Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: IEEE, Liquid, Swings
IEEE v. DMCA. Reacting to the IEEE's changing publication rules, Boone^ writes: "The IEEE has backed away from their stance that all papers submitted must comply with the DMCA. Their reason? 'The IEEE, publisher of nearly one-third of all computer science journals, said it is removing the requirement because it turned out to be more contentious than expected.' Personally I'd have preferred their reason to be based on the law instead of popular backlash, but maybe that's a step in the right direction to eventually bring about new legislation."
Many readers also pointed out this New Scientist story on the reversal.
Free as in Blender? tinus writes: "Ton Roosendaal, creator of Blender, submitted an update to Elysiun.com about finding solutions for continueing activities of the Blender projects. He describes the way Blender has been split up into smaller projects to make it both profitable as public domain software. Also, he gives us a preview of his setup for his new community plan, which even mentions 'Blender sources will be opened for members.'
Seems like there is a very promising future for Blender after all. Read the full story here."
Water meets your processor. Foss writes "You may remember this story about the dodgy-yet-extremely-cheap DIY water cooling block. Well, thanks to all your emails, Rob's getting better. It's still extremely cheap (under £10), but it's now pretty stable too, running a P3 933@1.1GHz for a few hours at a very stable 28 degrees. No dental floss this time round either!"
But don't worry, all the other patents issued were A-OK. Worried about getting slapped with a lawsuit for swinging different? f00zbll writes: "Cnet is running an follow up article on the patent posted earlier in the week. Apparently, the kid doesn't plan on suing anyone over swinging side ways."
We're here to save you money, Ma'am. Now, where do you keep it? guttentag writes "The NYTimes (reg req'd) is reporting on a MS and Mexico plan to develop digital community centers as part of a broader 'eMexico' initiative meant to bring the entire nation online by 2006. Microsoft will license its Windows, Office and Encarta software on the same terms that colleges and universities use. Some background: Microsoft's licensing deal with the University System of Maryland resulted in a mandatory $14 Microsoft tax imposed on all 130,000 students. Apparently, if you want to attend one of MD's taxpayer-funded university, you must pay MS. Is eMexico Microsoft's plan to tax Mexican citizens?" Hope they keep their licenses up -- Virginia Beach's taxpayers got to foot a city-size bill. The tab in Texas wasn't low either. What would it look like for all of Mexico?
One of my professors was talking about the problems with the IEEE and the DMCA, he is a fellow in the IEEE too, head of the EE department at my college. He was definitely against it.
The fact that he has about 20 gigs of Divx movies on his laptop he brings to class might have something to do with it.
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
Swinging upside-down, swinging standing up, swinging both ways, swinging both ways at ONCE, swinging with another person, using two swings, swinging without hands, swinging without feet, and finally, swinging with a brainless parent. What kind of parent actually files a patent, to teach about the patent process? That's like taking your kid to the bedroom with you and your wife (husband) to teach him/her about the birds and the bees!
The subject is what the fish gave me for
"Blue Screen of Death" in Spanish.
I wonder whether we can call it a tax!
Are we assuming that software HAS to be free already? Does it mean that we need some kind of a policy for univeristy and educational institutions not to spend for software at all? That being said, I am not justifying the MS pricing or anything...
All these stories have been posted before!
/. that's a whole other story that has been commented on by all of us already...
The article does state slashback which does trigger my mind to believe that, yes genius it has been posted before, and we don't need you to tell us this.
The article also mentions the word update which, if you read this link you will see that it is implied that this is not new information!
Are you guys actually paying for this stuff?
Don't even go down the whole paying/subscriptions on
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer J. Simpson
The article mentions $1000 in fines. I wonder what those were for. Not fees, but fines.
Anyone know what those might be for?
S
Message for kids, 20 years from now... Kids everywhere, beware of a 25 year old man who will sue you for swinging sideways. Add your allowance to the 'Free Swing Fund' and defend your rights.
