Slashdot Mirror


MS Seeks Patent For Repossessing School Computers

theodp writes "Microsoft has applied for a patent for 'securely providing advertising subsidized computer usage.' The application describes how face-recognition webcams and CAPTCHAs can be used in schools to ensure that computer users are paying attention to ads, and the recourse of 'disabling or even repossessing the computer' if they are not."

299 comments

  1. Typical Slashdot garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Typical Slashdot garbage, the headline misrepresents the content of the story.

    1. Re:Typical Slashdot garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Someone should patent RTFA on Slashdot - there's certainly no prior art to speak of.

    2. Re:Typical Slashdot garbage by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      "Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school. "

      Also, that is the only mention of "school" in the original.

      accuracy is great in microsoft stories here!

    3. Re:Typical Slashdot garbage by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      It's a little misleading. There is only one mention of "school" in the patent. However, it is mentioned, which is a little scary.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    4. Re:Typical Slashdot garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If slashdot is typically garbage, why do you come here?

    5. Re:Typical Slashdot garbage by lpq · · Score: 1

      What's the misrepresentation? The patent provides for repossession or other sanctions...oh, I get it, you're just following the slashdot custom of not reading the original article...and shooting off a comment...genius, sheer genius... ;-/

  2. um, no? by monkikuso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use plugins that disable ads. Why the hell would anyone want to use this? I can see this going nowhere pretty effing fast.

    1. Re:um, no? by MiKM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you even read the patent? This is for situations where a company gives a person a computer for free in exchange for looking at their ads. This isn't going to be a standard feature in Windows / something end-users install.

    2. Re:um, no? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't going to be a standard feature in Windows / something end-users install.


      You forgot the word "yet" on the end of that sentence.

      This post brought to you by Scope mouthwash.

    3. Re:um, no? by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem I have is that this is a whole other spin on 1984. If the local school board, for example, gets free computers, but in exchange for their free computers, students are forced to look at advertising, or lose the computers, then a conflict of interest triangle exists between the schools, Microsoft and the student body.

      Teachers are supposed to be teaching a fair and objective view of history. Microsoft is supposed to be making money any way possible, like any good organization. Students are supposed to be thwarting any possible system to the bitter end.

      So the students whip out the same magic marker they used to thwart the CD DRMs of yonder age, and they mark the cams so that MS thinks they are using them.

      I hate Microsoft, and now it's official. I was actually on the fence prior to this Slashdot article. Now my mind is made up! ;-)

      Thanks Slashdot!

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    4. Re:um, no? by Flexagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you even read the patent?

      Yes, I did. It refers in part to a common owner, for example, a business or school [emphasis mine].

      [From the grandparent] Why ... would anyone want to use this?

      Schools that believe they are strapped for cash do. Several years ago, our kids got McDonald's ads disguised as class exercises. For example, if you buy a Big Mac and fries for such and such prices, what is the total? All illustrated with logos and characters. Teachers would remove the sheets from a child's curriculum upon request, but despite ongoing complaints, administrators ignored the general problem until Consumer Reports reported the practice. There have also been subsidized soft drink machines and TV. They will keep trying and we must continue to object.

    5. Re:um, no? by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      My school was paid to have pop machines, but I don't consider it to be on the same level as this. The school was paid to have pop machines, not to say anything good about Coke. In fact, the teachers/administrators frequently said things like "Don't you know that that's bad for you?"

    6. Re:um, no? by back_pages · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Did you even read the patent?

      There is no patent. There is a patent application. This is part of why I incessantly request that Slashdot stops posting stories about patents.

    7. Re:um, no? by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If there is a new low, lower than forcing kid at school looking at ads, which is an obvious example of brainwashing, it is currently unimaginable to me.

      On one hand, we have Micosoft with this technology; on the other, my professor in semiotics and semantics is trying to ban all the ads from our college, including the free newspaper stand (on account of too many ads in the free newspapers).

      Now, I don't really agree with that professor, though I do mind the amount of ads, because we live in the information age (or so we can hear it repeated over and over again) and we have to learn how to deal with ads and other junk information... and one of the ways of dealing with it is bloody ignoring it; I, for one, am most of the time only aware that yes, there was an ad on that page, but I haven't the foggiest as to what for...
      However, forcing users to look at ads, especially schoolchildren, is forcing unwanted information down their throats. Well, eyes, actually, but you see my point.

      I'm disgusted.

      And I welcome any way to subvert such technologies.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    8. Re:um, no? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      You have a slashdot account number consisting of 2 digits and only now have you made your mind up?

    9. Re:um, no? by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no patent. There is a patent application.


      Once again, you forgot to the word "yet" at the end of that first sentence. With the way the patent system has already demonstrated it is broken, what with granting individuals patents on such modern breakthroughs as the wheel and forks, do have any doubt this will become a patent in the end?
    10. Re:um, no? by rbanffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft is supposed to be making money any way possible, like any good organization.

      Pardon me, but there are possible ways that are also illegal ones.

    11. Re:um, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and so long as the potential profit outweighs the potential costs (i.e. fines (it's very rare for a corporation to get anything other than fines in response to crimes)), it's in Microsoft's best interest to commit the crime.

    12. Re:um, no? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      If it's in schools/libraries/wherever you'd put this, they'd be better off with Linux or donated software. Kids should be learning, not staring at ads, and I can't imagine any other situation where the hassle of looking at ads or the computer turns off is worth not paying for a Windows (or Mac OS) license or just dealing with Linux.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    13. Re:um, no? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      This is for situations where a company gives a person a computer for free in exchange for looking at their ads. This isn't going to be a standard feature in Windows / something end-users install.
      Right. Just like you get cable TV for free in exchange for looking at their ads?

      Oh, wait, you don't. With TV, you pay for your TV and then you get loads of ads dumped on you anyway. You don't even have the option of paying more to get ad-free TV!

      The likely scenario is that what they'll do is bring in a new set of PCs with advertising that are not free, but about $100 cheaper than current PCs. That will train enough sheep to be used to PCs having advertising that they can start to hike the prices of ad-free PCs, all the while telling us that it's not their fault, PCs are getting more expensive to make what with all the government regulation, and if we don't want to pay more then there are ad-subsidised versions that are cheaper. Then one day they stop selling the ad-free versions.

      Why would anyone do that? Because they make more money that way.

      If you don't like it, you can switch to a Mac - you'll still get advertising before long, but at least it'll be cool advertising with like all silhouettes on plain white backgrounds and such. Or you can switch to Linux, and everything will be fine as long as you remember to sudo apt-get remove kpunch-the-penguin-and-win-free-beer after every OS update...
    14. Re:um, no? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I agree. After this, no one can defend Microsoft by saying, "Oh it's just good business." They've laid themselves out as the top-down software company and this typifies they. I agree, they're evil inherent. Like kicking puppies.

    15. Re:um, no? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      You don't even have the option of paying more to get ad-free TV!
      Actually, you do. Pay per view, and probably some premium channels...and DVD.

      Personally, I'm not into TV much. I do like my ad-free satellite radio, though...
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    16. Re:um, no? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Once again, you forgot to the word "yet" at the end of that first sentence. With the way the patent system has already demonstrated it is broken, what with granting individuals patents on such modern breakthroughs as the wheel and forks, do have any doubt this will become a patent in the end?

      You, as an individual, might have some knowledge of how the patent system operates. However, the Slashdot community as a whole couldn't be more deliberately ignorant of this system which it purports to loathe. Of course, hatred of something you know nothing about is not exactly an admirable quality, and there exists a great deal of historical precedent for that type of thing.

      That disclaimer out of the way, can you cite a single credible fact that shows the patent system is broken? Of course, besides the American pharmaceutical and technological industries which dominate their competitors around the world. And of course, even the Japanese technology corporations seek patent protection in the US for all that they do. I mean, clearly, this is a system that has a strangle hold on American industry.

      And naturally, making an ignorant criticism is pretty close to the definition of "trolling" or "flamebait," depending on the circumstances. I made the factually accurate and objective statement that there is no patent to discuss, and some genius moderated my post "flamebait". You made a completely baseless attack on a system you very likely know nothing about (maybe I forgot the word "yet," as in, "yet you very likely know nothing about it") and probably that same genius moderated you "insightful".

      Let's step back and look at that objectively. Whenever a patent story is posted on Slashdot, the entire situation is nothing but a giant "troll" post. The moderation here supports my point perfectly - I wish Slashdot would stop running these stories because the collective knowledge of the patent system at Slashdot adds up to a warm turd.

      Please, please find that credible source saying that the patent system is granting patents on wheels and forks. And please don't dumb it down for me. I have a degree in CS and in mathematics and will cite patent law and the manual of patent examination procedure to demonstrate your lack of knowledge.

    17. Re:um, no? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Students are supposed to be thwarting any possible system to the bitter end."

      Well they should. Let's help 'em out and expose ways around systems like this.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:um, no? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft is supposed to be making money any way possible, like any good organization.

      Assuming you meant "corporation" and not "organization", I have to disagree with your assertion. The primary responsibility of any corporation is serving the society which granted it its existence via its corporate charter. Making money is secondary to that. The problem in our society today is that most people forget the first part because the enforcers of the law are either spineless or bribed into never revoking corporate charters when a corporation's actions demand it.

      A good corporation would be giving its products to educational and non-profit organizations for free, as thanks to the public for allowing the corporation to exist. What Microsoft is doing -- trying to trap schools and students into reliance on their products and forcing them to watch ads -- is exactly the kinds of thing that should lead to the termination of its corporate charter in a just society. Would that we actually lived in a society that resembled one...

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    19. Re:um, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the patent?
      You must be new here.
    20. Re:um, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a new low. It has been done via Channel One for a decade and a half, supplying TVs in exchange for a mandatory "news show" with corporate ads.

      I remember the day at my high school when we walked out of the classrooms in protest in what must have been 1990. Good times.

    21. Re:um, no? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      what with granting individuals patents on such modern breakthroughs as the wheel and forks,

      Cite?

      Or are you just blowin' along in the anti-patent wind here on Slashdot?

    22. Re:um, no? by uradu · · Score: 1

      > And I welcome any way to subvert such technologies.

      How about forgoing computers in schools entirely if they're not economically feasible anyway? I think the value of computers in education has been seriously exaggerated, not least because of efforts by Microsoft, I'm sure. Especially in K-12 a lot of the learning is of the more basic kind, and while adding computer knowledge would be nice, I think it's much less important than giving kids a solid foundation in the basics. Judging by the atrocious (lack of) competence in English and Math amongst college freshmen, computers should be pretty low on the list of priorities. How's that for subverting ad-supported computers?

    23. Re:um, no? by binarybum · · Score: 1

      "Don't you know that that's bad for you?"
            and I'm sure that was about as effective as dirt. The beverage companies could care less about any verbal offensives taken against their products once they've already established a means of selling them in such a prime environment.
            If people, especially children, are exposed to ads/product placement, all the knowledge and naysaying in the world won't stop it from being effective. Cigarette companies still advertise despite massive public awareness and anti-smoking campaigns - and it works swimmingly.

      --
      ôó
    24. Re:um, no? by miltonw · · Score: 1

      Look at the bright side: Microsoft patented this horrible idea. First, only Microsoft can use it, and second, it makes their OS even more awful to use. Win-win!

    25. Re:um, no? by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      This is not a new low. It has been done via Channel One for a decade and a half, supplying TVs in exchange for a mandatory "news show" with corporate ads.
      I remember the day at my high school when we walked out of the classrooms in protest in what must have been 1990. Good times.


      What? I've heard about the Channel One thing, but all you got out of it was TVs? In Canada, we had a few TVs and VCRs on wheeled stands, and if a class needed to show a video or something the teacher would get one. The very idea of watching mandatory ads in a classroom is insane.

    26. Re:um, no? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Patent for the Fork.

      And I was mistaken on the wheel. Someone in Australia is trying to patent the wheel, but he hasn't yet.

    27. Re:um, no? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      ALSO wrong. The primary goal of a corporation (as dictated by law) is to act in a manner that ensures the best legal return on investment to shareholders. Shareholders contribute the majority of the money that allows the company to exist (initial capital, you see), and failing to ensure that you act in their best interests is a crime. You may not do anything that could potentially result in losses to these shareholders (that you are made aware of prior to making the call - mistakes do happen and are ignored so long as they are not the result of mismanagement).

      Giving a small quantity of product to non-profits can be considered to be good public relations, but donating massive quantities like you say is their duty would almost certainly require the OK from the major stakeholders, who are highly likely to refuse. The company cannot gainsay a decision by them. (Please note that the above is relevant to companies who either do not have a constitution, or have a constitution which does not explicitly remove these rights from the voting shareholders).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    28. Re:um, no? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Not really. Some countries have actually banned tobacco advertising. We have a law here in NZ that specifically states (paraphrasing) "No person may advertise the availability of, or encourage the practice of smoking behaviour". Now, as a result we have one tobacconist whose ad states this very same law and states that "Sure we sell hip flasks and pouches, but what we really sell, we aren't allowed to advertise in this country" (which is technically legal. There's always loopholes, eh?)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    29. Re:um, no? by SlashdotCrackPot · · Score: 1

      Since M$ thinks that they are God, can we get a seperation of Church and State?

      "I pledge allegiance, to the EULA, of the United Bases of Microsoft"
      "One nation, under fraud"
      "And to the redundant, in which we pay"
      "Login...."

    30. Re:um, no? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > If there is a new low, lower than forcing kid at school looking at ads, which is
      > an obvious example of brainwashing, it is currently unimaginable to me.

      How about parents deliberately lying to their own children? I'd consider that worse, since it's the kids' own parents doing it, rather than a third party such as the school.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    31. Re:um, no? by back_pages · · Score: 1

      See my other response. The silence is deafening. Read my posting history. You're -yet- another Slashdot patent-hater who can't back up anything with a fact.

    32. Re:um, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right like microsfot would not do THAT given the chance.

      If they could get away with it the licence terms of windows would include
      deflowering your teenage daughters.

    33. Re:um, no? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Replying to your other post...
      Here's your Fork patent.

    34. Re:um, no? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Also, I will say I found the wheel has not been patented. Once again, yet.

      But I will give you a couple more:

      Here's a patent on moistening stamps and envelopes. Yes, that includes licking them.

      Or how about a larger version of cocktail umbrellas to shade your drink from the sun.

    35. Re:um, no? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      One of the overt purposes of a compulsory education is to indoctrinate children into the system of your nation. Education is somewhat secondary to that.

      Ponder this.

      Note: I'm not saying that that is what we actually want, only that this is what actually happens.

      --
      SRSLY.
    36. Re:um, no? by Builder · · Score: 1

      Yes, but as long as the fine for the illegal activity is less than the amount of money they can make from the activity, they are still required to do it.

      A corporation is obliged to maximise profit for shareholders. Not to act nicely.

    37. Re:um, no? by back_pages · · Score: 1

      That's a design patent. If you don't understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Ha ha, and I was actually sweating it a little that you might have something that would make me stretch my knowledge. A f'ing DESIGN patent?

    38. Re:um, no? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      The wheel story is about the Australian patent system. Nice try.

      The second is not a patent on "moistening stamps and envelopes". Take ONE LOOK at the very few claims. It's for an apparatus that moistens adhesives (stamps, envelopes, whatever). To act like this is a patent for a method of licking a stamp is moronic. By the way, this was patented in 1981 and is expired.

      I can't possibly fathom what the problem is with the cocktail umbrella. Please clarify. Specifically I'm curious whether you have a problem with alleged prior art (although I must admit I've never seen a spring-clip drink umbrella myself) or because it's a silly invention (which has no bearing whatsoever on any issues of validity)?

      And if you'd like a more polite conversation, first refrain from this obnoxious habit of tossing the word "yet" into everything. It's logically fallacious and does nothing but annoy your readers.

