This is to say that the strategy doesn't work, which I find likely. If the strategy *does* work and the behavior is deemed ok in terms of anti-trust behavior, who's to stop Google from fighting fire with fire? Who do you think would win that match in search share? Are we safe to assume Google wouldn't exercise its monopoly in this kind of money transfer?
GIMP user who's groomed two people into happy GIMP users. It's a great program for doing some mild image creation and editing. Many jobs need a bit of that, and GIMP isn't an expensive monster that you can always use as long as you have rights to install a program on a system. I realize it's a big program, but I think this is a boneheaded move. If they're dropping GIMP, they might as well drop Open Office and change the name to Chrome OS.
IANAL, but do you know who's good at documenting things as they pertain to the law? In fact, I bet if you went to management with a recommendation from an attorney, they might be more inclined to listen... Likely no need for the BSA at all.
How much money would you put on the system actually being out in November 2010? What ratio of "revolutionary" games come out on schedule? I can't name any myself. Never mind Microsoft's stellar ability to put out full feature products on time...
If by convention you mean always using CVS and having some flashback to the 90's, then yes, Eclipse has a wonderful convention. Setting up svn on Eclipse can be a royal pain in the ass, and don't even dare delve into fancy Maven plugins. Ant builds will always be the one true way. Throw in IBM's nightmarish fleecing of java swing for swt, and little conspiracies will start to flare up in your head. There are some very powerful plugins on Eclipse that Netbeans won't match like BIRT, but there is a painful path to serious development on Eclipse. Netbeans pretty much gets you up and operating in no time. The plugin architecture for Netbeans is straightforward and crossplatform. IMHO, the bottom line is Netbeans is vastly better when it comes to convention, while Eclipse provides better customization after you blindly jump off several cliffs.
Unless the officer doesn't obey orders well, they'll be pulling nervous people of all nationalities. If they're racially profiling, this system won't help them. They'll be pulling the people who will most likely make a scene after being pulled, because they're freaking out. Like most previous posters have pointed out, finding nervous people likely does not even have a correlation to being a terrorist (assuming terrorists wouldn't train against this, which could give it a negative correlation). Basically, we just spent a bunch of money to get worse results and create more chaos.
I don't see how the EU dragging its feet one way or the other is helping anybody but Sun's competitors. I suppose the theory is "competition" will be promoted by poisoning a weak competitor. There's no "yes/no/x stipulations", there's just feet dragging.
While I'm not saying there isn't an issue with sexism in software development in general... I wonder if the difference between employer paid development and independent development is what we are seeing here. It's likely employed developers are much less likely to contribute to open source. It may be that employers have incentive to hire women over equally qualified men in the name of diversity. This would only exasperate the general lack of women in the industry. Google seems to be saying universities have a 9:1 ratio of men to women in computer science. If proprietary software development is able to achieve a 4:1 ratio, wouldn't this mean that they actually have an abnormally large number of women developing for them compared to what the education system is producing?
Combining an algorithm with another algorithm is still an algorithm no matter what way you put it. There is no magical *poof* no longer an algorithm. The "system" of software you speak of is an algorithm. To suggest that say, ERP systems that handle seatbelt manufacturing, should be encumbered by land mines is absurd. A client wants something done. You figure out a way to do it, either novel, old, or covered by a land mine, and custom implement it for them. Why should I worry about some 200,000 patents when all I want to do is change some business logic that becomes obvious through trial and error in a shop? People get better at things the more they do them and make improvements naturally. A company or person does not deserve to hoard their special way of putting ketchup on before the mayonnaise. Just because someone didn't know to do it that way because they never made a sandwich before doesn't mean that following the natural progression of business evolution should be blocked by patents. On the other side of the spectrum there are software patents on clearly algorithmic things which are very novel such as awesome data compression. The fact of the matter is there is factually no device other than a computer, a physical implementation of a turing machine, doing the work. If someone wanted to make a different real world implementation of a turing machine, they could be free to do so. But math is math, business logic is business logic, and law is law. The bottom line is, just because you can make permutations of these things, doesn't mean they cease being ideas that should never be patentable in any rational society that wishes to promote competition and advances in efficiency.
I can't wait for the next Google crapware bundle to come out. If they're not open sourcing them, I fail to see why they would allow this kind of thing without giving specific exceptions.
