What I'd like to see is a company with Google's financial clout buying up patents and offering them for a peppercorn license fee to any company who agrees not to pursue patent litigation. Then everyone can benefit from the patents and we might see a reduction in court cases as a result. It's all well and good saying they think the patent system is broken, but we all know lobbying gave us the system and it's only lobbying or something equally drastic that can take it away.
The money in patents is not in lawsuits, that's true, but it is in licensing. I'd be surprised if the license fees these big companies collect don't pay for the patent violations they make several times over.
I like your idea of striking out the patent, I'd like to suggest a small tweak is that the patent office should be responsible for the costs. A global corporation might decide that the costs of a bunch of patents they know are invalid is warranted if it delays competitor products making it to market in lengthy court proceedings. If the patent office was responsible, and was held accountable if too many patents were granted and came back later as invalid, they might actually start to care about the quality of the patents they approve (and start demanding that patents that are clearly vague or cannot be understood are sent back for a rewrite).
Being in the car is the one use case that makes sense, and it's also the one situation where you shouldn't even think of using Siri, because if you're concentrating on rearranging your schedule or writing an email you're not looking at the road. Anywhere else, the majority of people who are going to use this are those arrogant or ignorant enough that they don't care about disrupting everyone around them while barking commands at their phone. The kind who can already ignore a train full of evil looks while they blather into their phones at double the usual volume and will be a million times more annoying now they can use voice for practically everything their phone can do. Those aren't the kind of people who should be encouraged.
When I'm driving, talking to my device is the *only* meaningful way to communicate with it.
All the other OSs already have voice control for standard things like answering/making calls or finding routes on the built in SatNav. A device that makes it easier for people to search for lolcat videos while driving doesn't sound like something that will particularly advance mankind - I'd much prefer people's attention was on the road, not on their phone.
Ironically my original XBOX could do all of those things. Just not natively with all the lockdowns MS put in place. It was only when I cracked it open and soldered in a chip and installed a Linux distro running XBMC that it became the all-singing, all-dancing media centre it always promised to be. A lot of these companies are so focused on locking down the media that they fail to deliver the device the public want (and I guess for them it's seen as a justified risk, as owning the media would make them a mint, but they have to make it work first, messing around with Windows Media Centre to connect to a PC is just hassle).
It's still supporting the platform, that's clearly not stagnation. Microsoft have done a lot of things wrong, and even with the XBOX they've not always got things right (RRoD), but it still seems like a well supported product for the time being.
For Apple, tapping into the Windows market is a huge new potential revenue stream. For MS, tapping into the Mac market probably didn't justify the return on investment. Where they needed to focus their efforts was on getting the thing right for their main audience first and then migrating it to other platforms later - unfortunately they never did get that first part right.
Altering consumption isn't really sustainable with current worldwide growth rate. We need to kick our fossil fuel habit if we're going to continue enjoying anything like the lifestyle we're used to, even cutting back drastically won't eke out many more years until oil and coal are too expensive an option. That's true no matter which side of the climate change fence you happen to find yourself on.
No, that's arrogant thinking, that we have some kind of duty to lock the current biodiversity of the planet into its existing state for as long as possible. What's to say the new species that would have thrived in a hotter or colder climate aren't even more wondrous? No, I'm all for preserving the earth in a state that's comfortable for humans (god help it we're currently the best bet at spreading out into the universe long term), but let's stop pretending it's in the best interests of the planet, it's an entirely selfish move on our part. The only question is whether humans are responsible for the climate change (in which case acting to prevent it is justifiable, still selfish but at least we're putting right out wrongs in the process) or not (in which case it's a purely selfish act).
By your logic there must be no such thing as a corrupt policeman, because being a banker or a consultant pays better. Or is it perhaps possible that people in every walk of life have the ability to succumb to temptation? That's not to suggest climate scientists are corrupt, but suggesting we should just blindly trust them because they could be making more money on wall street makes zero sense.
That assumes that the only way the US can benefit from advances in the technology is if US companies are producing the technology. In fact, cheaper solar is a massive benefit to all countries, no matter who builds the tech. In my ideal world governments would do far more of this and they would share the results of the R&D far more openly and leave companies to compete by doing what they do best (taking the tech and either marketing it well, enhancing build quality or reducing costs further).
More likely there's only the perception that bee trucks are crashing more often because the media pick up on the slightly more interesting cargo. I'm sure trucks full of salt or beans or cushions crash all the time, they just don't stick in the mind or get the same media focus as "25 million bees loosed by crash!!". If anything, I'd say the crashes are suggestive that the drivers aren't nervous of their cargo - if they were they'd probably take more care (it's rare to hear of cargos of toxic chemicals or nuclear waste crashing, probably because the people driving them around are terrified and extra careful).
Just to play devil's advocate - cheap energy isn't the only thing at stake here. I don't know if you noticed but in the last two decades there's been a huge shift in manufacturing to India/Asia. One of the few key industries that seems to be experiencing stronger growth in the West are "green" technologies, Western governments certainly have an interest in worldwide acceptance of the need to fight climate change. To say that cheap fuel is the only thing that might sway the agenda here is just as blinkered as the people who claim everything's fine and carry on driving their fuel guzzlers around.