      So where are we at? You have a freaking DESIGN patent (still chuckling about that), a story about the Australian patent system, a 26 year-old patent for a machine that seals envelopes, and clip-on drink umbrellas. WOW, you've REALLY failed to convince me that the US Patent system has demonstrated that it is broken. (A DESIGN patent? I said right up front that you probably don't know much about the patent system and you come back with a DESIGN patent. QED.) Please clarify about those drink umbrellas, though. That'll really knock it out of the park.

    39. Re:um, no? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      The second is not a patent on "moistening stamps and envelopes". Take ONE LOOK at the very few claims. It's for an apparatus that moistens adhesives (stamps, envelopes, whatever). To act like this is a patent for a method of licking a stamp is moronic.

      To quote the patent: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue and the closure may be in the form of a human lip."

      By the way, this was patented in 1981 and is expired.

      What does that have to do with anything? Yes, it's expired. That still means someone at the patent office got this application, reviewed it, and approved it.

      So where are we at? You have a freaking DESIGN patent (still chuckling about that), a story about the Australian patent system, a 26 year-old patent for a machine that seals envelopes, and clip-on drink umbrellas. WOW, you've REALLY failed to convince me that the US Patent system has demonstrated that it is broken. (A DESIGN patent? I said right up front that you probably don't know much about the patent system and you come back with a DESIGN patent. QED.) Please clarify about those drink umbrellas, though. That'll really knock it out of the park.

      For someone so concerned about polite conversation, you sure like ranting like a common troll. Or did you sleep through Netiquette class?

      I can't possibly fathom what the problem is with the cocktail umbrella.

      There's nothing novel about. It's not a new invention, it's a tacky oversized version of an existing product. The issue is the prior art is incredibly obvious. The patent examiner is supposed to be denying patents on stuff like this.

      Patents themselves are not the issue (so thanks for generalizing me as a "Slashdot patent-hater") the problem is the system that currently grants them. The system of review is not open enough or at the very least is staffed by people who don't really have much grasp of the fields they are granting patents for. Things like the Amazon One-Click purchases are handy for shoppers, but they aren't original on the level of "only you should have the ability to use it". I'm sure if we track online shopping back to its roots we would see that One Click was long ago thought up but not implemented to prevent accidental purchasing by consumers who mis-click.
    40. Re:um, no? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I wonder how no-one modded this Insightful.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    41. Re:um, no? by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Well this patent certainly does explain why M$ were so pathologically opposed to the hundred dollar notebook, who would accept being force fed advertising and having your physiological reactions to that advertising monitored, when an alternate was so readily available.

      Used in schools, invasion of the privacy of minors, oh my, M$ evil via stupidity yet again.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:um, no? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      ALSO wrong. The primary goal of a corporation (as dictated by law)

      I'm not talking about legality; I'm talking about morality.

      donating massive quantities like you say

      I did not say that.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    43. Re:um, no? by back_pages · · Score: 1
      To quote the patent: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue and the closure may be in the form of a human lip."

      Like I said in the first place, READ THE PATENT.

      5. An apparatus as recited in claim 4 wherein said moistening member has a configuration resembling that of a human tongue.

      That's describing a MACHINE where the parts have the APPEARANCE of a human tongue. Look at your quote. That's what the words "in the form of a human tongue" means. I fully and completely stand by my correct analysis that this has nothing to do with a method of licking an envelope, like regular people do to pay bills.

      What does that have to do with anything? Yes, it's expired. That still means someone at the patent office got this application, reviewed it, and approved it.

      Well, I guess this was my mistake. I presumed you meant that recently the patent system has demonstrated it is broken. I didn't think you were referring to the entire technology revolution of the latter half of the 20th century as evidence that the patent system has ruined all technological innovation. I think I clearly overestimated the strength of your argument.

      There's nothing novel about. It's not a new invention, it's a tacky oversized version of an existing product. The issue is the prior art is incredibly obvious. The patent examiner is supposed to be denying patents on stuff like this.

      Just tossing this out there, but I'm guessing that if you read MPEP 2143 and subsections, you would be completely surprised by the contents. Ya see, an "obviousness rejection" was codified in the 1952 Patent Act as 35 USC 103. In Graham v. Deere, a whole lot of judicial precedent, legal history, and arguments from lots of very intelligent people were formulated into a guidelines to establish an objective system by which an invention could fairly be rejected as "obvious". This was to avoid any arbitrary finding of "obviousness" where it was not warranted, to avoid the use of hindsight to declare something is obvious, and places a burden of fact upon a proper finding of "obviousness".

      I'd love to see your incredibly obvious prior art for the tacky, oversized drink umbrella with a clip to hold it on the beverage. I've never seen one, but the burden is on you - who allege that this is incredibly obvious - to show support. So far, you've made a seemingly arbitrary finding, are very likely using hindsight ("That's simple, I could have come up with that!" but of course, you did not), and have shown no facts whatsoever.

      To have any chance of convincing me that this invention is "incredibly" obvious within the meaning of the patent system, you'll have to find at least 1) all the parts of the claimed invention in the prior art, and 2) statements or reasoning in the prior art that motivates a person to combine the prior art references. (The topic is actually more complicated than that but I'll excuse the finer points.) Naturally this will be very easy for you to do because it is "incredibly" obvious.

      And if you can't, the patent examiner had no legal justification whatsoever to delay issuing the patent.

      PS - In the industry, a patent is very often certification that your idea is so dumb, nobody else would admit to having tried it. In other words, your invention is such a joke that no prior art exists, because you were the first person willing to put your name on it. I can't speak for this situation, but I think there is probably not a lot of competition to advance the science of drink umbrellas. That fact alone will very likely limit your available prior art. But good luck.

    44. Re:um, no? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      ALSO wrong. The primary goal of a corporation (as dictated by law)

      I'm not talking about legality; I'm talking about morality.


      Which ruins your entire argument. If a company puts morality above legality, it wont last a year.
      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  3. Ja? by TinBromide · · Score: 5, Funny

    you vill look at ze ads und you vill vant to punch out ze celebrity? ja?

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    1. Re:Ja? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please master, I'm trying to hit the monkey as fast as I can!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  4. Oh yay. by numbski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at our ads or else. Adblock, Flashblock, and NoScript? No problem! We'll just keep track and take the computer away.

    Sheesh. I guess that's what happens when you don't own the hardware. Although I swear I keep expecting that one of these days I'm going to open the box for a mainboard, have to cut some tape to get the box open, and find a note inside that reads:

    End User License Agreement
    By opening this box you agree to the terms of this agreement... ...if you don't look at our ads, we can reposess this board...

    I'm in a bad mood today. :(

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  5. Why advertise to someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    who can't afford a 100-200$ computer ? what are you going to sell them ?

    of course the solution is simple in regard to children, simply forbid advertising of any kind that is directly targeted at a minor

    people who prey or exploit kids need help, 9mm help

    1. Re:Why advertise to someone by patio11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>
      who can't afford a 100-200$ computer ? what are you going to sell them ?
      >>

      Based on a quick survey of any block of inner city America, that would probably be liquor, cigarettes, payday loans, and basic necessities. I'd hate to live in that sort of neighborhood, but giving the choice between living there with a computer and living there without, hey, I already have to pass liquor advertising on the way to work. If I see a little more in the privacy of my own home while studying to find a job to Get The Heck Outta Here that won't kill me.

      >>
      simply forbid advertising of any kind that is directly targeted at a minor
      >>

      Why not just take away kid's right to buy things. Its much simpler to enforce than figuring whether that advertising is directly targeted or not (c.f. Joe Camel, WWF-anything, or Cartoon Network -- the intersection of things which interest adults and kids alike is pretty wide), accomplishes the same objective, and could also be enforced with 9mm help. Of course, we'd think you were a crazy Communist nutball if you suggested it, but thats only because commerce is a perfectly legitimate thing and that children, have real (if qualified) rights to engage in commerce in the same manner that they have real (if qualified) rights to engage in speech. Oh noes, someone might try to influence the opinions they speak or influence what products they purchase! Well, great news, we have these things called "parents", who have vastly more influence and can deprive the child of this thing called "money" without which advertising is pretty much impotent.

    2. Re:Why advertise to someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, toy companies are evil. Time to go kill that stupid singing giraffe.

      And that doesn't even count cereal companies, they are Satan worshipers.

      (sub $200 dollar computers are tough to come by unless you already have a computer to do the shopping with. Expect more $200-$400 for computer and then you need a monitor [~$100] and a printer. That doesn't include the electric bill or the likely hood that it will be stolen from one on the way home or from one's home or pawned by one's drunk/high parent(s))

    3. Re:Why advertise to someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid I have to post on this one. Oh, well, here it goes.

      Most of inner city America is now gentrifying quickly and the stereotype listed here is, at the very least, obsolete. Yes, we still have liquor ads, cigarette shops, payday loans, heroin dealers, and the rest, but, I live in a million dollar house and I am surrounded by tech geeks who make a lot of money and seem to partake liberally of the liquor, cigarettes and pornography. What gives?

      On the other hand, many homes around me are filled with children living very closely together. The old slumlord is very much alive even in a gentrified neighborhood. Two families to a one bedroom apartment is normal. $200 extra for a computer is not available. The struggle to get the kids through school is very real and the lure of a free PC is huge.

      But I don't think a free PC with ads is any more likely to turn these kids into little consumers than the society as a whole is. It will warp their reality a little more and teach them to consume and not to think a little more. It will further weaken the good ol' USA a little more.

      Yea for the parents, but give them a little support please!

    4. Re:Why advertise to someone by meatmanek · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never seen a spoiled brat. Some parents don't seem to have the ability to deprive their child of anything, even if it is for their own good.

    5. Re:Why advertise to someone by daeg · · Score: 1

      What do you sell someone who can't afford a computer and has to get a computer laced with horrible ads? You sell them a computer without horrible ads, of course.

      "WANT TO HAVE A COMPUTER WITHOUT ADS? CLICK HERE!"

      Even worse (for the low income people) is that it will quickly (d)evolve into them paying per day/week/month for "ad-less" computing, and over a very short period of time, they will have paid more for ad-less computing.

      On the possible plus side, it may get computers into homes where there wouldn't traditionally be a computer.

    6. Re:Why advertise to someone by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also have gotten tired of "inner city" being used as a codeword for "poverty" and "black/minority".

      At least in Portland, poverty seems to be associated with some of the suburbs. Some of the most expensive homes are in the center of the city.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    7. Re:Why advertise to someone by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      Who gave them kids?Can we take them away? There should be a parenting license before you're allowed to procreate.

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
    8. Re:Why advertise to someone by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      All of Pittsburgh's ghettos are outside the city. Then again, there aren't actually people in the city...just theatres, empty/closed department stores, abandoned "historical" (and therefore not allowed to be gutted or used....just decay) buildings, a few ballparks, some restaurants, and a few offices. People live in suburbs, not in the city.

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
    9. Re:Why advertise to someone by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you haven't seen all of the 'poor' kids struggling to get through life in the ghetto, yet spend their money on gold teeth, gold and silver chains, PDAs, cell phones, CDs, stereos, chromed-out 'pimp-mobiles' (although very few have a 'pimp-mobile', or car for that matter.), and other pointless "bling".

      If they spent their money on things that weren't so expensive and meaningless, maybe they would have more money available for more essential things, like getting out of the slum. Gold, silver, and stereos are not essential. No 'status' symbols are.

      If you poor, I will help you as much as I can. If you are poor with gold teeth and/or gold chains, I couldn't care less about you.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    10. Re:Why advertise to someone by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      If the school cant afford it, what is the chance that the kids forced to watch the ads can afford the product? The concept is flawed to start with. They should force the kid to write ten lines of sourcecode for every hour they use the system. That would gain them something (Like less buggy software to start with).

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    11. Re:Why advertise to someone by fishyfool · · Score: 1

      you've seen results of advertising then.

      --
      Enjoy Every Sandwich
    12. Re:Why advertise to someone by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes! Pregnancy should lead to an abortion unless you have a parenting licence, and the father should be prosecuted -- and have the instruments used to commit the crime confiscated. Retrospective abortion should also be available -- if you want rid of a dog, you can; why not a child? Perhaps we should just put some kind of contraceptive drug in the water supply, or perform reversible sterilisation alongside childhood vaccinations.

      The trouble with this is, it would be so open to abuse that it just isn't funny. Power tends to attract people who want to use it for the wrong reasons, while repelling those who want to use it for the right reasons. Forcibly limiting reproduction would lead to an attempt to create a "master race" quicker than you could spell eugenics.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    13. Re:Why advertise to someone by Alef · · Score: 1

      Why not just take away kid's right to buy things. Its much simpler to enforce than figuring whether that advertising is directly targeted or not (c.f. Joe Camel, WWF-anything, or Cartoon Network -- the intersection of things which interest adults and kids alike is pretty wide), accomplishes the same objective, and could also be enforced with 9mm help. Of course, we'd think you were a crazy Communist nutball if you suggested it, but thats only because commerce is a perfectly legitimate thing and that children, have real (if qualified) rights to engage in commerce in the same manner that they have real (if qualified) rights to engage in speech. Oh noes, someone might try to influence the opinions they speak or influence what products they purchase! Well, great news, we have these things called "parents", who have vastly more influence and can deprive the child of this thing called "money" without which advertising is pretty much impotent.

      I would have thought it'd be apparent to anyone that the problem with advertising directed to children isn't simply that they may spend their weekly allowance on toys. To begin with, don't you think that children have any influence at all on their parents, with regard to what they want? How many parents resists when they complain that "every other kid" has such and such a toy, and they are the only kid at school without one and are picked on for it? And don't you think they may be affected at all by changed attitudes in the long term?

      It is beyond me why anyone would want to raise children in a society where powerful interests are actively trying to brainwash them, on a day to day basis. If the existence of parents were such a bullet proof safe guard, then I assume you wouldn't have a problem with them attending for example Hitler-Jugend -- at least as long as they were paid accordingly. Surely, the parents can set them straight as soon as they get home, and no harm is done.

      Also, as I understand, it has been shown that children below the age of around 12 actually lack the mental capabilities to distinguish between entertainment and advertisements on for example TV. (Try asking a young child to explain the difference.) As a parent, you may possibly be able to convince them that TV as a whole is sinister, even though it doesn't seem that way to them, but you will never be able to make them understand the concept of advertisements and how to be critical about it. Not until their brain has developed enough.

      Of course there would be grey areas where commercials towards children overlaps with commercials towards adults, if it were to be prohibited. But that is true for any law. I've grown up in a country where advertising directed to children under 12 isn't allowed, and enforcing it hasn't been much of a problem. Except for the fact that some TV stations broadcast from other countries via satellite to get around the law.

    14. Re:Why advertise to someone by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean abortion (I'm against that). I meant you can't *get* pregnant without having passed a basic "I'm not an idiot and know how to raise a child" test. Sex is for reproduction. No sex til you know how to be a parent. Same thing I told my boyfriend. I'm too young to risk getting pregnant, so no. After I graduate and know I could support one, then I'll put up with sex and the risks it brings. If you aren't old enough or responsible enough to deal with the consequences of sex (babies), you should not be having it! Unfortunately, it's the idiots who don't use condoms that keep reproducing and the smart people who know how to family plan that don't produce as many offspring. If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, there's a lot of stupid kids being born, and not enough smart ones. There's actually a movie where for just that reason, the stupid people take over the world (they're stupid enough to keep passing on their stupid genes and stupid "well that's how my stupid mom did it" parenting).

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
    15. Re:Why advertise to someone by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      That is why everyone moves to Portland. Into the central city. Because it is just full of fun things to do.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    16. Re:Why advertise to someone by a.d.trick · · Score: 1

      Why not just take away kid's right to buy things

      Because even though minors can't buy cigarettes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to pay off your older brother to get cigarettes for you.

