prev <-> next
[2004-06-09 15:27:52] - a: In our current system, nothing else being changed? -Paul
[2004-06-09 15:27:05] - be allowed to. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:26:49] - paul: do you think women should vote? ~a
[2004-06-09 15:26:18] - mig: Well, I posted that link because of what he says about voting not being a universal right, which is the point I was trying to make a long time ago. Although I think he may have a point with at least some of his conclusions about women voting. -Paul
[2004-06-09 15:26:02] - paul: well then i respectfully disagree. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:25:25] - dave has never tried to call microsoft's help line. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:25:11] - a: I was joking that the windows security flaws need malicious people to exploit them, while these linux bugs don't even need that for it to be an issue. -Paul
[2004-06-09 15:24:26] - paul: i don't really agree with vox. i think most of the stuff he complains about (illegitamcy, divorce, etc) is more of a result of general acceptance of irresponsibility than just voting. - mig
[2004-06-09 15:24:17] - a: yeah I know. I'm just saying that with software you bought (say from MS) you can call them up and yell at them and usually they'll show you how to fix it. The support for GNU is much more involved. Like you might have to delve into the actual code yourself etc. Which isn't what most companies want to do -dave
[2004-06-09 15:23:21] - paul: what? ~a
[2004-06-09 15:22:52] - re: title. Is that a movie or a graphic novel? -Paul
[2004-06-09 15:22:32] - dave: there are windows applications that don't get support. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:22:12] - a: So these programs don't even need malicious people to mess up?
-paul[2004-06-09 15:21:43] - paul: apache comes out with bug fixes like yearly and it's never for features that are in the default configuration. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:21:37] - dave: some are security bugs but there are also updates/normal bug fixes coming in. - mig
[2004-06-09 15:21:33] - a: yeah I know, I'm just saying you have to deal with things like that if you go GNU instead of mainstream like MS -dave
[2004-06-09 15:21:08] - paul: i wasn't talking about remote exploits (which is what we were talking about before) ~a
[2004-06-09 15:20:49] - a: so all these bugs people fix aren't security bugs? -dave
[2004-06-09 15:20:28] - dave: well, just because one application doesn't get support, doesn't mean that the community is to blame. it's the project's fault. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:19:44] - a: So you're saying that there are hundreds of bugs with linux every day? How can such a buggy program last?
-Paul[2004-06-09 15:19:39] - a: ahhh, well I wasn't thinking of Linux, was thinking of Octave, a GNU version of Matlab. Yeah, I could see there being lotsa updates for linux -dave
[2004-06-09 15:19:15] - there are like millions of people who fix annoying bugs every night because they make time, they want to put forth the effort, and are often getting paid. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:18:33] - a: hehe, yeah, I guess I'm ignorant ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-09 15:18:07] - dave: sorry last post. i do the equivalant of windows-update for linux (apt-get dist-upgrade) and i get hundreds of bug fixes every night. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:17:08] - dave: that's ignorant. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:16:27] - well, maybe not tons of bugs, but they are there and just as annoying IMO as the MS ones, if not moreso sometimes because you don't have someone you can blame or yell at since it's free -dave
[2004-06-09 15:15:46] - a: if it is, I shouldn't be here because I couldn't name you a single gnu/linux/mozilla flaw
- vinnie[2004-06-09 15:14:54] - a: and there are tons of bugs in GNU. Like I use some of it and there are some annoying bugs that just don't get fixed cuz no one has the time or wants to put forth the effort / they aren't getting paid -dave
[2004-06-09 15:14:35] - vinnie: this is the computing world. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:14:17] - dave: or the fact that basically every virus my non-computer-friendly co-workers have heard of targets an ms flaw - vinnie
[2004-06-09 15:13:49] - Vinnie: Didn't you see Stone Philips warning us about the dangers of the latest GNU worm last night?
