Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 May 2013 @ 10:16am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see the proposal. Let's see the exact text they are taking issue with. Let's discuss it on the merits.
Never thought I'd see you say that. It's pretty much a staple complaint on Techdirt that the public never gets to see the text of the various treaties and international agreements.
So Joe, here's a question. Are you agreeing with Techdirt and most of its readers and commenters that these agreements should be open and transparent to the public?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 11:59am
Re:
There are legitimate reasons for reducing timings on yellow lights in very heavily congested areas. Under some circumstances increasing timing by half a second can cause gridlock and other congestion problems. Reducing timing can sometimes resolve traffic problems.
Those may be reasons, but I'm gonna disagree with the "legitimate" part. Removing all speed limits everywhere would also help some commuters stuck in traffic to have a shorter commute time, but that doesn't mean we should do it.
There are better ways to resolve congestion - more lanes, rerouting roads, better alternate routes, adding and encouraging mass transit options, and plenty of others. Those solutions are far more expensive, so lowering a few yellow light times might get some people re-elected on the cheap, but it makes the roads less safe.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 11:39am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone fond of saying others run away from reasonable debates, you haven't answered me above^. Of course, that was about hypocrisy, so it's kind of fitting.
You've espoused your support of six strikes for copyright infringement. Would you be in favor of a similar strikes system regarding DMCA notices? Something that included assumption of guilt, limited appeals routes, and little oversight or public scrutiny?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 8:26am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
Nice waffling. You should be a lawyer. I also notice you've moved the goalposts from "they should be punished" to "you can't prove they knew it was wrong" and therefore can't be punished.
We see "bad faith" notices all the time that are not punished. Can you name any case other than Diebold (which is the only one this not-a-law-student can name)? I don't see you advocating for penalties to be enforced on the thousands that are sent and you disagree any time Techdirt decides to highlight a few.
Anyone setting up a system that automates the sending of notices on the basis of keywords has to know that there will be false positives. So, under the same legal theory that holds the creator of a website liable for user submitted infringing content, why wouldn't someone operating such an automated system be operating under de facto bad faith?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 7:30am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
As always, AJ, you miss the entire point. Right in the article Mike mention it was probably just a paperwork screwup. What it shows is that like so many other organizations that have taken a maximalist approach to copyright enforcement, they are hypocrites. It is complete hypocrisy to hold everyone else to intolerantly high standards of being on the right side of the law and then failing to follow the laws yourself. It is complete hypocrisy to cry "theft" everytime a pirate downloads something while at the same time "stealing" someone else's work for commercial gain yourself. How can you possibly miss such inherent hypocrisy?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 12:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SCOTUS did not rule that agricultural breeding is patented.
It ruled that the process of isolating a patented agricultural product from a group of assorted products and purposefully reproducing it so that you can have more copies of it is infringement.
Those statements are mutually exclusive. SCOTUS ruled that you cannot perform breeding on a living organism that contains patented genes. That is ruling against performing breeding.
There was nothing accidental about Bowman's conduct; he purposefully controlled which seeds were allowed to grow and which ones were not so that he could have a population of patented seeds he could call his own.
I never said it was accidental. Of course he selected for crops that did better. That's exactly what breeding is - selecting for certain traits over others to get the desired result.
You seem to want these words to mean something different because you recognize that this really is crazy, but you can't admit it.
We're not arguing on the facts of this case. I don't dispute what the facts are, or what SCOTUS ruled on. I'm saying the ruling is insane. I'm arguing patents on genes or living organisms are insane. I'm arguing the entire patent system is bat-shit crazy, bonkers, unhinged, nutty as a cargo ship full of fuitcake, insane.
You want this crazy. I don't.
I will not pretend to be stupid. I will not pretend that insanity at this monumental level is a good thing. I'm going to call it out as the utter ridiculousness that it is. I looked at a thesaurus writing this. There aren't enough synonyms for crazy to cover this nonsense.
Says who? A book of bronze age myths compiled thousands of years ago by ignorant savages? Even that book doesn't agree with itself - many of those powerful men featured in it had multiple wives, slaves and concubines.
It's nowhere near one and the same.
But it is. You think of them as somehow different and not deserving the same rights you take for granted, just as was done with women and other minorities.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:19am
Re: Why not follow private sector's lead?
