Writing code on/for what? Where did the devices come from? Do you actually think the state would create consumer electronic devices? Or were these devices designed and manufactured by other people doing it 'for fun'? And where did all the raw materials and equipment used to make the devices come from? Miners mining for fun?
That is a lovely little rant, and has nothing at all to do with the supposed argument that people are getting paid for 'doing nothing'.
Your rant is missing one crucial point: no-one is REQUIRED by the RIAA/MPAA or government to buy songs or movies, ever. So there certainly is a way to limit their greed - if the price is too high, don't use their product, same as for all other products. Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it? The only problem is people who think they are somehow entitled to have everything they want, on whatever terms they choose, and to hell with everyone else. I suspect you are in that category.
What industries do you think work differently? Every consumer business is based on the 'work now, get paid later' model. Let's say you are a manufacturer of widgets (not copyright protected). You hire a bunch of people to design the widget, engineers to set up the manufacturing operation, secretaries, managers, janitors, etc. You take out a loan and pay all those people, even though you have not yet started manufacturing. Eventually you start manufacturing and selling your product. At that point you are 'getting paid' for all that work that was already done, and you 'get paid' for that with every widget you sell. The only difference between 'regular' jobs and copyright industry jobs is how the employee's get paid. In 'regular' businesses the employees get paid up front, and if the product does not sell well they lose nothing. On the other hand, if the product does sell well, the business owner gets all the benefit. In 'copyright' industries, the employees may be sharing in the risks and rewards. To the consumer, there is zero difference in these models, you are paying for work already completed in either case.
Wrong. You get paid for your time, whether or not the work you produce is worth anything or not. Granted, you may not keep the job long if your work is worthless, but you still got paid in the meantime. People is copyright industries only get paid IF their work has value (ie. people want it). Guess who has the better deal.
Every time there is a discussion of copyright, some idiot brings up buggy whip manufacturers (I guess because it requires no thought to do so). Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because people no longer wanted buggy whips. Period. If your argument was that copyright protected professions are going out of business because people no longer want professionally produced work, then you might have a point. No change to copyright can prevent that from happening, and in fact there is no attempt being made to prevent that from happening. However, there has been NO indication that people don't want professionally produced works (otherwise, there would be no piracy), only that people don't think they should have to PAY to get other people's work.
If you want to send the message to producers of copyrighted works that their services are no longer wanted, fine do that. Don't buy their stuff. Don't pirate their stuff. Don't use their stuff at all. However, if you DO pirate their stuff, you are showing that their service is wanted, you just feel you are entitled to their work without giving anything back.
You keep posting this same moronic crap on every story about natural disasters. Where is this magical place on Earth that is free from natural disasters (earthquake, tsunami, volcano, flood, drought, extreme cold, extreme heat, hurricane, tornado, blizzard, typhoon, mudslide, avalanche, wild fire,...)? And yes, you do get to cry when one befalls you. And yes, people will help you out, because most of civilization has compassion and empathy for others.
Or maybe they actually put the plane through a certification process, and know that that particular router does not cause interference with the rest of the plane.
As a computing professional, you should know that EA and Oracle are large corporations, with large, well-staffed legal departments. One of the jobs of said legal departments is navigating quagmires.
I don't know if you are trolling or really believe the crap you are saying, but none of it makes any sense. First, I challenge you to name a single thing that, "in the public's mind" is associated with a specific manufacturer or product WITHOUT trademark protection. None of this 'it could happen' bullshit, actual examples. In the real word exactly the opposite happens - no trademark protection means what was formerly associated with a manufacturer is now just a generic term for a type of product regardless of manufacturer.
Next, no, your personal name does not identify you. It is just something that is used by those who know you to refer to you. If your name alone actually means something to the public at large you are a celebrity and have probably trademarked your name in the particular field you are in. Your actual 'brand' is more likely your SSN or similar, and guess what - your 'brand' is also protected by law.
