This isn't very convincing without some specifics.
"He's has brains and tenacity... if only you knew him."
The problem is we only know what we see. And we see underhanded tactics, and enormous luck, not brains and tenacity.
Is Aaron Greenspan lazy? I doubt it. Does he use underhanded tactics? I doubt it. Is he as successful as Zuckerberg?
It seems obvious that a windfall on the scale of Facebook requires more than just "not being lazy." You are of course free to doubt it.
When you have lots of capital to move around (or even a modest amount... like YC), and lots of media attention, you also gain the right of audience. People will listen to you. Even if you have no brains. That is to say, it's not your brains that draw the audience. HN is loaded with brains. But few have an audience like Zuckerberg or pg.
Zuckerberg has a lot of capital and a lot of media attention. A lobby is born. Short-lived. Try again.
He assumes the system will have an executable named "bash".
As this 0day is written, rename bash to sh and it will fail. Better yet, remove bash from your system and replace it with a simpler POSIX compliant sh.
No respectable systemwide shell script should rely on bash anyway.
Patents are not an incnetive to create something. They are a protection for people who (for whatever reason) create and want to profit from their creations.
United States patents do not give anyone a license to create anything. They grant a "license" to sue others, for alleged infringement. If the patent registrant fails to pay the government fees, the "license" can be "revoked".
If in doubt, ask your IP lawyer for confirmation of this fact.
It would perhaps be better for the discussion if all HN commenters knew how to define a US patent. It is a right to sue. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whatever else the registrant gets up to besides paying his patent maintenance fees (e.g. manufacturing, licensing, etc.), that's his business. He may choose to do nothing. Maybe he's just blocking someone else through the threat of litigation.
Do you all think the "incentives" for innovation come from having a right to sue? As if prior to the 1600's and "Letters Patent" there existed no incentive for anyone to innovate. Does a government incentivize innovation through giving the right to sue, for a recurring fee? Do people stop innovating when they cannot sue each other? Is it that simple? Is there more to the story? Maybe innovation exists without patents, but giving a right to sue is a way to "protect" the natural innovation instinct? Maybe it's just a way to tax it? What do you think?
"He's has brains and tenacity... if only you knew him."
The problem is we only know what we see. And we see underhanded tactics, and enormous luck, not brains and tenacity.
Is Aaron Greenspan lazy? I doubt it. Does he use underhanded tactics? I doubt it. Is he as successful as Zuckerberg?
It seems obvious that a windfall on the scale of Facebook requires more than just "not being lazy." You are of course free to doubt it.
When you have lots of capital to move around (or even a modest amount... like YC), and lots of media attention, you also gain the right of audience. People will listen to you. Even if you have no brains. That is to say, it's not your brains that draw the audience. HN is loaded with brains. But few have an audience like Zuckerberg or pg.
Zuckerberg has a lot of capital and a lot of media attention. A lobby is born. Short-lived. Try again.