Well I didn't mean to imply that simply because they exist everybody will begin using them in lieu of having a real life. However it should be a wake up call that there is a wildly growing section of society that would find these useful and use it as a means by which to be even more lazy.
I just don't think it should be fed upon, and as a result, condoned.
Well to be blunt, if you've seen it before, then ignore the story and move on. There's no point in whining about it.
Besides, I think the fact that they're not completely organized -- despite being a chunk of a larger corporation now -- sort of gives it that same ole basement operation feel to it. Isn't that what a lot of people were worried of losing when they were acquired? You can't have it both ways.
Technology is developed an awful lot around letting people become more and more lazy; because that's what people seem to want to be when they're not at work 9 to 5. They want tools to make their job easier, to make their life easier, to make everything easier. Microwavable dinners. Food that's prepared for you out of the box. Software that tries to anticipate what you're up to.
I think it's pretty sad when we've hit the level that going out to a social outing, or heck, even a pub and approaching new people to make new friends gets on that list. I know a lot of people who are in wonderful relationships with nothing directly in common -- opposites attract -- how does this device work in those cases? It can't.
I think the statement made about them being frightening is an understatement. It's a pretty bleak reflection on people in general, that somebody could make them and sell them in large quantities.
You're taking it out of context and referring to an earlier statement in his post, which I did respond to as well. If you notice, I agreed that it would be a bad thing. However, who has Amazon killed? Nobody.
He seemed to be implying that profit was not an issue for a company, and taking fully legal steps to attempt to increase shareholder value etc, should not be the concern of a company. That is what I was replying to.
This isn't fully on topic, but it is regarding the y2k issue... I'd love to go back 10 or 20 years, run down to New York and march around on street corners with a big ole sign that says, "The world will NOT end on the year 2000".
Just for the sake of irony, not that it wasn't obvious to most of us anyway.
"It's probably in the best interest of my company to murder my competitors"
No, it's not. That would mean you'd go to jail, or whomever you hired would go to jail, you'd be charged with accessory and your company would break up as a possible result.
"The fact that it increases share value does not justify any action, not even for a business."
Yes it is. What do you think a business is there for? The greater good of mankind? No, they're there to turn a profit, and pay their employees.
"Unfair and wrong business practices do not become alright because our profit margin is increased. "
It may be morally wrong, but in the business world what they did is perfectly valid. The problem is not the business, the problem is the process that lets the business do such things. That's what needs to be changed, and business has no choice but to follow suit.
"They are not meant to do anything at all that increases profit."
That's completely and utterly wrong. What are they meant to do then? Go under?
Well yes, that could happen, and I wouldn't put it past them either. I can't honestly say I know how the company works on the inside, or what Jeff has in store, but from the public image they've portrayed to anybody paying attention over the past while, it definitely seems like a possibility.
However my post was in the present tense. At this point, they are not doing that, which the person above me seemed to be implying.
In all reality, what Amazon does with the patents NOW, won't affect the good majority of us at all. Why sue a small site that has maybe a few thousand dollars in the bank (thus having a lawsuit cost more than its worth)? It's the fact that people are getting more and more inane patents through the office lately, and that should be a sign that something is wrong. Something needs to change; maybe varying degrees of patents, or stricter patent rules, I don't know. That's not the career I chose. The people who are there however should smell the coffee, or seek new work.
They're not though. They're just covering their asses, albeit in a rather paranoid fashion. Read the article again, Jeff allegedly states that they won't be going after anybody just for using it, only the big boys who attempt to step on their feet.
This of course can lead to Amazon utilizing their patents to some form of unfair competition (though not the type that would hold up in court, since they do have valid patents), but name one large company that isn't litigous in nature for their own benefits to begin with. It's how "corporate america" likes to work, and it'll take a lot more than an Amazon boycott to change that.