    17. Re:Why advertise to someone by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Abortion is just a necessary operation to get rid of a parasite that grows inside you. If you're against that then you're for some seriously messed-up people being born who just shouldn't be. In some cemetery next to a Buddhist monastery somewhere, lie the Earthly remains of a monk who thought it was a sin to kill germs using any kind of disinfectant, antiseptic or medicine. Sure, one day it will be possible to transplant a foetus into some childless couple's womb, and we'll have vegan disinfectants that gently but firmly persuade the germs to go somewhere else. But that's the future. For now, abortion is the only option we've got. And surely it's better to dispatch an unwanted foetus swiftly, than to let it turn into a foul-mouthed, glue-sniffing car thief?

      Of course people should use contraception every time they have sex.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    18. Re:Why advertise to someone by joshetc · · Score: 1

      Or just don't give them tax breaks / free money to support their kids.. even better could be taxing them more. It costs us more to have children, therefor people who have them should have to pay more.

    19. Re:Why advertise to someone by Magada · · Score: 1

      Status symbols exist, function and are just as necessary to an inner-city kid as they are to a corp VP when it comes to gaining and keeping status. Duh. The difference here (and the rub) lies in the fact that in a ghetto status can mean the difference between "alive" and "dead", whereas said corp VP (or most anyone on ./) can usually afford to burn a little status/karma on NOT having the latest car or NOT appearing to enjoy the very latest in entertainment.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    20. Re:Why advertise to someone by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      Wow, you have a pretty messed up idea of humans. You think babies should all be aborted so they don't turn into car thieves? What is WRONG with you? I've got news for you. I dated a guy whose mother got pregnant with him while prostituting. She would have aborted him like the others, but she was too far along before she realised it (how you don't notice "gee, no period in 4 months..." is beyond me). At 18, he moved out of the house and got his own apartment, and now he runs his own business. It's not like you can tell how a person will turn out before they're born. Do you HONESTLY believe that every aborted baby would've become a bad person and that only good people make it to full term? Guess again, honey! And babies are NOT parasites. They are little tiny humans who need their mommy and daddy to protect them from harm and raise them to adulthood. I would hardly call killing your child "protecting them from harm." Do you see dogs going around killing their pups before they're born? Even they are more humane toward their offspring than humans are.

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
    21. Re:Why advertise to someone by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      "The difference here (and the rub) lies in the fact that in a ghetto status can mean the difference between "alive" and "dead", whereas said corp VP (or most anyone on ./) can usually afford to burn a little status/karma on NOT having the latest car or NOT appearing to enjoy the very latest in entertainment."

      Not true. You are confusing necessity with luxury. Alive or dead is not determined by what 'bling' someone has. The biggest causes of gang violence are drugs (and the associated violence), 'colors' (the color har or shirt the person is wearing, 'disrespect', turf wars, police action (I'm not gonna complain), gang affiliation, or being in the wrong part of town (read: hell).

      Just because someone was wearing an Armani jacket, gold chain, Luis Vutton handbag, or $300 sneakers isn't going to keep them alive. It is more likely that they will be either beaten or killed because someone wanted to steal the 'bling' tha they were weaing.

      Here is a little test you can do: Walk through Compton wearing a Rolex, blue shirt, red baseball cap, black jeans, a big gold chain, Air Jordans, gold teeth ('grill'. Why anybody is stupid enough to want one is beyond me) while driving an Escalade with a laptop, IPod, cell phone, $5,000 stereo in it and see how long you last at the first stop sign you come to. Do you think that all that 'bling' will keep you alive, regardless of your race? I doubt it, yet people buy it. If they buy it to keep themselves alive, then it should have kept you alive.

      It's not a question on wheather or not you *need* it, it a question of if it is something you can truly afford. An Exec VP-yes. Someone on welfare-No, and if they have it, then they should be forced to give me back my tax dollars, because if they can buy gold teeth, then they don't need welfare-they can buy food instead. There is a difference between necessity and entitlement. Is a new cell phone or gold chain a good idea if you are so poor that you are on welfare or live in the ghetto? No. You should save your money and make a better spending decision instead, like food. Food will keep you alive alot longer than gold.

      If you want to spend money on increasing you social status, then that's your problem. If you want to spend all your money on looking good, then go ahead. But don't complain about where you live, your children's education, and the environment your family lives in.

      Which is more important: Being poorer while living in a safe neighborhood, or, being glamorous in a more dangerous area? If you picked the latter, you already spent your right to complain on shiny trinkets.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    22. Re:Why advertise to someone by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      Having worked at a computer recycler, it's certainly possible to get a P2 computer and a 15" monitor with perhaps some color balance problems for a lot less than $200. Then put on a pirated OS, or something like Ubuntu or Knoppix. No ads necessary.

  6. Not so bad by Derek+Loev · · Score: 1

    So this is basically almost the exact same things as companies that help pay for your car if you put an advertisement on the side...except more discreet, right?
    I personally think this is a good idea.
    It will help people that can't afford computers (and therefore can't get into certain lines of business) have one of today's most useful inventions.

    1. Re:Not so bad by hahafaha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. Getting a computer is not that difficult. They are so commonplace that it is not that difficult to find an older model for free (Craigslist, family, streets, etc.) Four of my computers were obtained in these ways. Ads slow down computers (consider that since they are free, the hardware is probably not that good), and annoy the user into potentially giving up computers.

      Also, paying ads does not help in the long run, because you never own it. Paying some amount a month is a lot better of an option.

    2. Re:Not so bad by Derek+Loev · · Score: 0

      I agree with some parts of your post. I think that it would make a lot of sense that after being forced to answer these ads for a certain amount of time, the computer should become yours. Almost like an installement plan.

    3. Re:Not so bad by hahafaha · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that in order for the rental company to make a profit, the time you will have to use ads could be as long as several years.

    4. Re:Not so bad by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      this is basically almost the exact same things as companies that help pay for your car if you put an advertisement on the side

      No,not at all. It would be the exact same thing if such a company forced you to look at the ad while driving, and enforced this with surveillance gadgets.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  7. BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by dublea · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would a company create something to enforce students to watch ads and not learn.... Yea, that makes perfect sense when most children these days don't have the funds to buy at pizza if they wanted to.

    1. Re:BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by EvanED · · Score: 2, Informative

      The headline and summary are somewhat stupid for this story.

      The patent mentions "school" exactly once, and is using it to just provide an example as to where it could be used. ("The policy may be directed to a single computer and thereby a single user or subscriber. Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school.")

    2. Re:BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by Derek+Loev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is obvious that nobody is reading the article.
      The summary adds sooo much stuff that the patent barely hints at.
      Just because it's labeled Microsoft doesn't mean it is ALWAYS bad.

    3. Re:BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by soupforare · · Score: 1

      It is obvious that nobody is reading the article.

      Hi! Welcome to slashdot, enjoy your stay!
      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    4. Re:BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by back_pages · · Score: 1
      The Slashdot summary is complete alarmist hyperbole. To quote, "When the allowable number of incorrect answers has been exceeded, several response are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer 110. The policy may be directed to a single computer and thereby a single user or subscriber. Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school." (paragraph 0034)

      This is part of the disclosure of the application. The claimed invention includes nothing as ridiculous as repossessing the children's computers. I don't have the patience to explain the difference between the disclosure and the claims any more. I really wish Slashdot would stop running stories about patents because the editors have demonstrated a complete inability to discern the crap from the valid news, and this contributes to the Slashdot community's rather profound ignorance on the topic.

      The closest thing to "repossessing a computer" in the claimed patent protection appears to be the language of claim 15, which is clearly far broader than stealing computers from children.

      It would have taken anyone with any reasonable level of knowledge of the patent system 5 minutes to dismiss the Slashdot summary as alarmist tripe. It took me longer to type this post than to come to that conclusion. I really wish Slashdot would stop running patent related stories.

    5. Re:BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Why would a company create something to enforce students to watch ads and not learn.... Money. Duh.

      Even if Corporation A takes the high road and chooses not to exploit children, it's only a matter of time before Corporation B does, becomes more competitive, and forces Corp. A into a position where they must also consider exploiting children.

      Capitalism has its upsides, this is one of its downsides.

      Yea, that makes perfect sense when most children these days don't have the funds to buy at pizza if they wanted to. "Daddy! I want to go to McDonalds!"

      "Mommy, I *need* Pokemon now!!!"

      (10 years later)

      "I don't know why, but I *really* want to try Camel cigarettes."

      If you don't think advertisers target children, you obviously never watched cartoons as a child.
    6. Re:BS, BS, BS, BS, and more BS by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Why would a company create something to enforce students to watch ads and not learn....

      But they are learning. About the glorious company that is Microsoft! Now, comrades! Let us play the Microsoft National Anthem.

      [starts playing special approved version of Rolling Stones' "Start Me Up" with symphonic accompaniment]

  8. Timely? by Ixne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This patent application was filed at the end of 2005... why is it just now coming up?

    1. Re:Timely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it put MS in a bad light and this is Slashdot.

    2. Re:Timely? by Dufftron+9000 · · Score: 1

      Because the publication of patent applications takes up to 18 months or never depending on what the applicant desires.

    3. Re:Timely? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      We haven't had time to notice it since we've been keeping attention on the ads so our computers keep running.

    4. Re:Timely? by mavenguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it was only published February 8, 2007 ( 4 days prior to this comment ).

  9. Beginning of the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already thought the world was on the verge of coming to an end, but this seals the fucking deal. This is absurd. So it's not just the soda, snack and media companies with their hands in the school pockets, but MS and this shit? I remember the uproar over channel 1 and their (literal) one minute of advertising during the 14 minute program, but this takes the fucking cake.
    What next, they going to start writing the textbooks?
     
    Didn't Apple used to give deep discounts to schools to get the kids hooked to become paying users later in life?
     
    Help us Steve, you're our only hope....

  10. In Soviet classrooms... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...ads watch you.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:In Soviet classrooms... by eneville · · Score: 1

      ...ads watch you. ahaha :-) great to see reversal still has scope left :-)
      given the current state of affairs in CCCP i don't know if that's far off.
  11. Good Idea... by Famatra · · Score: 1

    Although instead of Microsoft good people should patent all kinds of stupid/evil business ideas to prevent others from inflicting them upon the public.

    RedHat did this idea actually, by patenting a DRM mechanism and vowing not to use it.

    1. Re:Good Idea... by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      Patents expire...though after 20 years, that is quite a while. But you lose it if you don't use it.

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
  12. Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by purduephotog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A diet pepsi costs the following- can you match them up?

    1) $1.00
    2) $1.25
    3) $1.39

    with
    A) Work Vending Machine
    B) School Vending Machine
    C) Grocery Store

    If you said 1-B, 2-A, and 3-C, you're Right!

    What does that mean? Exploit the students. Get them addicted to soda, (We called it 'coke' where I come from and for good reason), profit insanely at their completely disposable income, and they'll continue to provide for you the rest of your corporate career!

    This patent is sickening. Schools currently use IE, but as they switch to ad-blockable content (anything available for IE) then there is SO much profit-potential lost it's absurd.

    We (I and several other individuals) mentor about 30 HS students. It is TRULY amazing how much their minds are like sponges- and how easy it can be to inadvertently modify their behavior. An unkind word, a stern glance, and the next thing you know they want nothing to do with that topic. It's insane. The mentors themselves end up having to walk this twisted line of professional dedication (our backgrounds) and playing psychologist ("How does that make you feel").

    Let's face it- the whole point of this is about money, and cash is king. The brains are just too wired for this behaviour (Nestle's Chocobot hour) to be anything but profitable thru very specific programming.

    They'll get the patent..... and it'll be up to us to fight the intrusion into the school. Here's a hint- it'll be over a decade, nice and slow, thru 'gifts' of OS and computers...

    1. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by VertigoAce · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's odd, at school they were $1.25, at the store they are $1.05, and at work soda is free. The amusing part is that I drink a lot less soda at work then I did in school. After your first week or two of free soda you get tired of the sugar and start drinking water, juice, milk, etc.

    2. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      You need to find another grocery store.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    3. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no.
      Pop (at least here) is most expensive in schools and on college campuses. A 12oz. can goes for between $.60 and $.80. The same [brand name] can costs $.20 in a 12-pack at the grocery on sale, which they are on every other week.

      It's nice to be able to blame readily available products, but there are other influences.
      Violence can be just as addictive as sugary foods and caffeine. At my university there are plenty of assholes, and plenty of loose chairs. Have I ever beaten anyone with a chair? Nope.
      Some people teach their children about things called CONSEQUENCES to their actions, and that is a Good Thing(tm).

    4. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by edschurr · · Score: 1

      14c doesn't really seem like such a difference from the grocery store that the kids will change their drinking habits. I doubt pop is a good idea in schools, but it's not the corporations introducing them to it; it's their parents.

    5. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Pop (at least here) is most expensive in schools and on college campuses. A 12oz. can goes for between $.60 and $.80. The same [brand name] can costs $.20 in a 12-pack at the grocery on sale, which they are on every other week.

      Actually, his price scale was accurate if talking about a mini-mart, chilled. The mini-mart price of soda tends to be about the same as supermarket 2 liter unchilled.

      Grocery stores tend to have the big names on sale. Any non-big brand tends to go for full price, which can float at above and beyond 60c/can. I do remember that as a kid I would buy many sodas in a vending machine as the grocery store price per 6 pack was actually more than the school price. These days, $1.00 to $1.25 is typical of a vending machine.

      I think $5.00/12 pack is typical... or about 4.5c/ounce. I typicaly see 2l bottles for about 1.5c/ounce, with smaller bottles costing more than larger onces, though refrigerated. The real bad deal typicaly are those 1l bottles.

      Like many others, I have swore off buying sugar water. At first bottled water cost more than bottled soda, and it make "sense" to buy something with flavor esp since I started to see 25c soda machines. But if I absolutly need a drink these days, there are house brands of water in bottles for a decent price.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    6. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by evanbd · · Score: 1

      After your first week or two of free soda you get tired of the sugar and start drinking water, juice, milk, etc.

      Heathen! Heathen! Quick, someone take away his geek license!

      On a slightly more serious note, the engineering shop I work at runs on liquid caffeine. Diet, sugared, or coke C2 (actually, they stopped selling that in southern California, apparently, which is a problem because it's the only thing our VP liked...) -- it seems everyone drinks either soda or coffee in copious quantity. It's amazing how much we as a society seem to need our stimulants.

    7. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Some people teach their children about things called CONSEQUENCES to their actions, and that is a Good Thing(tm). And advertisers do their best to undermine your teaching.

      What kind of parent are you that you'd think it's perfectly fine for you to have your best parenting efforts being actively countered by monied interests who have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the welfare of your children? Parenting is hard enough as it is *without* having to worry about addictive substances with no redeeming value, and, in fact, unwanted negative effects, being shoved in their faces?

      Would you be fine with a crack[*] dealer setting up shop in a school? After all, you've taught your children "about things called CONSEQUENCES to their actions"!

      [*] Yes, I know crack is far more dangerous than soda, but the choice isn't between crack or soda (obviously I'd choose soda), but about allowing irresponsible influences to be directed at our nation's children or not, which I chose "not". You?
    8. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by barzok · · Score: 1

      In the fridge on the Wal-Mart checkout line, it's $1.25.

      In the vending machine by the door, it's $1.00

    9. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      That's pretty silly. Last time I checked it was .75 for a can at the office and about $1 at the grocery store. It's $1 at the local schools.

    10. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by someguyfromdenmark · · Score: 0

      That's sick, man, why the hell would you call a Pepsi a Coke?!

