Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 433

Most of the founding fathers were already wealthy, and that turned out fairly well for some reason.

Maybe we just don't have enough idealistic people like that anymore? I get the impression a disturbing proportion of politicians don't actually believe in the founding principles of the nation they govern anymore.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 433

a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889

Holy shit, they actually still do that somewhere?

This crazy idea that going into politics for the money and power shouldn't be the reason behind it--rather, that you actually want to serve the people--desperately needs to be spread.

Comment Re:Require that patents be defended (Score 1) 131

Presumably the reasoning is that without protection and being given directly the ability to profit off their inventions,* inventors wouldn't bother inventing?

* in theory. cf. large corp "patenting around you" for all possible applications, waiting for it to expire, then doing it themselves, while being protected by team of expensive lawyers

Comment Re:Require that patents be defended (Score 1) 131

You seem quite dense. The "objective" is the purpose. The "means" is not the objective.

Yes, I'm aware of what all those words mean, and that's how I was using them.

I think my point was that it's ("we do <means> to achieve <objective>"), not the other way around. The objective of the system is to promote science and arts, not make people rich.

And the problem isn't that we're not doing the means, it's that we're doing it too much--too much protection such that it never *stops* being protected, which kills the whole objective to which lip service is being paid.

I've read this over so many times I'm not sure whether we're arguing anymore.

Comment Re:Require that patents be defended (Score 1) 131

Reading comprehension problems...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,

is the objective;

by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

is the means by which they hope to achieve it.

No, it's not a trade-off.

Comment Re:I don't know how to React to this news (Score 1) 204

We seem to have had widely different readings of the GP's post.

Copyright != Trademark. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the issue.

Then someone better tell YouTube because they're already issuing DMCA take downs on videos using the word React. What's that stand for again? Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Huh, wonder where people get the phrase "Copyright takedown"? No idea.

I'm interpreting the latter to mean

Maybe copyright and trademark are indeed different things, but YouTube seems to be acting as if they aren't.

The unclear antecedent doesn't help matters...maybe it would work better if we replaced "issuing" with "acting on"?

Then someone better tell YouTube because they're already acting on DMCA take downs on videos using the word React.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.