Of course if you pay Z to settle, you increase the factor that other trolls will come after you. Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard, seems to have directed his company to take the approach of fighting everything in court tooth and nail. Even things you would not expect, like passed down arbitration on old Sierra IP's... How does one fight arbitration? I have no clue, but the attorneys found something to fight. My prediction would be these trolls are stepping over the line and will get clubbed. I suppose there is some slim chance they could win.
Much of mathematics and law both have serious amounts of R&D devoted to them. Why shouldn't legal defenses be patentable? or literature... Why shouldn't we patent novel plot devices? Yes, plenty of software has incredible amounts of R&D behind it. Software patents seem to mean that all permutations of all heuristic algorithms and non perfect algorithms that are "new" are patentable. Heck, if you made a large enough mathematical discovery, you could patent a patent discovery "machine" that makes novel patentable software. I'm not saying those who put large amounts of time into R&D shouldn't be rewarded, but the market will reward these things without government interference in the name of patents... If patents are really out there to encourage individual inventors from larger entities with large production capacities (not a limitation in software), why are we letting companies own patents at all? Shouldn't the human inventor be the one holding the patent? Is it ever beneficial to let an exclusive deal involving patents be enforceable?
There's plenty of monetary incentive for math to come forth and reverse things. For all we know, P = NP and public key encryption is broken as a pure concept. But we don't, and no one is able to step up and take tons of money to prove one way or the other.
I'm a big fan of GIMP. I just set up the GIMP on OS X... It's a mess and since X11 treats the separate windows like separate programs so you have to set up options for X11 to enable click-through (then again X11 is already pretty much violating everything under the sun in terms of how OS X user interface works). I'm surprised it doesn't mention on the front page in big letters to enable this setting. If the GIMP was already inaccessible to those new to it given all the right clicking (a mac favorite), the automatic behavior of click to focus, click to draw, click to focus, click to change to gradient tool, click to focus on layer window, click to add a layer, get a window slightly off the screen, move it, click "ok", click to focus on the drawing pane window, click to draw a gradient... If you aren't knowledgeable enough to realize that this extra clicking isn't normal behavior, then figure out to fix it, the GIMP looks like a flaming piece of junk on OS X. If you have used the GIMP significantly, it still makes for an obnoxious hurdle.
Has Blizzard ever really been innovative like you speak? I find that when you think about it what they pull off best is depth, quality, detail, fun, and consistency in these matters. The engines they use aren't anything cutting edge. They don't really put anything out that hasn't been done somewhere before. They just take all the pieces and put them together in perfect execution.
looking at some of the OSS programs on my Mac (disclaimer - many are very cross platform)... Adium (best chat program... ever), Growl, Smultron, Cyberduck, VLC, Firefox, OpenOffice, Eclipse, SquirrelSQL, SynergyKM, a crappy port of the Gimp (ok the GIMP kind of sucks on os x)... Built in support for all kinds of *NIX goodness like DTRace... The built in applications are nice. I'm looking forward to ditching the crap that is Microsoft entourage for the Snow Leopard exchange support at work. There are some nice free (beer) applications... caffeine, Jing, OmniDazzle (which has some interesting OSS libraries)...
Sure plenty of people pay for applications on the Mac, but then again - they've got a pretty organized way of getting users to reputable shareware: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/
You should try running Microsoft Office on OS X... I'm sure Microsoft innocently couldn't figure out the native keyboard behavior for text editing, and was forced to make all the programs use Windows style functions (home, end, command left/right). They left tons of features out of entourage compared to outlook, and if you paste images into a word documents, they won't appear when you actually send the documents out. I can't for the life of me figure out why my employer bought me a copy. Microsoft left a giant piece of crap on my lawn. The question is, did they fling it or do they just not care to clean up their mess?
When a field of study is dominated by rolling dice over and over, climatologists aren't that far from financial advisers... I'd say the main difference being the people are the unpredictable equation in finance, while we simply lack the math and science to accurately predict the weather and climate. If we're going to go ahead and predict these horrible carbon emissions are going to cause, we likely could also predict what level of emissions countries like India, China, and Russia will be like in the coming years. I think what you will find is that they will be producing more emissions and that they won't give a damn what the USA has to say about it. Even if this carbon emissions battle is won in the USA, we're looking at a 99.9% Pyrrhic victory.
Slashdot Mirror
When the law says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," I thought that was very unambiguous. It's also higher on the list.
Or if you need to get that DRM'd music ripped from Windows Media Player activated on your mom's computer...
This is to say that the strategy doesn't work, which I find likely. If the strategy *does* work and the behavior is deemed ok in terms of anti-trust behavior, who's to stop Google from fighting fire with fire? Who do you think would win that match in search share? Are we safe to assume Google wouldn't exercise its monopoly in this kind of money transfer?