Intellectual-property experts said the patent clearly should have not been issued, but that such mistakes were inevitable from an underfunded government agency that issues 3,000 patents each week.
If the patent office is so underfunded, then why don't they charge more to apply for a patent? When I applied to colleges, the colleges did not complain because they accidently accepted a few people that they should't have because they were underfunded. No, if they are underfunded, then they simply raise the cost to apply. At each school I applied to, it cost between 40 and 70 dollars. Now, some of you might claim that this would be unfair to the poor inventor, but I say that this is simply the cost of doing business. The patent office would be much less underfunded, and thus issue less stupid patents if they raised the cost to apply by simply $10.
The growth in "business method" patents over the past 20 years--which provide protections for software and other intangible inventions...
Could someone clue me in? Since when did swinging on a swing have anything to do with business?
Do you like Japanese imports?
and the school bookstore at UMBC offers most of microsoft's current software for uber-cheap.
MS Office XP Professional (3CD) 14.95
MS Windows XP Professional (2CD's) 14.95
MS Office Mac OS X - (1CD) 9.95
MS Visual Studio.NET Pro (5CD's) 24.95
At prices this cheap, how can you not buy it? Even just to tinker around.
20 years from now this technique will be in the public domain, and we all will know how to do it because he published detailed directions. That is the theory behind patents, instead of everyone keeping secrets (i.e. the formula for Coke) in exchange for publishing what you invented and how it works, you get a time limited monopoly, in 17 years we all will be enjoying this innovative method of swinging totally free of a license fee, I can hardly wait!
Free cell phone tracking
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I run a P3-800 at 1066Mhz by bumping the bus speed up to 133Mhz. It barely gets warm with the stock retail-boxed Intel heatsink/fan. Watercooling and overclocking a 966Mhz processor to this speed doesn't show anything.
See my earlier post
It's based on the concept that since you pay a sales tax on everything* (*:Void where prohibited by law. Some restrictions may... *ahem*) the fact you "pay" for Windows with every prebuilt computer from the big name retailers (Dell, Gateqay, Compaq, eMachines, etc) makes it a tax as well. Of course, using such a loaded term is meant to suggests that the minimal OS choice I ought to have is ordering a "nude" PC with a $50 - $100 discount (price of license).
Of course, you can always flip the loaded term around (especially given the recent actions of Microsoft), and say it's a commentary on their "we laugh in the general direction of your government" attitude. I used to think there was a limit to arrogance, but they sure cured me of that over the past year.
Do you like Japanese imports?
God forbid only one of it be profitable.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I go to the University of Maryland, and I have to say the $14 dollar tax is more than reasonable, particularly if you're in CS. They've donated tons of stuff, including .NET as soon as it came out. They give heavy student discounts on their software. They hold dull presentations where they give away their software for free. For the non CS people, with the $14 dollars they've installed Office on practically all of the Windoze boxen on campus. Now, I'm as reluctant to part with my money as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that like them or not, Microsoft is giving Maryland a LOT of software for just a $14 tax. I was against it when it was proposed, but I have to say it's worked out well.
You in fact answered your own question. Microsoft is a company out to destroy all of their competitors, including open source software. They've stated it, they've acted the part, and they've been found guilty in a federal court of doing just this (to specific competitors).
Why do people find it so hard to understand that some of us do, in fact, believe that microsoft is bad. Why on earth does the fact that they want to make money somehow exonerate them from everything they've done to destroy competition, and somehow nullify the fact that they're a highly abusive monopoly?
In short, MICROSOFT IS EVIL. Get that through your thick skulls. If you're not part of microsoft, you do not stand to benefit from anything that they do. Not in the long run.
Note: I am counting greed as evil. It is not, in fact a virtue, and when greed is allowed to cause one to injure others, it is evil. Why do people restrict their definition of evil to killing >1,000,000 people and clubbing baby seals? There are plenty of types of evil in the world, and microsoft actively engages in several of them.
