can now be printed by anyone, anywhere, with a gadget that sits on their desk.
instead of having to trash the toaster and buy a new one, or find a used one on ebay, or go order one for $20 + shipping + processing from some faceless megacorporation that probably doesn't even realize it makes toasters.
Blizzard is not a bad guy. It's just that they have other things on their mind. Other things to do. Sometimes, we fight, but it's usually my fault. I mean, maybe if I could make linux a little more attractive, they would spend more time with linux?
I know sometimes Blizzard doesn't do what they say they will do, but they are really busy, working hard, so I can't expect them to drop everything just to do what I want them to do. That would be selfish.
Besides, you just don't understand. Blizzard is soooooo cool. The colors of his panorama's are so exquisite. I just really miss Blizzard when Blizzard is away. You just don't get it, because you've never felt a "real connection" like I have with Blizzard.
So don't judge me. I stand for true love, just like Rhianna says in that new song with Chris Brown.
the US government had dozens and dozens of things they could have sued Microsoft for doing, which you mentioned, but what did they actually choose as charges?
"Browser bundling". Not only can you not explain this to the ordinary person on the street ( or on a jury ) , it is actually kind of offensive to people with some experience in the technology industry. Honestly, why in the @#$ should they be banned from putting a browser on their machine - does that mean Ubuntu cant, or Apple cant?
it was a royal foul up by the Clinton administration especially Janet Reno.
ever notice how they stay in the same jobs for 10 years, maybe 20? while managers, consultants, experts, systems analysts, etc, get layed off repeatedly?
go be a peon.
not joking. you can still get layed off, its just that they will always need someone to repeatedly do boring ass work shuffling stuff from one place to another.
since 99.9% of users will not have the permissions to start up an access database, and the "IT crew" will be too busy / underfunded to help them, they will revert to sharing Excel files on sharepoint.
furthermore, since the vast majority of people in these corporations have never been trained in database stuff, and the company will not pay to train them, excel is something that is essentially something 'anyone can use' the basic features of and still kind of understand whats happening without much training.
either. it may 'seem logical' that Apple had a license from Xerox, but then i would expect that the New Yorker article would have said "Xerox's case was thrown out because Apple had licensed the works they used". It would seem it should say that, but it does not.
i cannot go on what 'seems logical', i must go on some actual facts, like an actual journalistic book or article that discusses the exact nature of Apples "agreement" with Xerox, and whether or not 'license' was in there.
Not to be pedantic, but there is a huge amount of 'understanding' in the tech world, the patent system a sort of unspoken beast that everyone is ashamed to admit exists, because it lashes out at the most inappropriate and inopportune moments, in that they would seem to highlight the hypocritical nature of most of the intellectual property law field in the current intellectual tech environment. Polite well spoken mean of good means discuss politely the evisceration of billions of dollars from each other and various small companies, not based on the principles of a fair legal concept of ownership, but based on mutually assured destruction based on war-chest portfolios. It has nothing to do with innovation, property rights, etc.
The fact that Microsoft essentially 'stole' windows from Apple threatens the entire facade of propriety surrounding the system... and is probably why Microsoft did not get seriously into the patent game until the 1990s.... they actually had something called "shame"....
The argument to support Apple here is that Apple properly licensed the intellectual property of Xerox, and Xerox was fairly compensated. But that argument is not proven. So it might seem a small matter of linguistic propriety, but a link to a New Yorker article, as good as the New Yorker is, does not solve the question, because the New Yorker does not even address it. But the long held assumption in the 'geek o sphere' is that Apple did to Xerox what Microsoft did to Apple - and Jobs & the Mac Press Core did not apparently spend much time fighting against this idea after Apple lost the look-and-feel suit in the 80s... i have never even heard this 'Apple licensed the GUI fair and square' argument until a few years ago... not that i am an expert, but i spent a fair amount of time reading about tech trends, apple, osx, patents, etc for many of the past decade+.
The notion of an 'agreement' is not the same idea as a proper and legal license hammered out by two partners acting in good faith.
But even if Apple did 'properly license' Xerox intellectual property - there is much more that Apple did that proves their essentially predatory nature... most notably the period in the late 80s when the Free Software Foundation essentially boycotted Apple after it sued HP - claiming that apple "owned" the "copyright" of overlapping windows in a GUI, an absolutely mind boggling claim.
that has specific legal meanings. a copyright license applies to copyrighted works. a patent license applies to patented inventions. then there are performance rights, recording rights, etc etc etc.
a license is a specific legal agreement that would have been worked out between Apple and Xerox. it implies that Xerox knew what Apple would be doing with its tech, that it profited appropriately from it, and so forth and so on.
a casual "understanding" has many different features and artefacts.
furthermore, Wikipedia is not a great citation, although it has great citations within it. again, i am waiting for someone to point me to the book or journalistic article that discusses the exact circumstances of Apple's deal with Xerox. i am sure they are out there, i am just too lazy to look them up, but the fact it is so hard to find something saying "Apple licensed XYZ from Xerox" is a bit offputting.
instead of what i should have interpreted those words to mean
""The marketplace has innovators and it has mass marketers. It has leaders and followers. It has companies who invest in R&D and it has cost cutting copycats. I'll support those with R&D.""
seemed pretty clear to me. if you want to 'support those with R&D", you should buy a silicon graphics workstation... oh wait, you cant, they went bankrupt.
the word "make" seems to have been horribly abused in recent years. Apple does not 'make' anything other than software and business processes. They are not a manufacturer. They are a combiner and outsourcer.