I'm not sure how to feel on this to be quite honest. From a business persons viewpoint, what they are doing is in the best interest of the company; and that's what companies are meant to do. From a consumer stand point, I don't think it really matters. There will always (hopefully) be competition and alternatives to places like Amazon.com, and if they're not doing their job, then you go elsewhere. The patents don't directly affect the consumers until you get to the third possible viewpoint.. the actual competitors, developers, entrepreneurs et al who have to put in extra effort to implement what should be standard features, but have been previously patented by Amazon.com or whomever else may come along. At this point it/can/ harm the consumer in the fact that it's restricting the competition from getting their job done.
All in all, I think this particular subject (Amazon patents) along with the plethora of related subjects where people have been patenting either inane or minute processes simply to raise barriers, should be used as a wake up call. The way things are done in our society as a whole need to keep up with the times. Nothing is horribly behind, but processes such as patenting need to be looked at, and continually monitored to make sure they're beneficial to society and not detrimental.
I don't know if this truly is you Bob, it's hard to tell on Slashdot, even if you don't have a . at the end of your name.
What I'm angry about is your piss poor journalism tactics. You seem to have this huge disdain for the so called Linux community without ever providing a true basis for why. You then proceed to talk about how you expected to get all the angry responses you often get to your articles - I seem to remember calling people who expected such things "trolls" back in my usenet days.
You comment about the linux zealots and how if they even hear the mention of Microsoft they go off, and how silly this is. Yet you do the exact same thing, albeit from the other side of the fence. The only difference is that due to your past, somebody hired you to air your dirty laundry on infoworld.com.
Here's the email I sent you. I doubt you honestly read all the email you get, so maybe you'll notice it here, by some chance.
---[Begin]--- I'm not sure if you're familiar with the marmoset, but they're a small furry clawed monkey which inhabits the various tropical forests of the two Americas. One thing I admire about these small animals is that they don't have the inane elitism or bias of a human. I'm afraid you making yourself look like a monkey does these little fellows a great injustice.
You may not read much further than that, or you may not even read your email at all, I'm not sure, but I'll elaborate anyway.
I'm an ex-Linux-zealot. If somebody mentioned "Microsoft" in any capacity, or was to mention something negative about OSS, Linux, et al, I would flip and make it a personal mission to do them in. I gave up that hat and looked at myself and others like myself from afar a few short weeks ago. I realized what fools we were making of ourselves, and that it was entirely senseless. Anybody who makes a religion out of a computer software paradigm or operating system is in need of some mental readjustment.
Don't seek out a pyschiatrist just yet, there's still hope for you. I'm appreciative of the lesson you've taught us; that even those who have been given pedestals at some point due to a great invention (such as ethernet) are not above anybody else, and can succumb to the same idiotic tendencies we all do.
I refer to your senseless abuse of the open source community at every chance you get, without a care for looking at these stories as a good journalist might. That being without bias and with the abilty to see both sides of an issue.
What is your problem with OSS? Does it frighten you in some inexplicable and unexplainable way?
You state in your article, "May the best software win". I rebut, may all software have its day in the limelight and contribute to the advancement of future software as a whole, be it for the expansion of the Microsoft empire, or for the so-called Linux community.
You whine about how the new Crusoe processor will run *gasp* Windows. Well gosh Bob, Intel runs *gasp* Linux. They must be anti-microsoft! Why don't you slam them for that? You whine about how Linus works for Transmeta, yet the software morphing built into the chips will not be open source. I don't know what employee roster you've been reading, but as far as I can tell, what you state in your article is true: Linus is merely an employee, a programmer there. He does not control what happens to the code they produce. Are OSS pundits not allowed to make a living in the proprietary world according to you?
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot to complain about the Linux so called community, and their hypocrisy, which can be seen almost daily in it's slow and steady climb. Nonetheless, I also have problems with anybody on either side of the fence who writes with their head in the ground, much like an ostrich might be found. ---[End]---
Slashdot Mirror
Well I didn't mean to imply that simply because they exist everybody will begin using them in lieu of having a real life. However it should be a wake up call that there is a wildly growing section of society that would find these useful and use it as a means by which to be even more lazy.