-Paul[2004-06-09 15:13:23] - vinnie: yeah, I never hear about them in mainstream news...ever. Like I'm thinking articles in the WashPost that say major bug in windows etc -dave
[2004-06-09 15:13:10] - a: I doubt it, I hardly ever hear stuff about flaws in gnu/linux/mozilla stuff (whether that's because there aren't many or they don't get attention is clearly up for debate). -Paul
[2004-06-09 15:12:29] - how do gnu/linux/mozilla flaws possibly get more publicity except in the computing world? - vinnie
[2004-06-09 15:11:50] - most of the things you said were false: gnu/linux/mozilla flaws get much more publicity because they are so rare, the anti-ms crusaders out there don't really have much to say except, oh another root exploit . . . yes yes, this never happens in non-microsoft browsers, yes yes same story as last time. ~a
[2004-06-09 15:10:48] - a: that's true, but by that same statement, MS isn't really that dangerous of a monopoly because everyone uses the apache server and that's not MS -dave
[2004-06-09 15:10:35] - Dave: Yeah, MS products are expensive but it doesn't seem to be any worse than something like Photoshop. -paul
[2004-06-09 15:10:06] - a: Right, hence why I said it's possible and not a proven fact.
-Paul[2004-06-09 15:09:55] - Paul: Yeah, I guess my only complaint about the MS monopoly would be price, but that might be just because I think most software is expensive -dave
[2004-06-09 15:09:08] - paul: by that logic: It's also possible that nobody TRIES to find security holes in the less popular web servers because their virii can be so much more effective on apache since more pepole use it. (however, the logic fails, b/c all virii are written for the less secure IIS web server) ~a
[2004-06-09 15:03:18] - Dave: I think it's a combination of a lot of things. MS products are the target of more security breach attempts, their flaws get more publicity, and the anti-MS crusaders out there make a big deal out of every flaw they can find. -Paul
[2004-06-09 15:01:58] - Paul: oh, well that too I guess, tho it's not what I had in mind. On the subject of security flaws, Mac OSX has had a few huge ones in the past month or so. I think MS ones have tapered down in the last few months -dave
[2004-06-09 14:59:15] - Dave: Oh, I thought you meant heightened exposure regarding that everybody hears about it's security flaws. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:57:56] - Paul: Yeah, that's one of the things I was trying to say, but not very well. "heightened exposure" -dave
[2004-06-09 14:55:41] - Dave: It's also possible that nobody TRIES to find security holes in the less popular browsers because their virii can be so much more effective on IE since more pepole use it. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:54:54] - not that I don't think it has a lot of bugs, but I don't think other people's software is all that much better -dave
[2004-06-09 14:54:49] - http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_voxday_archive.html#108680592143622839 Another issue that Vox Day explains more elegantly than I can. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:54:17] - I honestly don't think MS has done that bad a job with its software. I think many of its security flaws comes for its overzealous desire to add features and its heightened exposure since most people use it -dave
[2004-06-09 14:53:59] - paul: haha. good one. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:52:05] - the author must work for Opera! it's just a scare tactic! - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:51:55] - Travis: Because the anti-MS crowd tends to be very snobbish about their choice of software. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:51:26] - don't worry, it's invaluable. -dr-nick
[2004-06-09 14:50:20] - travis: yeah, no kidding. they forgot firefox and galeon
~a[2004-06-09 14:50:19] - it's falling on impotent computers
- vinnie[2004-06-09 14:49:40] - why did that article have to end with the condescending "unless you're a Mozilla or Opera user that is" up until then it was just a simple stating of fact - travis
[2004-06-09 14:49:31] - or if ms isn't a monopoly, then we need a new word for when one company basically makes themselves invaluable at the cost of progress - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:49:03] - or whatever software falls on. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:48:45] - a: that's not really what a monopoly is. the world has built up a reliance on ms, which is the real problem - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:47:32] - vinnie: it doesn't need to be a monopoly though. when i think of a monopoly, i think of one company producing all of the software . . . in this case, there are companies producing better software, it's just falling on deaf ears. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:47:07] - hey, last comic standing was funny yesterday - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:46:04] - a large number of people do a large number of very dumb things (like smoking, or voting for bush, or watching reality tv). ~a
[2004-06-09 14:45:51] - there's no comparison to car companies - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:45:21] - why are you all surprised ms is still in business? it's called a monopoly - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:43:48] - a: It seems like it sometimes. Of course, I also think you hate Christianity so maybe I just can't read you.
-Paul[2004-06-09 14:41:50] - personally offended? ~a
[2004-06-09 14:41:18] - a: I wasn't aware she had dropped the subject, my bad. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:40:56] - a: What I don't get is why you are so personally offended that people use IE.
