicity. So, again, because of that clear cultural difference, any claim that the adverts are racist are bogus, period and end of story. Then again, are you positting that asians hate black people? *snirks in real life...*
because as much as I do like the pictures, since they seem like a mixture of sex and beauty to me, but the fact is most folks still live with a tribal mindset that screams, "Look, it's racism because my primative preconceptions say so!" Thusly, it will be read as racism rather than an attempt at art meets commercial in advertising. But this is not the only black/white ad I remember coming out of a japanese console maker. I believe there was once a TV ad that had two guys, one dress in a white gi and the other in a black gi fighting in midair, where one was defeated. Usually it was a random rotation between the white gi dude beating the black gi dude, and then vice versa. I don't remember hearing about anyone crying fowl on that commercial.
What has to be understood the colours black and white in the asian culture represent a dichotomy of forces rather than ethicities. So, when a person from the isle of Nihon looks at the picture, they're reminded of old Zennist mythos. Or a person from China proper will be reminded of the stories by Lao Tzu about the Tao and so forth. So, in reality, this is not an intended racist grab, but rather a vast gap, in my evil evil opinion, between cultures. It's sad really, because in our culture, we're still tribal as ever yet claim to be oh so intelligent. I suggest folks consider deprogramming themselves of such preconceptions by atleast getting a wider cultural background (or read Rand's essay on the origin of Racism, which is very intriguing.).:)
------- Furthermore, you have some very "creative" ideas about what socialism entails. You might want to spend some money on a dictionary. -------
Socialism is any method in which the State uses force to take control of production for any given purpose. Socialism didn't start with Marxist theory, as most are told in school, but rather a bit earlier with the Left [and Right] Hegelians.:) So, I don't need a dictionary when I know the theory by heart since I was formerly in favor of Socialism...
that happened to be homosexual, and the government found out? I read in some news report that the US govt kicked him out for his myspace page stating that he was indeed homosexual. Although, the don't ask don't tell policy may apply, it's down right dirty pool to snoop that way, but not unexpected for the government... As for employers, I wouldn't be surprised that my current employer knows I'm a closetted transgendered bisexual evil Objectivist from HECK(TM)! [btw, I am all those except from HECK(TM)!:)] But, if they ever came to confront me about it, I would tell them to go suck up some air since I don't bring it to the workplace, thus it is none of their business. Yet, I can see that with the further advancement of the integration of the Internet into the larger sphere of employment, I dare say, sooner or later [probably sooner] we'll see clauses in employment contracts that state you can and will be terminated for anything you say or do off the job, specifically on the Internet, beyond anything that leads to criminal charges. As such, that's probably why I'm considering opening my own business with the premise that your life off the job is your life, not mine. Too bad, the Corporate Socialists today don't think as such. *Yes, comrade, you must be available for work even after your shift is over. Otherwise, you will be terminated!*
If you think about it, this is more to do with how folks that are paid to give us those fancy virus definition libraries than the average user, but end benefit is that all users at all levels will be able to handle these malware threats more specifically than just using random deletion methods. For example, I was an idiot got a keylogger onto my system [which isn't hard to do since it's a Bloze box...], but I haven't noticed any of my accounts being accessed as of yet, which of course I did change the passwords after I went back a version [I keep a clean copy of my system as a ghost CD...] on my system just in case. Either way, I notice that most anti-spyware/malware systems could not detect the keylogger, but my virus scanner could and it could not remove it. So, if these classification methods also lead to new methods of eliminating these threats, press on forward. ^_^
I think it's interesting that Google's execs had made this decision, but I think it may harm them in the long run because essentially China's market is going to grow without them. Opportunities lost and means to affect progress on a country that nearly imploded on itself in the 1950s and 1960s that probably would benefit the most. The more I look at our own country, the USA, the more I see that Google ought to leave it by comparison. I admit, The PRC as a governmental entity is a digusting little thing, but the US isn't really too different by comparison. The US has the PATRIOT act, The FCC, and federal statutes against porno, encryption, etc... So, is this really just a Coke/Pepsi challange of ethics? I think so for a one reason; both countries, in fact all the countries Google operates in, has devils for governments. Whether it's civil liberty violations or compromised property rights [one could argue property rights are civil rights of a kind...], most countries do evil, and Google still does work in them. I'm not asking for Google's exec to implode into some Socratic Apologie, but I do think Google's execs ought to review the premises they set their motto upon.
