I don't get it. You still have producers and consumers. Producers offer their wares at a given price, and if you think it's too much, you wave them good-bye and look for something else. You might not get *the* song you're after, but the same applies to other market segments.
I know that marketing types think the universe revolves about a constant sense of titillation, distraction, and personal inadequacy, but that doesn't necessarily result in anything that's well-designed. It results in something that people end up using or buying, not because it's good, but because they were motivated by whatever of the three aforementioned buttons were pressed.
Reading through these posts, something seemed kind of funny - the money transfer industry is making a huge effort to create ways that make parting you from your hard-earned money as effortless as possible. Think about it.
When I was a kid, it was common practice for my dad to hand me his credit card and tell me to go get what I needed. It was very convenient, and only once or twice was I ever questioned about the card, or its use. Thanks to the proliferation of all manner of personal information, and the ensuing identity theft crisis, I guess this isn't as much of an option.
Who says movie tickets should be based on cost? Movie tickets should be no different than any other element in a free market - and that is, "what the market will bear." I think it's perfectly OK for people to point out that the current cost of a movie ticket is a major impetus behind seeking alternatives, but ultimately, the best thing one can do is take their money and WALK, leaving both the tickets, AND the movies behind. Let the MPAA sort it out.
It's getting to be less about money, and more about the culture at Microsoft. More money can help compensate for a miserable culture, but even then there's a breaking point. Microsoft isn't the only game in town any more - whether they like it or not, they're sharing the stage with Linux, and even though Linux has a proportionately small share, Linux share is poised to grow. Since Microsoft already has most of the market, there's really one of two directions available....straight ahead (little or no growth), or down.
I'm sure it will allow them to verify the authenticity of your copy of the software much more frequently as well.
I went to MS web site to download Direct X 9.0 for a game demo I had installed. I was quite pissed that it needed to verify my copy of XP before allowing me to download it. If Bill could see through my monitor, he would have seen me flipping him the bird. Luckily I found a previously downloaded copy buried in a directory.
As far as I'm concerned, the only verification Microsoft needs is my cash at cash register.
One of the points is that, children that are abused by their parents, will be able to get better help because police, government, school, all will be able to communicate to improve a child's situation.
No, that's the proposal. There is no indication that this will actually make things better. it's all conjecture at this point. Further, there no backout plan, either, if it doesn't work as proposed. Therein lies the problem- more likely than not, if a new system doesn't produce the results everyone was led to believe they would, they don't get rid of it, they just find other ways to use it. They'll find other ways to use it no matter what happens- whether or not the new system ever met the intended objective becomes largely irrelevant.
And I'd only argue that responsibility comes with accountability- at least as far as government is concerned. If you aren't accountable, there's no reason to be responsible. Now, try making someone in government accountable for something, and see how far you get.
Why would it require ten organizations knowing about each other in order to save these kids? All any ONE of them needs to know is what's HAPPENING. That's it. The push here is to try and solve problems related to competence, with more problems brought on by the abuse of technology. It's the same dynamic driving the expansion of the US surveilance state, with the new "information fusion centers," and access to the financial transactions of all Americans.
There were some very real and identifiable flaws in the way that pre-9/11 government agencies conducted themselves. Newly-acquired abilities to spy on every citizen won't change that - it only means that the people in our government have MORE information they can abuse with the same degree of incompetence.
but it's undeniable that they have created a host of useful drugs since the Bayh-Dole Act passed.
This implies that none of these drugs would have been developed without the act. Pharma wasn't exactly hurting before the act, and it's defintely not hurting now. Who wins? The American consumer doesn't, as they are subject to inflated drug prices.
I'm not sure I agree...Blender is a hardcore tool that was meant for people that KNOW 3D. Knowing how to click buttons and move sliders doesn't qualify. There's plenty of that in Blender, but if you don't know how to apply it correctly, you'll have a difficult time. Blender is the set of paints, the paint brushes, and the palette knives. If you are skilled, you can make wonderful things happen. Poser et al are like coloring books. They tell you what to draw, and compartively speaking, your're relatively limited in how you can render your final image.