Yes, the term 'aspirin' now refers to a particular drug. However, not all aspirin is the same - there are different coatings, etc. How do you know which you are purchasing? Easy - they still put trademarks (Anacin, Bayer, Excedrin, etc) on them. The only items marked simply 'aspirin' are generics. If all you want is a generic that is OK. If you want the product from a specific manufacturer for some reason you go by the trademarked name.
Lastly, your point about fraud is just plain stupid. Basically your argument is 'we don't need laws making it illegal to use someone else's brand, because using someone else's brand is illegal'. That is circular logic at it's finest.
No, I did not suggest that words don't have meaning apart from trademarks. However, the words 'Apple iPhone' do NOT have meaning apart from trademarks (well, Apple does, but it means a piece of fruit). The only way anybody has any expectation of what an 'Apple iPhone' is is because it is a BRAND (ie trademarked). In the absence of trademarks and hence branding Apple is just another generic term for 'consumer electronics manufacturer' and iPhone is just another generic term for smart phone. Take the word 'aspirin'. What does it mean? Does it say anything about who manufactured it? It used to be a trademarked term for pain reliever sold by Bayer. Ever hear of anyone being sued for fraud for selling something other than the Bayer product as aspirin (since the trademark was lost)? If I sell you a thermos bottle are you going to sue me if it wasn't made by Thermos GMBH? What you are suggesting is that through 'common use' it becomes obvious who the manufacturer is, when in reality exactly the opposite happens.
How would it be fraud? The only reason that "Apple iPhone" denotes a specific brand is because there is a trademark on it. That is the whole point of trademarks. Without trademark protection the words "Apple iPhone" mean absolutely nothing. If the words don't mean anything then there can be no fraud.
If there were no trademarks, how would you ever know what you are buying? Anyone could slap together a phone and call it an Apple iPhone. Every car could be a BMW. Every refrigerator a GE.
Except that Microsoft does not claim trademark over the generic usage (the GUI elements), only the specific usage (a computer OS). Apple, on the other hand, is trying to claim trademark on the generic usage of a place where apps are sold.
If he really thinks his mandate is to run IT as efficiently as possible, he should just eliminate all IT and IT support. You can't get more efficient than that. But that is not really his mandate. His mandate is to help the business/organization run as efficiently as possible, and that means helping EVERYONE do their jobs efficiently, not just his.
Watson did not receive incorrect answers in any form. It received correct answers (in text) after they were given, which it used to help understand the category better.
The thing is designed to measure eye pressure in glaucoma patients. It samples once every 15 minutes. So it would seem it can hold 672 eye pressure samples.
I see we are not familiar with the concept of an 'example'. OK, lets try this: Executives accused of fraud should be tried by other executives. Record labels accused of not paying artists should be tried by other record labels. Drunk drivers should be tried by people picked up at the local bar.
So you showed a few examples of abuse. So what? No system is perfect. Why don't you show any of the thousands and thousands of examples where the system works like it should. You want to change a system that works the vast majority of the time to one that never works. Sounds like a great idea.
I know what you mean. I HATE those wishy-washy, indecisive people who just sit there and let themselves be swayed by 'evidence' and 'testimony'. It just wastes everyone's time. They really should do it right and use a QUALIFIED jury of your PEERS. After all, who would be more qualified to judge a KKK member than other Klan members? If they just did that they could save us all that money that is wasted on trials and such. And of course no-one is more qualified to interpret evidence than the police, so juries should just be made up of all cops, right?
The only reason Google can display those 'answers' is because someone wrote web pages on those subjects and titled them as such. However, if you change the question a little bit ("The European Parliament has this many members"), Google gives answers like 'Members of Parliament' and 'The European Parliament'. Watson would have also been able to answer this question.
Slashdot Mirror
Writing code on/for what? Where did the devices come from? Do you actually think the state would create consumer electronic devices? Or were these devices designed and manufactured by other people doing it 'for fun'? And where did all the raw materials and equipment used to make the devices come from? Miners mining for fun?
