I looked at both sites and they looked identical. Parody isn't about just copy strait from another source. That's plagarism. Parody is about using a source in a different setting, or with a different plot, or with different characters. Parody should result in a different and often humorous meaning then the original source.
Consider the Apple Think Different Parody. Those were true parodies. They used the same format to put different actors in "thinking different" about different things. They weren't just ripping Apple's clips off of apple.com and voicing over "Apple Sucks". That would not have been parody.
The new rules have some loopholes, allowing calls from charities and businesses that have somehow gotten your permission or have done business with you before.
Don't you think that having permission somehow implies consent? Why should a company be sued because you told them they could call you? If you told me I had permission to take your old Athlon 1600+ because you upgraded to an Athlon 2800+, and I took it, do you think that a court would rule that giving permission wasn't the same as actually saying I could take it?
Furthermore, if you were a customer before, don't think that has value to a company? They would want to be able to keep in touch with you in the future. I certainly know that as a consultant my business is heavily dependent on calling previous customers to find out if they have new projects.
It's the who/rusers part of who/rusers/talk that makes this patent sillier than most.
I've got who and rusers installed on my linux client. Now where's the network that who/rusers provides? Oh wait, it doesn't technically provide a network. I think that AOL has this patent clean.
This HHHAAAASSSSS to be sarcasm, cause nobody could be so ignorant.
I will admit that one of virtues is sarcasm, in this case I am completely serious. My last comments on the instant messaging subject have probably already been archived, but those that know me know that I believe in strong intellectual property rights especially in the Instant Messaging realm.
I don't see how you could claim I was ignorant, just because AOL got a patent the rightfully deserved.
Ok, I did have some sarcasm. Sort of. AOL didn't file the patent, they paid $2xx million dollars for it. But I still don't have any problem with them having or enforcing it.
-Brent
Re:Filing date is not important
on
AOL Patents IM
·
· Score: 2
if AOL can prove that they invented IM before, say, IRC (circa 1987), they have a case.
I am trying to believe that IRC relates to this patent, but I'm having a little trouble. It is very easy to difference between Instant Message, and what IRC is.
Huh? How does this relate to AOL's patent? The patent is more then just sending a text message to another user.
-Brent
Good for AOL!
on
AOL Patents IM
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I'm happy about this. AOL created the original Instanting Messaging. I am glad that they received this patent for their work. Hopefully this will allow them to continue to innovate and make Instant Messaging even better in the future.
On one hand, we have Microsoft, a company that breaks the law, is found guilty, and gets off scot-free. On the other hand, we have a company that offers a service that doesn't break the law to other companies who use that service to provide you, the customer, even better service.
Now, why should I view a company that offers a legitemite service as a bigger enemy then a company that breaks the law?
The reason for that is because Microsoft has bound the industry. No one can move forward technologically, because they are stuck in the path the Microsoft imposes upon them. It is only when Microsoft is broken up, and companies are free to innovate and implement new technology that America will gain its techonological edge again.
It's very simple. If you opt-in you put the cd in your cd player, and let the company profile you. If you opt-out you pass up the cd and move along.
But I'm all for tracking people's CD usage. That allows companies to market more targetable CD's. Instead of producing CD's that people buy because they "heard" they were good, and then listened to only a few times before getting disgusted with it, it lets them find out what music people listen to over and over again.
If I were you, I would be running memtest86 or otherwise debugging hardware.
General rule of thumb when one OS works great and another doesn't.
If one OS works fine, and the other doesn't, don't you think that it might be a more likely chance that perhaps one of the OS's has problems? After all, if the hardware is bad, both OS's probably would have issues. at least that's my experience.
When you say it crashes do you mean it literally blue screens
Yes, it literally bluescreens. Or reboots automatically. Or just ceases to function properly requiring a reboot.
I'm talking about more then just one application going on the blink, requiring the application to be restarted. That happens more frequently.
I've also had issues with ActiveX controls that I've used for development under 2K. They didn't register probably or something. Worked fine under 98. I finally got it to work properly, but it was more work then it should have been.
Pease stop using the argument that Windows is unstable (beginning with Win2K). If you are using supported hardware it's as stable as Linux and dare I say MORE stable than Linux/XWindows.
I must beat on XP or something. On a Dell Inspiron 8000, XP crashes about weekly. Too much for me. I noticed that you specifically left out Window 9x. I'd run XP on my desktop also, instead of Windows 98, for those apps that don't have Linux replacements, but the licensing costs are too much.
I installed Windows XP and "in the absence of other configuration", when I tried to print it ust gave me an error. Naturally, configuration is important, that's why companies hire adminsitrators.
So if your cubicle is on the 8th floor and the server is in the basement, you have some work to do as an administrator, auto setting default print queues based on users.