They're asking the wrong question. I've never met anyone who denies climate change is happening (I'm sure such people exist in droves, I tend to just avoid the lunatic fringe on both sides of the argument), the real questions are a) are humans the primary (or even a major contributory) cause and b) should we be trying to change it either way. If the answer to a is no, then b suddenly becomes a much trickier question (since we'd be pretty hypochritical to prevent climate change if we determined it was within natural parameters).
Or you'd see them ramp up the features/release schedule to compete. The way this works in the fashion world is by constantly staying one step ahead, so by the time they're copying you, you're releasing your new range. Also, I'd say tech definitely does have name recognition. Even the average joe recognises that a Samsung TV is more desirable than an Alba. Hell, Apple are the prime example of a company that's got where it is trading on the aspirational side of owning their product over and above the functional side.
The truth is always an absolute defence to a claim of libel or slander. Historically laws/constitutions that protect free speech aren't usually intended to protect known lies.
The key component in a libel action is that it must cause the offended party some harm. If a habitual liar makes claims about you, the chances of them being believed are minimal so you have no real complaint. If the editor of an esteemed newspaper does the same, you almost certainly do have a complaint. In between is every shade of grey possible, but the chances of someone successfully proving that comments on/b/ or a UK equivalent were taken seriously by anyone who mattered to them in such a way that it caused them harm are pretty minimal. Of course, that doesn't stop the rich doing what they usually do - abusing libel law to inconvenience those who can't afford a raft of lawyers and lots of time off work to fight their corner.
In other words another law made by people who have no concept of the technologies they're legislating for (how easy it is to use TOR, or piggyback on someone's open wireless or whatever).
Maybe he's just the front for a startup hoping to get some angel investors on board. Actually, the kind of celebrity who already snorted all their money (and I'm not saying he is that kind of celebrity) is the perfect public face for that kind of setup (the celeb gets some much needed cash, the startup gets some money and the investors get to hang out with a washed up singer/actor who reminds them of their college days).
That was my second thought when I read this news earlier. My first thought was that, at a glance, it looks like he chose the name "WeirDo". In retrospect at least that's quirky and not just... well... crap.
I'm in the UK - the EU influences my currency (just as the US or any other strong nation does) but it doesn't control it. The way things are going this might soon be true for a few other EU member states...
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd like to see is a company with Google's financial clout buying up patents and offering them for a peppercorn license fee to any company who agrees not to pursue patent litigation. Then everyone can benefit from the patents and we might see a reduction in court cases as a result. It's all well and good saying they think the patent system is broken, but we all know lobbying gave us the system and it's only lobbying or something equally drastic that can take it away.
The money in patents is not in lawsuits, that's true, but it is in licensing. I'd be surprised if the license fees these big companies collect don't pay for the patent violations they make several times over.
I like your idea of striking out the patent, I'd like to suggest a small tweak is that the patent office should be responsible for the costs. A global corporation might decide that the costs of a bunch of patents they know are invalid is warranted if it delays competitor products making it to market in lengthy court proceedings. If the patent office was responsible, and was held accountable if too many patents were granted and came back later as invalid, they might actually start to care about the quality of the patents they approve (and start demanding that patents that are clearly vague or cannot be understood are sent back for a rewrite).
He physically hurt no-one.
Yeah, I heard Chinese sweatshops are actually fun to work in.
Being in the car is the one use case that makes sense, and it's also the one situation where you shouldn't even think of using Siri, because if you're concentrating on rearranging your schedule or writing an email you're not looking at the road. Anywhere else, the majority of people who are going to use this are those arrogant or ignorant enough that they don't care about disrupting everyone around them while barking commands at their phone. The kind who can already ignore a train full of evil looks while they blather into their phones at double the usual volume and will be a million times more annoying now they can use voice for practically everything their phone can do. Those aren't the kind of people who should be encouraged.
When I'm driving, talking to my device is the *only* meaningful way to communicate with it.
All the other OSs already have voice control for standard things like answering/making calls or finding routes on the built in SatNav. A device that makes it easier for people to search for lolcat videos while driving doesn't sound like something that will particularly advance mankind - I'd much prefer people's attention was on the road, not on their phone.
Ironically my original XBOX could do all of those things. Just not natively with all the lockdowns MS put in place. It was only when I cracked it open and soldered in a chip and installed a Linux distro running XBMC that it became the all-singing, all-dancing media centre it always promised to be. A lot of these companies are so focused on locking down the media that they fail to deliver the device the public want (and I guess for them it's seen as a justified risk, as owning the media would make them a mint, but they have to make it work first, messing around with Windows Media Centre to connect to a PC is just hassle).
It's still supporting the platform, that's clearly not stagnation. Microsoft have done a lot of things wrong, and even with the XBOX they've not always got things right (RRoD), but it still seems like a well supported product for the time being.
