Posts by Oh Homer 1134 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Oct 2013
Good. That's just as it should be. In fact it needs to expire much sooner or, better yet, be completely abolished.
The practical difficulties associated with monopolising something that is, to at least some extent, derivative work, and thus blatantly plagiarised and stolen from other people, is likely to engender about as much sympathy as a bank robber bemoaning the fact that it's difficult to rob banks without a shotgun.
Well, if it really is an "invention" then surely it's patentable, so it doesn't need to be a secret.
On the other hand, even those things that are patented are always derivative to at least some degree, and therefore cannot justifiably be monopolised (unless you can demonstrate that you've suitably compensated every single contributor to "your" work), so I'm at a loss to recommend any course of action that's both viable and ethical, beyond merely working for a living like everyone else.
Personally, I don't see why any company should be allowed to keep secrets, or have any other rights usually reserved for real people. As commercial entities operating in the public domain, it should be incumbent upon them to do so transparently, as a matter of public interest. They're not people - they have no right to privacy, and they're not democratically elected governing bodies - they're not protecting the public good, so their keeping "secrets" is actually in contradiction to the public interest, indeed its sinister.
If these companies have any genuine "inventions" or "creations" that truly deserve any sort of state protectionism, there are already other legal mechanisms to do that, such as copyrights and patents, both of which have a limited scope and duration, which (theoretically) ensures they do not conflict with the public good. This is in stark contrast to "trade secrets", which have no such limitations or legal oversight, and so can be abused for all sorts of nefarious purposes.
And now, with this latest development, those nefarious purposes are not only being offered state protection, but this protectionism is being executed in the most thuggish manner possible.
It's enough to make even Al Capone blush.
You mean those "international telecommunication networks" that we "freetards" Internet subscribers pay for?
But what that has to do with the borderless nature of Teh Internets, "freetards" or anything else, I'm not sure. I have to pay to make a phone call or send a letter too, that doesn't mean I'm not free to do so.
I think you must be one of those materialist-obsessed nuts who's incapable of distinguishing between freedom and money.
For example, censorship in China, Iran, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes, like the UK, has nothing to do with money. Similarly, the reason the oppressed people of those regimes circumvent that censorship, using a variety of methods (much to the chagrin of those regimes' respective dictators), has nothing to do with money either.
But please carry on screaming gibberish about "freetards", if it makes you sleep easier.
However, thankfully Teh Internets has no borders, so unless the MAFIAA® gets its wish for a One World Government (euphemistically referred to as "multilateralism"), thus assuming dictatorial control over every country, they're pissing in the wind.
Here's my Top 10 most suitable pricks for the job, in reverse order:
10. Dead Steve Jobs (hey, even a corpse can't do any worse than Fester)
9. Carly Fiorina (ditto)
8. Larry "Everyone Else Must Fail" Ellison (because ... everyone else will FAIL. Obviously)
7. Keith B. Alexander, director of the NSA (they practically already own Microsoft anyway)
6. Tom Cruise (because he likes cult scams, and is "the only one who can really help", after all)
5. Sarah Palin (for having a similar sense of "diplomacy" and "ethics" as Fester)
4. Nyan Cat (pointless, monotonous and disturbingly compelling, just like Windows)
3. Richard Stallman (because he'd emancipate all that oppressed, proprietary software ... then do nothing with it for 20 years, until people abandoned it, moving on to something better. Finally!)
2. Russell Brand (Master of the Art of popularising and selling unpalatable concepts, word-salad bandit who'd give even the most hardcore marketese-gibberish linguist a headache, and all-round funny guy)
1. Gene Hunt (fictional character and notorious "armed bast'd" who bears a striking resemblance to a Mancunian version of Fester, both in attitude and demeanor, albeit with more hair)
Apple paid ARM for a CPU design. Since presumably both parties received exactly what they agreed upon, then the account is settled, and therefore no one "owes" anyone anything.
So, ultimately, Apple's only real "achievement" was ... it was one of ARM's customers.
Is the rest of the world supposed to feel privileged, just because Apple went shopping?
So in other words, a "world government" ... ruled by the Yanks, naturally.