Microsoft has occupied a peculiar middle ground. You can always bet for example that MS Office will dump whatever look and feel was used previously and then there will be a few years where every app tries to emulate the new look before the cycle repeats
I have to wonder how much of this is due to marketing - I mean, can you really justify (to yourself) spending money on upgrading something that most likely works ok as is, if it doesn't look like a completely new product?
Bummer. It even says it right here: IIR said this morning that, after about 15 months of "correspondence and negotiations" with Google in an effort to have the "superiority" of its claim over the trade mark to G-Mail recognised. Guess I missed it.
Google, the internet search engine, is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service.
Is it just me, or is there something particularly novel and innovative about a browser-based e-mail service? Or, is there something particularly stupid about a company laying claims to this idea as its "intellectual property?" None of the concepts are particularly new.
But entrusting someone with nuclear capability who is allegedly 'leading' a superpower nation, necessitates a true leader with great wisdom and foresight. Somehow I don't see a former alcoholic who can barely give a speech without sounding like he just had one too many as someone who qualifies. First, there was the intelligence debacle that allowed 9/11 slip through the cracks, the perpetrator was allowed to escape and was never captured, an attack on the country of origin proved very costly and without the intended result, and to top it off, there is a continuation of the so-called 'war on terror' marked by a 'pre-emptive strike' on a nation for something that turned out to be a complete falsehood. This is not the kind of record I'd use to justify the use of nuclear weapons.
The problem is that once they are used, there is no going back...it may trigger all manner of unintended consequences and be be just the beginning of a hell we never imagined possible.
I think there is only one motivation behind this, and it has NOTHING to do with meeting customer needs. More likely, it's a strategy to maximize revenue by stripping down the OS to its bare minimum so that even seemingly minor additional functionality will require an upgrade - kind of like that trick Microsoft pulled with domain logons. An "upgrade" to XP Home was actually "downgrade" in terms of networking options. In order to regain the ability to log on to a domain, you had to shell out some serious cash for an upgrade to XP Pro. LAME.
I keep what's in my pockets from contributing anything to what's in their pockets. I have yet to purchase a single item from Amazon. I don't care about the alleged convenience, because I can usually find what I need for for about the same price or less somewhere else anyway.
This just one of a growing number of complaints against the FEMA. It's so bad that some are calling for its director, Micheal Brown, to be fired. Apparently, he's had problems in prior positions as well, as described HERE
Also, to address your point, I'm guessing that people will be filing their claims OUTSIDE of those areas.
Doesn't it strikes to anyone that this movement essentially declares to do the same to innovation and market, what original patent system claimed (and actually did, too) to do.
Yes, but the problem is that human nature being what it is, turned the patent system into a three-ringed circus. The process has had, or will have, the exact opposite effect than was intended. It's very encouraging to see companies that understand this, and who are making attempts to correct a very lame, and very broken system.
Alan Yates, Microsoft's general manager of Information Worker business strategy, criticised the Massachusetts proposal, saying it was "confusing".
If a statement, "we don't want to use something that locks us in and presents possible legal problems," is confusing, I'd say Microsoft has reached a state of clueless nirvana.
I've got a couple hundred patents to protect my IP
More likely, you're a company that has done little more than lay claim to various methods of software implementation. Unless it's something fairly unique and truly innovative, calling it "IP" is a little presumptuous. From what I've seen, most of what's patented doesn't qualify.
I haven't seen how the proposed license is worded, and until it is actually released, we can all speculate on what it MIGHT say. I'd like to think that Stallman is intelligent enough to make allowances for those who support Linux and and free software. It would be sheer foolishness to do otherwise,
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it. You still have producers and consumers. Producers offer their wares at a given price, and if you think it's too much, you wave them good-bye and look for something else. You might not get *the* song you're after, but the same applies to other market segments.