Hell, there's "Megan's Law" for sex offendors. Somehow people think it's not entirely unreasonable for people to find out about child molestors who enter their communities. Microsoft has comitted crimes. Microsoft has admitted in many, many times to anticompetitive behavior. What more do you need? Bill gates to grow a goatee and wear all black?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
_
_|_|_ _
|_|_|_|_|
|_|
The hard part of a water-cooling system is the circulation of the water, not the stupid box taped to the CPU. Please let this be the last time I have to see this shite on slashdot. :(
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The issue isn't whether students WHO WANT MICROSOFT PRODUCTS AND HAVEN'T ALREADY PURCHASED THEM are getting a great deal.
It's whether it's fair to force students to pay for software that they don't want, don't need, and possibly can't even use.
As a trivial example, I took one grad CS course a semester for about 7 years during the 1990s. 14 semesters. Had the University of Colorado had this mandatory plan, I would have paid close to $200 to Microsoft. For absolutely nothing of value in return.
Could I run any Microsoft application on my computers? No - I was already using Linux almost exclusively on my own equipment.
Did I need any Microsoft application for my graduate CS course work? No. It was either agnostic (e.g., email), or needed to be done on Unix systems.
Could I have saved money on my rare Microsoft purchase? No - my laptop already included a mandatory copy of Windows and applications. What possible value would there have been in replacing a copy of Office 95 with another copy of Office 95?
Maybe you're rich and can afford to give people $200 for absolutely nothing in return, but most of us aren't and we resent being forced to do so.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It sounded like it was going to be a great deal, and then we found out that, although the students are paying for it, we don't get any of the software. It all goes to computer labs, research groups, and other university employees. I think there was a student option, but the school where I'm at (UMDCP) didn't exercise that option.
It ends up being a pain because the professors want us to use MS products (it's free for them), while it costs us good amounts of money. This isn't true across the board, but it happens often enough to be annoying.
Its always so goddamn virulent around against MS - but those prices (and the ones for the schools and Mexico) sound like just an amazing deal - really a fine bargin. I guess I dont get it.
.NET, or Product Activation, all of which are questioned for different reasons (privacy and security top the list, though).
Personally, when I look at Microsoft's corporate practices, I only wonder whether they think they sell a product or a service. If its' "product", why does it go out the door in such crappy shape (remember the thousands of known bugs at Win2K release?); on the other hand, can you really call an OS a "service"? It's much clearer for RedHat, Mandrake & Co. where they give away the code and sell their support services.
On top of that, they play very fast & loose with differences between what they say and what they do. Remember Tuesday's story about the IE Back button exploit? Even if that were a non-issue as far as bugs go (and it's not because any script kiddie worth his cable modem could do anything they want with that), the fact that it went unpatched across their month of code review and security focus-- when they had notification as early as last November-- makes their newfound focus on security seem more like spin control than code control.
I'm not even going to start talking about their business practices. If you've read any details about some of their recent actions during the waning days of the antitrust suit, you would understand why I personally think they are a lower form of life than pond scum. That's ignoring, of course, all of the issues surrounding things like Passport,
Given the whole picture of Microsoft's behavior, I'm all for the corporate death penalty. But since it seems that the US government won't do that, I'll just try to generate as large a boycott of their products as possible.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Weren't people on Slashdot just yesterday praising the guy who put a computer in a wall in an Indian slum? How is this much different?
From the article: "Eventually, the Mexican government hopes to have 10,000 free public Internet kiosks in rural areas to help bring government services to citizens and reduce what has been called the ``digital divide'' of the urban rich from the rural poor."
I think this is a good thing, regardless of who is sponsoring it.
Miguel de Icaza is quoted in the article as saying "It's a shame." But why weren't Linux companies involved in this? As Dan asks, where was RedHat? Miguel? Any other Linux-based company?