I just don't think it should be fed upon, and as a result, condoned.
Well to be blunt, if you've seen it before, then ignore the story and move on. There's no point in whining about it.
Besides, I think the fact that they're not completely organized -- despite being a chunk of a larger corporation now -- sort of gives it that same ole basement operation feel to it. Isn't that what a lot of people were worried of losing when they were acquired? You can't have it both ways.
Technology is developed an awful lot around letting people become more and more lazy; because that's what people seem to want to be when they're not at work 9 to 5. They want tools to make their job easier, to make their life easier, to make everything easier. Microwavable dinners. Food that's prepared for you out of the box. Software that tries to anticipate what you're up to.
;)
I think it's pretty sad when we've hit the level that going out to a social outing, or heck, even a pub and approaching new people to make new friends gets on that list. I know a lot of people who are in wonderful relationships with nothing directly in common -- opposites attract -- how does this device work in those cases? It can't.
I think the statement made about them being frightening is an understatement. It's a pretty bleak reflection on people in general, that somebody could make them and sell them in large quantities.
Why get a life, when you can buy one!
You're taking it out of context and referring to an earlier statement in his post, which I did respond to as well. If you notice, I agreed that it would be a bad thing. However, who has Amazon killed? Nobody.
He seemed to be implying that profit was not an issue for a company, and taking fully legal steps to attempt to increase shareholder value etc, should not be the concern of a company. That is what I was replying to.
This isn't fully on topic, but it is regarding the y2k issue... I'd love to go back 10 or 20 years, run down to New York and march around on street corners with a big ole sign that says, "The world will NOT end on the year 2000".
Just for the sake of irony, not that it wasn't obvious to most of us anyway.
"It's probably in the best interest of my company to murder my competitors"
No, it's not. That would mean you'd go to jail, or whomever you hired would go to jail, you'd be charged with accessory and your company would break up as a possible result.
"The fact that it increases share value does not justify any action, not even for a business."
Yes it is. What do you think a business is there for? The greater good of mankind? No, they're there to turn a profit, and pay their employees.
"Unfair and wrong business practices do not become alright because our profit margin is increased. "
It may be morally wrong, but in the business world what they did is perfectly valid. The problem is not the business, the problem is the process that lets the business do such things. That's what needs to be changed, and business has no choice but to follow suit.
"They are not meant to do anything at all that increases profit."
That's completely and utterly wrong. What are they meant to do then? Go under?
Well yes, that could happen, and I wouldn't put it past them either. I can't honestly say I know how the company works on the inside, or what Jeff has in store, but from the public image they've portrayed to anybody paying attention over the past while, it definitely seems like a possibility.
However my post was in the present tense. At this point, they are not doing that, which the person above me seemed to be implying.
In all reality, what Amazon does with the patents NOW, won't affect the good majority of us at all. Why sue a small site that has maybe a few thousand dollars in the bank (thus having a lawsuit cost more than its worth)? It's the fact that people are getting more and more inane patents through the office lately, and that should be a sign that something is wrong. Something needs to change; maybe varying degrees of patents, or stricter patent rules, I don't know. That's not the career I chose. The people who are there however should smell the coffee, or seek new work.
IMHO.
They're not though. They're just covering their asses, albeit in a rather paranoid fashion. Read the article again, Jeff allegedly states that they won't be going after anybody just for using it, only the big boys who attempt to step on their feet.
This of course can lead to Amazon utilizing their patents to some form of unfair competition (though not the type that would hold up in court, since they do have valid patents), but name one large company that isn't litigous in nature for their own benefits to begin with. It's how "corporate america" likes to work, and it'll take a lot more than an Amazon boycott to change that.