-Paul[2004-06-09 14:40:55] - paul: i'm referring to "Mel: You're still not going to ask what it's about? -Paul" after she dropped the subject. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:40:12] - a: Heh, I'm actually not doing it here, I just find it mind-boggling to ask somebody how something went when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:39:46] - mel: exactly. or every year even. i think a car company that had major fatal flaws in their product once a year, they probably wouldn't stay around very long. once a decade is about how often a major flaw like that is exposed in non microsoft browsers. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:39:41] - Paul: well thats going to leave some suspense for me... Its lunchtime (I go to lunch with the group of people I work with). Darn, gotta go. back in an hour. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:38:21] - Paul: so what was the call about?
-mel[2004-06-09 14:38:11] - paul: although you want people to pry information out of you; lots of people refuse to do it. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:37:40] - a: I know. I can't believe the product remains on the market. But major corporations use IE anyway. What if car makers had flaws exposed every week? -mel
[2004-06-09 14:36:35] - Or Bank of America. Why do they pretend to be a national organization of their CA database is seperate from all the other states? You can't deposit checks at out of state ATMs of you started you account in CA.
-mel[2004-06-09 14:35:54] - Mel: You're still not going to ask what it's about?
-Paul[2004-06-09 14:35:24] - mel: about. i'm surprised they have anybody using it anymore. ~a
[2004-06-09 14:35:14] - Why does AAA pretend to be a national organization? -mel
[2004-06-09 14:34:43] - PauL: yes, that makes sense. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:33:58] - Mel: Oh, no, I don't care. I guess I'm just used to being asked what something is before somebody asks about it when they don't know what it is. Does that make sense? -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:33:35] - It feels like its really often. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:33:08] - a: how often are security flaws in IE exposed? Every week? or more often? -mel
[2004-06-09 14:32:42] - Mel: Well, I guess it was good, even though I'm not entirely sure what makes me think it went well. Thanks for asking. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:32:36] - and thats the last thing you talked about when I last saw you on the messahe board. you don't have to answer if you don't want to. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:31:44] - no idea. but it seemed important to you. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:30:22] - Mel: Do you even have any idea what the call was about? -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:29:29] - Mel: It doesn't matter regarding whether or not the logic behind it is true, but it matters regarding my opinion of your beliefs. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:29:19] - Paul: I was being serious though. So how did "the Call" go anyway? -mel
[2004-06-09 14:28:54] - a:
- vinnie[2004-06-09 14:27:56] - vinnie: It has 351,000 acronyms -mel
[2004-06-09 14:27:47] - hahaha, the site knew IE6 - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:27:44] - vinnie: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=117316298&eid=-255 ~a
[2004-06-09 14:27:21] - vinnie: wow, cool site. It does have a lot of acronyms. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:26:50] - IE6 - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:26:33] - Paul: the 74 cent statement? well (as you say) does it matter whether I really agree or not? -mel
[2004-06-09 14:26:02] - vinnie: what browser? ~a
[2004-06-09 14:25:42] - hmmm, following my link just made my browser crash - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:25:40] - vinnie: omg, it has a lot of acronyms (who would have guessed that it would have gotten ORB correct?) ~a
[2004-06-09 14:24:41] - Paul: Thats how I try to live my life too. Thats what attracted me to libertarianism to begin with, -mel
[2004-06-09 14:24:31] - Mel:
If you're being serious about that statement, then we could disagree about everything else in the world and still get along fine I think. -Paul[2004-06-09 14:24:21] - http://acronymfinder.com/ for all your acronym needs (very helpful site) - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:22:58] - vinnie: ah. cool. thanks. I see you write that a lot. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:22:33] - Paul: Well the 74 cent statistic is probably bs anyway. And that 74 cents can go pretty far when you have men paying for your meals/drinks/dates/gifts -mel
[2004-06-09 14:22:21] - Mel: It's fairly accurate, though. LIbertarianism is basically all about taking responsibility for everything you do and I think that appeals to me because that's how I try to live my life (who knows how well I succeed). -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:22:09] - AFAIK = as far as I know - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:21:21] - vinnie: haha. good point about that estrogen. But thats only until menopause..
-mel[2004-06-09 14:20:55] - Paul: me too. That's cool. IMHO, the libertarian philosophy boils down to some sort of personal responsibility. I know thats a vague statement. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:20:10] - Mel: But I would only be making 74 cents for every dollar a man makes.
