I think the term Patent Troll is more exactly defined than that, and divorced from the subjective judgment of "Good" or "Bad" patent. A Patent Troll is a non-practicing entity (NPE). The sole aim of a patent is to encourage the creation of new inventions. The mechanism to do that involves remuneration, but that's not the aim. A NPE doesn't produce anything, so it doesn't encourage the creation of new inventions. It sure encourages the creation of new patents, but is doesn't encourage the creation of new 'things'.

You might argue over the goodness/badness of Amazon's 1-click patent, but Amazon at least provides a useful service using the process for which they hold a patent and isn't, in my opinion, a patent troll.

I disagree with you only over the term 'troll'. Otherwise, you've got to the nub. Patents and copyright exist only to benefit society. "We, the people" created them solely to benefit us. If the economic burden of the current copyright and patent system outweighs its economic benefit—which numerous studies have indicated is so—we need to uncreate them

That may seem naive, but OTOH, simply nuking software and business patents would go a huge way to fixing this, and that does seem to be the worldwide trend.

And Word for Windows was a backport of Macintosh Word. MS Word for DOS didn't support windows, so when they need a response to WordPerfect, they looked to the Macintosh division for the base code.

PowerPoint was originally a Mac program too.

Why? Or, why Antigua? Why doesn't the USA just get over it and follow the law?

Not a good analogy. Neither American nor local companies can sell alcohol in such countries. The beef is that the USA is protecting its local gambling but forbidding international competition, which it has agreed not to do through its membership in the WTO

Copyright in stuff you write only extends outside the USA because of agreements with other sovereign nations. If the USA unilaterally breaks those agreements, then it's reasonable for the other parties to reciprocate. And yes, that means YOU got screwed. By your government. Not, actually, by the other nation. Direct your bile accordingly.

Well for NAT, it has a lot to do with quality, just not in any positive sense. :)

In fact, many people in the IETF prefer the name LSN (Large Scale NAT) to CGN. Or CHN (Carrier Hosted NAT). "Carrier Grade" carrys an implied endorsement. "Carrier Grade Routers", "Carrier Grade NAT". Oooh, shiny, it must be good.

If Dilbert is most relevant, time to change employers.

After discovering that I was living a Dilbert cartoon, I left that job, and once I'd healed, vowed that if my life ever again imitated that particular piece of art, it was time to leave. Thus far I'm pleased to say I've been OK.

Except that in at least some if not all of those countries, the phone dial went 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Looks sensible does it not? But, as dialled, 0 = ten clicks, then 1 was 9, etc. That meant that 111 was VERY unlikely to be dialled by accident---and I believe that was also the reason the the U.K. adopted "999", with the dial running 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.

This is an early example of someone making the decision that the 'user interface' (the order of the digits on the dial) should be as the user might expect (ascending order, starting at 0) rather than reflecting the underlying hardware peculiarities.

Of course, with keypad entry, different criteria apply. We want something short and easy to remember that can't easily be dialled by accident. The latter rule argues against three digits the same, hence 112.

Wikipedia also has an article which includes information on why 911 was chosen for the U.S.

Agree!

Oh, you are referring to the theft of the laptop, aren't you?

Yeah, I know this is slashdot, but really, read the article. Try to see past "this is GOP so it must be either wonderful or the work of the devil depending on your bigotry". It's a good paper, worthy of debate.

I've got mod points at the moment, but rather than oblivionate the current pathetic trolls, flamebait and fr1st p0st crap, I'd rather encourage some thought.

That's what used to happen, until the railways came along.

The local time varies with longitude.

Or, if the cat hassles you about food---pick up the food bowl and put it out of reach, until the appointed time. (Most) cats are not dumb and get the idea really quickly.

If you are a programmer, think of it as cathacking. It works, as long as you work within the limits of the programming environment.

I think you are flogging a dead horse there.

Prior Art still exists. That has not changed at all.

Not everyone any more. According to wikipedia, Pandora is now available in Australia and New Zealand. They apparently negotiated deals with the local licensing bodies.

It depends on the ISP and how you connect, but in many cases the ISP will enable configuration so that if you try and use an IP address other than the one they gave you it will fail. This if for no other reason that a compromised or busted device sending promiscuous ARP with bogus addresses acts as a denial of service attack. See this cisco document for how this works on some equipment.

With reference to gp, to whom you were responding. You need a license to drive a car (and registration). Not to operate a PC.

While YOU certainly know how to secure a router, not everyone does. Anyone, even someone with no tech knowledge (no license required to drive the Internet) can go to the store and buy a WiFi router. Which they set up. And maybe it tells them how to secure it and maybe it doesn't. If they don't, someone can drive by and steal their connection. They can abuse copyright (a civil matter) or download child pornography (felony, so proof beyond reasonable doubt is required).

In any case, who is to blame? The person that didn't secure their router? The store that sold them the gear they didn't secure? The manufacturer that didn't make equipment that had to be secured by default?

More analogy: you leave your door open and someone walks in and downloads pr0n using your router. Is it your fault? You shut your door, which they open and etc. Still your fault? You lock they door but they pick the lock. Still your fault? You barricade the door and triple lock it with three different brands of lock. They enter through the window. Still your fault?

I see what you mean about taking some responsibility, but from a legal point of view (remember, there is no right, no wrong, there is only the Law) what do we want the Law to be?