I say we start by nuking the lawyers. =)
I'm not sure how to feel on this to be quite honest. From a business persons viewpoint, what they are doing is in the best interest of the company; and that's what companies are meant to do. From a consumer stand point, I don't think it really matters. There will always (hopefully) be competition and alternatives to places like Amazon.com, and if they're not doing their job, then you go elsewhere. The patents don't directly affect the consumers until you get to the third possible viewpoint.. the actual competitors, developers, entrepreneurs et al who have to put in extra effort to implement what should be standard features, but have been previously patented by Amazon.com or whomever else may come along. At this point it /can/ harm the consumer in the fact that it's restricting the competition from getting their job done.
:)
All in all, I think this particular subject (Amazon patents) along with the plethora of related subjects where people have been patenting either inane or minute processes simply to raise barriers, should be used as a wake up call. The way things are done in our society as a whole need to keep up with the times. Nothing is horribly behind, but processes such as patenting need to be looked at, and continually monitored to make sure they're beneficial to society and not detrimental.
If any of that made any sense.
I don't know if this truly is you Bob, it's hard to tell on Slashdot, even if you don't have a . at the end of your name.
What I'm angry about is your piss poor journalism tactics. You seem to have this huge disdain for the so called Linux community without ever providing a true basis for why. You then proceed to talk about how you expected to get all the angry responses you often get to your articles - I seem to remember calling people who expected such things "trolls" back in my usenet days.
You comment about the linux zealots and how if they even hear the mention of Microsoft they go off, and how silly this is. Yet you do the exact same thing, albeit from the other side of the fence. The only difference is that due to your past, somebody hired you to air your dirty laundry on infoworld.com.
Here's the email I sent you. I doubt you honestly read all the email you get, so maybe you'll notice it here, by some chance.
---[Begin]---
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the marmoset, but they're a small furry clawed monkey which inhabits the various tropical forests of the two Americas. One thing I admire about these small animals is that they don't have the inane elitism or bias of a human. I'm afraid you making yourself look like a monkey does these little fellows a great injustice.
You may not read much further than that, or you may not even read your email at all, I'm not sure, but I'll elaborate anyway.
I'm an ex-Linux-zealot. If somebody mentioned "Microsoft" in any capacity, or was to mention something negative about OSS, Linux, et al, I would flip and make it a personal mission to do them in. I gave up that hat and looked at myself and others like myself from afar a few short weeks ago. I realized what fools we were making of ourselves, and that it was entirely senseless. Anybody who makes a religion out of a computer software paradigm or operating system is in need of some mental readjustment.
Don't seek out a pyschiatrist just yet, there's still hope for you. I'm appreciative of the lesson you've taught us; that even those who have been given pedestals at some point due to a great invention (such as ethernet) are not above anybody else, and can succumb to the same idiotic tendencies we all do.
I refer to your senseless abuse of the open source community at every chance you get, without a care for looking at these stories as a good journalist might. That being without bias and with the abilty to see both sides of an issue.
What is your problem with OSS? Does it frighten you in some inexplicable and unexplainable way?
You state in your article, "May the best software win". I rebut, may all software have its day in the limelight and contribute to the advancement of future software as a whole, be it for the expansion of the Microsoft empire, or for the so-called Linux community.
You whine about how the new Crusoe processor will run *gasp* Windows. Well gosh Bob, Intel runs *gasp* Linux. They must be anti-microsoft! Why don't you slam them for that? You whine about how Linus works for Transmeta, yet the software morphing built into the chips will not be open source. I don't know what employee roster you've been reading, but as far as I can tell, what you state in your article is true: Linus is merely an employee, a programmer there. He does not control what happens to the code they produce. Are OSS pundits not allowed to make a living in the proprietary world according to you?
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot to complain about the Linux so called community, and their hypocrisy, which can be seen almost daily in it's slow and steady climb. Nonetheless, I also have problems with anybody on either side of the fence who writes with their head in the ground, much like an ostrich might be found.
---[End]---