The government is already following the private sector's lead. Just not the "white hat" side of it. Sure, they're paying bounties for exploits - but they don't end up in public databases, they are not reported to the software company, and are not fixed or patched. This isn't new. Remember the HBGary hack? Similar presentation slides were found boasting of knowledge of exploits that were not public knowledge and able to be used for offensive purposes.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:21am
Re: Re:
and you specifically select from that group of seeds, seeds of a specific type (the Roundup ready type), then use those seeds to produce a new crop of the offspring of those seeds, they you ARE making a copy of something you are not entitled to copy.
Sounds like the Supreme Court just ruled that a process humans have been engaging in for around 10,000 years (agricultural breeding) is the sole government granted monopoly domain of Monsanto.
Yes, it really is that simple. Which is why everyone who hasn't been drinking the patent lawyer kool-aid thinks it is insane.
Seeds reproduce. It is their entire purpose. Somewhere around 319 million years ago the first seed producing plants evolved from other plants that produced spores. For millions of years plants have been making seeds for exactly one purpose: reproducing themselves.
If Monsanto wants to design and sell some plant (or seed of one) that doesn't reproduce itself, I have no problem with them doing so. But to expect everyone not to use seeds for their entire evolutionary purpose is insane.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 May 2013 @ 10:44am
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
there must be some group of Prenda fans out there
Yet there doesn't seem to be any.
If you can't find someone supporting them, just try to think how far off the track they are. I mean really, its the damn internet and there's no one that thinks they're right.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 May 2013 @ 7:09am
Not exactly the whole point of the story, but happy to share what I know about the first bit.
"Bloomberg LP's main business is selling ridiculously expensive terminals to Wall Street/financial folks for tracking market information. While I understood why they were able to succeed early on, I've been shocked that the internet hasn't seriously disrupted their business over the past decade or so."
When I worked for IBM, I supported some very similar products made by Reuters (before and after they were bought by Thomson). If Bloomberg was anything like Reuters, it was speed, reliability and support. Similar reason that Red Hat has a viable business model even though Linux is free for anyone. It's not an exageration to say that millions or billions of dollars worth of trades depended on some of those systems, and the banks and trading firms spent a lot of money to make sure they were solid. Real time access to market data, not delayed by minutes like you get from some cheaper solutions. In some cases, we're talking multiply redundant systems with multiply redundant dedicated circuits (network connections). That kinda stuff gets tied into various high-frequency-trading systems. Fast support - in the case of some locations in NY, we could have techs and engineers onsite to a customer location within minutes if something bad enough happened, and a hour or two for even standard kind of issues.
On the post: The War On Journalists: DOJ Claimed Fox News Reporter Was An 'Aider, Abettor, Co-Conspirator' With Leaker
Re:
On the post: Swedish Prosecutor Claims Registrar Of .se Domains An 'Accomplice' In Infringement Because Of Pirate Bay Domain
Re:
Is it your position that someone accused or convicted of a crime should not be able to register a domain?
Is it your position that the government can determine what legal products and services a company can offer to those accused or convicted of crimes?
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never thought I'd see you say that. It's pretty much a staple complaint on Techdirt that the public never gets to see the text of the various treaties and international agreements.
So Joe, here's a question. Are you agreeing with Techdirt and most of its readers and commenters that these agreements should be open and transparent to the public?
On the post: Florida's Redlight Program Designed To Make Driving More Dangerous By Shortening Yellow Lights
Re:
Those may be reasons, but I'm gonna disagree with the "legitimate" part. Removing all speed limits everywhere would also help some commuters stuck in traffic to have a shorter commute time, but that doesn't mean we should do it.
There are better ways to resolve congestion - more lanes, rerouting roads, better alternate routes, adding and encouraging mass transit options, and plenty of others. Those solutions are far more expensive, so lowering a few yellow light times might get some people re-elected on the cheap, but it makes the roads less safe.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've espoused your support of six strikes for copyright infringement. Would you be in favor of a similar strikes system regarding DMCA notices? Something that included assumption of guilt, limited appeals routes, and little oversight or public scrutiny?
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
We see "bad faith" notices all the time that are not punished. Can you name any case other than Diebold (which is the only one this not-a-law-student can name)? I don't see you advocating for penalties to be enforced on the thousands that are sent and you disagree any time Techdirt decides to highlight a few.
Anyone setting up a system that automates the sending of notices on the basis of keywords has to know that there will be false positives. So, under the same legal theory that holds the creator of a website liable for user submitted infringing content, why wouldn't someone operating such an automated system be operating under de facto bad faith?
