test 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (81) comment rss

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 07:23pm

    Re: An Assignment For Angry Dude.

    I agree with Angry Dude. I don't think there's a principled reason that, e.g., a Babbage engine that performs calculations should be eligible for a patent, but a piece of software that does the exact same thing shouldn't be patentable.

    If you push very hard on the analysis, the execution of software sets registers and executes operations by moving electrons around and biasing transistors. Your software gets things done by affecting the hardware at the atomic level. To put it in Bilski terms, all software is tied to the particular machine that executes it, and all software transforms an article, i.e., the hardware that executes it.

    Your counter-argument doesn't hold weight. Lions and panthers are both cats. That's not any less true because a panther isn't a lion.

  • On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release

    test ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2010 @ 05:10am

    It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Do you think it might be possible that the justices of the Supreme Court might know a little more about interpreting statutes than you and all the other "no-software-patents" kooks? Have you actually read the opinion? Do you understand the roles of the judiciary and Congress in our form of government?

    Let me make a few simple points here, in response to the points you make in your post in the order you present them:

    1. If you're so upset about Bilski, take your beef to Congress. It's Congress's job to make laws, and the Court's job to interpret them. If the statute says "processes" are patentable, and another statute talks about patents on "methods of doing business", that's the end of the analysis. A business method is a process, therefore it's patentable. It's not the Court's institutional role to substitute its judgment for that of Congress, and certainly not because you and all the other kooks think that it should.

    1a. It's been twelve years since State Street. Look at how American innovation has fallen apart since then. Except that it hasn't.

    2. Did you read the IEEE amicus filing? The Court's opinion agrees with most of the amicus brief, except the specific test for patentability. The IEEE's test has no basis in the law -- you're not allowed to rewrite the statute because you don't like how it reads. See 1. above.

    2a. Arguably, the IEEE's test for patentability overlaps with the Court's precedent on "abstract ideas", which the Court relied on here to deny Bilski a patent.

    3. This decision provided much clarity here. For the past year, the discussion has been whether the Supreme Court would kill "business method patents" and "software patents." Instead, they were very clear that those items are patentable, and that one of the tests for patentable subject matter in this area is "machine or transformation." How much clearer do you want it?

    3a. The "confusion" the IEEE refers to comes from three early cases in this area: Parker, Benson, and Flook. Have you read those? Do you know why people think they're confusing? Then maybe you'd know why the Supreme Court didn't announce a bright-line test here.

    4. They're not talking about the "overall ruling" when they're talking about the 5-4 number. Their quote clearly says the 5-4 decision says that "a new method of doing business can be patented, and that the ability to patent software should not be limited." The "overall ruling" that Bilski didn't deserve a patent was 9-0, but that's not what they're talking about.

    5. The Court did address software patents, and all other kinds of patents. If it's purely a software method patent, then it's treated like any other non-software method and it's eligible for a patent if it meets all of the other legal requirements.

    I really appreciate a lot of what you write in the copyright space, and I think it's very smart. But your "patents suck" writings are not only tedious, but also poorly thought out. Many of your posts on this topic suffer from confirmation bias, where you seek out information that only confirms your prejudices. Keep up the good work otherwise.

  • On the post: Amazon Cuts Off All North Carolina Affiliates Over Questionable Proposed Tax Bill

    test ( profile ), 09 May, 2010 @ 04:42pm

    Re: Re: paying attention now?

    A lot better than the next 8 years are going to be.

  • On the post: Ubisoft's Despised DRM Continues To Annoy, Fail

    test ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2010 @ 04:55am

    Uh huh

    Please make fun of the hackers' spelling and then misspell the word "assassin" in your post. Happy Earth Day.

  • On the post: Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums

    test ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2009 @ 12:32pm

    If it had not been for a link to the youtube video in an email I would have never heard of Susan. I don't like the shows that Simon produces and never watch them..

    So Simon should be thankful for the free exposure, reap the benefits of the album, dvd, tour, sales and move on... honestly without the youtube exposure I am willing to bet that when ever Susan performed on the show there were increased viewers as well.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    test ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2009 @ 02:02am

    It looks like an MBA person

    What can i say, it looks like thought by an MBA person

  • On the post: Prosecutor Who Threatened Teens With Child Porn Charges For Taking Pics Of Themselves Gets Sued

    test ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2009 @ 11:48am

    Re:

    There is something to protect children from this actually.. in a backwards kind of way. The same laws that protect a child from being exploited could be used to argue that they are merely minors and therefore, could not understand that what they were doing is wrong, as they were minors.