And if the Linux vendors weren't there, why not? I think it is because it is still the case that no one has figured out how to make money off of Linux. RedHat is profitable -- barely. Mandrake and the others are begging for support, and a lot of them aren't getting it. Meanwhile, the editors and others on Slashdot rail against companies and people who choose Microsoft because they believe that no one should have to pay for an operating system. But isn't this very belief what is killing the commercial Linux companies?
It's a question that needs to be asked.
I think that if you polled those college students who get Microsoft Office for $14 a year, and asked how many of them would not be willing to pay that money, you would find that an overwhelming majority are in favor of getting Office for cheap. Heck, you can't even buy StarOffice for less than $60.
I guess I really don't understand this "everything must be free" mentality. I use Windows, and I think it's worth the $140 (Windows 2000 OEM) because Windows helps me make money doing my job. I am fully supportive of your right to use Linux; however, I believe that you should chip in your support to those vendors that you feel are making a good product, regardless of whether that product is being offered as a free download or not.
If all software developers worked for free, what would your job be? How would you put food on the table?
Keep that in mind next time you bash someone for using a product that costs money.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
"Are you guys actually paying for this stuff?"
I hate when people say stupid shit like this. Let me explain why:
1.) You're not subscribing for news, you're subscribing to view slashdot pages without ads. If you log out, you still have acess to EVERYTHING on slashdot.
2.) Last I checked, $5 bought you 1,000 ad-free page views. Assuming I'm not mistaken about the rates, that's $.02 a page view. Oh Slashdot is really ripping you off.
3.) What business is it of yours if anybody pays for it or not? You're not being told to subscribe. You're being offered an opportunity to pay a small price to not get ads. I, for one, find Slashdot really entertaining. Even if the story's not interesting to me, usually the comments are. I see value, therefore I either subscribe or contribute. You don't hear me bitching about the subscription.
I realize this is off-topic, and I apologize for that. But I am sick and tired of people making posts like these as if it's a big deal. If you're here reading the comments, then Slashdot is providing you with a service, whether you like it or not.
"Derp de derp."
If the bookstore required a $14 fee (once per semester) before students bought the software at this price, then that would be great. Students would get discounted software, Microsoft would get to warp impressionable young minds.
The problem is when they want $14 from EVERYONE regardless of need. A lot of courses - even many computer science courses (at least at the graduate level) don't require software of any kind. Or people may already have the software through other channels, e.g., it came preinstalled on their computers, or their boss makes their work systems available for academic work.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
This probably means you, RedHat. Go set our Mexican friends up with Free Software before M$ further ruins their economy to deepen their own pocketbook. This is really disgusting how M$ is seeking to stay afloat by going for big sleazy licensing deals at taxpayers expense both here and abroad.
They were imposed on every student, regardless of whether that student actually went to football games or used the pool tables at the Student Union.
Yep. Although, like the activity fee, your choice is always to go somewhere else. Most universities now have the Microsoft program whereby students can get any Microsoft software for $15 or so (everything from Visual Studio to Windows to Office.) Microsoft also routinely gives out free software at college events. I think that most students see this as a value-add, just like most students see being able to go to a football game for cheap see that as a value-add. Regardless of whether you like it or not, if most students are willing to pay, the university will be willing to levy another fee on those students.
On the other hand, if students had protested, I doubt this would have ever been enacted. So the benefit is there, even if it doesn't apply to every student.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
You need to get a better dictionary (or would that be a better dictionary.com?). Language evolves, and it's now widely accepted that "tax" can refer to any mandatory fee collected by one group on behalf of another group, esp. if the first group is a government entity of some type. This isn't entirely "fringe" groups pushing their own agenda - after California (and other states) passed tax limitation laws it becamse common for governments to enact taxes through third parties in an effort to evade those laws.
As for the common usage that lexigraphers love, the "blank media tax" that's a law requiring part of the money from the sale of blank media go to the RIAA regardless of how the media will be used. (E.g., even if you're dubbing tapes of your own garage band's original compositions, the RIAA gets a cut.)