-Paul[2004-06-09 14:19:48] - Vinnie: I would think the influx of estrogen might cause some changes in thought patterns though. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:19:27] - vinnie: by the way, what is AFAIK? -mel
[2004-06-09 14:19:27] - Mel: That's how I try to live my life. -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:18:43] - Paul: you would get all sorts of things for free. Like drinks at bars. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:18:20] - AFAIK, gender reassignment does not mess with your brain - vinnie
[2004-06-09 14:18:14] - Paul: Ultimately, this is just a supply and demand issue. You don't have to do anything you don't want to and neither do women. And then everyone is responsible for their own actions. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:18:00] - Mel: How would I save money? -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:17:46] - Mel: Ah, because I think that life as a woman is easier? No thanks, I like my ability to think logically, thank you very much.
-Paul[2004-06-09 14:16:48] - you would save a great deal of effort/money -mel
[2004-06-09 14:16:04] - Paul: it would be so much easier. -mel
[2004-06-09 14:15:21] - Mel: Heh, not that I particularly disagree with you, but I'm amused that you suggest that based on what you know of me. Why do you think I would be better off as a woman? -Paul
[2004-06-09 14:13:40] - Paul: maybe you should consider gender reassignment. -mel
[2004-06-09 13:55:52] - http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/analysis/news?slug=fanball-rookies&prov=fanball&type=fantasy&league=nfl I just find the names of the tiers and their explanations to be amusing. -Paul
[2004-06-09 13:53:27] - Dave: With what? Not opening doors?
-paul[2004-06-09 13:46:03] - Paul: I see. Good luck ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-09 13:44:46] - Dave: And that's why I don't do that.
-Paul[2004-06-09 13:42:22] - Paul: That's true. But at the same time you don't have to go to bars, or pay for the woman's meal, or open the door for her etc. -dave
[2004-06-09 13:14:47] - Dave: I agree that's typically what women want, but I also think that's the woman's fault. Just because she is picky in who she wants doesn't mean that women can't ask men out. -paul
[2004-06-09 13:00:18] - Paul: ...of guy she wanted -dave
[2004-06-09 12:59:58] - Paul: like a female friend and I were talking about this guy who had taken her out on a date or two. She said that she wasn't sure if she had sent the wrong signals or what, but that he hadn't gotten ahold of her in a little. She and I both agreed that if he didn't initiate anything, than even if he was interested in her, he wasn't the kind.. -dave
[2004-06-09 12:54:31] - Paul: Well, the way I see it, it isn't necessarily a problem with the girl going out and asking the guy out, but that the girl wants a guy who is pro-active enough or has guts enough to ask her out in the first place. If he doesn't/can't then why would she want to be with someone who couldn't even do that? -dave
[2004-06-09 12:01:48] - Dave: Well, I just find it hard to cry for women who think it's too hard to go out and ask a guy out. Maybe I would feel sympathy for them if it wasn't something I had to deal with. Periods, on the other hand... -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:58:40] - Paul: the intelligence / status thing isn't a great definition, but I hope you get the idea -dave
[2004-06-09 11:57:57] - Paul: It makes some sense since women usually will only like someone of equal or greater intelligence / status than them, so having the guy ask kinda helps that methinks -dave
[2004-06-09 11:54:50] - Paul: ahhh. Yeah, I guess it's true that women can pro-actively make things happen sometimes. I just think that the vast majority don't, or at the very least won't straight up ask a guy out. -dave
[2004-06-09 11:44:59] - Dave: Which you didn't really state, just implied, so the point is moot.