Do No Evil...How do they define it? To what purpose does one not wish to do evil? Is it to appease God or the public sensibility of evil? Do they, the Google execs, really know what evil is? I think it can be simply answered, but I know for one that I cannot answer it, but I hope they reconsider their motto's premises as they reconsidered their dealings in China...
You get it from the fact that if you're demanding all parts of the network to treat your data as if it were from the same originating source with the same priority as all data traffic without paying for that given bandwidth versus its market value, then you are price capping. Personally, I think Net Neutrality will be the end of the Internet as we know it with solid package deals on bandwidth since it will not pay to do as such anymore, it'll probably be the inverse, where then the personal ISP account holder will be paying for bandwidth instead just to see a given piece of content. In either case, the money needed to expand the networks will either come out of the pocket of a private person who is willing to pay or from the unwilling tax payer. I prefer the former for obvious reasons, and dislike the latter for the same.
As much as I usually side with companies on their efforts to retain profit, this proposal looks like a DOA to me for two reasons. First, the reported use of a modified tcpip.sys file makes the least informed computer user reconsider the download even if they want the premium service. If EMI has to use such an invasive procedure to reduce piracy, then why bother? I say just simply sponsor Shareaza or whatever and be done with it. As much as that sounds crazy, I bet they would see more CD sales from that than this Qtrax idea. The second reason why this is a bad proposal is that it would lead to worse PR for the money they spent to 'develop' this Qtrax scheme. If I were a VP or President of a department I would have already thrown my left shoe at the moron that devised this little gimmick for the wasted money and ire they raised.
All in all, I admit it was a half-way effort, but it wasn't enough. They need to simply consider using an inclusive instead an exclusive method to get people to buy CDs, like buy one get one free of your favorite EMI artist...Or report that their CDs are root kit free, thus not prone to the rootkit viruses or spyware/malware. And even sponsor Shareaza as I said before, even though it sounds crazy I still think the PR from that would be enough to boost CD sales...
I agree, but you cannot enforce that moral platitude by means of legal thuggery. If it follows that payment double-dipping is bad and then it is illegal , then it follows that anything one finds bad is illegal no matter the rhyme or reason. I don't support mixed market economics. Keep your FCC off my ISP, thank you.
---- Blind capitalism is not the American way. ----
There is no such thing as blind capitalism, just as there is no such thing as blind communism. There are more false equivocations in this quotation than I can shake a stick at. So, I'll just leave it at that.
I agree that if you contracted for bandwidth as a fixed price then you should get it at that price, but adding further legal infrastructure to an already easily handled issue will not fix it. If you want true net neutrality, then you will have to consider a FreeNet solution to the problem, but I don't see that as a solution either. I think the market will increase bandwidth prices [as they are already doing since I've been checking prices on bandwidth for podcasting...], so to claim that any legal price cap is going to keep things chugging along all rosy is a bit overly simplistic.
I think Net Neutrality is a 'trap' of some sorts. Whether it's trying to peg market prices for bandwidth at a certain level, to which both content consumers and content producers 'equally share' the cost, or whether it's some FCC thug sharpening his claws to dig into the carcass of the most contriversal websites online today, it does not bode well to take this issue lightly.
My take is this, Net Neutrality sounds great on the surface, but here's why I don't like it; if you are a content producer you should pay for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content, period and end of story. All the analogies of the Internet being like a superhighway is flawed since most highways, even in Hong Kong and Japan [Tokyo] are still publically owned and developed. The Internet by comparison has been essentially private for almost a decade with MCI, Sprintlink, and etc laying down the vast bulk of the bandwidth carrying lines. Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value. All this may sound like evil evil 'neo-con/neo-lib' propaganda, but look at the folks taking the affirming side of Net Neutrality; Google, Microsoft, and etc. These are CONTENT PRODUCERS, and as such stand to gain everything if they don't have to carry the bulk of the cost of using their share of the bandwidth accolated. [WARNING: ANALOGY AHEAD] It's sorta like saying because Bill Gates eats at McD's once in a while, that I ought to foot twenty five cents on my bill for my meal just so he get 'equal access' to his Big Mac. And that may also be not entirely accurate either, but this issue sure smacks of it. I, for one, don't feel like paying for the content of others that I don't use such as Microsoft [MSN Spaces, MSN messenger, etc...] or the other content providers to which I do not visit nor link to. I'll sure pay for Google, but then again I thought those stupid text ads, which once in a while were useful [oddly] in my online shopping took care of the cost of the bandwidth, and provided a decent profit for Google's shareholders. If these content producers can't accept they are going to pay for their operating costs, then I might be the first to turn off my PC and kill my ISP account just on principle... Then again, who is John Galt?:)
I really think it shouldn't be patentable for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that despite the clear innovative nature of the process, it cannot be restricted like other patentable materials such as chemicals, devices, and processes to produce either chemicals or devices. The second reason is that it could be argued that Amazon's One-Click idea is not really innovative, thus just on that front, it could have been easily thrown out of the patent office.