Sorry, but no, I'm not especially keen to become a subject of the fascist American Empire. I like Blighty's borders just the way they are, thanks.
Oh, but "think of the poor".
Yes, I am. The Yanks have demonstrated quite unambiguously how they regard the poor: as cattle.
As a forty-a-day man who chokes his lungs up every morning, I was desperate to ditch the coffin nails, so I tried these e-thingies.
I certainly got a hit, even more than with a real fag, to the point where I actually got a headache, but the overall sensation is just not the same at all. It may be purely psychological, but I'm still desperate for a fag immediately after vaping. Alternatively, maybe I'm also addicted to some chemical other than nicotine, that's mixed in with the tobacco (apparently there are over 4000 of them).
Either way, I found them to be just as useless as patches.
Even if that's true, which I find very hard to believe, then it's of no interest to me, since I am not Richard Stallman, nor is he my "hero" as you falsely presume.
Although, actually, I suppose it isn't that hard to believe, as Stallman apparently supports non-Free licensing in the form of the GFDL, which contains a so-called "invariant section" (just another way of saying "unmodifiable"), a direct violation of Stallman's own "Four Freedoms" principle. I suppose that makes him a hypocrite, or at least rather ambivalent.
That's just one of the reasons Stallman can't possibly be my "hero". I'm afraid his stance on proprietary licensing simply isn't strict enough for my tastes, and his position on patents is one of utter denial, which isn't at all helpful.
I find it amusing that you think I must be "mental", just because I have the entirely reasonable expectation of being "allowed" to continue using my own legally purchased property in perpetuity, without that use being essentially revoked by the manufacturer. But that's exactly what you get with proprietary drivers: hardware (i.e. real, physical property) that only works as long as the manufacturer "allows" it.
Sorry, but that's just a scam.
It's a "sale" that isn't really a sale, that turns the idea of property ownership into a farce, by transforming real, physical property into something that can only really be "rented", even though it's supposedly being "sold", because the essential part required to actually use it isn't sold, it's only "licensed".
Frankly that should be illegal. It certainly should never be tolerated in education.
And that's just the first problem with the Raspberry Pi. Next we have the dubious decision to encumber it with proprietary video codecs, even though the purpose of this tool is supposedly to teach children how to program in Python, not waste time watching cartoons.
The fact that Broadcom's VideoCore GPU supports hardware acceleration of unencumbered codecs like WebM wasn't even considered by Upton, apparently, which is quite extraordinary considering that he helped design the damned thing. Nor was the possibility of simply omitting codec support entirely, given that it isn't needed for the purpose it was designed for. Either choice would also have further reduced the cost, thus satisfying one of the core goals of the project, which it missed by £10 per unit.
But no, for some unexplained reason it was deemed absolutely crucial to syphon money into the MPEG-LA racketeering operation, even though it could have been completely avoided, especially as the enforceability of software patents in the UK is highly dubious, and this was a tool made specifically for British schoolchildren.
And now we have this proprietary application, included by default, which only serves as a sort of black-box calculator, not a tool to actually learn about creating software, which is after all the whole purpose of a computer science class. It may have been a few years since I attended school, but I'm fairly sure they already have a separate maths class, so I'm not sure why they'd need another one.
You defend these questionable decisions on the basis that they make the Raspberry Pi more "popular", but popularity is completely irrelevant, and moreover this "popularity" hasn't been of any benefit to British schools, almost none of which are actually using the Raspberry Pi, for its intended purpose or otherwise.
If the goal of the Raspberry Pi had been to satisfy the mindless cravings of "consumers", who merely want to play games and type "lol" fifty times a day on Farcebook, then that would be bad enough, it'd be the sort of scam indicated above, but at least there are Free alternatives, and it wouldn't have had a negative impact on education.
But as it stands the Raspberry Pi is nothing but a hobby kit for middle-aged kids who don't mind being shafted at some point in the future, when their property is "revoked" by the manufacturer. As such, if it ever does make it into the classroom, the learning experience won't be substantially different to that other class that merely teaches children how to use other people's software: the glorified secretarial course called "ICT", and any opportunity to reintroduce real computer science back into schools will have been lost.