"The marketplace has innovators and it has mass marketers. It has leaders and followers. It has companies who invest in R&D and it has cost cutting copycats. I'll support those with R&D."
Why isn't this an obvious fact to everyone else? You cannot raise domesticated animals in a space station - it is asking for all kinds of problems. You either have to send a life time supply of meat, or a lifetime supply of Vitamin B12, and one of those things is hugely more expensive than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
can now be printed by anyone, anywhere, with a gadget that sits on their desk.
instead of having to trash the toaster and buy a new one, or find a used one on ebay, or go order one for $20 + shipping + processing from some faceless megacorporation that probably doesn't even realize it makes toasters.
Every transaction on a credit card makes money for the middle men.
Interesting sort of incestuous fight within the Royal Court of Capitalism.
Blizzard is not a bad guy. It's just that they have other things on their mind. Other things to do. Sometimes, we fight, but it's usually my fault. I mean, maybe if I could make linux a little more attractive, they would spend more time with linux?
I know sometimes Blizzard doesn't do what they say they will do, but they are really busy, working hard, so I can't expect them to drop everything just to do what I want them to do. That would be selfish.
Besides, you just don't understand. Blizzard is soooooo cool. The colors of his panorama's are so exquisite. I just really miss Blizzard when Blizzard is away. You just don't get it, because you've never felt a "real connection" like I have with Blizzard.
So don't judge me. I stand for true love, just like Rhianna says in that new song with Chris Brown.
the US government had dozens and dozens of things they could have sued Microsoft for doing, which you mentioned, but what did they actually choose as charges?
"Browser bundling". Not only can you not explain this to the ordinary person on the street ( or on a jury ) , it is actually kind of offensive to people with some experience in the technology industry. Honestly, why in the @#$ should they be banned from putting a browser on their machine - does that mean Ubuntu cant, or Apple cant?
it was a royal foul up by the Clinton administration especially Janet Reno.
ever notice how they stay in the same jobs for 10 years, maybe 20? while managers, consultants, experts, systems analysts, etc, get layed off repeatedly?
go be a peon.
not joking. you can still get layed off, its just that they will always need someone to repeatedly do boring ass work shuffling stuff from one place to another.
"the most employable skills on the planet" lulz
thanks for posting
back on Fortune 5000ia, where most people actually work, things dont operate like that.
since 99.9% of users will not have the permissions to start up an access database, and the "IT crew" will be too busy / underfunded to help them, they will revert to sharing Excel files on sharepoint.
furthermore, since the vast majority of people in these corporations have never been trained in database stuff, and the company will not pay to train them, excel is something that is essentially something 'anyone can use' the basic features of and still kind of understand whats happening without much training.
please remind us where the word 'prompt' comes from... the 'bash prompt' or 'shell prompt'.
you type 'key words' into it and get responses.
why does it work? because its an anlogue of verbal communication. .. which humans have been doing for 10,000+ years.
as opposed to 'poking square things that look like candy' which humans have been doing for 20 years.
right under the city? it would probably solve those traffic problems for good! also, it wouldn't cost that much, and it wouldn't take that long.
either. it may 'seem logical' that Apple had a license from Xerox, but then i would expect that the New Yorker article would have said "Xerox's case was thrown out because Apple had licensed the works they used". It would seem it should say that, but it does not.
i cannot go on what 'seems logical', i must go on some actual facts, like an actual journalistic book or article that discusses the exact nature of Apples "agreement" with Xerox, and whether or not 'license' was in there.
Not to be pedantic, but there is a huge amount of 'understanding' in the tech world, the patent system a sort of unspoken beast that everyone is ashamed to admit exists, because it lashes out at the most inappropriate and inopportune moments, in that they would seem to highlight the hypocritical nature of most of the intellectual property law field in the current intellectual tech environment. Polite well spoken mean of good means discuss politely the evisceration of billions of dollars from each other and various small companies, not based on the principles of a fair legal concept of ownership, but based on mutually assured destruction based on war-chest portfolios. It has nothing to do with innovation, property rights, etc.
The fact that Microsoft essentially 'stole' windows from Apple threatens the entire facade of propriety surrounding the system... and is probably why Microsoft did not get seriously into the patent game until the 1990s.... they actually had something called "shame" ....