Or the well-known "Microsoft tax" that's a license requirement that every system sold by OEM include payment for the Microsoft software license regardless of whether the user wants it or not.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
eMexico is a very interesting project focused on offering government services thru the use of IT in many different levels trying to close the technological gap. Unfortunately, Microsoft is the most known and used software provider, and its market dominance is brutal. 99% of the mexican IT is based on Microsoft products. I really dont think that Microsoft would pretend taxing these licenses, it pretends to consolidate its hegemony on the countrys technological dependence.
Manuel made some proposals to include open source software on the eMexico project, but MS is offering a very "generous" support to the project in order to keep dominating the mexican market. They dont really need to tax this software cause they intend to dominate the whole mexican technology market.
The guy with the water-cooled PC is depending on a RUBBER BAND to keep the water-seal tight? You've got to be kidding me. Hasn't he ever seen what happens to a rubber band when it gets old? Not to mention that it'll be under constant strain, and exposed to heat being in the case? That thing's going to turn brittle and crack within months leaving his PC soaking wet.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb....
link
As a Mexican residing in the US i have to say this:
,and ironically, is in nations like Mexico where MS can find a great niche because of poverty hopefully this won't continue, hopefully Linux will come to the rescue ....
It does not surprises me for to reasos:
The right-wing governmet lead by the ex-Coca-Cola executive Vicente Fox that loves interviewing and meeting with his friend Bill G.
Second: is a nation where most (not everybody thank god )computer knowlegable are "yuppies" that would never think of other OS than Microsoft. That is beacuse the common people don't have enough buying power to acqire PCs so that "world" is left to the semi-rich.
In conclusion
--Manuel
"I hate quotations, tell me what you think"
Since in the US you can patent something as long as you file the application within 1 year of publication, I think somebody should file a patent on hijacking planes to use them for building demolition. There's still a few months left in which to do it. That way if somebody actually manages to pull off another grab & crash, you could sue their families for patent infringement and recover any money that Saddam Hussein is paying suicide terrorists. I'm afraid it wouldn't work for suicide bombers in Israel. Firstly, there's lots of prior art and, secondly, the US is probably the only country that provides the 1 year grace period.
If asked why you didn't publish and kept it as a trade secret, well the latest rash of copycat planes crashing into buildings should make the answer obvious: the public safety interest. It also indicates that this could become quite a lucrative patent in the future.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They only look at things as though they can't be done or are hard to do, without questioning if they could be done differently.
Case in point:
From the article on the 5 year old's patent:
"Intellectual-property experts said the patent clearly should have not been issued, but that such mistakes were inevitable from an underfunded government agency that issues 3,000 patents each week."
This is the reaction I'm talking about, not that the patent office should not be giving out 3,000 patents every week, but since they do, there are mistakes. And underfunded? anybody file a patent lately? It cost this boys father $1,000 dollars to file his patent. With that as an example cost, the process cost the patent filers 3,000,000 dollars a week. Someone gets that money, and the patent office is the most likely cantidate that I can think of.
If the lawyers are getting that money, well that's the patent office's fault for not looking over the patents themselves and billing the same as the lawyers. It's their only job after all.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
If the "eMexico" package is merely a cut-down on license fees, then free software has them beat.
In a Wired Story we get the following quote.
I'd suggest you read the entire short article for more information. Also according to another article, " The Mexican government is installing the free Linux operating system in 140,000 computer labs of elementary and middle schools."
Frankly, there's no need for Red Hat or Calderal or any business to do anything. You see, to get Free Software, you have get out of the iron triangle of technology, business, and money. You have to include other rather foriegn concepts like community and freedom. So whats my bid? Linux User Groups.
From this page I count eleven LUGs that mexicans can contact to help get their schools and organizations technologically up to par. Of course they'll need plenty of other things but the software is all right their ready to download of the internet, to share on CD's, and to modify to their needs. Of course Microsoft won't have for any of that sharing software thing--how can they compete?
Now...all this information I gathered from google, a brilliant search engine that even you can use to answer your own questions.
