Even more obscure was the fact that each area that had the creature sound also had a visual marker for the creature's symbol hidden visually in the area (the drained little pond the most obvious). So, even if you didn't get the "sound" clues, you could still finish the game if you noticed the visual clues.
Ok i havnt RTFA and i dont no much about American copyright, but isnt there a law that says you must uphold copyright infringements, i.e you have no choice in who you sue, you have to sue everyone who infringes your work?
You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright.
Furthermore, you are not forced by law to protect trademarks: if you want to lose your trademark protection, by allowing others to infringe, then you certainly have the right to do so. However, if you want to protect your trademark, then yes, you need to actively enforce your rights.
The simple "X is bad" argument is dead before it's typed; as its been said ad infinitum: "use the right tool for the right job."
Programming in C or scripting language is all fine and dandy, but if you're writing a commercial application with a full blown UI, you really can't beat utilizing a C++ UI framework, whether it's MFC for Windows or PowerPlant for the Macintosh. C++ has its place in the world, and so does C (and Java, and Python, etc.).
C++ encourages you to avoid solving the problem by trying to introduce abstractions that also don't solve the problem.
If this is what you really believe, then more I'm inclined to believe that it's only your C++ code that ends up "longer" and "half assed.";-)
In this case, MacOS informs you that person x is using a copy of the software and then it quits the application until you close down the other copy or log off the network. I don't see/. breaking out the hayforks over this though.
Maybe because there is no Apple software that behaves as you describe?
Being a "good coder" has never been "enough for writing GUI" application, IMHO. The problem has always plagued developers who may be great code gurus, but don't have the time, inclination or perhaps creative bent to even align or equally space out their widgets. The worst UIs I've seen (complete lack of consistency, no sense of the flow of user operation) come from these kinds of developers. Even worse are those applications that refuse to conform to established UI guidelines for the target OS/shell.
Now before someone goes off: I'm an aging developer too, with (I hope) a good sense of UI design, but even I wonder now and then if I should farm out my UI work to someone who is an expert in these matters In fact, I already farm out icon design to someone who can actually use Photoshop like a pro (many graphic artists will design icons/splash screens/gradients for you without making you broke...offer a clear copyright and credit in the splash screen, that works for me).
So, yeah, life is hard for developers, but I really think that's been the case since the GUI took frontstage on the computer screen.
If you make software patentable it is hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any function or piece of code is a candidate. Software is different from zippers and technical machines. Very different.
I disagree. You could say the same about zippers: "If you make zippers patentable thatis hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any piece of metal is a candidate."
However, we know you can't patent any piece of metal, just like you can't patent any function or piece of code.
The claims in a software patent have to be very detailed to protect the exact implementation of the code. The LZW patent did not stop the creation of other methods for compressing image data -- it only stopped (illegal) use of the same method.
MS could have written from scratch, a unique plugin architecture that did not violate the Eolas patent. That the chose not to do this (and then got caught) is why they were found guilty.
Why should "software alone" be excepted? Isn't deciding that putting frozen ice on a stick (Epperson's Popsicle patent) "like patenting a shortcut for a daily commute"?
Patents protect original inventions. I don't see why putting 1s and 0s in a creative, unique way is any different from putting frozen ice on a wooden stick.
If people created physical laws, then yes, that would follow.
I really don't see why the Slashdot party line seems to be that "software patents are bad." Yes, software is just algorithmic expression, but certainly it is creative algorthmic expression -- and unique software inventions should be patentable.
All sorts of metal clothes fasteners existed before the zipper, yet it was clearly a unique invention.
If "Acme Clothing Connectors" had used the same method, after it had been patented, then they would have infringed.
All sorts of plugin technologies existed before Eolas created a unique method for allowing plugins/applets to run inside IE.
If MS used the same method (which appears to be the case), after it had been patented, then it infringed.
OS X has system-wide application support for multi-button mice: right button is context menu, scroll wheel does what you think, etc -- just like Windows.
The software that came with my Logitech mouse by default sets the scroll-button click to be double-click, but everything can be customized.
It's too bad that Apple doesn't publicize this fact -- too many people make the same mistake you did and assume your stuck with a one button mouse if you choose to buy a Mac.