      --
      I change my sig often.
    11. Re:Carbonated Beverages and Behaviour Modification by mqduck · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how much we as a society seem to need our stimulants.

      We're only allowed one. :(
      --
      Property is theft.
  13. repossessing by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Let see how far M$ can get with trying to repossess State Property.
    How many school would even sign up for this? I did read about some thing like this a few years ago in pcworld and it said that the school could not install any software and they had to open up the lab to the people who gave them the computers for there own uses. It also used SAT internet. I think it was called zapme or something like that.

    1. Re:repossessing by MiKM · · Score: 1

      In this case, it wouldn't be state property. The computers would be the property of MegaCorp which offers the computers for free in exchange for the users watching (and paying attention to) adverts. Honestly, this has little to do with schools (e.g., it could be used ANYWHERE) This does NOT apply in any way to computer purchased by the schools (or whoever the end user is)

    2. Re:repossessing by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Plenty if they have an ad-profit sharing program. What reason do you think they let the vending machine in?

    3. Re:repossessing by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      vending machine don't need to hooked up to the internet and the school can control when they are turned on.
      also schools like to have there systems locked down what kind of access does the ad software need?
      Can the schools keep ads that don't belong in school off of them?

    4. Re:repossessing by Teresita · · Score: 1

      Solution: Make a little back-lit doodad you can stick over the webcam lens which has a slide showing your attentive smiling face. The computer thinks you are watching ads all the time. Then go about your business.

  14. Exclusivety Protectoin? by chromozone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe they want to patent it so that nobody else can. I can't see M$ wanting to see something like this in use under their name. I can't see Microsoft wanting anybody to use this sort of thing. Talk about an incentive to get Linux - sheesh.

    1. Re:Exclusivety Protectoin? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      This is Microsoft, I can honestly see them doing something as customer-hostile as this without reservations.

      Why waste thousands of dollars on a patent you have no intention of using in any form? You can't be sued for infringement if you're not doing anything at all like it, and I don't buy that Microsoft is so nice as to want to protect us from intrusive advertising. I mean, how much market share did they have to lose to Firefox before they put a pop-up blocker into IE?

  15. Two other patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An other patent should cover the development of an application, that Microsoft software users can install on their computers. This software will keep a global database of all Microsoft product crash world wide, tracking the software name, version, time of crash, time of recovery. This application could keep track of all the Microsoft software crashes, the time from crash to recovery, calculate and publicly display at a web site the number of crashes, the number of lost time and other statistics.

    An other patent should cover how companies can reposess licence fees from Microsoft for lost productivity of crashing software, using the first patent, as basis for a class-action law suite.

  16. Dear Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Microsoft: FUCK YOU

  17. Schools? Are you sure? by edschurr · · Score: 1

    What does this really have to do with schools? They're used in one example but the general idea seems to be only indirectly related to them.

  18. Think of the children? by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate it when our politicians do it, and I hate it just as much when you do it.

    The summary ( and link ) say nothing about schools. Putting that in the title is egging for a flame war. It makes you ( the submitter and editor ) look like an idiot.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Think of the children? by stubear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      welcome to Slashdot. This is par for the course.

    2. Re:Think of the children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FTFP:

      The policy may be directed to a single computer and thereby a single user or subscriber. Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school. When the limit of incorrect responses is reached as an aggregate of group of computers, a sanction may be imposed or a higher level of monitoring may be initiated.


      Besides, who the hell else is going to use an ad-supported computer?
    3. Re:Think of the children? by edschurr · · Score: 1

      the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school.
      It seems like this renting would generally only be attractive to people who won't have a computer otherwise: poor people, poor libraries and schools, and small businesses. It doesn't sound like the sort of thing people would take to help their budget. I would guess that ad-supported computers are better than no computers at all, despite being a hinderance ot learning.
    4. Re:Think of the children? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1
      The summary ( and link ) say nothing about schools.

      Excuse me? How about:

      Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school.
      Putting that in the title is egging for a flame war. It makes you look like an idiot.

      Coming from the "Germans love David Hasselhod" sig guy, that's rich.
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    5. Re:Think of the children? by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Check the linked patent then. It specifically mentions schools as a target (though, admittedly, it doesn't highlight them).

      FWIW, *DON'T* read the patent if you're a programmer. Reading patents on software can lay you open to increased fines. I just did a find on schools, and it specifically mentions schools as a target for the patent. I can't claim to know what the patent covers, since I intentionally didn't read it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Think of the children? by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Further, these are only going to be used by institutions or people that can't afford computers in the first place. Which is worse, ad supported computers or no computers?

      This is about as distorted and inflammatory as it gets.

    7. Re:Think of the children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent is a misapplication of an otherwise excellent idea.

      Anyone who remembers school remembers that it wasn't exactly the most entertaining.

      if you apply this idea to "schoolwork" or "information", instead of "advertising", then the idea isn't exceptionally bad.

      might not be overwhelmingly good, but it could probably do a good job at determining how long an average student can stay attentive to a document on a computer screen.

      same thing could apply to the work environment.

      in both cases, the admins need to be responsible with the system. realize that sometimes, there's just no work to do, ect...

  19. New MS slogan: by straponego · · Score: 1

    Microsoft: We're the Douchiest!

    1. Re:New MS slogan: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the current slogan is perfectly fine if you read the fine print:

      Your potential^. Our passion*.

      ^ to make us bags of money
      * for that money

  20. Editing? whazzat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word "school" is contained within the patent exactly once.

    Move over Zonk...

  21. As long as it's crackable... by dsanfte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as hardware specs remain open, that won't happen, but our current open marketplace is under threat from ideas like (nearly) mandatory driver signing in Vista (if you want the content), and DRM. Their purpose is to restrict the openness of the PC architecture.

    The PC marketplace happened nearly by accident, through what would today be called hardware piracy by OEMs seeking to undercut IBM's monopoly over the PC architecture. You know the history, I'm sure.

    The best innovation happens when engineers are free to innovate and motivated to do so. DRM, driver signing, authentication, keys, patents, licenses... these are all hinderences, concessions made to preserving the status quo, to protecting Big Money. The grey market drove the PC revolution, the little guys. Now the people who benefitted from that want to become and stay some sort of new IBM by controlling the architecture through crypto. The irony is palpable.

    The crackers, the hardware hackers, they are today's heroes, as much as the IBMBIOS revengineers were way back when. They keep the wildcards in play, the market free. Vista touts security... it's not just security from worms, or viruses they're aiming for, it's security for Microsoft against the crackers that keep the playing field open, and the DRM behemoth at bay.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    1. Re:As long as it's crackable... by Hennell · · Score: 1

      >Now the people who benefitted from that want to become and stay some sort of new IBM by controlling the architecture through crypto.

      But that's just obvious. If you were a 'little guy' who took over/became the new 'big guy' you'd be extra aware of the vulnerabilities of your position, and would take major care to secure it. You'd know first hand how you got where you were and what you exploited, and would make sure that it doesn't happen to you, but you protected if it does.

    2. Re:As long as it's crackable... by dreez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually you really have a real and good point here. As long as the specs are open, anyone with some knowledge is able to generate a driver/decoder/whatever of the same quality that a certain big company is. .
      However, if the specs are not open, the driver/decoder/whatever will never be as good because you just don't know all the details, it will allways lag behind the big company's driver, every little change in the big company's driver will need to be reverse engineered again to see what it all was about. . .

      And as DRM and driver signing and secured data streams between devices are becoming more and more complex, the reverse engineering will take longer and longer and at a certain moment it is just no longer paying off anymore. . . that will be a black day !!



      !! I fight to keep the hobby-port on the PC motherboard, safe the parallel port !!

    3. Re:As long as it's crackable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is one novel counter-invention disclosed as prior art, not withstanding the fact that advertising should NOT be in places of education.

      1) Spinning wheel in front of camera/input device presents a set of changing frames/slides pictures showing someone looking interested?
      May be in a circular loop, and automatically powered on when the camera is.

      2) Spinning wheel, of flashy led gizmos - like the $5 ones sold at show events mounted in front of camera

      3) Camera image snagged, and sequenced user selected video fed to camera.

      4) Mini LCD portable television tuned to news channel or the like and placed in front of camera

      5) Mirror placed in front of camera pointing to monkey cage.

      Seriously, when televising ball games, digital trickery can be used to overwrite/substitute any sign on the ground. Abusing 'Free' things will never go away - freeloaders enjoy the challenge.

    4. Re:As long as it's crackable... by numbski · · Score: 1

      Just responding to your sig.

      Would usb->parallel adapters not work for hobbyists? (Serious question here...)

      And for that matter, why not any old RS232 port, including usb->RS232 that you can get from Keyspan (which I use religiously)?

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  22. Try the Pavlov method by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wire up the chair and every time they look away give them a shock.

    1. Re:Try the Pavlov method by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      The Pavlov method would feed them every time a bell sounded, and it would get messy because there would be drool everywhere. More like a preschool than a grade school. You're thinking of the Milgram method, but for accuracy you'd have the kids shock each other when a teacher told them to. Also in the bag o' tricks is the Zimbardo method, which they get to use when they grow up, join the Army, and work in a secret prison in Iraq.

    2. Re:Try the Pavlov method by cuddlywill · · Score: 1

      Maybe authoritarian politicians will use this to force their citizenry to pay attention to propaganda.

    3. Re:Try the Pavlov method by matria · · Score: 1

      A while ago I saw an online site for purchasing wired office chairs that recorded every movement... "A fidgeting employee is not a productive employee" was actually part of the text.

  23. If true, this is sooo perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies need to make money to keep (usually avaricious) share holders happy, so there will always be companies that sink to new lows in order to do so. But this one, if true, is a case of such behavior from, not just a company that tests lowness regularly, but from a company that has run out of ideas.

    Time to begin moving your money out, if you haven't already started.

  24. The summary tricks us, history repeats itself by joe_cot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This happens time and time again on Slashdot: the article title and summary mislead us into believing something the article doesn't even mean, or the article is misleading and sensationalist itself, and no one bothers to confirm its accusations before putting it on the front page for thousands to see. Time and time again we're tricked into taking a stand, and then look like idiots later.

    Just because it's about Microsoft, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Sure, you want to believe it; I want to believe it. But if the trick works on us now, it'll be used in the future, to position you against issues you would stand for otherwise. One of the noblest actions a man can take is not take a public stand against something he knows nothing about. Don't comment on this until you RTFA.

    1. Re:The summary tricks us, history repeats itself by zotz · · Score: 1

      "One of the noblest actions a man can take is not take a public stand against something he knows nothing about."

      Cut some of us at least a little slack sometimes...

      Often I comment on the concepts of the summary or even on the concepts of the posts themselves. Not on the veracity of the article or summary. ~;-)

      (I think this is my first comment for this summary for instance.)

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  25. School kids? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    Since when do school kids pay attention to anything anyway, let alone boring ads? Most of them will be so busy boucing around and yapping about whatever the big fad of that particular time is that the sensor won't know what to make of it. Unless, of course, they follow up with the Microsoft Children's Head Vice.

    1. Re:School kids? by earthtoerika · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When this is in schools, Not Looking at the Ads will be punishable by a trip to the principal's office and possibly a two-day suspension.

  26. America, home of the facist and enslaved by phouqhue · · Score: 1

    Control, it's not just a button on your keyboard but your future master.

  27. cheap Macs for schools by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Didn't Apple used to give deep discounts to schools to get the kids hooked to become paying users later in life?

    Apple's education discounts are generally about 30% off list price, sometimes lower for certain promotions or bulk discounts. I remember Apple selling a "six pack" of Macintosh Classic computers for something like $600 each, when the regular retail list price was $999 (or about $799 when Wal-Mart was selling them just before the Classic II came out). The deepest education discount I've ever seen was for the Macintosh LC, LC II, LC III, and LC 475 aka Quadra 605 machines from Apple's low-cost-color line. You've probably seen them, very slim machines, about 2 inches tall, usually with a matching low-profile 12" - 15" monitor sitting on top. The original LC was list price for about $2300 without montior, the education price was closer to $1000. By the time the LC 475 came out the retail list price was $900, education price was $800. Too bad most schools spent their budgets buying the original LCs, as the LC 475 was a really good deal with its 25/50 MHz 68040 CPU and fairly fast graphics (for 1993).

    1. Re:cheap Macs for schools by HBI · · Score: 1

      The LC-LCIII were nothing like the Q605 which was an 040 machine. The others were 020/030 based.

      The Q605 was a rocking little box. The others were sludgy. Also the Q605 had a MUCH nicer case.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  28. This is the Net-Zero/PeoplePC model by a_greer2005 · · Score: 1

    I cant see this affecting schools...I just read the patent and it says that they are "giving some service or software at a reduced cost or free in exchange for mandatory ad viewing and feedback" Net zero and PeoplePC built companies that ultimately failed on similar logic. (Net Zero restructured and now sells $9.99 dial up now)

    It boils down to this: no commercial product or service is free...either pay in cash or in time/privacy/inconvenience. Of cource, you do not NEED windows and MS office, Linux and Mac OS X are there too ya know!

  29. I love dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it mean the future will be more like "a clockwork orange" and less like "1984" ?

    1. Re:I love dystopia by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Does it mean the future will be more like "a clockwork orange" and less like "1984" ?

      More like a little from column A, a little from column B.

      How little is a little? A lot.

      And don't assume there are only two columns!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  30. You have to love.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ..the sheer imagination which has gone into this slashdot summary. I, for one, have read the patent, and although it doesn't sound like the most appealing piece of technology in the world, a one-line summary would be "a computer provided by a service provider or parent entity of some sort which is subsidised by, or pays the user to view, advertisements hard wired into the computer".

    Bending this into one extreme use-case of such technology, and basing the slashdot article around it is simply masterful FUD-mongery of the sort that Microsoft themselves should envy.

    Seriously, read the patent. It's not actually *that* bad.

  31. Go 'way by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny
    We're having fun here. Go away! Shoo! Shoo!

    Besides, the article is so stupid it should be modded off topic.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  32. worst idea ever by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    yes, because the kids need to be paying attention to the ads on their computer, and not to getting an education. "come get these free computers, all it costs is your education"

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  33. Fake story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is utter bs. There is no article, just a patent and the word "school" is used exactly once as an example organization. The patent is to help ad supported services get the necessary revenue when allowing free usage. Think public internet terminal.

    ---
    When an incorrect response is supplied, or fails for another reason, the "No" branch from block 411 may be followed to block 414, where the incorrect response may be analyzed with respect to a policy for incorrect responses. The policy may specify a number of allowable incorrect answers, either in total or during a period of time, for example, 3 incorrect answers per day or 30 incorrect answers per month. When the allowable number of incorrect answers has been exceeded, several response are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer 110. The policy may be directed to a single computer and thereby a single user or subscriber. Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school. When the limit of incorrect responses is reached as an aggregate of group of computers, a sanction may be imposed or a higher level of monitoring may be initiated.
    ---

  34. Pop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this "pop" you speak of?

  35. Left hand vs right hand? by pluther · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Somebody at Microsoft didn't understand what somebody else was doing...

    The whole reason for Microsoft giving free computers to schools in the first place was to get them used to the Windows OS, and hopefully prevent them from wanting to switch to Linux. It wasn't supposed to be just a short-term revenue stream.

    If they actually use this, schools will start saying no thanks to their "free" computers - which will, in the long term, be a serious blow to Microsoft.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    1. Re:Left hand vs right hand? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Gates's Microsoft and Ballmer's Microsoft are two different companies. Just look at Office 2007 and Vista, so [unpleasantly] different they are from the previous releases. In this light it is possible that the modern MS is done with free education, and is going in for the money.

    2. Re:Left hand vs right hand? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      If they actually use this, schools will start saying no thanks to their "free" computers - which will, in the long term, be a serious blow to Microsoft.