-paul[2004-06-09 11:44:32] - Dave: Heh, well I guess actually there is nothing I disagree with except the implication that women "can't pro-actively make them [things] happen". -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:41:39] - Paul: would you care to point out what part you don't agree with and leave it at that? or would that require too much elaboration? -dave
[2004-06-09 11:39:03] - Dave: Heh, well, I have plenty to say about that but I'm not particularly in the mood right now so I'll just say that I mostly agree with what you said (which is true). -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:37:51] - Paul: That being said, I probably wouldn't say men have more power than women either, but I don't think the disparity is as large as you think -dave
[2004-06-09 11:36:50] - Paul: it's a horrible thing IMO when you have to rely on others to do things and can't pro-actively make them happen yourself -dave
[2004-06-09 11:36:20] - Paul: maybe ify ou had more female friends you would realize that they have a really tough time too, since most feel that they need to be asked out, and can't ask themselves -dave
[2004-06-09 11:33:43] - Dave: well, he also said the NBA needs to get more white players. -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:33:31] - Dave: I don't go to bars that often but it bothers me a lot. This is why I am always saying that women have so much more power over relationships. Men have to hire wing-women and let them into bars for cheap just to get a shot at asking a woman out. -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:32:10] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=1818286 Email of the night is another missed opportunity I thought. -paul
[2004-06-09 11:31:57] - Paul: about Bird saying he was offended by being guarded by a white guy? Offhand I would say it won't. -dave
[2004-06-09 11:29:38] - Paul: I'm not sure I guess. Maybe if I went to bars etc I could say better, but offhand I would say it doesn't bother me. Maybe I've just accepted it because it's the way it is, but traditions like opening doors for women or paying for their meals don't really bother me -dave
[2004-06-09 11:29:25] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=1818517 I wonder if this is going to piss off a bunch of people. -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:18:40] - Dave: What do you mean by 'disagree'? I think it usually should be perfectly legal, but I still loathe it. You don't? -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:18:11] - Dave: I think you overestimate the intelligence of people, especially when it comes to technology.
-Paul[2004-06-09 11:17:30] - Paul: do you really disagree with how they are treated at bars or parties tho, let in for free etc? -dave
[2004-06-09 11:16:50] - Paul: about the text messaging, are people really surprised that anything they send electronically can be dredged up months later? I think it's pretty naive to think that any of it really goes away -dave
[2004-06-09 11:15:37] - Dave: I don't think there is a better example of how society caters to women than how they are treated in bars.
-Paul[2004-06-09 11:14:46] - http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/22162.htm Poor girls. -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:13:13] - Paul: yeah, ladies' night -dave
[2004-06-09 11:12:55] - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040608/D832G4E84.html Could text messages help determine the Kobe Bryant case? -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:10:50] - Dave: I posted too many articles.
Is this about Ladies' Night? -Paul[2004-06-09 11:09:09] - Paul: hehe, "encourage women to attend". Just like the stereotypical "better salaries for men" just encourages men to join the field -dave
[2004-06-09 11:07:36] - http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fc5a7518-37f6-4ede-92db-39fa8bb9f355 Should decisions be based on complaints only? -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:06:04] - a: yeah, Intellectual Property -dave
[2004-06-09 11:04:00] - a: Intellectual Property, I think. -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:03:46] - Dave: Yes, I do. To both statements.
-Paul[2004-06-09 11:03:18] - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/04/1086203613078.html?oneclick=true Why don't people like being labeled bisexual? And why was the phone number at the bottom only for liberal groups? -Paul
[2004-06-09 11:00:31] - what does ip stand for? ~a
[2004-06-09 10:59:08] - Paul: So you think research today is repressed by IP? I think businesses would be much more hesitant to invest as heavily in IP if the benefits were decreased by not having IP laws. Maybe that's where our difference is -dave
[2004-06-09 10:58:51] - http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0602blumhorst.html Interesting article about whether or not gender is a social construct. The second paragraph is particularly interesting. -Paul
[2004-06-09 10:57:31] - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/02/national1049EDT0547.DTL I don't agree with the ruling, but I do delight in seeing the tables turned. -Paul
[2004-06-09 10:56:42] - Dave: Business might share research a little less often than they currently do but I think that would be more than made up by the fact that they will also be able to research whatever they want without worrying about being repressed by the government. -Paul
[2004-06-09 10:54:57] - http://www.wral.com/health/3387839/detail.html "New at-home gender-selection kits claim a 96 percent success rate in determining the sex of a baby without a visit to the doctor." -Paul
[2004-06-09 10:53:38] - Paul: giving up their edge by having discovered it themselves? or I guess you believe that by sharing their IP they don't give up their edge? -dave
