Join us now at the IRC channel.
| <--oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jan 21 01:55 | |
| -->oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 01:56 | |
| -->X-Scale` (~ARM@131.61.158.5.rev.vodafone.pt) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 05:16 | |
| <--X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Jan 21 05:16 | |
| ---X-Scale` is now known as X-Scale | Jan 21 05:16 | |
| -->X-Scale` (~ARM@31.22.166.40) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 05:38 | |
| <--X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | Jan 21 05:39 | |
| ---X-Scale` is now known as X-Scale | Jan 21 05:39 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/taking-measure-of-prior-art-t-194315.html?showComment=1579515941047#c1203919597141850736 | Jan 21 07:32 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | It is often said that the severity with which the EPO examines for compliance with Art 123(2) EPC is a consequence of the severity with which Art 54 docs are found NOT to prejudice novelty. But unwillingness to sustain Art 54(3) novelty attacks is a point of particular stress in the jurisprudence of the EPO, almost as high as the stress caused by excessive zeal in sustaining objections under Art 123(2) EPC. The question what constitutes the " | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | disclosure" of a document is perhaps the hottest question of all, in the corpus of the law of patentability. | Jan 21 07:32 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Taking the measure of the prior art (T 1943/15) - The IPKat | Jan 21 07:32 | |
| schestowitz | So I wish to plead here for a refinement of the Gold Standard, to carry it forward into a Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) of what the disclosure of any given document includes, that fits with the gut feelings of the real life counterparts of the imaginary "skilled reader" deemed to be the addressee of the document. This is one way to keep patent law "real" and thereby nurture public confidence in the fairness and justice of the European patent | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | system, balancing the rights of patent owners against the rights of those who have patents asserted against them. | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | We already know the concepts of "plausible" and "implicit" and "seriously contemplate" and "mind willing to understand". It seems to me that the notional skilled person has only one reason to read a patent publication and that is to derive from it any useful technical teaching that can be found in the document. The reader ought then to be deemed to be "hungry" to find any such teaching, anywhere in the document. The reader is not a lay reader. | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | Rather, the reader applies to the task of deriving teaching all the general knowledge in the field that is already known to the reader. That which such a reader seriously contemplates is, for me, coterminous with what that reader has already unambiguously "derived" from the document. Here, what does the reader "seriously contemplate" when assessing the disclosure of the drawings in this case, in the context of the entire document containing | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | the drawings? | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | You might say that I am straying into the area of what is obvious rather than what is disclosed but I don't think so. By now, we understand obviousness well enough to grasp the difference between it and a novelty-destroying disclosure. | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | But I do hope the Boards will strive to keep the Gold Standard in line with the real world in which, for example, the AIA in the USA allows obviousness attacks using 54(3) art in order to prevent hopelessly complex thickets of overlapping patent rights held by a multiplicity of parties who all filed on overlapping subject matter on overlapping dates (a situation getting ever more common). Impenetrable thickets are not good for the long term | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | health of the patent system. We need clear rules on patentability, accepted as pragmatic and fair by business people and investors in new technology. Impenetrable thickets might suit some users, but most will be turned off by them, and so will withdraw their support for the patent system. | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | What do other readers think? Are you, like me, troubled by the severity with which the Boards currently interpret the Gold Standard? | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 21 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > Here's a nice conjecture: 5G mobile is just a Chinese conspiracy to get | Jan 21 09:04 |
| schestowitz | > the East coast of the US to torpedo its own weather radar, and thus | Jan 21 09:04 |
| schestowitz | > preparedness, in the face of increasingly severe hurricanes resulting | Jan 21 09:04 |
| schestowitz | > from climate collapse. | Jan 21 09:04 |
| schestowitz | Global warming is a Chinese hoax to drive oil companies out of business[1] ;) | Jan 21 09:04 |
| schestowitz | [1]citation needed | Jan 21 09:04 |
| schestowitz | > you may want an article, but ted already published on in june called "a foot in the door, how to... infiltrate projects" etc. | Jan 21 09:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:07 |
| schestowitz | > its the same philosophical issue as that. maybe its worth writing about again, but write about it every time you complain that microsoft claims its not open source unless its on github. thats where this "argument" goes, when it starts corporate. | Jan 21 09:07 |
| schestowitz | Yes, I think that is a fair way to put it | Jan 21 09:07 |