All in all, I'm all for innovators to benefit from their work, but there comes some things the government ought not to protect, and considering how copyright has been mutated beyond the original intended use makes one wonder how long before individual words in the lexicon become controlled to a point where one must pay or ask permission to use them as well...
Government Agent 1: *Web browsing for 'bad' content'* Oh look, agent 2.
Government Agent 2: *responds* What did you find?
Government Agent 1: *grinning* A website full of 'bad content' such as documents about the UN bill of rights, contraceptives, atheism, capitalism, GPL software, (CC)'d music, independent blogs with no recognizable identity, and philsophy.
Government Agent 2: *grins as well* Oh yes, we caught ourselves a really bad boy....
Edited lines[I hate typing on a terminal with a really misfocused image...]: I've [even] been told by my 'peers' that reading is stup[i]d. Imagine that, a society where even reading a book for fun is stupid...Then, it's really no great wonder at all to realize why even CS degrees are on the decline...
I tend to think that part of the problem with the decline of any engineering or science degree is the fact that the current social trends sorta swing toward distain to hatred of anyone showing any level of intelligence above most folks. Mind you, it doesn't take a genius to learn how to program or install a network beyond knowing your basics, but it still does require some analytical skills that are often looked down upon as 'nerdy' or worse 'elitest.' And that bothers me because in the 1950s about half of all degrees, for men and women, were in science or engineering. Today, the number of science/engineering degrees only make up a fraction of one percent now. I don't expect most of my 'peers[people my age]' to understand why I love knowledge [I'm a CS major with interests in mathematics, physics, neurology, and cybernetics] for its sake, most tend to ask me why I read. I've been been told by my 'peers' that reading is stupod. Imagine that, a society where even reading a book for fun is stupid...Then, it's really no great wonder at all to realize why even CS degrees are on the decline...
First, CATO is not right wing, it's libertarian if you would read any of their critiques of copyright law. Second, you're right, this signals a big change in CATO's usual stance of wait and see. They've waited since the publishing of Copyfights[2000 I believe...] to make their critique of the DMCA. This signals that they have a case against the DMCA, as they did against most of the IP legal theory that's law today.
All in all, it's a good thing.
-- Bridget
GET A REAL JOB! ^__^ Sorry, but seriously, I find this sort of mental masturbation by MS and company to be silly. If they can't find a good point to promote their products then maybe I can steer clear of theirs.:)
-- Bridget
As much as I'm a fan of OSS, I realize that it takes more than idealogical slogans of folks like Stallman and company to keep a project alive. Hopefully Theo will let someone else do the buzzword talking with the next potential sponsors. Personally, I don't see a reason for the government to aide this project, but...I could see that a NSF grant for related work would be useful. Many goodies on the OpenBSD packages are often used in universities, so I see no problem with him getting that sort of government dole, so long as Stallman and other idiots are not involved.:)
I believe I was discussing such scenerios with friends before and considered that one could easily pass viruses this way, especially if the RFID chips are attached to other networks. Oh joy, proof that the more control the idiots in government try to squeeze the less secure they become each time.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the scientists forget the concept of context? Do things need to be exactly x number always to be right? I don't think it's really scientific to make broadbrush conclusions that if light varies to some degree, or gravity, or any other force, then everything must be wrong because clearly by seeing how our world isn't falling apart at the fundamental scales that's proof enough that Nature is robust compared to the mathematical models we humans construct to understand it. Remember, observation trumps mathematical modelling in every case. And because of that, principles that follow from the least number of premises with the least number of contigencies will tend to prevail as the best explanation for what is occuring, not Platonic Realm modeling and other Post-Modern/Exie tripe. Bleh! Where is Alan Sokal when you need him!