That is a lovely little rant, and has nothing at all to do with the supposed argument that people are getting paid for 'doing nothing'.
Your rant is missing one crucial point: no-one is REQUIRED by the RIAA/MPAA or government to buy songs or movies, ever. So there certainly is a way to limit their greed - if the price is too high, don't use their product, same as for all other products. Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it? The only problem is people who think they are somehow entitled to have everything they want, on whatever terms they choose, and to hell with everyone else. I suspect you are in that category.
What industries do you think work differently? Every consumer business is based on the 'work now, get paid later' model. Let's say you are a manufacturer of widgets (not copyright protected). You hire a bunch of people to design the widget, engineers to set up the manufacturing operation, secretaries, managers, janitors, etc. You take out a loan and pay all those people, even though you have not yet started manufacturing. Eventually you start manufacturing and selling your product. At that point you are 'getting paid' for all that work that was already done, and you 'get paid' for that with every widget you sell. The only difference between 'regular' jobs and copyright industry jobs is how the employee's get paid. In 'regular' businesses the employees get paid up front, and if the product does not sell well they lose nothing. On the other hand, if the product does sell well, the business owner gets all the benefit. In 'copyright' industries, the employees may be sharing in the risks and rewards. To the consumer, there is zero difference in these models, you are paying for work already completed in either case.
Wrong. You get paid for your time, whether or not the work you produce is worth anything or not. Granted, you may not keep the job long if your work is worthless, but you still got paid in the meantime. People is copyright industries only get paid IF their work has value (ie. people want it). Guess who has the better deal.
Every time there is a discussion of copyright, some idiot brings up buggy whip manufacturers (I guess because it requires no thought to do so). Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because people no longer wanted buggy whips. Period. If your argument was that copyright protected professions are going out of business because people no longer want professionally produced work, then you might have a point. No change to copyright can prevent that from happening, and in fact there is no attempt being made to prevent that from happening. However, there has been NO indication that people don't want professionally produced works (otherwise, there would be no piracy), only that people don't think they should have to PAY to get other people's work.
If you want to send the message to producers of copyrighted works that their services are no longer wanted, fine do that. Don't buy their stuff. Don't pirate their stuff. Don't use their stuff at all. However, if you DO pirate their stuff, you are showing that their service is wanted, you just feel you are entitled to their work without giving anything back.
You keep posting this same moronic crap on every story about natural disasters. Where is this magical place on Earth that is free from natural disasters (earthquake, tsunami, volcano, flood, drought, extreme cold, extreme heat, hurricane, tornado, blizzard, typhoon, mudslide, avalanche, wild fire, ...)? And yes, you do get to cry when one befalls you. And yes, people will help you out, because most of civilization has compassion and empathy for others.
Or maybe they actually put the plane through a certification process, and know that that particular router does not cause interference with the rest of the plane.
"Freedom" and "you have to" are pretty much mutually exclusive, no matter how you try to spin it.
Where did he say he uses it? All he did was give a reason he doesn't use it.
As a computing professional, you should know that EA and Oracle are large corporations, with large, well-staffed legal departments. One of the jobs of said legal departments is navigating quagmires.
Probably because they were in the California High Desert. It doesn't say when this was filmed, but it certainly gets very cold there in winter.
I think the gloves, hats, and coats are better explained by the line 'working through the night in near freezing temperatures'.
I don't know if you are trolling or really believe the crap you are saying, but none of it makes any sense. First, I challenge you to name a single thing that, "in the public's mind" is associated with a specific manufacturer or product WITHOUT trademark protection. None of this 'it could happen' bullshit, actual examples. In the real word exactly the opposite happens - no trademark protection means what was formerly associated with a manufacturer is now just a generic term for a type of product regardless of manufacturer.
Next, no, your personal name does not identify you. It is just something that is used by those who know you to refer to you. If your name alone actually means something to the public at large you are a celebrity and have probably trademarked your name in the particular field you are in. Your actual 'brand' is more likely your SSN or similar, and guess what - your 'brand' is also protected by law.
