Which politicians are pushing this?
For those who don’t know, if you shop on Amazon, you can have a portion of your purchase price go to EFF every time you do. You pay the same price, EFF gets a slice of the pie, and Daddy Bezos loses a few bucks. Edit: Use the affiliate link not the smile link, Amazon stopped the smile program.
deleted by creator
Or, here’s a crazy idea: don’t shop on amazon at all.
Can you provide an alternative that isn’t a PITA? Amazon is successful because it makes shopping easy, often more secure than shopping elsewhere, and is more ecological than shopping in person. Where else can I get a dozen completely different category of items without checking out 12 times? Should I drive to 12 different places, and burn all that gas, just to spite Amazon? Where can I shop where I can comparison shop between a hundred different brands and options, to get the item I want and not just what the shop owner carries?
I’m not being facetious; I want an alternative, but there’s only so much inconvenience I’ll accept.
I just assume you are in the US and i can’t speak for the situation there. Here in the EU there are plenty of options. Sure it’s a bit more expensive sometimes, but often times it’s not.
And the convenience, I get it. Amazon customer support is unbeatable. From what I hear it is getting worse, though.
For me in the EU it is possible, but sometimes a struggle. The ideological thing makes it worth it for me, and if there are more and more people that don’t use Amazon (as often), there may be a time when it dies.
The only items I bought on Amazon since coronavirus hit are a phone charger, some shirts that aren’t available anywhere else and a pedal for a sewing machine.
So I can’t tell you
an alternativethe alternative you are looking for, but for me it is a lot of small to large online stores and some offline stores as well. There isn’t quite something as convenient that has virtually everything out there, afaik.Ok, the EU is different. You have - generally speaking - walkable cities and good public transport infrastructure. Most people live in cities, not suburbs, and even your suburbs have decent walkable shopping and good public transport. I’d do less online shopping if I lived in Munich, or London, or Paris, or even the smaller cities.
Still, there’s a lot of stuff you still need to go online for, or settle for whatever your local small shop has. Sometimes the local is acceptable for not having to shop Amazon.
You’re right, things are different in the states. We’re trapped in our Suburbia.
I window shop on Amazon, then order direct from the manufacturer.
Half the time I do that I get fucked by their completely non-existent support or return policies
Me too, sometimes. Not if I’m buying a bunch of stuff, though.
deleted by creator
Use the amazon affiliate link not the amazon smile one
Two pieces of technology are behind the Internet as we know it today.
Neither one is patented.
They are TCP/IP and Linux.
All the network traffic runs over TCP/IP.
95%+ of the servers run Linux. So do the Android phones and Chromebooks.
Clearly, patent protection in software is not required for society to benefit greatly from technological innovation in software.
Linux isn’t a patentable thing. It’s not one idea or even really a new one. I agree with your premise though. Patents, in nearly all cases, suck.
Patents have been an issue for Linux before. For example, memory deduplication (KSM) was delayed and modified to avoid a patent on using hashes for this purpose, resulting in a potentially inferior implementation due to patents.
Linux isn’t a patentable thing.
Yes, that’s been true so far. Are you sure it’s true under the newly proposed law?
I hope if the law passes, that the Linux Foundation immediately would jump on putting a patent on Linux/whatever else needed just to keep those pesky patent mongoloids from trying to kill Linux. Assuming that Linux would become patentable.
What would you patent? “A program which handles low level functionality and manages other programs?” I suppose what I mean is that there is “prior art”. You can’t patent something if it isn’t new and the concept of Linux isn’t. Linux isn’t the first kernel. This law wouldn’t change that. The first person to create a kernel though, under this law that might perhaps (?) have been patentable. Which would’ve crippled the entire software industry in it’s infancy. Yay patents!
TIL UDP Traffic runs on TCP.
Psh. UDP isn’t used at any scale anymore. /s
I use it all the time
I use it all the time
I use it all the time
I use it all the time
“TCP/IP” is conventionally used to indicate the whole protocol suite; including UDP, ICMP and sometimes even ARP.
Technically the parent protocol is IP.
In all my years I have never heard someone suggest that TCP is a catch all term.
It’s not that TCP is a catch-all term, but “TCP/IP” is often used that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite
The Internet protocol suite, commonly known as TCP/IP, is a framework for organizing the set of communication protocols used in the Internet and similar computer networks according to functional criteria. The foundational protocols in the suite are the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and the Internet Protocol (IP).
For that matter, the classic networking text by Douglas Comer is Internetworking with TCP/IP and it does cover UDP, ICMP, ARP, DHCP, DNS, etc.
I’ve seen many references to TCP/IP as meaning IP + everything-on-top, usually when talking about other networking technologies like UUnet, OSI, etc. Also as the TCP/IP stack, usually meaning the (Free)BSD networking code used in other systems.
Wut
It does it you want to be sure it is delivered!
Psh
They never stop so we have to stay vigilant and vocal.
So because this is an opturinty to make.money it will pass. Here in America we live by capitlaism. It doesn’t matter if the idea is good or bad, just if someone will make money off of it. Since people can make money off this one it will end up passing. The right senators will be bribed and all our lives will be worse
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), S. 2140, would throw out Supreme Court rules that limit patents on abstract ideas. If PERA passes, it will open the floodgates for far more vague and overbroad software patents. It will even allow for a type of patent on human genes that the Supreme Court rightly disallowed in 2013.
No one should be allowed to take an abstract idea, add generic computer language, and get a patent. And we should never see patents on the genes that naturally occur in human bodies. But if PERA passes, that’s exactly what will happen.
Patent trolls—companies that have no product or service of their own, but simply make patent infringement demands on others—are a big problem. They’ve cost our economy billions of dollars. For a small company, a patent troll demand letter can be ruinous.
But we took a big step forward in the fight against patent trolls in 2014, when a landmark Supreme Court ruling, the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank case, held that you can’t get a patent by adding “on a computer” to an abstract idea.
This bill by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) would also override the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the U.S. Patent Office from issuing patents on human genes. Patenting human genetic material is wrong and should never occur.
Tell Congress to reject the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act.
Thank you for posting this
Fixed it for you: Tell Congress: Don’t Allow Patents