For Apple, tapping into the Windows market is a huge new potential revenue stream. For MS, tapping into the Mac market probably didn't justify the return on investment. Where they needed to focus their efforts was on getting the thing right for their main audience first and then migrating it to other platforms later - unfortunately they never did get that first part right.
Altering consumption isn't really sustainable with current worldwide growth rate. We need to kick our fossil fuel habit if we're going to continue enjoying anything like the lifestyle we're used to, even cutting back drastically won't eke out many more years until oil and coal are too expensive an option. That's true no matter which side of the climate change fence you happen to find yourself on.
No, that's arrogant thinking, that we have some kind of duty to lock the current biodiversity of the planet into its existing state for as long as possible. What's to say the new species that would have thrived in a hotter or colder climate aren't even more wondrous? No, I'm all for preserving the earth in a state that's comfortable for humans (god help it we're currently the best bet at spreading out into the universe long term), but let's stop pretending it's in the best interests of the planet, it's an entirely selfish move on our part. The only question is whether humans are responsible for the climate change (in which case acting to prevent it is justifiable, still selfish but at least we're putting right out wrongs in the process) or not (in which case it's a purely selfish act).
By your logic there must be no such thing as a corrupt policeman, because being a banker or a consultant pays better. Or is it perhaps possible that people in every walk of life have the ability to succumb to temptation? That's not to suggest climate scientists are corrupt, but suggesting we should just blindly trust them because they could be making more money on wall street makes zero sense.
That assumes that the only way the US can benefit from advances in the technology is if US companies are producing the technology. In fact, cheaper solar is a massive benefit to all countries, no matter who builds the tech. In my ideal world governments would do far more of this and they would share the results of the R&D far more openly and leave companies to compete by doing what they do best (taking the tech and either marketing it well, enhancing build quality or reducing costs further).
In the short term. Eventually if the parasite kills its host it's going to find itself very hungry.
That's simple, you just paint a number on the back of each one with a tiny little paintbrush to make sure you don't count any twice.
More likely there's only the perception that bee trucks are crashing more often because the media pick up on the slightly more interesting cargo. I'm sure trucks full of salt or beans or cushions crash all the time, they just don't stick in the mind or get the same media focus as "25 million bees loosed by crash!!". If anything, I'd say the crashes are suggestive that the drivers aren't nervous of their cargo - if they were they'd probably take more care (it's rare to hear of cargos of toxic chemicals or nuclear waste crashing, probably because the people driving them around are terrified and extra careful).
Just to play devil's advocate - cheap energy isn't the only thing at stake here. I don't know if you noticed but in the last two decades there's been a huge shift in manufacturing to India/Asia. One of the few key industries that seems to be experiencing stronger growth in the West are "green" technologies, Western governments certainly have an interest in worldwide acceptance of the need to fight climate change. To say that cheap fuel is the only thing that might sway the agenda here is just as blinkered as the people who claim everything's fine and carry on driving their fuel guzzlers around.
They're asking the wrong question. I've never met anyone who denies climate change is happening (I'm sure such people exist in droves, I tend to just avoid the lunatic fringe on both sides of the argument), the real questions are a) are humans the primary (or even a major contributory) cause and b) should we be trying to change it either way. If the answer to a is no, then b suddenly becomes a much trickier question (since we'd be pretty hypochritical to prevent climate change if we determined it was within natural parameters).
Or you'd see them ramp up the features/release schedule to compete. The way this works in the fashion world is by constantly staying one step ahead, so by the time they're copying you, you're releasing your new range. Also, I'd say tech definitely does have name recognition. Even the average joe recognises that a Samsung TV is more desirable than an Alba. Hell, Apple are the prime example of a company that's got where it is trading on the aspirational side of owning their product over and above the functional side.
The truth is always an absolute defence to a claim of libel or slander. Historically laws/constitutions that protect free speech aren't usually intended to protect known lies.
The key component in a libel action is that it must cause the offended party some harm. If a habitual liar makes claims about you, the chances of them being believed are minimal so you have no real complaint. If the editor of an esteemed newspaper does the same, you almost certainly do have a complaint. In between is every shade of grey possible, but the chances of someone successfully proving that comments on /b/ or a UK equivalent were taken seriously by anyone who mattered to them in such a way that it caused them harm are pretty minimal. Of course, that doesn't stop the rich doing what they usually do - abusing libel law to inconvenience those who can't afford a raft of lawyers and lots of time off work to fight their corner.
In other words another law made by people who have no concept of the technologies they're legislating for (how easy it is to use TOR, or piggyback on someone's open wireless or whatever).
Maybe he's just the front for a startup hoping to get some angel investors on board. Actually, the kind of celebrity who already snorted all their money (and I'm not saying he is that kind of celebrity) is the perfect public face for that kind of setup (the celeb gets some much needed cash, the startup gets some money and the investors get to hang out with a washed up singer/actor who reminds them of their college days).
That was my second thought when I read this news earlier. My first thought was that, at a glance, it looks like he chose the name "WeirDo". In retrospect at least that's quirky and not just... well... crap.
I'm in the UK - the EU influences my currency (just as the US or any other strong nation does) but it doesn't control it. The way things are going this might soon be true for a few other EU member states...