Yes, the term 'aspirin' now refers to a particular drug. However, not all aspirin is the same - there are different coatings, etc. How do you know which you are purchasing? Easy - they still put trademarks (Anacin, Bayer, Excedrin, etc) on them. The only items marked simply 'aspirin' are generics. If all you want is a generic that is OK. If you want the product from a specific manufacturer for some reason you go by the trademarked name.
Lastly, your point about fraud is just plain stupid. Basically your argument is 'we don't need laws making it illegal to use someone else's brand, because using someone else's brand is illegal'. That is circular logic at it's finest.
No, I did not suggest that words don't have meaning apart from trademarks. However, the words 'Apple iPhone' do NOT have meaning apart from trademarks (well, Apple does, but it means a piece of fruit). The only way anybody has any expectation of what an 'Apple iPhone' is is because it is a BRAND (ie trademarked). In the absence of trademarks and hence branding Apple is just another generic term for 'consumer electronics manufacturer' and iPhone is just another generic term for smart phone. Take the word 'aspirin'. What does it mean? Does it say anything about who manufactured it? It used to be a trademarked term for pain reliever sold by Bayer. Ever hear of anyone being sued for fraud for selling something other than the Bayer product as aspirin (since the trademark was lost)? If I sell you a thermos bottle are you going to sue me if it wasn't made by Thermos GMBH? What you are suggesting is that through 'common use' it becomes obvious who the manufacturer is, when in reality exactly the opposite happens.
How would it be fraud? The only reason that "Apple iPhone" denotes a specific brand is because there is a trademark on it. That is the whole point of trademarks. Without trademark protection the words "Apple iPhone" mean absolutely nothing. If the words don't mean anything then there can be no fraud.
If there were no trademarks, how would you ever know what you are buying? Anyone could slap together a phone and call it an Apple iPhone. Every car could be a BMW. Every refrigerator a GE.
Highly doubtful, as IBM used DOS in the same context before MS did.
The Paper Store is not the same as paper store. Someone can call themselves Joe's Paper Store and not run afoul of The Paper Store.
Except that Microsoft does not claim trademark over the generic usage (the GUI elements), only the specific usage (a computer OS). Apple, on the other hand, is trying to claim trademark on the generic usage of a place where apps are sold.
If he really thinks his mandate is to run IT as efficiently as possible, he should just eliminate all IT and IT support. You can't get more efficient than that. But that is not really his mandate. His mandate is to help the business/organization run as efficiently as possible, and that means helping EVERYONE do their jobs efficiently, not just his.
Watson did not receive incorrect answers in any form. It received correct answers (in text) after they were given, which it used to help understand the category better.
The thing is designed to measure eye pressure in glaucoma patients. It samples once every 15 minutes. So it would seem it can hold 672 eye pressure samples.
I see we are not familiar with the concept of an 'example'. OK, lets try this: Executives accused of fraud should be tried by other executives. Record labels accused of not paying artists should be tried by other record labels. Drunk drivers should be tried by people picked up at the local bar.
So you showed a few examples of abuse. So what? No system is perfect. Why don't you show any of the thousands and thousands of examples where the system works like it should. You want to change a system that works the vast majority of the time to one that never works. Sounds like a great idea.
I know what you mean. I HATE those wishy-washy, indecisive people who just sit there and let themselves be swayed by 'evidence' and 'testimony'. It just wastes everyone's time. They really should do it right and use a QUALIFIED jury of your PEERS. After all, who would be more qualified to judge a KKK member than other Klan members? If they just did that they could save us all that money that is wasted on trials and such. And of course no-one is more qualified to interpret evidence than the police, so juries should just be made up of all cops, right?
The only reason Google can display those 'answers' is because someone wrote web pages on those subjects and titled them as such. However, if you change the question a little bit ("The European Parliament has this many members"), Google gives answers like 'Members of Parliament' and 'The European Parliament'. Watson would have also been able to answer this question.