  • On the post: Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use

    test ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2009 @ 06:03am

    Re: Re: Web 2.0 is not a communcation tool

    My name was right on. I missed a couple of business cases you're right. Spreading music, promoting movies, and some sales networking can definitely be done through web 2.0 tools. On the other hand when companies like IBM, HP, Microsoft, etc. spend a fortune creating Facebook pages and second life islands it's nothing more than a time and money waster. If the business you do deals with people, i.e. marketing, recruiting, or sales then ANY method of reaching people is a business tool. Hence the expensible drinks at the bar until 2am. If you are in any other role these "tools" waste time. IM and chat is like SMS, if it's business related it's a quick easy communication method and makes sense. If you have 20 IM windows open and none of them is a colleague it's a different story.

  • On the post: Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use

    test ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2009 @ 05:56am

    Re: Re: The Military

    Jason the problem there is that a military news/reporting/morale organization (people in uniform) came up with trooptube and implemented it. Unfortunately they have no communication or tie to the civilian organization which runs the non-combat military network and controls firewalls and bandwidth. One probably didn't even know about the other. Overall it's a seperate problem at eh size our government is no one part has any clue what any other part is doing/

  • On the post: Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use

    test ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2009 @ 05:36am

    Web 2.0 is not a communcation tool

    Spin facebook, MySpace, and Twitter any way you want but the fact is they are not effective communication tools for business. Business get's done, via phone and email, SMS maybe in some cases. Blogs, Facebook bulletins, and MicroBlogs are a great way to waste hours unproductively. No matter how "effective" a tool you may trick yourself into thinking these are a company will never get back the hours their employees spend creating a profile and answering emails from long lost idiots that are sitting at work searching for people they never even talked to in High School.

    Email and Cell phones have been repeatedly proven to be large distractors and decrease productivity (the check the message impulse.) And the lost productivity can be equated to going to work without sleeping the previous night. Add "microblogs" blogs, and facebooks random bulletin chain spam of the day and you have no work getting done.

    I have nothing against these technologies on personal time. If you have nothing better to do with your life than spend hours reading about what your friends are doing then great, go blog about it. I'm just tired of people calling these business tools, and then fat old out of touch CEOs wasting time and resources trying to make a buck off of them only to find out the only people that can are the ones who own Facebook and Myspace.

  • On the post: Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use

    test ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2009 @ 05:27am

    Re: Re: The Military

    Much of the equipment the military uses in the field in Iraq is Cisco gear. It's not just Raytheon and General Dynamics that can make a piece of gear you can kick, drop, and heat until the cows come home.

  • On the post: Parents Are Never Going To Be Able To Monitor All Kids Online Activities

    test ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2008 @ 06:47am

    Hmmm

    I do a pretty good job at monitoring my roommates online activity...

  • On the post: Voice Is Data: Tech Won't Be Able To Stop VoIP In The Air

    test ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2008 @ 01:51am

    "Except they've done numerous blind studies where researchers brought cell phones onto planes and made all kinds of calls - no problems."

    Try it sometime - doesn't work above about 5,000 feet - ever. I know, out of curiosity and need for data connections I've tried AT&T and Verizon many times - no dice.

    "If it was a problem, they wouldn't have the $2/min air phones in every aisle."

    As a very frequent flyer, I can tell you phone calls en route will be highly annoying to me at least. You're seeing more and more "cell free" areas in public places on the ground, why would cell usage when you're trapped shoulder to shoulder for hours on end be any less aggravating than in a restaurant or movie?

    Ever notice people use headphones on planes to listen to their iPod but don't hook up speakers? Why would listening to 1/2 of someone's phone call be any less rude than listening to music via speaker?

    As for your $2/minute theory, I fly all the time and I can remember seeing someone using those phones perhaps once or twice over the past years. Reason? Too expensive. Even in first class, they are rarely used. Just because some company is foolish enough to pay to put them on planes doesn't mean they're a good business model. For example, there's very little competition to supply these in-flight phones. One or two smallish companies worldwide, and cerainly no major companies are vying for the business. Also, if there was any kind of volume of usage, you'd see prices drop to encourage even more use.

    I tend to put credence in the Myhthbuster's test. If cell phones were truly dangerous electronically they would be banned altogether; any real physical risk is too risky. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers and the FAA eliminate other, even less likely sources of risk; surely they wouldn't stop at a total ban on turning on cell phones if they were truly a flight risk.