Surprise! The administrator supporting all those fat clients running Windows has some work to do to get those computers printing to the nearest printer.
The problem becomes more difficult when the printer type is unknown in advance (i.e. telecommuting users connecting from their home pc).
When I log onto Windows Terminal Server, does it know where I am?
More specifically, what if the home user has a Qwezbit SuckJet 9000 Win-Printer attached to their parallel port, and there's no linux driver?
THE COMPANY SENT HOME A LINUX DESKTOP AND A WINDOWS PRINTER?!?!!?!??? (oh, excuse me, i got a little excited there) Now what would possess a company to do that?
I think you are grasping at a straw. Companies hire adminstrators to take care of their companies. The adminstrators have configuration to do whether it's on 2000 fat clients, or 2 servers. The difference is which solution is easier to configure and support.
So let me get this straight. I can go buy a gun, with little or no background checking, and have the potential to kill dozens of children, and it isn't illegal.
Having a gun doesn't mean that you are going to kill someone.
Or, I could make a program that could theoretically be used to pirate some stupid ebooks, and that's illegal.
Having a program used to steal a companies intellectual property is, uh, stealing. I think the contrast between having a gun that has uses other then killing someone, and having a program that's only use is to steal from a company is quite clear.
To me this sounds like they simply needed to revamp their whole setup to start with, be it with 3 windows/Mac/*nix servers.
My experience is that *nix has always been more capable in running more then one service on a box. Plus, note that these are iSeries servers. Not something that Microsoft works with.
It's a misleading statement that makes you think _only_ *nix allowed them to reduce their server numbers.
Perhaps only *nix did let them reduce their server numbers. I've never seen any hard evidence that NT lets you reduce server numbers. All the *nix->NT conversions I've experienced always resulted in more servers, not less. And that was expected.
In my experience windows seems to be more hands off than *nix, or Solaris in particular.
Actually, *nix has much better administrative capabilities then NT does. Especially remote administrative capabilities, which would seem to be a factor here.
Maybe I'm comparing Apple's and Oranges though given my experience.
Kinda amusing, considering he's a card-holding MSCE.
Perhaps he's trying to get into it to sabatoge the project then. Maybe he considers them "inferior" because he knows that he's toast should they be successful.
I have no agreement with site X and yet I'm branded a thief.
Next thing you'll see it websites that make you contractly agree to view all ads before allowing you to view content. There is such a thing as an ethical implied committment.
displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves."
No, it's like letting people have a private viewing of the painting if they sit through a 5 minute sales pitch first. They don't have to see the painting, but if they try to slip in through the back door, they are stealing from the artist.
You don't have to go to the website with ads, but if you choose in your free will to go there, and then block the ads, you are stealing from the owner.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked at both sites and they looked identical. Parody isn't about just copy strait from another source. That's plagarism. Parody is about using a source in a different setting, or with a different plot, or with different characters. Parody should result in a different and often humorous meaning then the original source.
Consider the Apple Think Different Parody. Those were true parodies. They used the same format to put different actors in "thinking different" about different things. They weren't just ripping Apple's clips off of apple.com and voicing over "Apple Sucks". That would not have been parody.
-Brent
Don't you think that having permission somehow implies consent? Why should a company be sued because you told them they could call you? If you told me I had permission to take your old Athlon 1600+ because you upgraded to an Athlon 2800+, and I took it, do you think that a court would rule that giving permission wasn't the same as actually saying I could take it?
Furthermore, if you were a customer before, don't think that has value to a company? They would want to be able to keep in touch with you in the future. I certainly know that as a consultant my business is heavily dependent on calling previous customers to find out if they have new projects.
-BrentI've got who and rusers installed on my linux client. Now where's the network that who/rusers provides? Oh wait, it doesn't technically provide a network. I think that AOL has this patent clean.
-BrentI will admit that one of virtues is sarcasm, in this case I am completely serious. My last comments on the instant messaging subject have probably already been archived, but those that know me know that I believe in strong intellectual property rights especially in the Instant Messaging realm.
I don't see how you could claim I was ignorant, just because AOL got a patent the rightfully deserved.
Ok, I did have some sarcasm. Sort of. AOL didn't file the patent, they paid $2xx million dollars for it. But I still don't have any problem with them having or enforcing it.
-BrentI am trying to believe that IRC relates to this patent, but I'm having a little trouble. It is very easy to difference between Instant Message, and what IRC is.
-BrentHuh? How does this relate to AOL's patent? The patent is more then just sending a text message to another user.
-BrentI'm happy about this. AOL created the original Instanting Messaging. I am glad that they received this patent for their work. Hopefully this will allow them to continue to innovate and make Instant Messaging even better in the future.
-Brent
On one hand, we have Microsoft, a company that breaks the law, is found guilty, and gets off scot-free. On the other hand, we have a company that offers a service that doesn't break the law to other companies who use that service to provide you, the customer, even better service.