      Hm. You raise a good point, and have managed to change my mind: I'm now in favour of it!

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    3. Re:Left hand vs right hand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole reason for Microsoft giving free computers to schools in the first place was to get them used to the Windows OS


      Apple did the same in the late 70's - 80's. I took my first computer classes in a classroom stuffed with IIs and staffed with a teacher who was subsidized by Apple. Even given Woz's love for education, that's how it was sold to the board of directors. The rest of your post is flamebait and speculation, however.
  36. Excellent patent! by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Fascinating stuff. This is pretty clearly evil and dangerous behaviour, at least from a cursory glance at the application. However, it
    • is
    actually fairly innovative and unique. Now to the best of my knowledge, patents aren't supposed to be concerned with the morality of the application, but the originality and non-obviousness of it.

    Microsoft should be hung out to dry for this, but from a patent aspect, it's valid.
    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Excellent patent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the most bizarre use of a bullet list I think I've ever seen.

    2. Re:Excellent patent! by jpetts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is by no means innovative and unique. This sort of challenge/response system to allow one to continue was implemented in many computer games during the 80s. Typically you would be asked to enter a word from a specific page and line in a manual.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    3. Re:Excellent patent! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Me too, actually. I don't quite know what I did wrong in my formatting, but I clearly didn't bother previewing.
      It was a mistake, but an amusing one.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    4. Re:Excellent patent! by rchoetzlein · · Score: 1

      The computer games you mention (PC Gauntlet, Space Quest, Kings Quest), used these things as an attempt at adult filtering or piracy prevention. Adult filtering was to completely prevent you from using the system if you weren't old enough (just as we prevent kids from entering adult bookstores). Of course, this didn't work very well. The questions were too easy to just look up in an encyclopedia. Piracy prevention didn't work either, since you could find out the word-in-the-page-in-the-manual from someone who had simply posted the whole thing online.

      This is completely different. The goal is not to protect children (from adult material), or copyright (of software creators), its to enforce a mindset of consumerism. You're not being asked to present some information as verification, but to think according to their values. You're right, its not unique. Its 1984. I hope schools revert to traditional teaching, with out computers (which is often more effective), rather than accept these terms for free computers.

  37. Good by d2_m_viant · · Score: 1

    I hope those webcams catch me flipping Bill G the middle finger.

    1. Re:Good by Rod.Dorman · · Score: 1

      I hope those webcams catch me flipping Bill G the middle finger.

      What happens if a kid strips in front of the webcam. Does the operator of the service get arrested for child pornography?
  38. negative side of targeted ads to volerable by a_greer2005 · · Score: 0

    Youngsters are our most volnerable...if this thing really does hit schools, it could be really disgustingly bad: would the over-weight kid who is trying to lose weight (at the insistance of parents and doctors) be hit with candy ads? What if a kid searches out things about suicide because things arent going too well...will he see ads for guns or rope? what about the kid who is looking for porno, will he see ads for playboy (YES playboy/Maxum/Hustler DO target the under-18 crowd?...I got invites to subscribe to all of those when I started buying college books at Follets at age 17, preping for summer semester before HS graduation... this could be a huge cluster-f**k...

    1. Re:negative side of targeted ads to volerable by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Follets systems are not just as messed up.
      Why put a 32 bit pci card in a pci-x 133 slot? when there other pci slots.
      Why run nt4 on p4 based duel xeon systems?
      Why run your pos system on 98 inside of cases that you can cut your hand on because the case in real small.

  39. I thought of this by David_Shultz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought of this very system over three years ago, although it wasn't for the nefarious purpose of forcing school children to watch targetted ads. The idea actually was to set up a system whereby internet users could sit down, and watch ads for a few minutes to earn some money (sell your time). Obviously I take let's say 2% of what they get. I needed a way to check if the user was actually watching the ads, and the system sounds remarkably what MS guys were able to come up with. I didn't have the time to set up the site.

    This situation to me highlights some of the annoying aspects of patents. First, if I had billions of dollars of cash lying around, I would have this patent (would've applied without a second thought). How then, is this system helping individual innovators rather than big corporations? Second, isn't it clear that the patent system isn't promoting R and D in this particular case?

    On the plus side, I do believe a site has recently popped up that does what I wanted to do, and they probably have implemented a comparable system. Therefore, MS might lose this patent on the grounds of prior art, which is a plus.

    Also, I wonder whether MS intends to charge for the webcams being provided, since they are required for the face tracking, but the schools might not (and probably don't) want them.

    1. Re:I thought of this by edschurr · · Score: 1

      Would these challenge/response and head-tracking ideas be obvious to anyone trying to guarantee attention is being paid to ads? And how obvious would it be to think of ensuring attention to ads in the first place? That seems like the problem with patents. Things might seem non-obvious at first, but maybe each step in the path to a new idea is obvious.

  40. This is the "Linux is good for everything" model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Of cource, you do not NEED windows and MS office, Linux and Mac OS X are there too ya know!"

    So Reader Rabbit now works on Linux? Do you realize that there's more to schools than just MS and Office, don't you?

  41. Chairs? by MiKM · · Score: 1

    I'd hate to see the Ballmer way.

    1. Re:Chairs? by adam.dorsey · · Score: 1

      Same method, except you throw the electrified chair at them whenever they don't do what you want.

      --
      You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
  42. sunglasses? by Raptoer · · Score: 1

    if the person is wearing sunglasses, would the computer tell if they are looking at the ads or not? what about if someone just blocked the camera? (a little beyond reality here) what if you took a photo of a person looking in the location of an ad, then put the photo infront of the camera at the proper scale?

    1. Re:sunglasses? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      # I wear my sun glasses at night, so I can, so I can, read my story lines~ Waittin' for downloads to finish.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:sunglasses? by zotz · · Score: 1

      "what if you took a photo of a person looking in the location of an ad, then put the photo infront of the camera at the proper scale?"

      I was just thinking along similar lines...

      A mask made to look like you.
      A robot head made to look like you. (A new twist on the turing test perhaps? - Can your robot head fool their face recognition software?)
      A program to feed the yes data back. (DMCA violation?)

      Seriously though, perhaps governments would want to participate and get free computers for their workforce... Hmmm. ~;-)

      all the best,

      drew

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  43. In Soviet Russia by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    The computers repossessed you!

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  44. Late Turning in Test by erica_ann · · Score: 1

    Teacher: "Johnny, why are you late for turning in your test?"

    Johnny: "The letters you have to type in the box... well It took me 29 minutes just to get the right letters in after the ad - to get back to submit the test online. Wasn't that why you were late sending us the link to the test?"

  45. double plus ungood by InnerPhalanx · · Score: 1

    to even think this'd get off the ground, you're crazy... I mean really, who the heck is going to buy a computer, then?

    I can see it now: MS office 2008 - mind control edition

  46. negative side of violent games to the vulnerable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Youngsters are our most volnerable...if this thing really does hit schools, it could be really disgustingly bad:"

    I agree we should keep violent games away from our children.

  47. Great.. by LilGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just burned all my mod points on my last slashdot visit on stupid stories. Figures something good is posted right afterward.

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  48. quizes in school everywhere. by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

    From the Article:

    "A method and apparatus for assuring delivery of paid advertising to a user may involve asking a question about an advertisement or requiring data about the advertisement to be entered."

    So now the ad providers quiz you and the teachers?

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  49. Is "Armed Robbery" patented yet? by Keith+McClary · · Score: 1

    I suppose there would be "prior art", so how about "Armed Robbery using computers and the Internet" ?

  50. Why advertise to penguins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "people who prey or exploit kids need help, 9mm help"

    Prepare your little ones to feel like the VIPs they are, when playing Lua Lua games! It's a particularly pleasing pack of 7 Linux games for kids ages 3 to 7.

    ---
    "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting [the same inane comments they always do]."

  51. Channel One by westlake · · Score: 1
    How many school would even sign up for this?

    Many here will remember Whittle Communications.

    Whittle's specialty was marketing to the captive audience.

    Familiar magazines disappeared from your doctor's waiting room to be replaced by Whittle's glossy, content-free substitutes. Whittle was never subtle. It was all or nothing.

    Schools were offered free sattelite dishes, educational programming, VCRs, and other high-tech goodies.

    In exchange, students would be required to watch the twelve minute commercial Channel One News, nine days out of every ten.

  52. Re:VE HAVE VAYS TO MAKE YOU VATCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VE HAVE VAYS

  53. Good idea by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Anyone using a a MS computer, should have it reposessed.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  54. As long as it's BSable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "DRM, driver signing, authentication, keys, patents, licenses... these are all hinderences, concessions made to preserving the status quo, to protecting Big Money."

    Sez you!

    1. Re:As long as it's BSable... by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      One counterexample does not disprove a trend. Nobody disputes that there exist some small inventors who actually manage to use the patent system to protect themselves against predatory companies. The question is whether the innovation they produce is greater than the innovation that is lost because patent holders use their portfolios to restrict competition.

      Many of us believe that it is not, and that the world would be a better place if the tiny minority of backyard inventors gave up their tiny chance of leveraging patents to succeed, in order that society as a whole had more freedom to build incrementally on known technologies.

    2. Re:As long as it's BSable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One counterexample does not disprove a trend."

      It does when that's not what's being debated.

      "Nobody disputes that there exist some small inventors who actually manage to use the patent system to protect themselves against predatory companies."

      If you had read the story? He obtained the patent so he could make the invention himself. He didn't get it for defensive purposes.

      "The question is whether the innovation they produce is greater than the innovation that is lost because patent holders use their portfolios to restrict competition."

      Apparently his patent didn't prevent anyone from competing. Just giving him his due.

      "Many of us believe that it is not, and that the world would be a better place if the tiny minority of backyard inventors gave up their tiny chance of leveraging patents to succeed, in order that society as a whole had more freedom to build incrementally on known technologies."

      A couple things. First I doubt the "many" are the majority you think they are. Second for a forum that's titled "your rights online" and "I would rather die, than lose my freedom", you all have a disturbing tendency to dictate to others what they should and shouldn't do with their freedoms. Third a patent represents an opportunity to make a success of oneself. There are no guarentees. And last in case you missed it, there has to be an inventor (in other words someone who does the hard work that you all want to build upon). Take that out of the picture and all you have is a "many" that is basically building on a lot of talk, but no results.

  55. Isn't this too obvious to be patentable? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Everybody is concentrating on how offensive this is, but there is another issue. Isn't this all perfectly obvious? How can this be patentable? Finding out if people are paying attention by quizzing them on what they were supposed to be watching is an old schoolteacher trick. As far as I can see from skimming the patent application there is nothing remotely innovative in the technology they use to do this.

  56. Who still thinks MS isn't evil? by demo9orgon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft is giving us more valid reasons to successfully argue that they have no place in the classroom.

    They're making is very clear that they are achieving the kind of critical mass where they will act with impunity.

    It isn't enough that they make an OS that exploits people at home, now they're seeking to patent a way to enforce it on students.

    So how long before this kind of thinking migrates to television?

    "We're sorry _Survivor_ is withheld for (countdown)min. until the next commercial break because you muted three or more commercials. In order to ensure an uninterrupted broadcast you must maintain at least a 25 db. audio output and not avoid the screen. Thank you."

    Or better yet,
    Ben checks his online bills and sees a slightly larger cable bill.
    "Hey, honey. Why is the cable bill $20 more...oh crap, it says there's a fee for _Subsidy-Avoidance_ WTF is that?"
    "Remember when I told you that if we removed that feedback box they'd tag on a fee?"
    "I don't get it..." He scratches his head and looks at the TV.
    "Remember how our subscription rates for Office went up because we didn't agree to run an ad validator? It's the same thing." She says as Ben looks for something to kick and starts wondering where he put that extra cable box.

    At least they aren't trying to tell us that this will keep us safe...yet.

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
    1. Re:Who still thinks MS isn't evil? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      They're making is very clear that they are achieving the kind of critical mass where they will act with impunity.

      Please. They are doing no such thing. They're not talking about randomly disabling peoples' operating systems or something. This is about a situation where somebody agrees to get a free (or, perhaps largely discounted) computer in exchange for watching ads. The catch is that they can't just say "oh, sure!" and laugh their asses off while they don't watch squat, because of the system Microsoft has where the computer itself can tell if you're watching.

      Personally, I would never agree to such nonsense with my machine -- but if I DID, somehow I think I lose the right to bitch about how evil Microsoft is for giving me my free computer and expecting something in return. If you agree to a deal, even a bad deal, I do not see how it is evil for the other party to expect you to live up to your bargain. Call me when Microsoft's actions (in this department!) are illegal and thus the contract void and we'll have a case. Then again, "having a case" probably just means they take the computer back anyway.

      So how long before this kind of thinking migrates to television?

      It would suck pretty bad, but we're supposed to be largely pro free-market here, right? If that's what cable operators do, we should vote with our dollars and give our business to others. Other alternatives to cable (satellite, IPTV soon, etc) are out there. If there is a legal/monopolistic issue to be solved, that's what the courts are for.

      Microsoft does plenty of evil stuff, but I don't see how forcing you to abide by terms you have agreed to is one of them.

    2. Re:Who still thinks MS isn't evil? by demo9orgon · · Score: 1

      Broken Java, IE HTML incompatibility, their refusal to create an OS that is secure, M$ ME, XP SP2 were acts of impunity,. If I used Microsoft software I'm sure I could provide a better laundry list.

      EULA's are fluid and ultimately M$ is responsible for nothing, while the customer by clicking "yes" is supposed to indemnify and not hold M$ responsible for the crapware that they, the customer, has been dorked into using. It's sick.

      As for the Cable/Satellite providers. If one of them do something profitable, they will all do it.
      The same applies to the Networks, which would utilize the Cable/Satellite providers infrastructure to facillitate the whole mess.
      Microsoft is a platform with a media server product that's already in use by international pr0n to distribute movies which are only playable on M$ desktops and certain cellphones. The client checks in with the media server and the DRM on the client is permitted a license to view the product on that machine for a proscribed period of time.
      This technology has been out there for over 5 years. It takes time for this kind of technology to penetrate popular entertainment, even when it's been proven for the adult market.

      If Microsoft makes the impression validator technology, patents it, encapsulates it in servers and desktop components, licenses it to the networks in conjunction with their rotten DRM then they're going to make it possible for entertainment networks have a nose-to-tail solution for giving networks the leverage to charge more by being able to show just how many impressions are being served. Microsoft stands to make billions facilitating the tens of billions the networks stand to make.

      Ahhhh, one big happy reach-around that will come back to roost on M$ operating systems because the people who use windows aren't really M$'s customers, companies like Dell, and HP are, and with new technology the entertainment industry will become M$ customers. And to make adoption easier they'll provide people hardware implementations, like HD-TV's with built-in impression validator technology, bonus features and lower rates until a tipping point is met will guarantee market up-take. It's no secret that M$ has wanted to be involved in the entertainment industry. If they can't buy Adobe they don't mind being on everything else.

      --
      Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
  57. Prior art by Selanit · · Score: 1

    Back when I was a whippersnapper, we had these crazy things called "quizzes." The teacher would show us some information, and then later on we'd have to answer questions about it, just to be sure we'd understood it.

    Of course, when my teachers did it, the point was to teach me stuff that would be useful later on. Like being able to spell words so I don't sound like an idiot, or add up numbers reliably. With this, the point is to boost some corporation's profit margin by pushing products on impressionable kids. Yuck!

  58. Schools? by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

    What does this patent, which is actually a clever way to get subsidized computers into underprivledged areas, have to do with schools?

    The patent only mentions "school" once, in the context that it can be used "at a business or school".

    So if a location opts to install ad-funded computers, then what's so wrong with that?