[2004-06-09 10:53:06] - Paul: ahh ok. So you think that businesses would willingly share their IP with others even if there were no financial incentives? -dave
[2004-06-09 10:51:30] - Dave: Probably both. -Paul
[2004-06-09 10:47:33] - Paul: by businesses? or others? -dave
[2004-06-09 10:46:10] - Dave: I think that there would be more innovation and discovery without IP than with. -Paul
[2004-06-09 10:43:54] - Paul: or you think businesses would share the research regardless of IP? -dave
[2004-06-09 10:43:17] - Paul: but you don't agree with it helping businesses share IP and therefore furthering research? -dave
[2004-06-09 10:00:11] - Dave: No, I agree with what you say about being able to make money off other people's IP. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:58:34] - Paul: still don't agree with it though I'm guessing? -dave
[2004-06-09 09:56:07] - Dave: Understood. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:54:33] - Paul: so you make money from using the IP and making money off of it (and not having to invent the thing yourself) and the inventor makes money because he invented it (but may not have been able to come up with the practical application) -dave
[2004-06-09 09:53:40] - Paul: the use of IP can be tied solely to number of items sold. So theoretically you could use everyone else's IP for free. It's only when you start selling the things and making money that a % of that profit goes to the original inventors -dave
[2004-06-09 09:53:16] - Dave: Ok, that makes sense then. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:52:04] - Paul: that's what licensing is all about -dave
[2004-06-09 09:50:50] - Paul: I believe that is incorrect. A company can use the research and profit from it. They just have to share a part of that profit with whoever originally came up with the idea -dave
[2004-06-09 09:50:00] - Dave: But it seems to me that no company would want to use that research because they are forbidden to profit from it. Isn't that the argument why we need IP? -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:48:57] - Paul: arg. its research -dave
[2004-06-09 09:48:32] - Paul: Like if there wasn't IP laws, then a company would want to keep it's research secret as long as it could to keep its edge. With IP, it is willing to share the knowledge. -dave
[2004-06-09 09:47:06] - Paul: well the second statement appears to be where I need to clarify. IP gives businesses incentive to research yes. IP also allows the sharing of knowledge in between businesses so that other businesses can research new IP based on the old IP without having to do the old IP all over again. That make sense? -dave
[2004-06-09 09:44:06] - Dave: Then I'm a bit confused. You say we need IP because businesses won't research without financial incentive but that having IP is good because it encourages others to research without financial incentive? Which is it? -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:43:42] - Paul: oops, bad grammar. then IP. -dave
[2004-06-09 09:43:11] - Paul: well, actually I would argue that the IP increases the drive to research stuff. Because if you discover it first, then you stand to reap a much larger benefit than if there wasn't IP. -dave
[2004-06-09 09:42:12] - Paul: I agree that if the only goal was pure research, than IP would be bad. But research is almost always tied to business and making money -dave
[2004-06-09 09:41:31] - Dave: But wouldn't you argue that taking any financial incentive dampens a lot of the drive to research stuff? -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:40:08] - Paul: but that's just it, people can make use of that knowledge. Anyone, like an academic, can use that knowledge in his research. It's just if you go commercial and make a product to sell with it, you have to license the knowledge. -dave
[2004-06-09 09:39:23] - Paul: oops, thought this entirely through -dave
[2004-06-09 09:39:11] - Dave: Except nobody can make use of that knowledge.
-Paul[2004-06-09 09:38:38] - Dave: Ah, ok. Gotcha. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:38:33] - Paul: ...know about the innovation without worrying that they will lose their edge -dave
[2004-06-09 09:38:14] - Paul: I haven't thought this entirely true, but from one perspective, IP actually fosters the spread of knowledge. For instance, companies zealously guard and are secretive about things that can't be patented, because they know if someone else finds out, then they lose their edge. With IP, the company can now feel free to let others... -dave
[2004-06-09 09:37:03] - Paul: quite true. I was just trying to decrease the degree of the statement. Like it would be a much stronger statement if every company who had patents was actively looking to sue people -dave
[2004-06-09 09:34:43] - And I think that's what Miguel doesn't like about IP. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:34:12] - Dave: I understand you are saying different things, but your rationale exactly coincides with Miguel's. If companies are getting these patents to protect themselves, that means that other companies WOULD use them to sue others. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:28:58] - Paul: well he said it as if he was upset that someone might sue him for using it. But I was saying that they might not be doing it so they could sue him, but so that they wouldn't be sued. Small but distinct difference -dave
[2004-06-09 09:28:05] - Mig: and altho it's interesting to debate whether the US could get rid of IP or not, I don't think it's really feasible. Look at China, most people say that a major thing holding them back from further hi tech development is their lack of IP enforcement -dave
[2004-06-09 09:27:41] - Dave: Which doesn't change Miguel's point one iota.