I'm dead serious too.
and i have the scars to prove it.
This comment is quite telling. Authors write articles for the IEEE at their own expense. Sometimes they even pay page charges. And most of the editorial and reviewing for the IEEE is done for free. And in return, the IEEE claims that it is "their content" and charges steep fees for access to it. It's a really unfair arrangement, and the IEEE can only get away with that because students and professionals must publish or perish and there is no way to avoid the IEEE if you work in the field. You can avoid buying Microsoft, but there is no way to avoid paying the IEEE.
Don't worry about it. People won't generally sue you until you can afford lawyers and a nice juicy settlement. They wouldn't want to bite the hand that they leech off of, after all.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
First off, Christianity and Islam are competing religions (read: world views), not businesses. They are mutually exclusive by their very nature.
Ford and GM are not mutually exclusive by their nature. Neither are any of the other companies that you mentioned.
Anyhow, about your assertion: "The objective of ANY business is to BEAT THEIR COMPETITORS." Well, this is only true of bad businesses. The objective of good businesses is to make money buy selling goods or services. It is true that very frequently businesses will compete with each other, and that if their competition went away life would be easier for them. However, not all businesses are out to make all the money in the world. Plenty of businesses are happy with finding a decent niche and staying in it. For example, take a look at any given restaurant which has existed for more than 10 years but hasn't turned into a franchise. Take a look at most of the small businesses around. They really aren't all big businesses waiting to happen.
The truth of the matter is that many, if not most, people are content with a certain level of achievement and don't want to take over the world. Most people are willing to find an equilibrium with their competitors.
But to get back to your examples, just imagine if Ford had made special "Ford Gasoline" which was incompatible with all other cars (ignoring the fact that this was beyond the technology of the time), way back when, and that they only agreed to sell "Ford Gasoline" to gas stations which didn't carry any other type of gasoline. Now imagine a world with only Ford cars which cost $50,000 for the cheapest model, break down every 500 miles travelled, and somehow manage to leverage Ford brand toasters into your home. Aren't you glad that there was actually competition back when and that noone beat out their cometitors with really immoral tricks?
Anyhow, I really love this part, "Now tell me you really honestly think that would have happened if something like Windows hadn't come along to make these gosh-darn complicated new-fangled boxes usable to people that can't get their VCR to stop blinking 12:00."
(btw, I have certainly benefitted from the massive influx of personal computers etc.)
Anyhow, as to your point, I do think that this would have happened, since something like Windows didn't come along "to make these gosh-darn complicated new-fangled boxes usuable to people that can't get their VCR to stop blinking 12:00". Windows didn't simplify computing, it provided a framework for graphics.
Windows was not easy, either to use or to program. I speak as one who did both on windows 3.1 - it was a POS any way you look at it. Windows 95 was an improvement, to be sure.
However, if you think that what happened with the computer boom was either directly or indirectly facilitated by any features of windows that anyone writing an OS for the personal computer wouldn't have implemented, you're living in a dream world. Most people can't figure out anything about windows administration, and as for program installation all you need is a standard way of providing the user with access to the installed programs. Every operating system has this. Hell, I know plenty of people who prefer a text menu to hitting icons with the mouse, and people who prefer a command line (possibly with a reference card) to icons too.
Anyhow, windows came with no useful programs other than solitaire and mine sweeper. Noone every bought a computer for windows. They bought a computer for the programs that they could run on it. During the later time of windows 3.1, there were at least two competing windowing interfaces for the PC that could run dos programs, and 3 if you include linux w/ X. Programs would have come regardless of windows, and advances in hardware were driven by software, not by windows. Microsoft office only started to dominate a year or two after win95 came out, and it doesn't offer anything over its competition aside from 100% microsoft office compatibility.
The truth of the matter is that microsoft has made no discernable contributions to the world of computing that anyone who had been in the right place at the right time as Microsoft had would have done (and probably done sooner and better).
