?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Overloading the Machine -- Day [entries|friends|calendar]
johnsu01

[ website | wjsullivan.net ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Boulder is not for hippies [29 Apr 2006|02:55am]

It's not all happy hippie-land in my ex-residence of Boulder, CO. The police there have put up a web site of photos of people smoking pot on 4/20.

If you can identify any of these people, they will give you $50. That might be enough for a quarter. Hah. Seriously, shouldn't the snitches be charging a little more? It seems not, since a few photos are already marked "IDENTIFIED". Those could be ringers, but it looks like the self-respect to dollar exchange-rate is strongly favoring the dollar.

They did something like this in East Lansing, MI when I was there too. We had some riots after the MSU basketball team was eliminated from the NCAA tournament. Nasty things happened. Thousands of people in the streets, many/most of the windows on the downtown shopping strip broken, police cars overturned and set on fire, etc. So in the following days the police put pictures of people up on the Internets. The site was promptly cracked, and the photos replaced with entertaining graphics. Eventually the police regained control of the situation and managed to arrest some people on the basis of tips. In the aftermath of all this carnage, do you know who they went after first? The women who took their tops off.

Why didn't they just arrest people on the spot in Boulder? It seems that the police were afraid of challenging a group of pot smokers as a group, and would prefer to go get them one-by-one.

Anyway, they need to rethink their system. Having a flat rate doesn't make sense. For example, if you have to admit to knowing this guy (maybe NSFW, unless you work at the Boulder PD), you need to be paid more.

1 comment|post comment

Microsoft opposes software patents [29 Apr 2006|12:54pm]

...either that or they say whatever it takes to win.

From Supreme Court Moves Toward Hearing AT&T v. Microsoft Software Export Case, via Patently-O (boldness added):

In its petition, Microsoft asks two questions:

1) Whether digital software code - an intangible sequence of "1's" and "0's" - may be considered a "component[] of a patented invention" within the meaning of Section 271(f)(1); and, if so

2) Whether copies of such a "component[]" made in a foreign country are "supplie[d] . . . from the United States."

The petition attempts to show that the CAFC has gone astray by interpreting the statute in a manner "appropriate to the technology at issue" rather than according to its "plain meaning and legislative history" as required by Supreme Court precedent.

The petition also impliedly argues that software itself should not be patentable.

The decision below is premised on a commonly held misunderstanding of the nature, and thus the patentability, of software.

They argued the same thing in Eolas. It doesn't surprise me that they make arguments opposing software patents in contexts like this. But it doesn't square very well with their behavior in Europe.

post comment

navigation
[ viewing | April 29th, 2006 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]