-- Bridget
Bingo, you're getting what I'm saying but you still think it's a racist advert because it offends you. Remember, I stated it OFFENDS YOU, which means the concept that is OFFENDING resided in your noggin and not in the noggin of the advert's creators. Therefore, any claim that this is intrinsically a racist advert is W-R-O-N-G since you have not shown its connotation to be otherwise. What you've shown is your little cultural preconceptions trying to superimpose themselves on the culture of another. I would LOVE to see you impose your religious preconceptions on a religion from another time as well, it seems you're quite good at playing the 'my concepts are their concepts' game. :-P
-- Bridget
No, because you're not fully recognizing that to someone from an Asian cultural background will not evoke the same feelings as you would being from the United States. For someone from Asia or the surrounding regions ethnicity follows language lines more closely than physical differentiation. Just take the different ethnicities in China proper, 65 are recognized with almost a hundred still in existence but unrecognized for various reasons. And trust me, if you had no background in linguistic differences in China, or cultural artifact differences, you would be boggled at the tiniest of issues someone from China would take contention with versus our naive assumptions about ethnicity. So, again, because of that clear cultural difference, any claim that the adverts are racist are bogus, period and end of story. Then again, are you positting that asians hate black people? *snirks in real life...*
-- Bridget
because as much as I do like the pictures, since they seem like a mixture of sex and beauty to me, but the fact is most folks still live with a tribal mindset that screams, "Look, it's racism because my primative preconceptions say so!" Thusly, it will be read as racism rather than an attempt at art meets commercial in advertising. But this is not the only black/white ad I remember coming out of a japanese console maker. I believe there was once a TV ad that had two guys, one dress in a white gi and the other in a black gi fighting in midair, where one was defeated. Usually it was a random rotation between the white gi dude beating the black gi dude, and then vice versa. I don't remember hearing about anyone crying fowl on that commercial.
:)
What has to be understood the colours black and white in the asian culture represent a dichotomy of forces rather than ethicities. So, when a person from the isle of Nihon looks at the picture, they're reminded of old Zennist mythos. Or a person from China proper will be reminded of the stories by Lao Tzu about the Tao and so forth. So, in reality, this is not an intended racist grab, but rather a vast gap, in my evil evil opinion, between cultures. It's sad really, because in our culture, we're still tribal as ever yet claim to be oh so intelligent. I suggest folks consider deprogramming themselves of such preconceptions by atleast getting a wider cultural background (or read Rand's essay on the origin of Racism, which is very intriguing.).
-- Attis
-------
:) So, I don't need a dictionary when I know the theory by heart since I was formerly in favor of Socialism...
Furthermore, you have some very "creative" ideas about what socialism entails. You might want to spend some money on a dictionary.
-------
Socialism is any method in which the State uses force to take control of production for any given purpose. Socialism didn't start with Marxist theory, as most are told in school, but rather a bit earlier with the Left [and Right] Hegelians.
-- Bridget
that happened to be homosexual, and the government found out? I read in some news report that the US govt kicked him out for his myspace page stating that he was indeed homosexual. Although, the don't ask don't tell policy may apply, it's down right dirty pool to snoop that way, but not unexpected for the government... As for employers, I wouldn't be surprised that my current employer knows I'm a closetted transgendered bisexual evil Objectivist from HECK(TM)! [btw, I am all those except from HECK(TM)! :)] But, if they ever came to confront me about it, I would tell them to go suck up some air since I don't bring it to the workplace, thus it is none of their business. Yet, I can see that with the further advancement of the integration of the Internet into the larger sphere of employment, I dare say, sooner or later [probably sooner] we'll see clauses in employment contracts that state you can and will be terminated for anything you say or do off the job, specifically on the Internet, beyond anything that leads to criminal charges. As such, that's probably why I'm considering opening my own business with the premise that your life off the job is your life, not mine. Too bad, the Corporate Socialists today don't think as such. *Yes, comrade, you must be available for work even after your shift is over. Otherwise, you will be terminated!*
-- Bridget
If you think about it, this is more to do with how folks that are paid to give us those fancy virus definition libraries than the average user, but end benefit is that all users at all levels will be able to handle these malware threats more specifically than just using random deletion methods. For example, I was an idiot got a keylogger onto my system [which isn't hard to do since it's a Bloze box...], but I haven't noticed any of my accounts being accessed as of yet, which of course I did change the passwords after I went back a version [I keep a clean copy of my system as a ghost CD...] on my system just in case. Either way, I notice that most anti-spyware/malware systems could not detect the keylogger, but my virus scanner could and it could not remove it. So, if these classification methods also lead to new methods of eliminating these threats, press on forward. ^_^
-- Bridget
I think it's interesting that Google's execs had made this decision, but I think it may harm them in the long run because essentially China's market is going to grow without them. Opportunities lost and means to affect progress on a country that nearly imploded on itself in the 1950s and 1960s that probably would benefit the most. The more I look at our own country, the USA, the more I see that Google ought to leave it by comparison. I admit, The PRC as a governmental entity is a digusting little thing, but the US isn't really too different by comparison. The US has the PATRIOT act, The FCC, and federal statutes against porno, encryption, etc... So, is this really just a Coke/Pepsi challange of ethics? I think so for a one reason; both countries, in fact all the countries Google operates in, has devils for governments. Whether it's civil liberty violations or compromised property rights [one could argue property rights are civil rights of a kind...], most countries do evil, and Google still does work in them. I'm not asking for Google's exec to implode into some Socratic Apologie, but I do think Google's execs ought to review the premises they set their motto upon.