    --
    -David
  59. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Garabito · · Score: 5, Funny

    Skinner: We can buy =real= periodic tables instead of these promotional ones from Oscar Meyer.
    Krabappel: Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?
    Martin: Ooh ... delicious?
    Krabappel: Correct. I would also accept snacktacular.

  60. Yellow Journalism Much? by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is a stupid heading, and a stupid summary. The point of the patent is not, as the headline indicates, to "patent a method for repossessing school computers." The point of the patent is to provide a method for validating that users are actually paying attention to the advertisements that are being displayed. The terms "school" and "repossess" each appear once in the patent application:

    • [ . . . ] several response are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer.[ . . . ]
    • [ . . . ] Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school.[ . . . ]
    Shame on you, submitter & editor. This is NOTHING but sensationalism. The notion of "repossessing" the computer is used as an example of a step that could be taken if the advertising is not being paid attention to. Since the terminal is financed by that advertising, it would make sense to stop paying for it and take it back for redeployment elsewhere. If I'm an advertiser, I'd prefer not to keep paying for a billboard that nobody pays attention to.

    The notion of these computers being used by a school is used as an example where the patent discusses tying certain criteria to multiple computers owned by a common owner, "for example," a business or school. So, say you provide some of these adveritising-funded public terminals to an organization, such as a business or school, what you're doing is tying the policy for multiple systems to a common owner.

    But the summary & title make it sound like MSFT is targeting school computers as if they could just swoop in, snatch them all up, and resell them on the black market. This is one of the lamest attempts at MSFT-bashing I've seen. Bash them if you must, but for god's sake, bash them for something that's actually a REAL issue, not this crap. What's next? "MSFT submits patent for punching babies, snapping bra straps of young mothers?!"?

    I'd say I expect better of the editors, at least, but well... it IS slashdot.
    1. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by bacon55 · · Score: 1

      Tracking eyes is creepy - sorry. The comp is paid for with advertising, ad blockers don't work, its there. Forcing people to look at the adverts is unbelievably creepy, wierd, and reeks all kinds of Orwellian corporate crap. Advertising paying for computers...ok, maybe - but having software forcing people to look at that - no way, no how, that should be illegal. It allows for a very nasty corporate culture of absolute profit guarantee to creep into places it shouldn't be allowed to (it shouldn't be allowed at all, it's wrong, but here something can be done to stop it)

    2. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by alexhs · · Score: 1

      But it already exists. So how does MS patent about a vaporware of them compares to an already working solution ?
      BTW it is fairly recent (patent pending) so I can understand that MS is genuinely unaware of prior art from a small business.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by AlbionTourgee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do so agree! The patent isn't limited to schools. The compelled viewing of ads could be done in the school, in the workplace, in the library, and yes, if you design the right equipment, in the home. And, besides, it's not limited to ads for things, either is it? What about political ads both in the narrower sense of ads for candidates and in the larger sense of ads that tell you how to think. And, what about the negative. You could make some kinds of viewing off limits, and then provide the user some samples, and if they did look at the forbidden words, then you could disable or take away their computer. Do the people who are posting in this thread have not vision of the whole variety of techniques for enforcing viewer behavior that this technology implies?

    4. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by LinuxIsRetarded · · Score: 0

      But didn't Microsoft file this patent in 2005? Quividi only developed its methods in 2006. Also, Quividi explicitly calls out that its techniques do not use visual responses, whereas Microsoft's optionally may.

    5. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Okay, did you actually go and *read* -- hell, even *SKIM* -- the patent application? They say NOTHING about "tracking eyeballs". The references to cameras indicate that a camera device can be attached to the computer to do things like, verify the presence of a user, or capture an image of the environment, or the user, either automatically or if the user wants it to. I'm not saying there aren't privacy & ethical implications to capturing images of a person, but again, this is sensationalism. The camera is NOT being used to "track eyeballs". (Please, by all means, if you can find the phrase "tracking eye movement", or some similar phrase, in the patent application, prove me wrong.)

      Here's what the basis of the patent is about: "When the challenge relating to ad viewing is correctly answered, a value associated with viewing the ad may be credited to a user account, either locally or at a clearinghouse or other repository." In other words... "Use our free internet terminal! Watch 3 ads, and get 10 minutes of usage for free!" How do they determine if you've watched 3 ads? Well, that's what this system is attempting to patent.

      If you don't want to be forced to look at advertisements, then simply don't use the systems with this software installed...

    6. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by Americano · · Score: 1
      That's up to the USPTO to figure out, or a court when MSFT & Quividi end up in court, if there are substantial patent infringements on either side. I'm not judging the validity of the patent application, I'm simply saying that the summary & article headline are simply sensationalist crap intended to boost Slashdot's advertising revenues.

      Slashdot should file a patent on a method & apparatus for boosting advertising revenue by at least 50%:
      1. Find patent application from MSFT.
      2. Complete distort its meaning so that what you say it means is COMPLETELY different from it's actual purpose.
      3. Post purple-prosed distortion to front page of Slashdot, making sure that you hit at least three of the following four topics:
        • Microsoft -- BAD(tm)
        • Patents -- BAD(tm)
        • THINK OF THE KIDS!
        • Big Brother is Watching!
      4. Wait for the surge of outraged geeks to read the article & comments, boosting your ad hits.
      5. PROFIT!
      Finally, a complete list without "6. ???" in it... I think this one's the real deal!
    7. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by Americano · · Score: 1

      You didn't bother to even skim the patent application, did you? I know, I know. "Welcome to Slashdot."

      If you're really that weak-minded that being exposed to advertising is going to suddenly change you that drastically, maybe you should just leave the tinfoil hat on.

    8. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by AlbionTourgee · · Score: 1
      Hmm. Doesn't the patent say,

      The policy may specify a number of allowable incorrect answers, either in total or during a period of time, for example, 3 incorrect answers per day or 30 incorrect answers per month. When the allowable number of incorrect answers has been exceeded, several response are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer 110. The policy may be directed to a single computer and thereby a single user or subscriber. Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business or school. When the limit of incorrect responses is reached as an aggregate of group of computers, a sanction may be imposed or a higher level of monitoring may be initiated.
      Seems like this relates to compulsory viewing of ads, with the distinct possibility of "sanctions" for those who don't comply. With your point about only the weak minded being affected by advertising, I agree with you that the ubermensch can resist. But you must recognize that various businesses, governments, and other organizations actually spend billions of dollars every day to affect economic/political/organizational/social behavior via adverstisements. If ads weren't effective, I don't think this would continue indefinitely. Some kinds of advertisers would leap at the ability to compel users to view their ads. Under the proposal Microsoft has patented, the district can be asked to pound the brand name into the kids' heads, or lose functionality of their "free" computer system. It's a clear advance on the "free" TV news for schools that made such a flap a few years back.
    9. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by rchoetzlein · · Score: 1

      Look at the frikin bigger picture! Either way, unless the system if subverted, the kid in the classroom is forced to register understand of the advertisement (ie. actually read it to provide the 'response data') to permit use of the computer. Now, which is more valuable? A kid with a balanced set of values, not distorted by all these ads, or a kid with a computer.

      Its just a bad freaking idea.

      I think its _essential_ to bring this kind of thing to our attention. The problem with your argument is that you are bargaining away the future of the children using these multiple systems for the presumed needs of the common owner. Any school teacher or principal who has any respect for the children in their school would reject this outright. Where is the patent that protects children from Microsoft?

      Sensationalism? If we don't have feelings about this stuff, then we are totally lost.

    10. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by Americano · · Score: 1

      That's right. Let's "THINK OF THE KIDS!"

      First off -- I never said that the idea of putting this system into schools was a good idea. What I said was that the title & summary of this slashdot article are sensationalist garbage intended to increase readership. GO READ THE PATENT APPLICATION. Microsoft is NOT filing a patent on "repossessing school computers". They are filing for a patent on a system for ensuring that attention is being paid to the advertising that is supporting the computer system displaying the ads.

      The only reference to schools in the entire application is where they talk about also being able to tie multiple systems to a common owner & set of policies, "such as" a business or school.

      I have NOT said that these systems should be allowed in schools. I HAVE said that the patent is NOT about repossessing school computers. In short, your response is without merit, and only shows your complete inability or unwillingness to RTFA.

    11. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying you've never worked for an organization that advertised to make a profit? Or a place supported by taxes or donations from people who worked at such corporations?

    12. Re:Yellow Journalism Much? by rchoetzlein · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA. Twice.

      My conclusion is that it's another morally questionable, intrusive technology wrapped in scientific language. Since when did it become acceptable to trade away morals with technical language? There is generally the attitude in science and engineering that "it is sufficient for the engineer or scientist if we can create it or understand a thing", while policy should be left to others. I disagree. In a completely science-oriented society, what others? You say it is not about repossessing school computers. Ok, at least superficially. But how do we define what "something is about" if not by what it means, or implies to us?

      I read the the patent, and my conclusion is one must read between the lines to determine the moral and social impact of this "neutral" technology being proposed.

      Anyway, i think we agree (at least i gather from your response) that the system should not be allowed in schools.

  61. Re:Timely? Competition lockout! by Technician · · Score: 1

    This patent application was filed at the end of 2005... why is it just now coming up?
    It may have just attracted attention, but the reason for the patent may be less of an issue as the mountain it's made out to be. It could be nothing more than preventing some upstart such as BE/OS or someone else like IBM with OS/2 from providing computers with an advertising revenue stream in competition to the MS stranglehold on the desktop. Maybe they don't want another i-Opener on the market.

    "We have free computers for your school. The advertising will pay for them."

    MS.. "Umm think again. We patented the model"

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  62. Easier Way by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    To hell with ads. Have hired goons come and beat the money out of you. Saves MS the trouble of marketing, etc.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  63. Some humanitarian philantrope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to appear some humanitarian philantrope, who buys out and dissolves Microsoft to end this cancer of modern society.

  64. How things change... or not. by s-whs · · Score: 1

    You know, I've been getting extremely tired of reading about Microsoft crap on slashdot. I get the feeling "just die! (like SCO will)".

    Btw, I was just reading some old 1984 computer mags, and saw some MS ads. Among other things they contained the following:

      Microsoft.
      Right. First time.

    The astute reader will notice the typos, but for others, let me correct that:

      Microsoft.
      Wrong. Every time.

  65. Re:This is the "Linux is good for everything" mode by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Yah... but Macs are more expensive, and BSD is too difficult. (Well, I haven't tried BSD, but that's its rep.)

    Reader Rabbit doesn't work on Linux, as far as I know. I also don't know of any schools that use it. Linux does have several educational packages...generally the teacher would need to prepare the inputs as a part of her lesson prep. It probably wouldn't be much (any?) more difficult than such is already.

    You don't really WANT a prepackaged thing like Reader Rabbit in a school room. You want something more adaptable and controlable...or you're better off just skipping the computer. Reader Rabbit is fine for a home situation...well, I suppose it is. It's been on the market for decades. (OTOH, my ideas of the program may be well dated. I'm remembering a version for the Apple Mac LC(2? 3?).)

    Still, I have seen a few, a very few, commercial programs that I though worth the space they would occupy in a schoolroom. None of them are still published. They weren't entertaining enough for the home market.

    If there is any good educational software being published now, I don't know of it. So Linux is as good a choice as any. There is rudimentary educational software (flashcards, etc.) There are programming languages. There are web browsers. Etc. Not perfect for the lower grades of primary school, but starting to get better as you get to junior high, and definitely what you need in high school or college.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  66. The users will react... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    From the article:

    When the allowable number of incorrect answers has been exceeded, several response [sic] are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer 110. The action done by the algorithm may include disabling or repossessing the computer, but I sure hope no advertiser will specify that this action be taken should the user not answer the verification correctly. In a school context, a whole group of students could deliberately look away from an ad destined to them and render the computers unusable for the next class. As if teachers didn't have enough to worry about already.

    Let's say some Foolish Advertiser specifies this action for all of their ads, though, and compare that with some real-life situations.
    • You wake up. You drink some coffee, watching the morning news, and ads pop up every 10 minutes. In this situation, you may not be awake enough to view the full ads consciously, and you don't even need to listen to them -- there's a Mute button on your remote. Some of the ad's images and sound may attract your attention and stick in your head.
    • You go to work. You drive on the highway, with some billboards around you. In this situation, your eyes may stay on the road, or jump to the billboards as their colors attract your attention.
    • At work, you sometimes get bored. (Yes, it does happen :) You browse some websites, containing small Flash games. The ads are on the top of the website, so you quickly scroll down to hide them. Though, if an ad attracted your attention, you might click on it.
    Note how every one of these has "attract your attention" somewhere in it. That is the goal of advertising: presenting you with an image of a product, unintrusively, hoping that your attention will be drawn to it and that you will buy the product.

    If your computer disables other output to present you an ad from the Foolish Advertiser when you were working on something else, you will not want to look at it. It has stopped your current flow of work; it is intrusive. You might have been typing in a word processor and your keyboard input was redirected to the ad's verification field; you might have been playing Quake and your character got fragged while the video output was grabbed by the ad; and so on. In these cases, you'll be annoyed and just want to get the verification over with as quickly as possible, while leaving your computer usable.

    I even foresee this algorithm included in a future version of a certain browser (hint: look at the Assignee Name filed in the patent), used by web pages and exploitable by spyware/adware for even better targeted advertisements.

    Net result: for the users, a needless compulsory intrusion into their work, which is not possible with a TV (does it tell you to press a specific button on your remote to confirm you saw the ad?) or with billboards (does it grab your head and force your eyes open to view the ad?); and for the marketers, more and more annoyed customers spreading the word about this advertising strategy, thus less sales. Oh, and did I mention more and more annoyed customers?
  67. one word, by drDugan · · Score: 1


    horrifying

  68. Better Idea by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Like the dinosaurs, M$ is getting too big and thinking too small. A better patent for them would be a PC that runs on blood, sucking it right out of you while you stare at it. Call it Windows IV.

  69. Subliminal Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im really sick of all this advertising CRAP!!!

    There are laws against subliminal advertising correct?

    With all the studies done on advertising and fine tuning ads for specific markets and attention spans, that we're subjected to EVERY WAKING MOMENT (and asleep if you leave the tv on lol), can't we pretty much just call all advertising subliminal? Or at least go back to hiding them subliminaly so i can be a good little sheep and drink Mt.Dew and eat Doritios without being FORCED to watch ads? Feed them to me silently in the background so all i see is the real content i want.

    When i see advertising most of the time it just turns me off your product and i'll go out of my way to avoid it =P

    1. Re:Subliminal Advertising by Americano · · Score: 1
      Subliminal Advertising:

      A subliminal message is a signal or message embedded in another object, designed to pass below the normal limits of perception. These messages are indiscernible to the conscious mind, but are alleged to be perceptible to the subconscious or deeper mind: for example, an image transmitted so briefly that it is only perceived subconsciously, but not otherwise noticed. Subliminal techniques have occasionally been used in advertising and propaganda; the purpose, effectiveness and frequency of such techniques is debated.
      Unless you're "subconsciously" using an advertising-financed computer to access sites, view this advertising, and answer questions about it in order to get some sort of "credit" for having watched the ad, then no, we can't just call this subliminal. I'll tell you, I'd love it if we lived in a world were things were automatically whatever I called them, but you see, words have specific meanings.

      If you don't like the advertising-supported terminals, you don't have to use them. You're free to continue using your home PC, instead of a public terminal that will allow you 15 minutes of access for viewing a minute worth of ads.
  70. I always thought ... by manastungare · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always thought Windows machines were already possessed by the Devil.

  71. Stupid patents by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    I should patent "a method for blindly validating incomprehensible complex written proposals without merit" and then sue the patent office.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  72. wring joke dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it goes like this:

    In soviet russia you watch computers, in redmond the computer watch you!

    get it right next time...

    The soviets are the guys that are into freedom and are worried that the US is causing nuclear proliferation...

    get with the times man get with the times!