How about backing them up with some examples?
I know that marketing types think the universe revolves about a constant sense of titillation, distraction, and personal inadequacy, but that doesn't necessarily result in anything that's well-designed. It results in something that people end up using or buying, not because it's good, but because they were motivated by whatever of the three aforementioned buttons were pressed.
Reading through these posts, something seemed kind of funny - the money transfer industry is making a huge effort to create ways that make parting you from your hard-earned money as effortless as possible. Think about it.
When I was a kid, it was common practice for my dad to hand me his credit card and tell me to go get what I needed. It was very convenient, and only once or twice was I ever questioned about the card, or its use. Thanks to the proliferation of all manner of personal information, and the ensuing identity theft crisis, I guess this isn't as much of an option.
So, if ticket prices truly were based on costs
Who says movie tickets should be based on cost? Movie tickets should be no different than any other element in a free market - and that is, "what the market will bear." I think it's perfectly OK for people to point out that the current cost of a movie ticket is a major impetus behind seeking alternatives, but ultimately, the best thing one can do is take their money and WALK, leaving both the tickets, AND the movies behind. Let the MPAA sort it out.
It's getting to be less about money, and more about the culture at Microsoft. More money can help compensate for a miserable culture, but even then there's a breaking point. Microsoft isn't the only game in town any more - whether they like it or not, they're sharing the stage with Linux, and even though Linux has a proportionately small share, Linux share is poised to grow. Since Microsoft already has most of the market, there's really one of two directions available....straight ahead (little or no growth), or down.
I'm sure it will allow them to verify the authenticity of your copy of the software much more frequently as well.
I went to MS web site to download Direct X 9.0 for a game demo I had installed. I was quite pissed that it needed to verify my copy of XP before allowing me to download it. If Bill could see through my monitor, he would have seen me flipping him the bird. Luckily I found a previously downloaded copy buried in a directory.
As far as I'm concerned, the only verification Microsoft needs is my cash at cash register.
One of the points is that, children that are abused by their parents, will be able to get better help because police, government, school, all will be able to communicate to improve a child's situation.
No, that's the proposal. There is no indication that this will actually make things better. it's all conjecture at this point. Further, there no backout plan, either, if it doesn't work as proposed. Therein lies the problem- more likely than not, if a new system doesn't produce the results everyone was led to believe they would, they don't get rid of it, they just find other ways to use it. They'll find other ways to use it no matter what happens- whether or not the new system ever met the intended objective becomes largely irrelevant.
With great power comes great responsibility.
And I'd only argue that responsibility comes with accountability- at least as far as government is concerned. If you aren't accountable, there's no reason to be responsible. Now, try making someone in government accountable for something, and see how far you get.
Why would it require ten organizations knowing about each other in order to save these kids? All any ONE of them needs to know is what's HAPPENING. That's it. The push here is to try and solve problems related to competence, with more problems brought on by the abuse of technology. It's the same dynamic driving the expansion of the US surveilance state, with the new "information fusion centers," and access to the financial transactions of all Americans.
There were some very real and identifiable flaws in the way that pre-9/11 government agencies conducted themselves. Newly-acquired abilities to spy on every citizen won't change that - it only means that the people in our government have MORE information they can abuse with the same degree of incompetence.
but it's undeniable that they have created a host of useful drugs since the Bayh-Dole Act passed.
This implies that none of these drugs would have been developed without the act. Pharma wasn't exactly hurting before the act, and it's defintely not hurting now. Who wins? The American consumer doesn't, as they are subject to inflated drug prices.
I'm not sure I agree...Blender is a hardcore tool that was meant for people that KNOW 3D. Knowing how to click buttons and move sliders doesn't qualify. There's plenty of that in Blender, but if you don't know how to apply it correctly, you'll have a difficult time. Blender is the set of paints, the paint brushes, and the palette knives. If you are skilled, you can make wonderful things happen. Poser et al are like coloring books. They tell you what to draw, and compartively speaking, your're relatively limited in how you can render your final image.