GIMP user who's groomed two people into happy GIMP users. It's a great program for doing some mild image creation and editing. Many jobs need a bit of that, and GIMP isn't an expensive monster that you can always use as long as you have rights to install a program on a system. I realize it's a big program, but I think this is a boneheaded move. If they're dropping GIMP, they might as well drop Open Office and change the name to Chrome OS.
IANAL, but do you know who's good at documenting things as they pertain to the law? In fact, I bet if you went to management with a recommendation from an attorney, they might be more inclined to listen... Likely no need for the BSA at all.
It's not legal to record conversations even when you're a part of them in some jurisdictions (it varies among the states).
How much money would you put on the system actually being out in November 2010? What ratio of "revolutionary" games come out on schedule? I can't name any myself. Never mind Microsoft's stellar ability to put out full feature products on time...
If by convention you mean always using CVS and having some flashback to the 90's, then yes, Eclipse has a wonderful convention. Setting up svn on Eclipse can be a royal pain in the ass, and don't even dare delve into fancy Maven plugins. Ant builds will always be the one true way. Throw in IBM's nightmarish fleecing of java swing for swt, and little conspiracies will start to flare up in your head. There are some very powerful plugins on Eclipse that Netbeans won't match like BIRT, but there is a painful path to serious development on Eclipse. Netbeans pretty much gets you up and operating in no time. The plugin architecture for Netbeans is straightforward and crossplatform. IMHO, the bottom line is Netbeans is vastly better when it comes to convention, while Eclipse provides better customization after you blindly jump off several cliffs.
Unless the officer doesn't obey orders well, they'll be pulling nervous people of all nationalities. If they're racially profiling, this system won't help them. They'll be pulling the people who will most likely make a scene after being pulled, because they're freaking out. Like most previous posters have pointed out, finding nervous people likely does not even have a correlation to being a terrorist (assuming terrorists wouldn't train against this, which could give it a negative correlation). Basically, we just spent a bunch of money to get worse results and create more chaos.
I don't see how the EU dragging its feet one way or the other is helping anybody but Sun's competitors. I suppose the theory is "competition" will be promoted by poisoning a weak competitor. There's no "yes/no/x stipulations", there's just feet dragging.
While I'm not saying there isn't an issue with sexism in software development in general...
I wonder if the difference between employer paid development and independent development is what we are seeing here. It's likely employed developers are much less likely to contribute to open source. It may be that employers have incentive to hire women over equally qualified men in the name of diversity. This would only exasperate the general lack of women in the industry. Google seems to be saying universities have a 9:1 ratio of men to women in computer science. If proprietary software development is able to achieve a 4:1 ratio, wouldn't this mean that they actually have an abnormally large number of women developing for them compared to what the education system is producing?
On the upside in terms of platform, it is compatible with OpenSocial...
http://developer.yahoo.com/yap/guide/yap-opensocial.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSocial
I admit, that's not much of an incentive to make a Yahoo specific app, but it's certainly good for developers.
Combining an algorithm with another algorithm is still an algorithm no matter what way you put it. There is no magical *poof* no longer an algorithm. The "system" of software you speak of is an algorithm. To suggest that say, ERP systems that handle seatbelt manufacturing, should be encumbered by land mines is absurd. A client wants something done. You figure out a way to do it, either novel, old, or covered by a land mine, and custom implement it for them. Why should I worry about some 200,000 patents when all I want to do is change some business logic that becomes obvious through trial and error in a shop? People get better at things the more they do them and make improvements naturally. A company or person does not deserve to hoard their special way of putting ketchup on before the mayonnaise. Just because someone didn't know to do it that way because they never made a sandwich before doesn't mean that following the natural progression of business evolution should be blocked by patents. On the other side of the spectrum there are software patents on clearly algorithmic things which are very novel such as awesome data compression. The fact of the matter is there is factually no device other than a computer, a physical implementation of a turing machine, doing the work. If someone wanted to make a different real world implementation of a turing machine, they could be free to do so. But math is math, business logic is business logic, and law is law. The bottom line is, just because you can make permutations of these things, doesn't mean they cease being ideas that should never be patentable in any rational society that wishes to promote competition and advances in efficiency.
I can't wait for the next Google crapware bundle to come out. If they're not open sourcing them, I fail to see why they would allow this kind of thing without giving specific exceptions.
It is. It's under the Apache License. Nothing in the Apache License says anything about not working with proprietary software.
