"Until everyone is on the same page and in general agreeement upon the definition of the words and phrases being used, what subsequently transpires is a lost opportunity to engage in a thoughtful discussion."
We tend to call that the English language.
Do you speak it?
If clarification of specialized terms is causing you such hardship in goading others into proceeding through the course of a debate to your liking, either ask for clarification so as to direct the attention of all parties involved to their miscommunication, participate in the discussion yourself with a relevant position, or kindly locate a dark corner in which to loiter while spouting your amorphous observations of reality to yourself. Your passive removal of all specificity, as regarding the context of this forum, for which an adequate claim toward civilized debate might point seems indicative of an attempt to speak above your capacity to comprehend with respect to an evolving discussion.
Perhaps you should just say what you're trying to say directly and have the spine to admit when you are wrong, ignorant, or digressing. Saying nothing with as many words as you have is just disappointing.
"Each side truly believes they are making an important point"
Re: "A group calling themselves the Web Ninjas..."
"I'm going to bet that the technical resources available to the police for tapping the net and seeing where the "tunnels" lead are better than those that the "Web Ninjas" have."
Even if that were true, how the hell do they "trace" the "tunnel" when sneakernet (ie, leaving one's house) and open WiFi (ie, not using one's personal internet connection) are involved? Do they just click their heels three times and say "I wish there was justice?" I know its plausible they might actually do real police work rather than rely the current erosion of privacy rights, but I find it unlikely that LulzSec could have survived as long as it has with all of the heat its drawn were they as stupid as you're suggesting.
A gene (or, piece of DNA) is patentable because it isn't the whole DNA strand. Which implies that discrete segments of genetic code that do not constitute the whole of the genome involved are therefore not inherently "found in nature." So, what the fuck happened to the RNA and/or protein that many of these genes code for? Hell, HIV is a RNA retrovirus. Can I patent the DNA mirror image that hijacks lymphocytes? Did ANY of these judges EVER bother to think beyond "that's one of those evy-dency acronyms we like to use a lot [/Shatner], and it can't be natural because we use it, like (a) tool(s)" while reversing the logical lower court ruling?
Why is DNA suddenly being considered in a vacuum? I'm pretty sure there's a bit more to it than "we have DNA, and cells 'just work'[/sarc]."
But patents always foster innovation! ... ya know ... after an idea's happened a few times ... and people have started to innovate on top of it ......... well, shit.
I think, until the evidence proves otherwise, I'll believe that cancer causes cell phones too [1].
I know the MAFIAA responds to open source like a house cat responds to strychnine, but perhaps they should try using a browser plug-in. They've been MASSIVELY successful for the other side thus far. I know that gives people a fucking choice, but maybe they should try the humble road for once.
Oh the irony of Demand Media NOT wanting its content accessed. Still, one would venture a guess that any news of higher quality content from them would be something they might want to share with the public.
I believe that the half of the block with E. Coli. kindly asks the local police department to investigate the sudden outbreak on their behalf, with the intent of seeking compensatory (not punitive) damages from the seller since they (the buyers) assumed a risk at the time of purchase from the person(s) selling the lemonade.
...if it happens that the outbreak wasn't just a coincidental cockup at the local water treatment plant.
That fun situation likely occurs despite the license you hold in such high regard. To assume that a license significantly decreases the risk of a purchase, let alone removes said risk, is a logical fallacy. To say correlation is not causation simply does not go far enough. The myopic assumption that a license can ward off serious risk from consuming lemonade sold out doors is analogous to pasting a sign with "No unlicensed water allowed past this point!" over a screen door on a submarine. I can understand the comfort of legally guaranteed channels for recompense should a seller distribute a faulty product, BUT, let's not forget the nasty "... you further agree not to hold [insert name of horrible lemonade selling urchins here] liable for any harm caused by [insert juvenile allusion to urine as a product name here] ..." phrase likely found in any purchase agreement the license obliges the legally savvy lemonade stands to use. Like any activity with a potential risk, people will continue to do it with or without regulation, regardless of said regulation's "effectiveness." Blind pursuit of entrepreneurial children simply does not fix this specific problem. Like many laws, it merely places a football-field-sized bandage over a minor skin blemish and justifies itself with a clueless cosmetic-beauty-is-overrated attitude.
On the post: El_Segfaulto's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
"enjoy the summer, while it lasts"
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Locate and press the any key once to fix that.
On the post: By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We tend to call that the English language.
Do you speak it?