That's the sound of 30 million heterosexual adolescent males who suddenly started paying attention.
Microsoft has occupied a peculiar middle ground. You can always bet for example that MS Office will dump whatever look and feel was used previously and then there will be a few years where every app tries to emulate the new look before the cycle repeats
I have to wonder how much of this is due to marketing - I mean, can you really justify (to yourself) spending money on upgrading something that most likely works ok as is, if it doesn't look like a completely new product?
Bummer. It even says it right here: IIR said this morning that, after about 15 months of "correspondence and negotiations" with Google in an effort to have the "superiority" of its claim over the trade mark to G-Mail recognised. Guess I missed it.
Google, the internet search engine, is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service.
Is it just me, or is there something particularly novel and innovative about a browser-based e-mail service? Or, is there something particularly stupid about a company laying claims to this idea as its "intellectual property?" None of the concepts are particularly new.
But entrusting someone with nuclear capability who is allegedly 'leading' a superpower nation, necessitates a true leader with great wisdom and foresight. Somehow I don't see a former alcoholic who can barely give a speech without sounding like he just had one too many as someone who qualifies. First, there was the intelligence debacle that allowed 9/11 slip through the cracks, the perpetrator was allowed to escape and was never captured, an attack on the country of origin proved very costly and without the intended result, and to top it off, there is a continuation of the so-called 'war on terror' marked by a 'pre-emptive strike' on a nation for something that turned out to be a complete falsehood. This is not the kind of record I'd use to justify the use of nuclear weapons.
The problem is that once they are used, there is no going back...it may trigger all manner of unintended consequences and be be just the beginning of a hell we never imagined possible.
I think there is only one motivation behind this, and it has NOTHING to do with meeting customer needs. More likely, it's a strategy to maximize revenue by stripping down the OS to its bare minimum so that even seemingly minor additional functionality will require an upgrade - kind of like that trick Microsoft pulled with domain logons. An "upgrade" to XP Home was actually "downgrade" in terms of networking options. In order to regain the ability to log on to a domain, you had to shell out some serious cash for an upgrade to XP Pro. LAME.
They chose to test the water by sticking their little pinky toe in, before diving in head first.
I keep what's in my pockets from contributing anything to what's in their pockets. I have yet to purchase a single item from Amazon. I don't care about the alleged convenience, because I can usually find what I need for for about the same price or less somewhere else anyway.
This just one of a growing number of complaints against the FEMA. It's so bad that some are calling for its director, Micheal Brown, to be fired. Apparently, he's had problems in prior positions as well, as described HERE
Also, to address your point, I'm guessing that people will be filing their claims OUTSIDE of those areas.
Doesn't it strikes to anyone that this movement essentially declares to do the same to innovation and market, what original patent system claimed (and actually did, too) to do.
Yes, but the problem is that human nature being what it is, turned the patent system into a three-ringed circus. The process has had, or will have, the exact opposite effect than was intended. It's very encouraging to see companies that understand this, and who are making attempts to correct a very lame, and very broken system.
Alan Yates, Microsoft's general manager of Information Worker business strategy, criticised the Massachusetts proposal, saying it was "confusing".
If a statement, "we don't want to use something that locks us in and presents possible legal problems," is confusing, I'd say Microsoft has reached a state of clueless nirvana.
I've got a couple hundred patents to protect my IP
More likely, you're a company that has done little more than lay claim to various methods of software implementation. Unless it's something fairly unique and truly innovative, calling it "IP" is a little presumptuous. From what I've seen, most of what's patented doesn't qualify.
I haven't seen how the proposed license is worded, and until it is actually released, we can all speculate on what it MIGHT say. I'd like to think that Stallman is intelligent enough to make allowances for those who support Linux and and free software. It would be sheer foolishness to do otherwise,