Of course if you pay Z to settle, you increase the factor that other trolls will come after you. Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard, seems to have directed his company to take the approach of fighting everything in court tooth and nail. Even things you would not expect, like passed down arbitration on old Sierra IP's... How does one fight arbitration? I have no clue, but the attorneys found something to fight. My prediction would be these trolls are stepping over the line and will get clubbed. I suppose there is some slim chance they could win.
Did you mean, where can you buy some put options?
Much of mathematics and law both have serious amounts of R&D devoted to them. Why shouldn't legal defenses be patentable? or literature... Why shouldn't we patent novel plot devices? Yes, plenty of software has incredible amounts of R&D behind it. Software patents seem to mean that all permutations of all heuristic algorithms and non perfect algorithms that are "new" are patentable. Heck, if you made a large enough mathematical discovery, you could patent a patent discovery "machine" that makes novel patentable software. I'm not saying those who put large amounts of time into R&D shouldn't be rewarded, but the market will reward these things without government interference in the name of patents... If patents are really out there to encourage individual inventors from larger entities with large production capacities (not a limitation in software), why are we letting companies own patents at all? Shouldn't the human inventor be the one holding the patent? Is it ever beneficial to let an exclusive deal involving patents be enforceable?
Why pay attention to the 6th and 8th amendments of the Constitution when there are witches? No one is safe from their power!!!
There's plenty of monetary incentive for math to come forth and reverse things. For all we know, P = NP and public key encryption is broken as a pure concept. But we don't, and no one is able to step up and take tons of money to prove one way or the other.
I'm a big fan of GIMP. I just set up the GIMP on OS X... It's a mess and since X11 treats the separate windows like separate programs so you have to set up options for X11 to enable click-through (then again X11 is already pretty much violating everything under the sun in terms of how OS X user interface works). I'm surprised it doesn't mention on the front page in big letters to enable this setting. If the GIMP was already inaccessible to those new to it given all the right clicking (a mac favorite), the automatic behavior of click to focus, click to draw, click to focus, click to change to gradient tool, click to focus on layer window, click to add a layer, get a window slightly off the screen, move it, click "ok", click to focus on the drawing pane window, click to draw a gradient... If you aren't knowledgeable enough to realize that this extra clicking isn't normal behavior, then figure out to fix it, the GIMP looks like a flaming piece of junk on OS X. If you have used the GIMP significantly, it still makes for an obnoxious hurdle.
Has Blizzard ever really been innovative like you speak? I find that when you think about it what they pull off best is depth, quality, detail, fun, and consistency in these matters. The engines they use aren't anything cutting edge. They don't really put anything out that hasn't been done somewhere before. They just take all the pieces and put them together in perfect execution.
looking at some of the OSS programs on my Mac (disclaimer - many are very cross platform)... Adium (best chat program... ever), Growl, Smultron, Cyberduck, VLC, Firefox, OpenOffice, Eclipse, SquirrelSQL, SynergyKM, a crappy port of the Gimp (ok the GIMP kind of sucks on os x)... Built in support for all kinds of *NIX goodness like DTRace... The built in applications are nice. I'm looking forward to ditching the crap that is Microsoft entourage for the Snow Leopard exchange support at work. There are some nice free (beer) applications... caffeine, Jing, OmniDazzle (which has some interesting OSS libraries)...
Sure plenty of people pay for applications on the Mac, but then again - they've got a pretty organized way of getting users to reputable shareware:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/
You should try running Microsoft Office on OS X... I'm sure Microsoft innocently couldn't figure out the native keyboard behavior for text editing, and was forced to make all the programs use Windows style functions (home, end, command left/right). They left tons of features out of entourage compared to outlook, and if you paste images into a word documents, they won't appear when you actually send the documents out. I can't for the life of me figure out why my employer bought me a copy. Microsoft left a giant piece of crap on my lawn. The question is, did they fling it or do they just not care to clean up their mess?
When a field of study is dominated by rolling dice over and over, climatologists aren't that far from financial advisers... I'd say the main difference being the people are the unpredictable equation in finance, while we simply lack the math and science to accurately predict the weather and climate. If we're going to go ahead and predict these horrible carbon emissions are going to cause, we likely could also predict what level of emissions countries like India, China, and Russia will be like in the coming years. I think what you will find is that they will be producing more emissions and that they won't give a damn what the USA has to say about it. Even if this carbon emissions battle is won in the USA, we're looking at a 99.9% Pyrrhic victory.