Anyhow, if you think that computers are easy to use, you're the one who is delusional. People are simply good at learning repetative tasks, such as checking their email. If you made them two 10 extra steps from what they have to do now, as long as these steps are consistent from use to use, they'd still use their email just fine.
Really, the only people who think that computers are easy to use are those who don't give tech support to their family, friends, or acquaintences. Try it some time. You'll realize just how hard most people find computers.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
At my school (which shall remain nameless), we the students can get MS software for only a small fee: basically the cost of the media. This is due, I'm sure, to Microsoft's academic volume license agreement. Here's what we pay, and you've got to admit, it's a damn good deal for us students.
.NET Academic $6.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Professional: $6.00
Microsoft FrontPage 2002: $6.00
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional: $32.00
Windows XP Professional Upgrade* $6.00
Windows 2000 Professional Upgrade* $6.00
Office XP Professional $8.00
Office 2001 for Mac $6.00
Office v. X for Mac $7.00
Visio Professional 2002 $6.00
Visual Studio
These are for licensed, legal copies, and as long as we get them as students, those licenses are good in perpetuam.
What mistake? Temporary illiteracy? Did the possessed hand from Evil Dead get control of the 'APPROVED' stamp?
I'm sorry, just don't get it.
The article states that the patent office is underfunded. What exactly, then, is that patent fee for?
Yes, I understand when there are millions upon millions of patents issued, it can take a lot of time to go through them, even if there's a smart search engine available. But $1000 per patent buys a LOT of time to hunt.
The first stage should be: Does the person working in the patent office, yes, your average federal employee, think that the patent is obvious or that prior work exists. This is about as close to a "layman" as you're going to get. If THEY think its obvious, then it fails immediately. Swinging on a swing, in ANY direction, should have failed. Maybe I have too much faith in federal employees. I don't have much as it is.
Second, the exact text of the patent is cross-referenced against a database of all patents ever issued. Any more than 3 words match, they get marked for review. And then they're REVIEWED. BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON.
Once again, I feel it is important to mention that this is a federal organization, with federal employees. I realize that has NO significance here, but for some odd reason I feel the need to mention it again.
Peer review. A patent gets issued on a 30 day contingency period. Anyone who thinks that the patent has significant prior art will have the opportunity to submit proposals for its dismissal, and those proposals will be taken seriously. Yes, I know, they're "underfunded".
But I'm sorry. There's no reasonable way that it cost $1000 to grant a patent for swinging sideways. And if 95% of the fees really do go to fund the beuracracy to support the office, then it probably would be better for everyone if it didn't exist at all.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Most universities shy away from extensive use of per-course fees because they don't want the relative cost of different classes to influence what people choose to take (they should take what's most interesting/educational, not what has the cheapest lab fee). Exceptions for major items of course -- art studio type classes mostly. But both the admistrative paperwork and the aforementioned discouragement factor would make it better to just distribute the costs evenly over everyone. That's what they do for most things anyway -- you have to pay for the sports team even if you don't pay sports, you have to pay for the library even if you never research there, etc. It's how colleges work.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
danheskett says:
...when was the last time you saw any open source company put together a broadbased, ambitious, and extremely useful package like the 'eMexico' initiative? Where is RedHat? Where are the competitors? Where is RedHat in this big deal? Why didnt they put together a package? What about the open source ally's? Where are they?
...Where is RedHat? SuSE? Mandrake? Where are they? They are off fighting for scraps here or there while missing huge opportunties.
Problem is, EMexico was originally based on Linux and Free Software, at least the original drafts made at the National University (UNAM), --incidentally this is Miguel de Icaza's alma mater.
However Microsoft, upon learning this, offerred a very sweet deal to the President Vicente Fox and to the Communications and Transports Secretary Pedro Cerisola. Gates himself gave a tour of Redmond to these two and most likely they also got showered with gifts and other "signs of good will".
Theres nothing the University could have done about it, much less Redhat or any other Linux company.
No sig for the moment.