Do No Evil...How do they define it? To what purpose does one not wish to do evil? Is it to appease God or the public sensibility of evil? Do they, the Google execs, really know what evil is? I think it can be simply answered, but I know for one that I cannot answer it, but I hope they reconsider their motto's premises as they reconsidered their dealings in China...
-- Bridget
You get it from the fact that if you're demanding all parts of the network to treat your data as if it were from the same originating source with the same priority as all data traffic without paying for that given bandwidth versus its market value, then you are price capping. Personally, I think Net Neutrality will be the end of the Internet as we know it with solid package deals on bandwidth since it will not pay to do as such anymore, it'll probably be the inverse, where then the personal ISP account holder will be paying for bandwidth instead just to see a given piece of content. In either case, the money needed to expand the networks will either come out of the pocket of a private person who is willing to pay or from the unwilling tax payer. I prefer the former for obvious reasons, and dislike the latter for the same.
-- Bridget
As much as I usually side with companies on their efforts to retain profit, this proposal looks like a DOA to me for two reasons. First, the reported use of a modified tcpip.sys file makes the least informed computer user reconsider the download even if they want the premium service. If EMI has to use such an invasive procedure to reduce piracy, then why bother? I say just simply sponsor Shareaza or whatever and be done with it. As much as that sounds crazy, I bet they would see more CD sales from that than this Qtrax idea. The second reason why this is a bad proposal is that it would lead to worse PR for the money they spent to 'develop' this Qtrax scheme. If I were a VP or President of a department I would have already thrown my left shoe at the moron that devised this little gimmick for the wasted money and ire they raised.
All in all, I admit it was a half-way effort, but it wasn't enough. They need to simply consider using an inclusive instead an exclusive method to get people to buy CDs, like buy one get one free of your favorite EMI artist...Or report that their CDs are root kit free, thus not prone to the rootkit viruses or spyware/malware. And even sponsor Shareaza as I said before, even though it sounds crazy I still think the PR from that would be enough to boost CD sales...
-- Bridget
I agree, but you cannot enforce that moral platitude by means of legal thuggery. If it follows that payment double-dipping is bad and then it is illegal , then it follows that anything one finds bad is illegal no matter the rhyme or reason. I don't support mixed market economics. Keep your FCC off my ISP, thank you.
-- Bridget
----
Blind capitalism is not the American way.
----
There is no such thing as blind capitalism, just as there is no such thing as blind communism. There are more false equivocations in this quotation than I can shake a stick at. So, I'll just leave it at that.
-- Bridget
I agree that if you contracted for bandwidth as a fixed price then you should get it at that price, but adding further legal infrastructure to an already easily handled issue will not fix it. If you want true net neutrality, then you will have to consider a FreeNet solution to the problem, but I don't see that as a solution either. I think the market will increase bandwidth prices [as they are already doing since I've been checking prices on bandwidth for podcasting...], so to claim that any legal price cap is going to keep things chugging along all rosy is a bit overly simplistic.
-- Bridget
I think Net Neutrality is a 'trap' of some sorts. Whether it's trying to peg market prices for bandwidth at a certain level, to which both content consumers and content producers 'equally share' the cost, or whether it's some FCC thug sharpening his claws to dig into the carcass of the most contriversal websites online today, it does not bode well to take this issue lightly.