-Paul[2004-06-09 09:26:03] - Mig: several of the articles on that patent have pointed out that many times the companies don't necessarily get the patents to stop other people from using the technology, but for stopping people from getting a patent and suing them -dave
[2004-06-09 09:24:15] - paul: hmpf. hopefully those patents won't hold. actually the IDE i'm using right now has a "TO-DO" functionality in it. This concept of IP really needs to die. - mig
[2004-06-09 09:23:00] - Dave: Exactly. Just imagine what he could do with a full amount of playing time. I don't think it's coincidence that the Pistons are always down at the half (with Rasheed playing few minutes) and outscore the Lakers in the second half (with Rasheed playing heavy minutes). -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:19:36] - yeah, tho he made a good contribution to the game nonetheless -dave
[2004-06-09 09:18:34] - My big hope is that playing at home will help rejuvinate the Pistons defense and that Rip and Sheed will play better at home (Rasheed has sat out most of the first half in both games so far). -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:15:46] - Paul: Yeah, Malone does well on defense. A little too tentative on offense for my tastes, but he still gets my nod of approval. Payton however...yeah..nuff said -dave
[2004-06-09 09:13:55] - Dave: Yeah, Payton seems to have been hurting the Lakers with turnevers and bad shooting and defense. Malone at least gets rebounds and normally plays pretty good defense (excepting that minor stretch where Rasheed scored like three straight times on him). -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:13:22] - malone played pretty well yesterday. - mig
[2004-06-09 09:08:57] - Paul: what's pretty amusing is that Malone and Payton almost seem to be holding back Shaq and Kobe. Like it seems the Lakers might have almost been better with two other guys who didn't have superstar labels but could play decently. Tho I suppose Malone has been good for them defensively, Payton hasn't appeared to do squat -dave
[2004-06-09 09:08:33] - Dave: It's just looked like things had come together nicely for the Pistons the first two games, what with the Lakers struggling a bit and the Pistons hitting their shots. Hopefully the Pistons will play even better at home and win some games, but the Lakers defy the normal conventions sometimes. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:07:07] - Dave: They have the next three at home, actually. Quirky scheduling for the finals. -Paul
[2004-06-09 09:01:08] - Paul: oh, and props to Luke Walton. That had to be so cool for him as a rookie to make such a huge difference in the game -dave
[2004-06-09 09:00:20] - Paul: and on the third hand, the Lakers now know that the Pistons aren't just some pushover with Game 1 being a fluke -dave
[2004-06-09 08:59:33] - Paul: You really think so? I guess it's really hard to judge how well the Piston's can rebound from that. On one hand, they have the next two at home. On the other hand, that was a really heartbreaking game for them -dave
[2004-06-09 08:57:30] - Dave: I don't think he does, but I also disagree with Brown on a number of things. I guess we'll see how the Pistons do from here on out, but I really think they lost the series last night. -paul
[2004-06-09 08:56:36] - http://www.local10.com/entertainment/3393039/detail.html These commercials would probably make me want to see the movie more than I currently do.
-Paul[2004-06-09 08:55:19] - Paul: yeah, you're right. I don't know. Maybe he really doesn't agree with your strategy for the last part of the game -dave
[2004-06-09 08:52:34] - Dave: It's possible, I don't know what kind of coach Brown is, but I would think he would at least mention it as a mistake. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:51:32] - http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1086739359.html More patents! -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:51:31] - Paul: like from the comments that he was making during the timeouts (according to the commentators) he was very much about putting the right perspective on things. So maybe he just thinks it's best to move on and not dwell too much at this point -dave
[2004-06-09 08:50:27] - Paul: ahhh, I see. Then yeah, maybe he doesn't agree with you. Or maybe he just think it wouldn't do any good to criticize his team or one of his players right now -dave
[2004-06-09 08:49:32] - Dave: Well, I was just thinking that from what I've heard, Brown didn't think any huge mistakes were made at the end worth mentioning. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:46:54] - Paul: you mean Larry Brown? well, he could have thought the same thing, but the players don't always do what the coaches say, or he can't always comminucate it fast enough. Tho maybe they had a timeout right before, don't remember -dave
[2004-06-09 08:46:51] - Dave: You're definitely right about that. You especially notice when you try to play basketball yourself. It's a damned fast moving game. I just figure that with a six point lead and 48 seconds left, the only thing the Pistons should've been thinking is "don't foul unless you are POSITIVE you can stop the shot too". -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:46:09] - Paul: yeah, but that would have been a lot more understandable I think. Much more likely to prevent him from making the three point shot by contesting vs. shaq when he's right under the basket -dave
[2004-06-09 08:45:19] - Dave: Well, clearly I'm not right, because the supposed best coach in the NBA didn't think it was that obvious.