| schestowitz | >> Befor I embarked upon GitGnext, I was saying it needed a requirements definition and then a design specification... | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > no problem. | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | >> That is the way that system analysts work in the major corporations. Now, I'm not inflexible on these matters, and I have put together a few hacks here and there for my own use, but for "systems", I naturally fall into my old habits. | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > no problem at all. | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | >> OK, you have said "im more concerned that our philosophies are much farther apart than i thought." Well, deep down, well below my habits of thought and action there are some deeper beliefs which drive my software philosophy. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > the difference in philosophy im referring to is things like: | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > "im not interested in free software per se" (i hope thats not a misquote, at any rate im only quoting privately to discuss it) | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > "only big projects matter" (definitely not a quote, feel free to correct me) | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > plus one other that i neednt mention, as you will in a moment. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | >> I see software as much like speech - or better yet, writing, and as writing, as communication and Art even. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > yes. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | >> But I do not believe in Art for Art's sake... | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > i CAN appreciate that thought-- art must APPLY somehow, to do its job. someone has to run free software to benefit from it. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > however, its pretty important to me that the freedom exists prior to the application. for one, because this is arguably AT LEAST as true as what youre saying. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > yes, you have a point. but when your point purports (or is assumed by enough people) to negate another perfectly valid point, you should expect people to jump up and defend that perfectly valid point. particularly when free software advocacy rests squarely upon it. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > ill switch back to you talking before i bring up how open source (mis)handles this. (that matters too.) | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | >> Let me expound a little further: I was reading a book the other day, called "Wabi-Sabi - for Artists, Designers, Poets, and Philosophers". It was given to me as a Christmas gift, in case I aspired to any of the above. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > yeah, there was something from it you quoted that i liked. if the quote were relevant i could find it easily enough. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | >> Anyway, I came upon a short phrasing which put my perception of the art of things into words much better than I could: "...beauty is a dynamic event that occurs between you and something else. Beauty can (or will) ... occur at any moment given the proper circumstances, context, or point of view." | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > yeah, this is a great philosophy but its only half true. it has a valid point-- but not when it excludes the other half. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > think of a wedding cake. a wedding cake is typically a more elegant cake than you or i will probably ever make. i made a large three-layer cake once. thats as fancy as i might get in terms of cake. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > a wedding cake is a thing of beauty. for that beauty to be REALISED someone has to appreciate it, take it in. | Jan 21 09:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > a narcissist (IM NOT calling you one, this a point about philosophy-- and narcissists are very exclusive) would give all the credit to the person appreciating the beauty, but little or none to the people who made the cake. they would take all the credit for appreciating it and "helping the baker realise the true beauty of their work." | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > the baker would tell that person to go fuck themselves. but the narcissist wouldnt be wrong, just out of proportion. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > the relationship to corporations and open source is NOT a stretch. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > steve jobs invented very little, but he is created with everything. he helped so many things realise their true beauty. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > this is all about PRODUCTS. EVERYTHING tom, is a product. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > UNTIL it is a PRODUCT, it is JUST AN "idea." | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > you see what we do at goomicrocorp is, we take half-baked "ideas" and turn them into the things that REALLY MATTER. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > we take the mp3 player, and create the ipod. and theres nothing wrong with that. theres nothing wrong with that at all. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > but over time, you see, we get all the credit for the mp3 player too. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > mp3 players werent important, until the ipod made them important. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > ideas are nothing, inventions are nothing-- until they are products. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > look at the ore in the ground-- its nothing until we help it realise its full potentional as a product. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > look at the poor miserable people living in huts! they dont matter until we take their land and charge them to live in houses! | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > colonies, tom! a colony is to a people, what a product is to an idea. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > when we realise the FULL potential, tom-- everything is a product or a service-- a FULLY REALISED thing, where before there was NOTHING but potential. | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > "but my cake is beautiful" | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > shut up baker man, we make thousands of wedding cakes every day! | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > before we bought the rights, some hack with a guitar or a flute could make music, yes-- but so what? | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > without fans, there is no art! | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > (this is the society we live in. and philosophically, its not all wrong.) | Jan 21 09:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > and OF COURSE you didnt say any of that. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > i never said you did. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > but i am saying its the same half-truth. and im saying it because a nice philosophy can (and will) be turned into corporate propaganda. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > and open source already did that. they said projects dont matter until they have teams. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > then from teams to sponsors. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > then from sponsors to takeovers. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > its not beautiful until you look-- | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > its not beautiful until its sold to lots of people-- | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > its not beautiful until its under an exclusive deal with us! | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > (this is a real pattern, im not speaking hypothetically.) | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > so can we have JUST the beauty, JUST the appreciation, without all the other stuff? | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > yes-- but we cant ignore the fact that both narcissists and corporations hijack this "appreciation" business as a prelude to ownership. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > to crush the little competitors and "upstarts" that would one day threaten their model. quoting from the halloween documents and the handbook quoting them as well-- | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > upstarts are microsofts largest fear, and microsoft is is/acts obsessed with it: | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > "somebody might spend money on a non-ms product" | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > "ms might lose its monopoly position" | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > "people might actually write software for a non-ms product" | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > "microsoft perceives a product to be a 'threat' if it presents itself as any of these" | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > so this corporate mythology that things arent fully realised UNTIL they move up the ladder is entirely serving of monopolies. and microsoft actively pushes the idea (very aggressively) that small developers dont matter-- as if we werent told that constantly, they might! | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > i mean this isnt really disputed. | Jan 21 09:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > microsoft learned it from ibm. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > google and apple learned it from microsoft. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > america learned it from england. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > open source learned it from corporations. and you can find, when open source was young, efforts to "disqualify" all kinds of things that happen to be "threats" otherwise. to put down the same developers that microsoft would, to stunt their marketshare growth and stay on top. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > things dont matter until we acquire them and refine them into products. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > and this is an article of war for 20 years running. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | >> OK, now (loosely) substitute "usefulness" or "freedom" for Beauty and you may see what I am getting at. As I have said before, the "freeness" of software does not reside in the software itself. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > this rewrites the history of a movement though-- | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > and its the same argument that i complained in june about open source making for years. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > and its the same argument roy complains about when he says that only projects on github are counted. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > github is the largest repository of free software there is-- and thats also the very problem with github. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > we need smaller repos. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > we need smaller teams. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > we dont need everyone to be a lone dev, but theres nothing wrong with it, because thats the smallest team. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > thats the user+dev instead of the user:dev dichotomy microsoft has pushed for not 20 but 30 years, to divide users from developers. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > what youre missing is that EVERYBODY is a potential developer, with or without a team. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > thats powerful. its inclusive. but its also true. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > if you step back tom, do you really think anybody is stupid enough to think that a flower doesnt needs to be smelled for its beauty to be realised? | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > but its very relevant that to make your software free software, you need to put it under a free license. | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:12 |
| schestowitz | > and then, technically, you need to NOT go to the ends of the earth to find ways to thwart software freedom despite the license. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > --- | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > stepping back further-- you could have invented the light bulb, but youre not a productive member of society until you work a 9 to 5? | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > until you have kids? | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > until you are RICH and pay lots of taxes, and give enough to charity to have the bill and melinda gates cancer wing named after you? | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > --- | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > society has all kinds of ways of saying people dont matter until theyre the BEST, but that IS a narcissistic society. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > that is the philopsophy that produces the most profit. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > that drives people to care more about products than high-quality work or true innovation. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > that makes people think apple is worth more, when its more locked down. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > --- | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > but in reality, there are many PATHS to worth-- many WAYS to matter. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > what corporations do is pare down options-- create lock-in-- ADD to the list of "things you must do" before you can "really claim to be open source." | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > a TRUE scotsman knows this... | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > and osi/open source has spent years saying "its not really open until" | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > it only ensures more things are disqualified. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > it only means that when microsoft steals the kernel, there are fewer challengers. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > the first step is to add a free license. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > IT CANNOT BE FREE without the license-- or public domain status. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > thats the point where for 35 years, we have said it becomes free. | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:13 |