This is "OK", apparently, because "it's only 25 quid", after all. It's far more important that this toy should be "popular", than promote computer science and uphold consumer rights. Principles be damned.
Throwing money at people doesn't impress me in the least, in fact I find it offensive that anyone would believe that's an acceptable substitute for open access to knowledge in education.
Your "don't use it" advice seems reasonable enough, but is sadly misdirected, since I am not the one who's going to be subjugated by this lack of access.
The fact that proprietary restrictions are common, as you conceded in your other comment, means that those who are subjugated by it don't really have much choice, so upon reflection your "don't use it" comment is rather disingenuous.
That's like holding someone hostage, feeding them nothing but gruel, then telling them that if they don't like it then they don't have to eat it, they can starve to death instead.
This dichotomous choice may be an accurate reflection of reality, but that doesn't make it right, and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Generally speaking, the first thing one should probably do when refusing to tolerate an unacceptable condition, is complain about it.
I realise that some of the more apathetic types may find that a somewhat radical notion.
The RPF has made a number of highly questionable decisions regarding the inclusion of proprietary technology in this supposedly educational tool, none of which were actually necessary, and all could easily have been avoided. Today's decision is merely one of them.
Whereas most people might tend to be impressed by what they perceive as a free gift, I see it for what it really is: a bowl of gruel.
The problem is, unlike real property, the "intellectual" variety is neither given nor sold, it's only "licensed", which is more like a lease than a purchase.
That's fine until the "rental" company goes titsup, or suddenly decides to withdraw the tool you've spent time, money and effort learning to use, at which point the fact of this tool being rented for "free" will be of little comfort.
Call me old fashioned, but I'm disinclined to be grateful for being shafted.
I don't want "rented" software, I want software I can be sure of using and maintaining in perpetuity (potentially on new platforms and architectures). That's especially important in an educational environment, where there's a curriculum that requires long-term planning and execution. It's also important that student have software they can learn from by reading the sources, not merely learn about by using it, which is not exactly an unreasonable expectation in a computer science class, after all.
We already have classes where students only learn to use other people's software, mainly populated by budding secretaries, pointy-hairs and marketeers, and we already have more of those than should be legal in civilised society. What we need now is engineers, and for that we need more than mere tools, we need to see the guts of the machinery.
Well Johnny, I'm sure you could probably do your accounts with it too, but more generally it's a "free open-source mathematics software system", just like it states on the page you didn't read.
Straight from the horse's mouth: "Today I’m pleased to announce a step in that direction: working with the Raspberry Pi Foundation, effective immediately there’s a pilot release of the Wolfram Language—as well as Mathematica—that will soon be bundled as part of the standard system software for every Raspberry Pi computer." ~ Stephen Wolfram (my emphasis).
Personally I'd be happier if they bundled Sage instead, which is not only Free Software (in the important sense), and thus is far more suitable for an educational environment, but is also written in Python, the programming language that was supposed to be the Raspberry Pi's entire raison d'être in the first place.
But then that probably wouldn't satisfy Broadcom's Upton's predilection for proprietary technology.
Whatever happened to Cash'n'Carrion, El Reg's merchandise section/site?
I checked the WayBack machine, and the last copy it has of cashandcarrion.co.uk, before it started redirecting back to the main site, is from the begining of 2010.
I realise it probably went titsup but, just out of curiosity, what happened, when did it happen, was there an announcement (and where is it), and can I still buy Vulture gear anywhere?
Thanks.
So Google pays Mozilla to make an identical clone of Chrome that competes with ... itself.
What's the point?
Or have I missed something really obvious?
How shall I bounce thee?
Let me count the ways!
Seriously, it's only a bloody bounce, the effect for which can be created in two simple lines of code.
How in Goat's name can anyone be awarded a patent on something so trivial, then argue with a straight face about Hard Work® and the minutia of exactly how and why some silly UI element "bounces"?
Yeah, because, you know, that little bounce at the end of a scroll took meeelions of man-hours to code, and has never been done before, ever.
Honest.
Oh look, it's my stalker!