Now, why should I view a company that offers a legitemite service as a bigger enemy then a company that breaks the law?
-BrentWe can deal with other "Digital Transmission" violations as we get to them.
-BrentThe reason for that is because Microsoft has bound the industry. No one can move forward technologically, because they are stuck in the path the Microsoft imposes upon them. It is only when Microsoft is broken up, and companies are free to innovate and implement new technology that America will gain its techonological edge again.
-BrentBut I'm all for tracking people's CD usage. That allows companies to market more targetable CD's. Instead of producing CD's that people buy because they "heard" they were good, and then listened to only a few times before getting disgusted with it, it lets them find out what music people listen to over and over again.
-BrentIf one OS works fine, and the other doesn't, don't you think that it might be a more likely chance that perhaps one of the OS's has problems? After all, if the hardware is bad, both OS's probably would have issues. at least that's my experience.
-BrentYes, it literally bluescreens. Or reboots automatically. Or just ceases to function properly requiring a reboot.
I'm talking about more then just one application going on the blink, requiring the application to be restarted. That happens more frequently.
I've also had issues with ActiveX controls that I've used for development under 2K. They didn't register probably or something. Worked fine under 98. I finally got it to work properly, but it was more work then it should have been.
-BrentI must beat on XP or something. On a Dell Inspiron 8000, XP crashes about weekly. Too much for me. I noticed that you specifically left out Window 9x. I'd run XP on my desktop also, instead of Windows 98, for those apps that don't have Linux replacements, but the licensing costs are too much.
-BrentIsn't that what the government official said last time? That India could not afford to develop their own OS?
-Brent
What kind of a reply is this?
in the absence of other configurationI installed Windows XP and "in the absence of other configuration", when I tried to print it ust gave me an error. Naturally, configuration is important, that's why companies hire adminsitrators.
So if your cubicle is on the 8th floor and the server is in the basement, you have some work to do as an administrator, auto setting default print queues based on users.Surprise! The administrator supporting all those fat clients running Windows has some work to do to get those computers printing to the nearest printer.
The problem becomes more difficult when the printer type is unknown in advance (i.e. telecommuting users connecting from their home pc).When I log onto Windows Terminal Server, does it know where I am?
More specifically, what if the home user has a Qwezbit SuckJet 9000 Win-Printer attached to their parallel port, and there's no linux driver?THE COMPANY SENT HOME A LINUX DESKTOP AND A WINDOWS PRINTER?!?!!?!??? (oh, excuse me, i got a little excited there) Now what would possess a company to do that?
I think you are grasping at a straw. Companies hire adminstrators to take care of their companies. The adminstrators have configuration to do whether it's on 2000 fat clients, or 2 servers. The difference is which solution is easier to configure and support.
-BrentUh, a piece of paper comes out of the printer? Or a bunch of pieces, depending on how long the document is.
-BrentHaving a gun doesn't mean that you are going to kill someone.
Or, I could make a program that could theoretically be used to pirate some stupid ebooks, and that's illegal.Having a program used to steal a companies intellectual property is, uh, stealing. I think the contrast between having a gun that has uses other then killing someone, and having a program that's only use is to steal from a company is quite clear.
-BrentOkay, so $50, but close enough, eh?
Model with modem
-BrentIt's way cool for someone to realize that there are many solutions available.
-BrentMy experience is that *nix has always been more capable in running more then one service on a box. Plus, note that these are iSeries servers. Not something that Microsoft works with.
It's a misleading statement that makes you think _only_ *nix allowed them to reduce their server numbers.Perhaps only *nix did let them reduce their server numbers. I've never seen any hard evidence that NT lets you reduce server numbers. All the *nix->NT conversions I've experienced always resulted in more servers, not less. And that was expected.
In my experience windows seems to be more hands off than *nix, or Solaris in particular.Actually, *nix has much better administrative capabilities then NT does. Especially remote administrative capabilities, which would seem to be a factor here.
Maybe I'm comparing Apple's and Oranges though given my experience.Probably
-BrentPerhaps he's trying to get into it to sabatoge the project then. Maybe he considers them "inferior" because he knows that he's toast should they be successful.
-BrentWhat does Linux have to do with the Antitrust lawsuit? Furthermore, what does a solution have to do with Microsoft?
-BrentNext thing you'll see it websites that make you contractly agree to view all ads before allowing you to view content. There is such a thing as an ethical implied committment.
-BrentNo, it's like letting people have a private viewing of the painting if they sit through a 5 minute sales pitch first. They don't have to see the painting, but if they try to slip in through the back door, they are stealing from the artist.
You don't have to go to the website with ads, but if you choose in your free will to go there, and then block the ads, you are stealing from the owner.
-Brent