    I also reject the $2/min competition as the reason for the ban, obviously.

    Then, why are cell phones banned? My theory: Flight crews don't want to have to deal with passengers refusing to get off calls, and with other passengers complaining about people making noisy, angry or otherwise uncomfortable-for-your-neighbor calls.

    The $2/min option gives the "must-calls" a way to satisfy that need with very little likelihood they will stay on and chat for long vs. cell phones where the flat fee plans guarantee that the more mindless and rude you seem to be, the longer you're going to yammer on.

    IMHO

  • On the post: Latest Study Questions Whether YouTube Really Hurts Viacom

    test ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2008 @ 04:56am

    Viacom Inc spanking youtube now!

    The VIACOM Spanking Youtube that do hurts us. We love Youtube, we your know , revenge is sweet. revenge is sweet why Spanking VIACOM youtube with Viacom Inc spanking youtube, wow great story!!!!!!!Hey everyone your know abode claim of VlACOM to youtube the damage runs into billions! But VlACOM be not fair, you are stupids that have upload a unauthorized clips video of MTV on Youtube, VlACOM claim 1 billions dollar for Google for unauthorized clips video of MTV , its as someone have spanking you on ass "a femdom businesswoman of VlACOM"!

    Viacom Inc spanking youtube now! that do us hurt and we hated VIACOM! VlACOM look to us spying as see that we billions Youtube viewers watch video on youtube clips video of MTV, youtube most pay to VlACOM $1 billion!

  • On the post: India Facing Call Center Crisis: Blame Bangalore Bar Closing Times

    test ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2008 @ 02:23am

    Test

    Dumb Test

  • On the post: How GoDaddy Lost A Longtime Customer

    test ( profile ), 26 May, 2008 @ 09:44pm

    This story is a complete lie

    I am still amazed how this story is around, but then again this is the internet, anyone can lie and if they tell it enough then enough other people will join in and believe the lie! I've listed to all the calls posted. Along with some other information I have come across.

    Two things:

    1st: GoDaddy did not "basically completely took down this entire hosting firm". That is blatantly incorrect. GoDaddy turned off a domain name after repeated proven spam/viruses that were sent out after repeated warnings that the domain would be shut down if not resolved. The domain apparently happened to be the only set of nameservers being used by the hosting company, which was a gross error on their part to not have backup nameservers.

    2nd: In order to get the name turned back on the only thing they needed to do was respond to an email agreeing they would not send out spam any longer. Yes thats right, simply respond saying "I Agree". What if GoDaddy had been sued for allowing a domain, that had been proven to allow spam/viruses to pass through it previously, to be turned back on...well they need something to show in court that they had an agreement it would not happen again. Well instead of responding to the email, the person instead chose to argue, and refuse to check their email...instead they verbally abused the phone reps and threatened them hoping that would resolve their situation instead.

    I think this clearly shows the poor choices of the person who had their entire data center shut down due to repeated spam/viruses being sent through their only set of nameservers. Sounds like their customers are also getting the short end of the stick for not having a backup set to use in case of certain instances like this.

  • On the post: Doctor Claims That Sending Too Many Text Messages Is A Sign Of Mental Problems

    test ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2008 @ 11:48am

    always provide a link to the article you are talki

    always provide a link to the article you are talking about

  • On the post: Craigslist Shuts Down Search Tool; Apparently They Define What Local Means

    test ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2008 @ 01:03am

    craigslist Checker

    See http://www.craigslistchecker.com/ they are really basic, but seem to work well. It emails you once an hour if it find anything new.

  • On the post: Has Wal-Mart Lost Its Technology Edge?

    test ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2008 @ 07:20pm

    Wm has not lost their edge

    Nope, on the RFID front, they are plugging away, refining their processes and when they get the bugs worked out they will be years ahead of anyone they compete with. It is amazing and scary at the same time, how they can sustain multi-year R&D

  • On the post: Does Ordering Food Via A Mobile Device Deserve A Patent?

    test ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2007 @ 08:14pm

    what? educated but unskilled?

    So, you get a university education, but you have to then work at McDonalds because you have no 'skills', where you work until you are skilled [at working in McDonalds], when you get fired [instead of even getting a raise], then you have to work retail [until you get skills and are then fired] and so on... Is that what you mean?

Next >>