-Paul[2004-06-09 08:45:12] - Paul: I think basketball is more hectic than football tho, as a sidenote. Like it's easier I think to spot things like that as a football player vs basketball -dave
[2004-06-09 08:44:36] - The only way the Pistons could've collapsed worse was if Hamilton had couled Kobe on his three point shot and Kobe got them the lead with the free throw. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:44:18] - Paul: yeah, I guess you just think it's more obvious than I do. You may be right -dave
[2004-06-09 08:44:01] - Dave: I mean, think about it. The Lakers basically had to make a three point play quickly, prevent Detroit from scoring OR getting a fresh shot clock, and then quickly make another three point play. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:42:50] - Dave: Well, yes, I mean I clearly couldn't have done any better. It's just one of those obvious things that you shouldn't do in sports. Like passing the ball in football when you have the lead and can run the clock out. A six point lead with 48 seconds left should've been insurmountable IMHO. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:40:59] - http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_voxday_archive.html#108677713435005977 This is why I love Vox Day. He makes the same kinds of jokes that I do. And just like me, nobody else seems to find it funny.
-Paul[2004-06-09 08:40:24] - Paul: the Pistons also should have put up a fight in OT, but I suppose Shaq and Kobe were just clicking. On the other hand, both had 5 fouls...I'm still impressed that they didn't foul out -dave
[2004-06-09 08:38:37] - Paul: I guess all I'm tryin to say is that it's much easier for us to say since we're just watching. Like when you're in the middle of it it's probably more difficult - but yeah, they should be aware of things like that if they're good -dave
[2004-06-09 08:37:49] - Paul: it was pretty set anyways tho, like it was pretty dang amazing for Kobe to make that shot. Tho I suppose not all that surprising since he's Kobe -dave
[2004-06-09 08:36:41] - Paul: yeah, but you still want to play some defense to take up some time too. -dave
[2004-06-09 08:29:43] - Dave: I know, but it was really about the worst thing the Pistons could've done in that situation. It actually would've been better for the team to have just let the Lakers score an easy layup than to have given Shaq the 3 point play. A six point deficit is hard to overcome with under a minute left unless you make a lot of three point plays. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:28:04] - Paul: I mean, junk just happens so fast it's not something you can really think about -dave
[2004-06-09 08:27:47] - Paul: yeah, I agree. The commentators said so as well as I remember. I think the problem is it may be harder for the players to tell how well Shaq is setup for the shot / whether a foul will prevent the shot -dave
[2004-06-09 08:25:21] - Dave: Oh, I meant I can't believe Rasheed fouled Shaq and still let him score. Not that the referees called the foul. If Rasheed had not fouled Shaq OR had fouled him and prevented the basket, the Pistons would've won that game. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:24:35] - Paul: hmmm, or did you mean you couldn't believe the Piston's fouled him when he was almost assuredly going to make the shot? -dave
[2004-06-09 08:23:34] - Paul: yeah, I chalk it up to the the Lakers', or rather Shaq and Kobe's unstoppability when they're clicking. The lead the Piston's had really should have been enough. But in all fairness calls were made for both sides - those two fouls they didn't call (the clear foul on Kobe and then the potential charge) set the Piston's up for that lead -dave
[2004-06-09 08:15:16] - Dave: I was impressed by the way they came back to take what seemed like a big enough lead with under a minute left. Can't believe they gave Shaq that 3 point play. I think the Pistons may have just lost the series there in those 40 odd seconds. -Paul
[2004-06-09 08:13:22] - Paul: I was really impressed with their rebounding. I thought Shaq would dominate a little more on the rebounding side -dave
[2004-06-09 08:12:42] - Paul: My respect for the Pistons has gone up after watching the game last night. They played pretty well. Great game -dave
[2004-06-09 00:35:29] - pierce: nope. ~a
[2004-06-08 23:14:20] - reverting to normal message board flow, the preceding is another thing I didn't test... it's possible that java errors out if there's an ambiguous type, but maybe I can get adrian to do the dirty work for me again. - pierce
prev <-> next