If clarification of specialized terms is causing you such hardship in goading others into proceeding through the course of a debate to your liking, either ask for clarification so as to direct the attention of all parties involved to their miscommunication, participate in the discussion yourself with a relevant position, or kindly locate a dark corner in which to loiter while spouting your amorphous observations of reality to yourself. Your passive removal of all specificity, as regarding the context of this forum, for which an adequate claim toward civilized debate might point seems indicative of an attempt to speak above your capacity to comprehend with respect to an evolving discussion.
Perhaps you should just say what you're trying to say directly and have the spine to admit when you are wrong, ignorant, or digressing. Saying nothing with as many words as you have is just disappointing.
"Each side truly believes they are making an important point"
Maybe you should try making one yourself.
On the post: By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Potential Lulz: Security Experts Think UK Police Tricked Into Arresting The Wrong Person Over LulzSec Hacks
Re: "A group calling themselves the Web Ninjas..."
Even if that were true, how the hell do they "trace" the "tunnel" when sneakernet (ie, leaving one's house) and open WiFi (ie, not using one's personal internet connection) are involved? Do they just click their heels three times and say "I wish there was justice?" I know its plausible they might actually do real police work rather than rely the current erosion of privacy rights, but I find it unlikely that LulzSec could have survived as long as it has with all of the heat its drawn were they as stupid as you're suggesting.
On the post: Potential Lulz: Security Experts Think UK Police Tricked Into Arresting The Wrong Person Over LulzSec Hacks
Re: Re: Re: counting coup
On the post: By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Genes Are Patentable, Because They're 'Separate' From Your DNA
DNA, with Logic
A gene (or, piece of DNA) is patentable because it isn't the whole DNA strand. Which implies that discrete segments of genetic code that do not constitute the whole of the genome involved are therefore not inherently "found in nature." So, what the fuck happened to the RNA and/or protein that many of these genes code for? Hell, HIV is a RNA retrovirus. Can I patent the DNA mirror image that hijacks lymphocytes? Did ANY of these judges EVER bother to think beyond "that's one of those evy-dency acronyms we like to use a lot [/Shatner], and it can't be natural because we use it, like (a) tool(s)" while reversing the logical lower court ruling?
Why is DNA suddenly being considered in a vacuum? I'm pretty sure there's a bit more to it than "we have DNA, and cells 'just work'[/sarc]."
On the post: By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent
Promoting the tax of the useful arts
I think, until the evidence proves otherwise, I'll believe that cancer causes cell phones too [1].
[1] http://xkcd.com/925/
On the post: Propaganda Campaign Against Vigilante Hacking Groups: Gov't Officials Warn That The KGB Could Infiltrate Lulzsec
Re: What if LulzSec or Anonymous is being manipulated by...
On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
Re:
On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
Re: Re: Infringing as defined by...
(Just an alt that doesn't insult innocent pots and kettles everywhere.)
On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
Re:
to keep dust from collecting behind the keys
On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
Re: Re:
/sarc
On the post: Propaganda Campaign Against Vigilante Hacking Groups: Gov't Officials Warn That The KGB Could Infiltrate Lulzsec
I suppose when you REALLY need the answers...
On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
On the post: Demand Media Threatens Critic Blog
Free Publicity
On the post: Once Again, Law Enforcement Protects Us From The America-Destroying Scourge Of Children With Lemonade Stands
Re: That sucks...
'Unlicensed lemonade decreases piracy.'
On the post: Once Again, Law Enforcement Protects Us From The America-Destroying Scourge Of Children With Lemonade Stands
Re: Re: Re:
[/sarc]
On the post: Once Again, Law Enforcement Protects Us From The America-Destroying Scourge Of Children With Lemonade Stands
Re:
...if it happens that the outbreak wasn't just a coincidental cockup at the local water treatment plant.
That fun situation likely occurs despite the license you hold in such high regard. To assume that a license significantly decreases the risk of a purchase, let alone removes said risk, is a logical fallacy. To say correlation is not causation simply does not go far enough. The myopic assumption that a license can ward off serious risk from consuming lemonade sold out doors is analogous to pasting a sign with "No unlicensed water allowed past this point!" over a screen door on a submarine. I can understand the comfort of legally guaranteed channels for recompense should a seller distribute a faulty product, BUT, let's not forget the nasty "... you further agree not to hold [insert name of horrible lemonade selling urchins here] liable for any harm caused by [insert juvenile allusion to urine as a product name here] ..." phrase likely found in any purchase agreement the license obliges the legally savvy lemonade stands to use. Like any activity with a potential risk, people will continue to do it with or without regulation, regardless of said regulation's "effectiveness." Blind pursuit of entrepreneurial children simply does not fix this specific problem. Like many laws, it merely places a football-field-sized bandage over a minor skin blemish and justifies itself with a clueless cosmetic-beauty-is-overrated attitude.
Next >>