Your stated argument is not self-consistent... That is all.
Mega has been up far more than six months already, and Google is the last place I'd ever go for longevity of their flavor of the week projects...
Thanks so much for the very interesting chart. It's most interesting feature is the remission from banking crises during the time of the Bretton Woods system.
The Savings and Loan Crisis was during that (supposedly-stable) period. There were likely many, many others.
If that's "cheap" what would you call https://mega.co.nz/
They offer 50GBytes for FREE...
50 / 0 = !@#%$^*&^&(*$%^&
I needed a 12 foot HDMI cable a while back. It was going to cost me $10 on Amazon, but I wanted it right now. I went to Best Buy, half a mile down the road. They wanted $40 for the same cable.
The nearest Walmart would have had one for about $15... Still more expensive than Amazon, with all those Chinese sellers doing cut-throat pricing to get your order, but reasonable. Of course it's probably the existence of Amazon that's keeping them honest.
How do we know that the next update on linux is safe?
I thought you said you were going to audit it.
Blackmail is a gun you can only shoot once... Plenty of politicians have survived bigger scandals.
And don't forget the public is savvy enough about digital image manipulation that the evidence could be put into question long enough to get everyone through to the next budget vote, where all the three letter agencies get axed. Besides, a scandal only means no reelection... If you're obstant enough, you still finish out your term, and get to keep making laws.
The GPLv3 is "arguably more friendly for businesses" in the same way the Earth is argueably flat... You COULD argue that, yes, but overwhelming evidence points to the contrary, and no sane person will agree with you...
Based on your explanation of how patents are necessary for tempramental physical devices, it seems obvious that would apply to tempramental physical objects being controlled by software designed to accomplish the same thing.
If TV had been developed just the same, BUT a digital circuit was used in there to control the electron gun or whatnot, how would that be less valuable, and less worthy of a patent?
Absolutely NONE of that is true. I was browsing full desktop websites, and getting full imap mail, circa 2000. There was some popularity of WAP and active sync, and similar, but only because devices at the time didn't have always-on internet access, so people were reduced to reading a few preselected web pages on the road, and then syncing up at the end of the day.
So what kind of protection would you feel is reasonable for a [...] refined design that makes all its competitors look like they were designed by idiots
The exact same kind of protection that clothing designers get on their designs, perfume makers get on their scents, and Harley Davidson gets on their engine sounds...
None of this was "obvious." It's obvious in retrospect, sure, but obvious then?
Were you around for the dawn of smart phones?
If Compaq had put a cellular radio in an iPaq, we would have had Windows Phones circa 2000, LONG before the iPhone.
Apple did for the iPhone the exact same thing they did for the iPod... They made it a bit more user-friendly, and advertised the hell out of it. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, and the iPhone wasn't the first mobile computer.
Those nice mobile web browsers like Opera, that you can use on your iPhone... They were developed for PDAs. Fitting a desktop web page to a tiny screen is a hard problem, and one that PDA developers kept working on for years. Apple was lucky they had all that R&D available to steal, because the guys at Opera and other companies didn't file hundreds of patents.
Software development does involve testing cycles, but otherwise almost never involves the kind of experimentation involved in the invention of television, because the exact properties of computer operations are previously known.
So you FULLY support software patents, wherever the software in question controls a (finicky) physical object?
But not where hundreds of millions of dollars in research has been spent studying human perception, and designing a lossy audio codec, because, hey, interfacing with a speaker is simple...
Porting a huge GTK-2 application to QT is substantially more work than just forking GTK-2 with a new name, and maybe some small modifications.
And adopting and modifying GTK-3 seems like a battered woman going back to her abusive husband... The FSF has a sorry track record of destroying everything they touch, and the GPLv3 getting forced on all their software is making individuals and companies run for the hills at a record pace.
Hey, if Google makes Aurora a distributable package, I'll compile all the GTK-2 apps I use against it, and just keep using it. I even still depend on a few GTK-1 apps...