The argument to support Apple here is that Apple properly licensed the intellectual property of Xerox, and Xerox was fairly compensated. But that argument is not proven. So it might seem a small matter of linguistic propriety, but a link to a New Yorker article, as good as the New Yorker is, does not solve the question, because the New Yorker does not even address it. But the long held assumption in the 'geek o sphere' is that Apple did to Xerox what Microsoft did to Apple - and Jobs & the Mac Press Core did not apparently spend much time fighting against this idea after Apple lost the look-and-feel suit in the 80s... i have never even heard this 'Apple licensed the GUI fair and square' argument until a few years ago... not that i am an expert, but i spent a fair amount of time reading about tech trends, apple, osx, patents, etc for many of the past decade+.
The notion of an 'agreement' is not the same idea as a proper and legal license hammered out by two partners acting in good faith.
But even if Apple did 'properly license' Xerox intellectual property - there is much more that Apple did that proves their essentially predatory nature... most notably the period in the late 80s when the Free Software Foundation essentially boycotted Apple after it sued HP - claiming that apple "owned" the "copyright" of overlapping windows in a GUI, an absolutely mind boggling claim.
that has specific legal meanings. a copyright license applies to copyrighted works. a patent license applies to patented inventions. then there are performance rights, recording rights, etc etc etc.
a license is a specific legal agreement that would have been worked out between Apple and Xerox. it implies that Xerox knew what Apple would be doing with its tech, that it profited appropriately from it, and so forth and so on.
a casual "understanding" has many different features and artefacts.
furthermore, Wikipedia is not a great citation, although it has great citations within it. again, i am waiting for someone to point me to the book or journalistic article that discusses the exact circumstances of Apple's deal with Xerox. i am sure they are out there, i am just too lazy to look them up, but the fact it is so hard to find something saying "Apple licensed XYZ from Xerox" is a bit offputting.
borders had a branded e reader called the Kobo shortly before the company went bankrupt.
instead of what i should have interpreted those words to mean
""The marketplace has innovators and it has mass marketers. It has leaders and followers. It has companies who invest in R&D and it has cost cutting copycats. I'll support those with R&D.""
seemed pretty clear to me. if you want to 'support those with R&D", you should buy a silicon graphics workstation... oh wait, you cant, they went bankrupt.
still waiting.
1 "do you remember apple retail stores?"
2 "yeah, they had this weird kind of dead-tech post modern bullshit theme going on, "
1 "like al pacino's wife in Heat?"
2 "yeah, like al pacino's wife in Heat"
1 "so what happened to them?"
2 "you see that Twist Berry over there? the yogurt place? "
1 "yeah"
2 "you see those big silver things coming out of the side..."
1 "oh shit.. .this was an apple store!"
2 "thats right. until they started suing everybody, instead of making new products"
1 "fuck... i remember when i used to go on itunes..."
2 "yeah. itunes, ipod, all that ishit. all down the shitter. "
1 "but why? why... "
2 "its ancient greek stuff man. greed. power. all that stuff. go read Aeschylus, its all explained pretty well"
1 "ok. ill download it on my Nook."
2 "Speaking of nook, do you remember that store called Borders?"
the word "make" seems to have been horribly abused in recent years. Apple does not 'make' anything other than software and business processes. They are not a manufacturer. They are a combiner and outsourcer.
"The marketplace has innovators and it has mass marketers. It has leaders and followers. It has companies who invest in R&D and it has cost cutting copycats. I'll support those with R&D."
i keep hearing this 'they licensed it from xerox' stuff without any links to any original documentation.
the problem is, even if they did license some of it, its irrelevant
if some small company did to Apple today what Apple did to Xerox in the 1970s, Apple would sue them out of existence.
apple did not invent the floppy drive
apple did not invent the mouse
apple did not invent the windowing operating system
apple did not invent the cellphone
apple did not invent the smartphone
apple did not invent lossy audio encoding
apple did not invent portable music players
apple did not invent the online music store
apple did not invent unix
apple did not invent digital typography
apple did not invent video chats
apple did not invent the laptop
apple did not invent the internet
apple did not invent hard disk drives
apple did not invent fiber optic communications
apple did not invent wireless networks
apple did not invent OpenGL 3d graphics subsystem
apple did not invent voice recognition
apple did not invent outsourcing
you see, we actually WANT you to share blueprints and designs.
Why isn't this an obvious fact to everyone else? You cannot raise domesticated animals in a space station - it is asking for all kinds of problems. You either have to send a life time supply of meat, or a lifetime supply of Vitamin B12, and one of those things is hugely more expensive than the other.
still makes and receives calls as well as it did on day one.
first, we get a trunk full of pudding
then we get in the trunk full of pudding
then we start coding.
ohhh yeah