  73. Do FOX News editors work for Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an avid open-source user/advocate just like many slashdot readers, but the frequency of misleading anti-microsoft titles and propaganda approved by the editors has relegated /. to the list of sites you have to be forced to visit. It right above foxnews.com for me.

    Pity, used to lub this place.

    - AC

    1. Re:Do FOX News editors work for Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this article misleading? Your post is about as bad as the typical Fox News stories you reference in terms of accuracy.

  74. Wow! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Wow! I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  75. Missed the target by wellingj · · Score: 1

    Isn't this really a patent to combat google or other search engines that get their money from adds?

  76. Schools with no money. by Irvu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've already seen cash-strapped schools include video advertisements disguised as "Current Affairs". Other schools have formed deals with Pepsi and Coke that require them to consume so much per week in order to maintain the support for school lunches (yes the students do get fat). So yes, I could definitely see a cash-strapped school taking a sweetheart deal with Microsoft to get modern machines provided their students watch so much web advertising. Such things are typically welcomed by people who want to cut taxes and "Run Schools Like a Business".

    After all, as long as taxes are lowered who cares?

    1. Re:Schools with no money. by fourchannel · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Not directed at you, but I fucking care.

      If we treat education like some service, optional, profitable, exploitable, then we will eventually get degredation over time, and the quality of education will drop. With that, the investment in the school will drop, and what do you know, education fucking drops some more.

      Education is the only thing (technology is derived from the knowledge education provides), that separates our society from those of the primative past. If we treat education as anything but the highest concern, then we have failed our ancestors to learn from the past and prevent the problems of the past from manifesting now.

      So, yes I fucking care.

      BTW, I was ranting, but I'm not mad at the parent or anyone in particular.

      --
      ---FourChannel---
    2. Re:Schools with no money. by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Some would say that this has already happened.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    3. Re:Schools with no money. by SkyDude · · Score: 1

      Such things are typically welcomed by people who want to cut taxes and "Run Schools Like a Business". After all, as long as taxes are lowered who cares?

      I, for one, care. I don't know of anyone who takes the approach you do speak of here, especially if they have kids in the schools, but schools often waste a lot of money due to lack of oversight. Things like facilities costs, too many teachers (union members) on staff and overpaid administration. Not every school district is like that, but there are too many that are. It's the kids who lose out when those things are in place.

      Several years ago, a principal in an inner city high school here in Massachusetts requested and received notebook computers for the staff and that included the janitorial staff! What the hell does a janitor do with a notebook? There are often many zealots watching the budgets of local school districts, and many need that kind of oversight. But what kind of business are they trying to run the school like? In some cases that may be a good thing.

      Bottom line is the ads for PCs is an idea, not a reality, and it will not fly if there's no interest. M$ is filed for patent protection, that's all so far.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    4. Re:Schools with no money. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      It already IS, and already HAS.

    5. Re:Schools with no money. by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 1

      Several years ago, a principal in an inner city high school here in Massachusetts requested and received notebook computers for the staff and that included the janitorial staff! What the hell does a janitor do with a notebook?
      If they are Dell notebooks they can use them to heat their homes.
      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    6. Re:Schools with no money. by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Education is the only thing [...] that separates our society from those of the primative past.

      Am I the only one who found this amusing?!

    7. Re:Schools with no money. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      I appreciate your concern. But consider: one of the main reasons that we need to presently be concerned about such exploitation of education is that schools, at present, are a government service. Public schools have a near-monopoly on education. They don't really have all that good of an incentive system which would encourage them to provide students with a good education. By and large, good teachers aren't rewarded for being good teachers; pay scales are, instead, mostly based on seniority.

      Enter competition, school vouchers, charter schools, school choice, and the like. Yes, one will need to treat schools as "profitable" (at least the private ones). That's the "capitalism" solution - using a modicum of greed as a force for good. Now, I appreciate that it's not as simple as "just privatize it!" or anything like that; the matter is, in fact, very hard. But a well-implemented system would encourage these schools, both public and private, to better their pupils' education. If it makes our schools a better place, then it's worth it.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:Schools with no money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the quality of education will drop.


      what is underneath the floor?
    9. Re:Schools with no money. by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      For over forty years.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    10. Re:Schools with no money. by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Why don't these schools just install linux on their old computers? The performance increase will keep the machines in business. Also it will increase safety and gets rid of malware. Also, people will likely use the computer as it was intended (like, no games in school).

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    11. Re:Schools with no money. by fourchannel · · Score: 1

      That would be a typo. The word is supposed to be 'primitive'. But please, don't let a misspelled word steal your focus away from the message itself.

      --
      ---FourChannel---
    12. Re:Schools with no money. by Irvu · · Score: 1

      I care a great deal but I am by no means as optimistic as you. I for one have seen people who once had kids in school or who even have kids in school at present bitch and whine about taxes and assume that schools mus "just be wasting money" so they are thrilled when the budget is reduced. Worse yet I've seen morons get elected to school boards on the promise to "lower taxes by running schools like a business" morons with children mind you. Their solution was to make the grade schoolers pay a fee for each piece of paper they use. If they forgot to show up without the necessary money for paper too fucking bad.

      Telling a fucking seven year old that they can't draw pictures with the other kids because Mommy and Daddy are too poor is just plain wrong for the richest society on the planet.

      In many cases the teachers already having their salaries cut were being forced to also pay for materials like Glue and Scissors because the school no longer was willing to supply them in an effort to cut expenditures at the taxpayers demand.

      So no it isn't waste and it isn't just mystical budgeting. It is people people with kids standing up and taking exactly the road I lay out here time and time again.

      Unfortunately many people are just fucking stupid.

  77. Why Microsoft, why? by Dryanta · · Score: 1

    Remember in the late 90s how all those companies started out providing free internet based on ad viewership? Remember how they all went under, except for NetZero who despite their name, started to charge? Even if there is a way to validate that the ads are being consumed by all applicable targeted marketing metrics, it still is a question of how much is it really worth? Everyone has this huge fear of Microsoft due to them being a behemoth that cannot be stopped. Look at the xbox platform, and how much money it lost for the company. They gained mindshare, but lost dollars on the bottom line p&l. Microsoft is not really as big as the stock price indicates; just because they have all the money now does not mean they will always continue to control the industry. This whole concept of a value behind mindshare and current installed user base will mean nothing when the next clever innovator simply comes up with a better/more economical product. This could be Apple, or a Linux vendor, or anybody really. I am going to bet right now that as soon as this competition is actually stepped-up, Microsoft will topple, and the computing industry will simply hit another watershed.

  78. Illegal? by darkob · · Score: 1

    This should be illegal if it's not already. Messing with personal freedom is something that should not be easily let go even under disguise of IP laws (eg. patents). In a way, this is patently wrong.

    1. Re:Illegal? by praxis · · Score: 1

      While I think this is vile and disgusting, it should not be illegal.

      They front money, they let you use the machine, in exchange they want you to look at the ads that they are selling to recoup their up front costs, they enforce the deal and pull the computer if you don't do as asked.

      Yeah, that really sucks, it's a stupid deal, and a dumb way of enforcing it. We can come up with better than that. But, your freedom is not being messed with. You *choose* to use the subsidized computer where you have to watch ads. You have other choices: you could front the money yourself and have free reign on how to use the machine for example.

      If you lease a car, they restrict what you can do with it, because it's not your car. They own it, they put restrictions on it, you get a cheaper deal (well, not if you plan on owning the car, but CTO for the time period it's usually cheaper). You could spend more, buy the car, and do what you want with it.

      I finance an item, say item X. I let you use it with restriction Y. You like this deal, because item X is ridiculously expensive. You break the deal, I find out. I tell you, deals off. Why should that be illegal?!

    2. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you are a poor student in a poor school. Where is your choice then? This should be illegal because it can indeed be forced on people in certain situations.

    3. Re:Illegal? by darkob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rubbish. Once pricetag is placed on a donation it's not donation any more. In fact, this can easily be seen as a way to steal taxes from the IRS since donations are tax deductable, while items sold for money are generating taxable income. And the fact that Microsoft makes it compulsory for a recepient of the donation to "watch adds" makes it perfectly clear how much this whole deal is worts. "No watching = no computers", so adds = computers. Again, this is patently wrong for many reasons, and in my first writing I pointed out just the first reason. The deal would be legal if Microsoft would reveal in advance "how many adds?", "for how long?", "total time that a person would commit by watching adds", etc. For Microsoft "watching adds" is clearly a business. They should simply reveal what EXACTLY do they expect from the person or persons, and not something that's more like "voluntary slavery". Regards!

    4. Re:Illegal? by praxis · · Score: 1

      You call it a donation, but that's not what it is. It's a subsidy. No entity has the requirement to be altruistic. If one entity chooses to subsidize something and place restrictions, that's their perogative.

      Are you arguing that those with money be forced to provide, without restrictions, their financing to those without? It sounds a bit like the communist credo.

      While, I agree that it's vile and disgusting to provide subsidized machines in exchange for forced ad viewing, I certinaly hope it doesn't become illegal to place resitrictions on things you fund. What I hope for, is that another entity one-ups and provides capable machines at a decent cost to those that could benefit from them, and not place restrictions. In fact, there are entities that do just that. Were I a school, I'd go with one of them first. Incidentilly they also run Linux. Choices are good. When one entity provides something that's not to your liking, go with another (or form another), do not force them to do what you want through laws that restrict their freedom, because that's just as bad as them restricting your freedom.

  79. I think I seen this before... by Genda · · Score: 1

    It'll never be patented... prior art already exists... I believe you can clearly see it in a "Clockwork Orange".

    Well me lit'le droogies, I thinks it's gonna be a wee bit of the in'n'out in yer frontal lobes, an if ya tries ta stop watchin', we're gonna shock yer yarbles till we smell smoke!

    Genda

  80. Do it microsoft ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amount of hatred it would generate would make jihadists peaceful protesters by comparison.

  81. A New Low..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    I think MicroShaft has developed a new form of advertising: Strong-Arm Advertising.

    Now they will be able to punish you for not looking at their ads. I smell a rat, and it's heading toward the next EULA revision. If they sneak this into their EULA, they will be able to reposses your computer or OS because you either didn't look at their ads or installed anti-ad software.

    Jesus, advertising is starting to spiral wayyy out of control, to the point where companies are now using blatant intimidation tactics and threats to force you to look at their advertisements. I'm not one for more laws, but this is a hole that needs some patching.....fast!

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  82. There is prior art by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    The USTPO might wish to check this for prior art.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  83. This is a joke right ? by Joebert · · Score: 1

    The application describes how face-recognition webcams and CAPTCHAs can be used in schools to ensure that computer users are paying attention to ads

    Surely this is a joke.

    Do you know how many times I was sent to the principals office for not paying attention to my schoolwork, or how many report cards I got with low grades explained by "Joseph needs to learn to ignore distractions" ?
    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  84. Buisness as usual, but more blatently. by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

    Microsoft owes perhaps all of its success to indoctrination (Windows pre-installed in every PC sold), and this is just more of the same, but blatently. We seem to be approaching an age where more OS's will work on more computers (think Mac/Intel), and MS is just preparing for that: a less-profitable but just-as-effective means of getting first dibs on human computer-using habits, as a first-time user and a free OS becomes a paying customer when he's "trained" and its update time. Same method, just added sleaze.

    This is nothing new though. There are many companies notorious for the "get 'em young' approach through in-school endoctrination - Colgate is a better-known example, with their free but branded "dental hygene information kits" that gave just as much space to the benefits of their own product (over all others) as they did actual advice on tooth care.

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
    1. Re:Buisness as usual, but more blatently. by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Um. I began by commenting on the endoctrination angle of the "adware patent", but got distracted by the OS itself. I meant to say that Microsoft are whizzes at endoctrination, and most likely have many experts well-versed in human behaviour and human conditioning. MS until used their expertise to their own benefit (their own OS), but since their product my become not as successful, now they're selling their expertise to sell those of others.

      In other words, indoctrination is MS's first and formost trade.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
  85. Learning Machine by alexhs · · Score: 1

    /me thinking of the "Learning Machine" in "The Under-Gifted"...

    Get a lollipop for a row of good answers, one slap for a wrong answer (and you better not give multiple wrong answers in a row...)

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  86. mfh bought his slashdot id on ebay by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118075&cid=998 0688 not to be confused with someone who actually has been around here longer than you.

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
  87. Schools are weak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In my experience, school can NOT decide wich computer to use.

    my story:
    I'm just a student in my high school, i wanted to use a linux terminal-server project on our "old" lab (mostly p3, one or 2 p4).
    they agreed to make me do all the software setup, but... in a new computer-room...
    i warned them that i could do it on the old lab, and they could buy new computers for an other lab, and proposed to help choosing the server&terminals...
    at the end the terminals were 20 amd sempron 3400+, 1gb ram, geforce 7300, 160gb hd, 19"lcd...
    the server was a p4 3.0ghz, 1 gb ram, video integrated, hardware raid (wich i can't use because there are no drivers...sigh...)...

    "we have to make a councourse to see who has the best offer when we have to spend more than 1000 euros... only one manufacturer responded, and those where the cheapest... so we had to take a cheap server..."

    hell, immagine 20 openoffice-writer or eclipse working at the same time... o... it's useless to say that those pc came with windows xp installed ("o... but they give us also windows! and office!and it's cheaper for schools!"... sigh...)

    if this goes on, it WILL be used in schools as they upgrade computers... at least in italy... sigh...
    and think of it... are the ones who choose computers smart enough not to accept the only offer? and are the vendors dumb enough to say what "features" the computer they buy will have?

    1. Re:Schools are weak. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Interesting...and I could see the "cheapest" argument cropping up in Germany too.
      The funny part would start when some students refuse to waste their time watching ads and sue against the resulting expulsion/removing of "computer privileges".

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  88. Bad by Monoliath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this is a very bad idea.

    1. You're dealing with forcing individuals in their formative years, to look at advertisements which have been pyshologically designed to influence spending / desire.

    2. I'm sure the least amount of effort will be put into controlling the content and reviewing the moral implications of such a system if the patent is granted.

    3. Microsoft is displaying it's bottom line here, which obviously is not about helping out schools who need the help and promoting education, but the fact that money is far more important than education will ever be. The meaning behind charity is to give with out the intention of return...remember that concept?

    The fact that they would consider taking the computers back if students don't look at the ads is downright grotesque to me.

    The institution of the corporation is getting away with far too much at this point. I hope this idea is squashed before it even begins, and if it is granted...that no schools are even lacking enough in moral fiber to accept such a ridiculous deal from such a greedy company as Microsoft. I wish them nothing but the worst of luck and bankruptcy in this endevour.

  89. ads in schools by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    Well, you should ask some law to be established which would prevent any kind of commercial ads being displayed in schools, and prevent any kind of donations which would depend on showing/displaying ads. Laws should be created that say that donations given to schools or charity [etc] could not be given with such requirements [i.e. one could post the name of donating entity on a website and such, but forcing students to watch ads shouldn't be allowed].
     

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  90. Clockwork Orange owns prior art by Zdzicho00 · · Score: 1

    I don't think that this patent is valid.
    Obviously the prior art goes to Anthony Burgess the author of 1962 SF novel "Clockwork Orange":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange

    Here are images from Stanley Kubrick movie based on that novel:
    http://www.atthemovies.co.uk/big/clockwork99rrlc1. jpg
    http://moviescreens.tripod.com/clockwork/clock12.j pg
    http://moviescreens.tripod.com/clockwork/clock13.j pg

    /Z
  91. You tell them! by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    What's next? "MSFT submits patent for punching babies, snapping bra straps of young mothers?!"?