If you look carefully at the article, you'll note that my "demonstrably untrue" comment has in fact just been clearly demonstrated, once again, by Microsoft. It even notes some of those other occasions when Microsoft demonstrated it. There are in fact articles going back decades that demonstrate how awful Windows networking is, and has always been, to the extent that it's become a cliché.
But don't let something as trivial as the facts get in your way.
The problem with your argument is that it assumes those in "power" represent themselves (and their associates), not the electorate, which isn't in fact supposed to be the case in a democracy. No democratic government has a mandate to do unto the people anything not sanctioned by the people, and I'm fairly sure very few of those people would sanction their government engaging in wholesale spying without probable cause and a warrant.
But then I keep forgetting that the US is not a democracy, and indeed wasn't even established as such, it's an elitist republic.
I don't want anyone snooping on me, but if given a dichotomous choice then I'd choose the country that has no legal jurisdiction over me, which in this case is China.
If the UK ever formed the sort of "special relationship" with China that it currently has with the US (e.g. unfettered access to all my private data, and extradition without even prima facie evidence), then I'd have to think twice about it.
Also, trivial though it is, it's highly debatable if Apple was in fact the first to discover "scroll-and-bounce". I recall an Amiga program from the 80s called "Diavolo Backup", which had an "About" window that did exactly the same thing, and actually even before that there was the same effect in the "About" window for MUI ("Magic User Interface"). There are probably even earlier examples, certainly far earlier than Apple's 2007 patent.
"If you don't want someone looking at your posts and making comments based on them"
I don't especially care if you do, one way or another, I'm just remarking on the irony of an anonymous poster believing that "exposing" the identity of the messenger would somehow invalidate the message or, failing that, silence the messenger with intimidation.
I didn't say that such behaviour was likely to be effective, although apparently my stalker does, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted it in the first place.
But effective or otherwise, I don't really see much point in me posting anonymously, when I'm already posting pseudonymously, which makes my stalker's expectations all the more ridiculous.
Funny, I make a comment about Microsoft, and your reaction is to start stalking me.
FYI: "Our records show you have been a member since 2007-12-17"
Do you need my home telephone number too, or is that enough for Microsoft you to be going on with?
Also, could you explain what bearing my identity has on Microsoft's propensity to screw up?
The substantive point is that this is a public space, as in not your space but everyone's, and therefore what you do in it most certainly is our business.
It's like walking on stage, expecting the audience not to look at you, then being outraged when they do.
That's a bit OTT. I don't feel especially oppressed by the presence of a car filming the street I happen to be walking on, any more than I'd feel oppressed by a Japanese tourist accidentally capturing me in a photo then uploading it to flickr.
It is a public space, after all. If you don't want to be seen in public, then first I'd ask why, what are you up to? Second I'd ask why it's OK for everyone but you to be seen in public? And third I'd ask why you don't just barricade yourself into the sanctity of your own private space at home, preferably behind several layers of tin foil, if you're that paranoid?
As for Schmidt's predictions about the end of censorship ... unlikely, unless there's a global revolution (I live in hope).
Technically, Microsoft mainly uses extortion and NDAs in boiler rooms and back alleys (well, OK, locked conference rooms), not litigation in the courtroom, which I suppose is what Howard is really advocating, based on the principle that intimidation is a more effective (and certainly more efficient) weapon than a full-frontal assault.
Indeed, it would make a refreshing change for Microsoft to grow a pair and try litigating over its mysterious "patents", because then the world would see them exposed as the con-artists they really are.
The nearest we ever got was the Barnes & Noble case, but unfortunately the Borg assimilated them into the collective before we could learn more than just the Truth®, the Whole Truth® and nothing but Microsoft's patented Truth®.
(Bring back the Microsoft Borg icon!)
Or does Acacia's president, Matthew Vella, look suspiciously like Lex Luthor?
Just sayin'.
Not sure how I feel about this one.
On the one hand, I fully support those who rightly believe products should in fact be fit for purpose. On the other hand, I have to wonder at the naivety of anyone who seriously believes anything made by Apple is actually fit for any purpose, other than being shiny bling for poseurs and lining Apple's bulging pockets, of course.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