:)
My take is this, Net Neutrality sounds great on the surface, but here's why I don't like it; if you are a content producer you should pay for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content, period and end of story. All the analogies of the Internet being like a superhighway is flawed since most highways, even in Hong Kong and Japan [Tokyo] are still publically owned and developed. The Internet by comparison has been essentially private for almost a decade with MCI, Sprintlink, and etc laying down the vast bulk of the bandwidth carrying lines. Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value. All this may sound like evil evil 'neo-con/neo-lib' propaganda, but look at the folks taking the affirming side of Net Neutrality; Google, Microsoft, and etc. These are CONTENT PRODUCERS, and as such stand to gain everything if they don't have to carry the bulk of the cost of using their share of the bandwidth accolated. [WARNING: ANALOGY AHEAD] It's sorta like saying because Bill Gates eats at McD's once in a while, that I ought to foot twenty five cents on my bill for my meal just so he get 'equal access' to his Big Mac. And that may also be not entirely accurate either, but this issue sure smacks of it. I, for one, don't feel like paying for the content of others that I don't use such as Microsoft [MSN Spaces, MSN messenger, etc...] or the other content providers to which I do not visit nor link to. I'll sure pay for Google, but then again I thought those stupid text ads, which once in a while were useful [oddly] in my online shopping took care of the cost of the bandwidth, and provided a decent profit for Google's shareholders. If these content producers can't accept they are going to pay for their operating costs, then I might be the first to turn off my PC and kill my ISP account just on principle... Then again, who is John Galt?
-- Bridget
I really think it shouldn't be patentable for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that despite the clear innovative nature of the process, it cannot be restricted like other patentable materials such as chemicals, devices, and processes to produce either chemicals or devices. The second reason is that it could be argued that Amazon's One-Click idea is not really innovative, thus just on that front, it could have been easily thrown out of the patent office.
All in all, I'm all for innovators to benefit from their work, but there comes some things the government ought not to protect, and considering how copyright has been mutated beyond the original intended use makes one wonder how long before individual words in the lexicon become controlled to a point where one must pay or ask permission to use them as well...
-- Bridget
*puts on blue turban and takes an envelope*
Dumber than a brick.
*rips open envelope to read what's inside*
What you call a person that can't give their 'mind password.'
-- Bridget
wow...And I thought SOE was bad at maintaing MMORPGs.... I'm sure glad I'm playing Saga of Ryzom. 6_6
Government Agent 1: *Web browsing for 'bad' content'* Oh look, agent 2.
Government Agent 2: *responds* What did you find?
Government Agent 1: *grinning* A website full of 'bad content' such as documents about the UN bill of rights, contraceptives, atheism, capitalism, GPL software, (CC)'d music, independent blogs with no recognizable identity, and philsophy.
Government Agent 2: *grins as well* Oh yes, we caught ourselves a really bad boy....
a secure browser? o_O -- Bridget
Edited lines[I hate typing on a terminal with a really misfocused image...]: I've [even] been told by my 'peers' that reading is stup[i]d. Imagine that, a society where even reading a book for fun is stupid...Then, it's really no great wonder at all to realize why even CS degrees are on the decline...
I tend to think that part of the problem with the decline of any engineering or science degree is the fact that the current social trends sorta swing toward distain to hatred of anyone showing any level of intelligence above most folks. Mind you, it doesn't take a genius to learn how to program or install a network beyond knowing your basics, but it still does require some analytical skills that are often looked down upon as 'nerdy' or worse 'elitest.' And that bothers me because in the 1950s about half of all degrees, for men and women, were in science or engineering. Today, the number of science/engineering degrees only make up a fraction of one percent now. I don't expect most of my 'peers[people my age]' to understand why I love knowledge [I'm a CS major with interests in mathematics, physics, neurology, and cybernetics] for its sake, most tend to ask me why I read. I've been been told by my 'peers' that reading is stupod. Imagine that, a society where even reading a book for fun is stupid...Then, it's really no great wonder at all to realize why even CS degrees are on the decline...
-- Bridget
First, CATO is not right wing, it's libertarian if you would read any of their critiques of copyright law. Second, you're right, this signals a big change in CATO's usual stance of wait and see. They've waited since the publishing of Copyfights[2000 I believe...] to make their critique of the DMCA. This signals that they have a case against the DMCA, as they did against most of the IP legal theory that's law today. All in all, it's a good thing. -- Bridget
GET A REAL JOB! ^__^ Sorry, but seriously, I find this sort of mental masturbation by MS and company to be silly. If they can't find a good point to promote their products then maybe I can steer clear of theirs. :)
-- Bridget
As much as I'm a fan of OSS, I realize that it takes more than idealogical slogans of folks like Stallman and company to keep a project alive. Hopefully Theo will let someone else do the buzzword talking with the next potential sponsors. Personally, I don't see a reason for the government to aide this project, but...I could see that a NSF grant for related work would be useful. Many goodies on the OpenBSD packages are often used in universities, so I see no problem with him getting that sort of government dole, so long as Stallman and other idiots are not involved. :)
-- Bridget
-- Bridget