Like many IT industry people, you are completely missing the meaning of "free". You have assigned it the designation of "without a fee". And you have missed the real power of Open Source for the end user: freedom.
To be sure, we all like to hold on to our funds. And sometimes that alone is a justification for one particular piece of software over another. But it is only one issue (and a minor one to many organizations with the appropriate funding).
Sometimes technical decissions are made to support marketing. Often to the detriment of the end user - locking them in to a more profitable path. And while Microsoft is not the only one who does this, they have often proven to be especially adept at the practice.
Open Source projects tend to make technical decissions for technical reasons. By its nature, it is difficult to use such technology to force a customer in to a set path (at any time, they can contract their own coders and go their own direction). And, of course, open source technology favors open standards which means an infrastructure will be compatible with other technology following the same standard (proprietary or not). Freedom.
And often those who desire monetary compensation DO have ways for end users to offer that compensation. I have paid for boxed sets of Linux for my own use (and that of my clients). I've recommended a mixed environment when the commercial and competing Open Source packages offered different strengths for different reasons (and actually - that competition helped ensure my employer got an improved product in the commercial package). I've seen my employer take GPL code, pay for development to improve functions needed for their own use, and return those changes to the project. And I've seen my employer contract a major Linux company for desktop support of their official desktop Linux rollout.
Of course, that all involves fees. I've also supported my favorite Open Source projects with code (though I'm horrid at that). Artwork. Documentation. Bug reporting and working with developers to track down the problem. I've certainly helped improve those projects. And THAT is an important aspect of Open Source too.
Microsoft does not get bashed because their products cost money. Some of their free offerings (IE, Outlook Express, etc) get heavy criticism. And to be honest... anyone who wants to get Microsoft products for free has only to look for "pirated" copies.
Microsoft gets criticized because of their marketing. This is where they take advantage of their customers. This is where they attack and attempt to strangle competition. This is where they attempt to subvert open standards. This is where they leverage their market leadership to illegaly maintain their monopoly. This is where they gain the tittle "evil".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And this subject is what Lost in Translation comes up with.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I had to do all the patent searches at the actual patent office and through all the paper. that was 1995. I was wondering why they didn't just scan it all in and search it that way since I had just implemented that (on a smaller scale of course) in that law firm's office when I first started that summer. they told me that it was taking some time - but the early stages of IBMs thing were up - I was very impressed by it. they were running on pentiums! WOW!! hee hee.
I had to do many searches, mostly on weapons and fitness equipment - EVERYTHING that you've ever seen on late night tv - like the abdomizier and shit like that - all of that was patented in the late 1800s and early 1900s and then someone came along and searched through them all and made them in plastic and aluminum instead of iron and voila!
there were a series of strange patents that I can recall - one was a device that was basically underwear for women that would have a dildo of sorts on the inside that was made of radioactive material... I can only assume this was for medical treatment.
then there was a dog carrier that would loop over their upper jaw and snout and then the other side went in the dog's ass. things in animals asses are always funny.
but probably the best one was a "lottery ticket scraper" - it was just a flat peice of plastic and it was done up by a local patent lawyer there in DC - I just loved that it started out "Since the dawn of time man has..." and then I don't recall the rest. but it was amusing.
the end.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
How do you *know* they didn't even try? Please cite references.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You sir, are a moron. Noone in their right mind who doesn't pay the tax bill in question cares if they got a good deal. Is it news if you got a shirt at half off? No. It isn't. Someone getting a good price on something that they want happens constantly in a capitalistic society. It's irrelevant.
These people deserve to be pitied for making a bad choice. The fact that they didn't spend much money doing it is relevant only to the people whose money it is.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
You are so slow you are almost going backwards!
I say no one can compete against MS PR money! Specially when that money is being used to buy 3rd world politicians!
Look at the diverse US cases against MS. Bill will get away with everything without as much as a slap in the wrist. Money is power, and theres nothing you or me can do about it.
No sig for the moment.