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
On the post: Kiwis Want To Spy On All Communications, VPNs, And Be Able To Use Secret Evidence Against You
Re: Give them credit
On the post: Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It ruled that the process of isolating a patented agricultural product from a group of assorted products and purposefully reproducing it so that you can have more copies of it is infringement.
Those statements are mutually exclusive. SCOTUS ruled that you cannot perform breeding on a living organism that contains patented genes. That is ruling against performing breeding.
There was nothing accidental about Bowman's conduct; he purposefully controlled which seeds were allowed to grow and which ones were not so that he could have a population of patented seeds he could call his own.
I never said it was accidental. Of course he selected for crops that did better. That's exactly what breeding is - selecting for certain traits over others to get the desired result.
You seem to want these words to mean something different because you recognize that this really is crazy, but you can't admit it.
We're not arguing on the facts of this case. I don't dispute what the facts are, or what SCOTUS ruled on. I'm saying the ruling is insane. I'm arguing patents on genes or living organisms are insane. I'm arguing the entire patent system is bat-shit crazy, bonkers, unhinged, nutty as a cargo ship full of fuitcake, insane.
You want this crazy. I don't.
I will not pretend to be stupid. I will not pretend that insanity at this monumental level is a good thing. I'm going to call it out as the utter ridiculousness that it is. I looked at a thesaurus writing this. There aren't enough synonyms for crazy to cover this nonsense.
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says who? A book of bronze age myths compiled thousands of years ago by ignorant savages? Even that book doesn't agree with itself - many of those powerful men featured in it had multiple wives, slaves and concubines.
It's nowhere near one and the same.
But it is. You think of them as somehow different and not deserving the same rights you take for granted, just as was done with women and other minorities.
On the post: US's 'Cyberwar' Strategy: Making The Public Less Secure In The Name Of 'Security'
Re: Why not follow private sector's lead?
On the post: Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, he didn't... so what's your argument? That no one can ever buy something and use it in a way that the manufacturer or seller didn't intend?
On the post: Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
Re: Re:
Sounds like the Supreme Court just ruled that a process humans have been engaging in for around 10,000 years (agricultural breeding) is the sole government granted monopoly domain of Monsanto.
Yes, it really is that simple. Which is why everyone who hasn't been drinking the patent lawyer kool-aid thinks it is insane.
Seeds reproduce. It is their entire purpose. Somewhere around 319 million years ago the first seed producing plants evolved from other plants that produced spores. For millions of years plants have been making seeds for exactly one purpose: reproducing themselves.
If Monsanto wants to design and sell some plant (or seed of one) that doesn't reproduce itself, I have no problem with them doing so. But to expect everyone not to use seeds for their entire evolutionary purpose is insane.
On the post: Hangin' With Mr. Cooper: Prenda's Fight Against Alan Cooper Flailing Badly
Re: Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
You mean someone else to forge the signature of on a shell company document, right? They haven't had any actual clients for years.
On the post: Hangin' With Mr. Cooper: Prenda's Fight Against Alan Cooper Flailing Badly
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
Yet there doesn't seem to be any.
If you can't find someone supporting them, just try to think how far off the track they are. I mean really, its the damn internet and there's no one that thinks they're right.
On the post: Pretending That Instructions To Print A Gun Aren't Out There Won't Change The Reality That They Are
Sounds familiar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States
Repeating history and failing the same way. Yay America! We're Number 1!
On the post: Bloomberg Reporters Had Full Access To Customer Usage Logs, Including Help Transcript Logs
"Bloomberg LP's main business is selling ridiculously expensive terminals to Wall Street/financial folks for tracking market information. While I understood why they were able to succeed early on, I've been shocked that the internet hasn't seriously disrupted their business over the past decade or so."
When I worked for IBM, I supported some very similar products made by Reuters (before and after they were bought by Thomson). If Bloomberg was anything like Reuters, it was speed, reliability and support. Similar reason that Red Hat has a viable business model even though Linux is free for anyone. It's not an exageration to say that millions or billions of dollars worth of trades depended on some of those systems, and the banks and trading firms spent a lot of money to make sure they were solid. Real time access to market data, not delayed by minutes like you get from some cheaper solutions. In some cases, we're talking multiply redundant systems with multiply redundant dedicated circuits (network connections). That kinda stuff gets tied into various high-frequency-trading systems. Fast support - in the case of some locations in NY, we could have techs and engineers onsite to a customer location within minutes if something bad enough happened, and a hour or two for even standard kind of issues.
Next >>