    Why, Microsoft is only seeking to patent a method for easily determining which babies' faces look the most fragile and which mothers have easily gripped bra straps! The actual phrases "punching the baby" and "snapping the bra strap" only appear once in the patent! How Slashdot could be so quick to snap to judgement against a patent which only briefly suggests baby punching, I just don't understand.

    1. Re:You tell them! by Americano · · Score: 1

      The key point here is not that the terms "only appear once in the patent," it is that they "DO NOT appear in the context or sense that the article summary & headline suggest." Hence "yellow journalism."

      Go actually read through the patent application, and understand what it's talking about. Then come back and try to defend Slashdot's principled editorial practices & groupthink.

  92. vs. Google... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Holy crap, did M$ actually make a pledge to do only evil?

  93. Don't get it. by GiMP · · Score: 1

    Imagining that a company was to try giving free hardware in exchange for viewing ads:

    A) What would prevent the company/individual from installing their own Operating System? Right now, the most "unfriendly" x86 platform are the Intel Macs, and they're not *that* hard to install another OS on. Would they create a proprietary efi replacement, or worse -- include the bootloader in ROM? Even still, m86k and early PPC-based Macs used to have in-rom bootloaders and they were hacked around.

    B) What possible business model would make it possible to provide ad-based computers, when ad-based internet service providers failed? Of course, those ISPs had users circumventing the ads in various ways, sharing the internet amongst other computers; these problems would've decreased the value to advertisers (who wouldn't want to pay for ads that weren't even being seen). However, I'm still not convinced that anyone would take such a risky business model, when much "safer" business models of the same ilk have failed.

  94. they are shooting themselves in the foot! by purpleraison · · Score: 0

    All I can say is wow. I understand they are trying to leverage themselves within the school system by providing free computers, but the concept that they would patent a system of advertising and reposession is something that would most certainly come back to haunt them if they ever used it. Just imagine the commercial: MS Guy: "hi we are here to reposses the computers from your school" Apple Guy: "hi there, we have a bunch of free computers for your school. We think you will like them ;)"

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  95. same as with seti? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i remember that more than once a professor/tecnician was sued for having installed the seti client (or was an aids project?) because it wasted system resources and it caused slowdown to the computer...

    do you think this concept could be applied also here?

  96. Not that this matters : OT by mfh · · Score: 1
    You are absolutely right to remind someone of this transaction, because I never tried to hide that transaction, but you are wrong on the detail about me not being around here since the 600k UID range.

    From the link that you submitted:

    I've always been a huge fan of Slasdot, and I started coming here when UIDs were about in the 4 digit range


    Please read stuff before you link it, or if you would care to challenge the fact that I was around back when Slashdot was in the 4 digit time, issue the challenge correctly and I will answer your challenge with an adequate response.
    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Not that this matters : OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right to remind someone of this transaction, because I never tried to hide that transaction


      Why would you want to spend money on a low UID?

      Just because you have a low UID does NOT make you more intresting or insightful.

      Buying a low UID is the equivalent of owning a Hummer, simply a penis size announcement.
    2. Re:Not that this matters : OT by mfh · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to spend money on a low UID?

      Because it was my birthday and I wanted to own a piece of Slashdot history. It was a beta account.

      Just because you have a low UID does NOT make you more intresting or insightful.

      You are absolutely right! Being interesting and insightful is a side effect of my glowing personality and the fact that I get to read interesting and insightful articles posted by Slashdotters, makes it that much easier to impress people.

      The 2 digit UID is a novelty that I wanted, and if you don't like that, then maybe you should GET a UID instead of posting as Anonymous Coward?

      Buying a low UID is the equivalent of owning a Hummer, simply a penis size announcement.

      No. If I owned a Hummer, I would not be posting to Slashdot because I would be busy getting ready to fire some, promote someone, or launch a new marketing campaign. I'm just a normal guy who wanted something cool for his birthday. If you don't like it, and you want to join the ranks of those who hate me for wanting a piece of history -- then you are not interesting or insightful BY DESIGN.
      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  97. There is a valid usage by msobkow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Consider determining whether students are paying attention to the course material, or the chat window they popped up...

    After all, I've yet to see a school-provided "secure" computer that wasn't cracked by one or more students within a month. The crackers are always able to get through any reasonable security measures, including innocuous password cracker disks, booting from another image to install banned software, etc.

    The only "secure" systems I've actually seen forced a weekly image down the throat of every desktop to ensure that they remained identical. No unauthorized software showed up on those machines for more than a few days, then all it's registry entries and links were gone over the weekend.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  98. PRIOR ART EXISTS by msobkow · · Score: 1

    In 1985-1986, the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon was researching the use of "attention" cameras for education software and as a disability aid. In the former arena it was used to determine which parts of the display a user was paying attention to, and thereby what topics were of interest. In the latter area it was being used in conjunction with "single mouse button" interfaces like a blow-tube to determine what a disabled individual wanted to do.

    Patent denied. In fact, if any patents were applied for back then, they'd be approaching expiry.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  99. Bzzzzt! Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is supposed to be making money any way possible

    That's certainly how Microsoft is currently operated.

    But it's supposed to be making money any legal way possible. A rather important difference.

  100. Illegal in europe by DrYak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This exact practice - i.e.: forcing ads on students - is illegal inpublic education in several european countries.
    In France, public schools aren't allowed to give material "sponsorized by [whatever]" to students.
    It hasn't been enforced very well up until now, but MS-Computers that force kids to watch adds is sure to stir up enough noise in the media to attract attention.

    One more of those Microsoft's stupid moves that encourage people to pursue the migration to OSS that is already very active in EU.

    (insert revelent StarWars quote here...)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  101. let's hope microsoft blinks first by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    if microsoft jumps the gun and starts reposessing computers from schools early, you KNOW this will be big news and will scare off other schools from using this kind of program to fill their classrooms with windows bloatware.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  102. Does it include the tax deduction? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Fantastic, donate computers to schools,
    take a tax deduction,
    make money from adverts,
    make more dogma child-bots,
    elect George Bush II (or Jana) for president in 2025.
    gODD bLess the ewe ESS (big mesh mess),
    corporatism and corporate welfare at its best working
    for profit before democracy or capitalism. Anyway FTA

    This is all hysterically funny in a very dark/sick-humor
    sort of way it only cost US about a few thousand Warriors
    as of today, maybe more of our children tomorrow.

    Plutocrats for corporatism-welfare have nothing to do with
    Democracy, Capitalism, Civil Rights a/o Religious Freedom,
    but plutocrats' minions in news, politics, religion ...
    the public will spin reasonable a/o believable lies (out
    of truth) for the pseudo-savant talking-heads in media,
    government, religion, public, and military. We USA Citizens
    owe our souls to the company store and for the last 50 years
    or more we continue to ask for more loss of life, liberty,
    happiness, hope, dreams, security ....

    I mean you get a BJ in the "O", you get impeached for lying
    to congress about performing private and personal sex acts.
    That was hysterically funny in a very dark/sick-humor
    sort of way and shouted the truth about US in America.

    Now we have a GB in the "O", that won't get impeached for lying
    to congress about everything that got us into a personally
    rewarding war for his family, friends, and nepotism cronies that
    cost US the life and limbs of Moms, Dads, Brothers, and Sisters.

    Hysterically funny in a very dark/sick-humor sort of way.
    Summary: A BJ in the "O" is more a criminal act then war
    profiteering and causing the deaths of thousands of USA
    Warriors, global, regional, and USA security destabilization,
    economic and energy run-away inflation (Between Iraq start and
    now, the USA $ is less-than half-value to the Euro $), USA
    Education of our children is adequate for crop-picking,
    burger-flipping, drug-dealing and easily exploited public.

    Hysterically funny in a very dark/sick-humor sort of way.
    The lassie-fare reign of royalty that starts with let them watch TV (Paris).
    The Pax-Romana reign of might that made very human entertainment right (Rome).

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  103. LOL future tense. by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    "we will eventually get degredation over time, and the quality of education will drop"

    As someone who spent a year (viz. 1997) teaching community college kids what constitutes a complete sentence, this line made my day.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  104. Typo in uspto by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    "several response are possible"

      Talk. Like. Cave. Man.

  105. Prior art? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    Didn't Opera have something like this?

  106. Fuck off MS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a bunch of greedy bastards. Trying to force students to watch advertisement is a new all time low.

  107. It's Happened by mqduck · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has crossed the line from ordinary villainy to cartoonish supervillainy.

    --
    Property is theft.
  108. LMAOnade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has got to be the gayest thing I've ever heard. Way to go Mickeysoft!

  109. Bottom Line of the Patent - Direct Quote by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    "The value to an advertiser is not, however, in delivering the advertisement to the computer. The value is realized when a human viewer consumes the advertisement and the particular message of the advertisement is conveyed to a user. The consumption of an advertisement by a human user is even more important when one option for paying for the subsidized computer is through the delivery of paid advertising. Attestation of delivery may be challenging. Simply presenting the advertisement offers little or no assurance that the ad was consumed by a human. Even verifying the presence of a user, e.g. by use of a camera, may provide assurance that someone is there, but not necessarily that he or she is paying attention to the advertisement."

    In other words, we are patenting methods to FORCE EVERY CONSUMER of an ad-sponsored PC to VIEW EACH AND EVERY AD on that PC WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT!

    Like I said, Microsoft is an EXTORTION RACKET masquerading as a computer software company.

    How ANYBODY can justify dealing with this company in any way any more is beyond me. This company makes Enron look like Greenpeace and Consumer Reports combined.

    OTOH, anybody who gets a PC under such terms probably deserves to be forced to watch the ads...Morons...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Bottom Line of the Patent - Direct Quote by rchoetzlein · · Score: 1

      Except that the people who get the computers: school superintendents, principals - don't have to look at the ads.. The kids do.

  110. WHY? by Checkmait · · Score: 1

    What's (scarily) ridiculous is the patent Microsoft wants for this. Since facial recognition is already out there and advertising has been out for much, much longer than Microsoft, this really isn't anything particularly new or exciting.....

    A few questions for Microsoft: How do you plan on displaying large enough ads while the computer is still usable (e.g. there is enough screen space)? How are schoolchildren supposed to do work when their computers will only function properly if the stare at ads? How can you account for the fact that kids will realize that they can point their faces at the ads and focus their eyes on what they care about? And finally, WHY?

    Oops, sorry about the last question. I forgot Microsoft only cares about what the kids buy or make their parents buy...

    --
    "All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." -- Mark Twain
  111. Re: Starting up by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    You make a grown man cry.

  112. 1 cent for 1 ad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, Microsoft have taken someone elses idea and put their name to it.

    This reminds me of Moola.com. Basically, you playing with virtual money on online games against other people and when you run out of virtual money, you WATCH AN ADVERTISEMENT, and then at the end of the Ad, they asked a question about the ad, and if you answer correctly, then you get your starting money back to play.

    The only thing Microsoft have expanded on is bring this to the children in schools, and to make education their personal and forceful marketing ground.

  113. For Fucks Sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Don't give them ideas man!

  114. Simple Solution by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Or, you could just vote Yes for the next school funding tax on the ballot.

    The reason schools have to look to 'creative' funding sources for their programs is because they don't have enough money.

  115. Thompson's Teeth!!! by aybiss · · Score: 0

    The only teeth that can eat other teeth. ;-)

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  116. Children's Response by rchoetzlein · · Score: 1

    Children's Responses:

    Camera detection:
    1) Stick gum on camera
    2) Disconnect camera
    3) Steal camera
    4) Camera can't see me when i'm wearing super-spy eyes!

    Most common responses to "ad understanding".
    System: What was the last ad you saw?
    Children:
    1) Your mom
    2) A horse pulling twelve lepricans over a rainbow
    3) What is an ad?
    4) ..Take me to your leader..

    Most common kid responses to whole system.
    1) What are we learning in this class?
    2) I wish that bully would stop punching me after school
    3) I wish his girlfriend would stop punching me too
    4) I love Coca-Cola. Oh, and McDonalds. Oh, oh, oh, and Wells Smith & Fargo Financial.

    Beee. booo. beee. booo. Addveertissing.. I loovvee too lern @t sckool.

    Rest assured if there is every a time that such a system is ever implemented in practice, our civilization will be so near to revolution it won't matter.

  117. Morality Cameras by rchoetzlein · · Score: 1

    I think I'm going to file a patent for "morality cameras" for large software company executives with stupid ideas. The idea is: Every time a Microsoft exec or brainhead uses their computer, a morality camera checks to see if they are doing something morally absurd. This is done by asking certain questions:
    1) Do you know what a human being is?
    2) Do you know what children are?
    3) What is the difference between a living cat, and a cat you killed with your bare hands?

    If they don't answer correctly, the system seizes control of itself and self-destructs out of desperation.

  118. Re:cum, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woooooooo....

    Moron... Based on the PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR and HISTORY of tis corporation it is REASONABLY SAFE to assume that there most likely BE A YET IN THE FUTURE.

    So, even if some of us here may "know nothing about this particular patent" we can do a little mental exercise and correlate the past practices in this particular area of this particular corporation and say that we believe it will be a YET. Not 100% sure but a very distinct possibility...

    Like all those right-wing morons that demonize everyone who opposed the war in 2003... Well, guess what! There were no WMD, no connections to All Kaida or shit even if we "knew nothing about it"...

    Roll and stick your degree in your ass. You either troll here on the forums or don't know shit about analytical reasoning. We don't need two-million-per-cent sure facts to fucking extrapolate what a greedy corporation will do with that patent. We've seen it before and, based on this recurrent practice it, most likely happen again.

    If you want to play "ignorant self-serving moron" and "wait for the facts", please be my guest. The rest of us use our humble limited cognitive abilities, which, by no stretch are a match for your "degree in CS and in mathematics" to predict (maybe by reading palms or coffee foam :P) that most likely this company WILL indeed try to force this new&retarded patent on everybody's throat. Hence the fucking "yet"...

    And, anyways, shouldn't you be making "factually accurate and objective statement" on Iran or something and wait for the accurate results? Why settle for some pissy patents flamewar with slashdot geeks when you can wave the flag for far more serious and important things...

  119. Sounds kinda familiar by caol.kailash · · Score: 1

    This sounds like the book "Jennifer Government" to me, almost. In it, everyone takes the last name of the company you work for. Slightly different but they're really in a very similar vein.

    --Brian Gap, Inc.

  120. A precedent for this is Channel One by Burz · · Score: 1

    ...an 'educational' TV station for gradeschools which pumps out ads to a captive audience.

  121. Maybe i wasn't very clear ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasnt saying the advertising in question here was subliminal ... what i meant was ...

    WE're exposed to so much advertising that you get to the point that you dont pay attention to ANY of it.
        Thus all its doing is eating up real estate and ruining whatever im trying to 'experience'.
    SO then all that advertising that i dont pay attention to anyway BECOMES subliminal.
        I'de much rather not HAVE to "see" it consiously.
    Flash it past in the background and i'll drool and go buy more Mt'Dew.
        If you force me to prove i saw a cold 24oz bottle of Mt'Dew im the kind of person to go buy Mello Yellow out of SPITE!!!

    honestly i just wanted to state my opinion on all the advertising GARBAGE! Companies get all in an uproar when they hear we fast foreward / skip through comercials. But we still SEE them (sometimes i even stop to watch one). Why not just hide the advertising throughout / behind the program / content so i CANT skip it and really dont even notice its there other than my strong craving for Doritios ;-)

    ( not that i'de actually condone / agree with subliminal advertising either lol ) Signs, Signs, everywhere a sign ...

  122. What a great idea! by Mark+Programmer · · Score: 1

    That's a really clever design they've come up with. I can see why they'd want to patent it. No idea if anyone will ever make use of the technology---I wouldn't. But I can see the appeal of patenting something that novel.

    --

    Take care,
    Mark

    There is a solution...