| schestowitz | > but thats not all it takes-- no-- | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > we have also said if you want to HELP, you can HELP just by using free software. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > but cmon tom, if you have to use free software, for it to be free software-- then youre out of luck. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > because if its not free until you use it-- how can you choose free software to use, if its not free until you use it? | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > i mean yes, the philosophy is alright-- carpe diem-- or as bono says "its a beautiful day-- dont let it slip away" | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > its not a tree, its a seed. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > but the beauty of the appreciated tree is CODED into the seed, already. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > how can a baker make a good tasting cake, if someone else tastes it to make it delicious? | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > put it in a corporate context, tom-- and its not philosophy, its sophistry. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > its propaganda, and the years-- (decades-- centuries) of damage from people perverting it has already been done. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > so pardon me if i recoil. its not because i didnt get the point-- i get it. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > the problem is people have already abused that point to try to destroy everything we do. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > --- | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > for a philosophy to be useful, it has to not be twisted into some corporate propaganda that serves monopolies. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > for software to REMAIN free, it has not be hijacked by larger and larger "teams" | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > for cells to not be cancer, they have to avoid growing out of control. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > and today, for software to remain free, takes a little more than it did because there are new threats. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > but it never, EVER took as much as open source said it took. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > and it simply disqualifies valid examples to look at it that way-- why? because it helps microsoft destroy what we do. | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > im against it! | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:14 |
| schestowitz | > but the flower is greatly enhanced when it is smelled, looked upon, when its pollen is spread. | Jan 21 09:15 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 21 09:15 |
| schestowitz | > everybody knows that, tom. theyre constantly trying to use something thats true to prove something that isnt. not a new trick by any argument. im against it. | Jan 21 09:15 |
| schestowitz | I think it can be shaped into a good article | Jan 21 09:15 |
| schestowitz | "until its a product-- until its on github-- until jobs makes it shiny, etc" | Jan 21 09:15 |
| -->vitaminx (~vitaminx@37.223.48.140) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 09:30 | |
| <--vitaminx (~vitaminx@37.223.48.140) has left #techbytes | Jan 21 09:30 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1219582353036595200 | Jan 21 12:01 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@mjg59: @schestowitz Why? The entire spec is public, if there are backdoors in the spec anyone can find them. There's no TP… https://t.co/1XR3Pp8hUh | Jan 21 12:01 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@mjg59: @schestowitz Why? The entire spec is public, if there are backdoors in the spec anyone can find them. There's no TP… https://t.co/1XR3Pp8hUh | Jan 21 12:01 | |
| schestowitz | "Why? The entire spec is public, if there are backdoors in the spec anyone can find them. There's no TPM-specific cryptography involved." | Jan 21 12:01 |
| schestowitz | You're changing the subject twice, first to >choice< between masters and now 'openness' of the specs | Jan 21 12:01 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/FtblKaii/status/1219583147567960064 | Jan 21 12:01 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@FtblKaii: @schestowitz @SpursOfficial Ah | Jan 21 12:01 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Flavia0847/status/1219586629607809024 | Jan 21 12:02 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Flavia0847: @schestowitz Look honey, a squirrel! | Jan 21 12:02 | |
| -->acer-box (~acer-box@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 12:09 | |
| <--acer-box has quit (Changing host) | Jan 21 12:09 | |
| -->acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 12:09 | |
| -->libertybox_ (~schestowi@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 12:09 | |
| <--libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jan 21 12:12 | |
| <--acer-box__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Jan 21 12:13 | |
| -->Bark67 (c11d51e7@193.29.81.231) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 12:21 | |
| <--Bark67 has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Jan 21 12:22 | |
| <--schestowitz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jan 21 18:16 | |
| -->schestowitz (~roy@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 18:17 | |
| <--liberty_box has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Jan 21 20:22 | |
| -->liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 20:26 | |
| <--liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Jan 21 23:00 | |
| -->liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 21 23:18 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!