That clunky single-button of theirs is probably the reason #1 I don't want an Apple machine.
If that's really your #1 reason, then do yourself a favor, buy a Mac and then...I know this is a stretch...spend the extra $25 or so for a three button mouse. You'll be just fine, trust me.;-)
They don't give a shred of information as to how they accomplish that heretofore impossible feat
Which is exactly why their patent has nothing to do with a free-standing hologram. Their patent has to do with the, as you stated, the "unhard" part of the equation.
tell me how The holographic image generator 200 actually manages to display a real time changing holographic image
Good question, but that's not the issue. People seem to be believe this company has invented a new type of holographic technology -- they haven't. What they've done is invented a method to accept tactile-less input from a hologram, regardless of the holographic techonology. That's why the images are fakes.
What this company needs now is a partner who has some good holographic technology in the works.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the amount specified by the laws governing copyright infringement -- $150K per instance.
For example, if you make a copy of a book, sell 100 copies, and get caught, you can be sued for 15 million dollars by the publisher.
The fact is most computer users DON'T know that a lot of the crap they download from the internet is ill-intentioned.
Isn't that their problem then? These users need to be educated, instead of passing laws that excuse their ignorance.
There is NO reason we have to simply 'endure' the crap that is appearing on our screen with out our permission.
RTFA. The users in question did give permission by consenting to installing the adware.
If you don't want to see their ads, then don't install their adware. Simple.
Your missing the point. The users that are seeing the pop-up consented to installing the pop-up software in the first place.
If you don't consent, and don't install their software, then you can go to the U-Haul site and not be disturbed -- just as you wish.
Even more obscure was the fact that each area that had the creature sound also had a visual marker for the creature's symbol hidden visually in the area (the drained little pond the most obvious). So, even if you didn't get the "sound" clues, you could still finish the game if you noticed the visual clues.
Sounds great to us! You can start by purchasing our album today. Stick it to the RIAA!
Thanks!
An unsigned band.
Ok i havnt RTFA and i dont no much about American copyright, but isnt there a law that says you must uphold copyright infringements, i.e you have no choice in who you sue, you have to sue everyone who infringes your work?
You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright.
Furthermore, you are not forced by law to protect trademarks: if you want to lose your trademark protection, by allowing others to infringe, then you certainly have the right to do so. However, if you want to protect your trademark, then yes, you need to actively enforce your rights.
Err, that would be Riven, the sequel to Myst.
The simple "X is bad" argument is dead before it's typed; as its been said ad infinitum: "use the right tool for the right job."
;-)
Programming in C or scripting language is all fine and dandy, but if you're writing a commercial application with a full blown UI, you really can't beat utilizing a C++ UI framework, whether it's MFC for Windows or PowerPlant for the Macintosh. C++ has its place in the world, and so does C (and Java, and Python, etc.).
C++ encourages you to avoid solving the problem by trying to introduce abstractions that also don't solve the problem.
If this is what you really believe, then more I'm inclined to believe that it's only your C++ code that ends up "longer" and "half assed."
Even better debugging tool:
putchar('\007');
Milking the press, it does a body good.
In this case, MacOS informs you that person x is using a copy of the software and then it quits the application until you close down the other copy or log off the network. I don't see /. breaking out the hayforks over this though.
Maybe because there is no Apple software that behaves as you describe?
Being a "good coder" has never been "enough for writing GUI" application, IMHO. The problem has always plagued developers who may be great code gurus, but don't have the time, inclination or perhaps creative bent to even align or equally space out their widgets. The worst UIs I've seen (complete lack of consistency, no sense of the flow of user operation) come from these kinds of developers. Even worse are those applications that refuse to conform to established UI guidelines for the target OS/shell.
Now before someone goes off: I'm an aging developer too, with (I hope) a good sense of UI design, but even I wonder now and then if I should farm out my UI work to someone who is an expert in these matters In fact, I already farm out icon design to someone who can actually use Photoshop like a pro (many graphic artists will design icons/splash screens/gradients for you without making you broke...offer a clear copyright and credit in the splash screen, that works for me).
So, yeah, life is hard for developers, but I really think that's been the case since the GUI took frontstage on the computer screen.
The shares were non-voting, and Microsoft sold them after about a year.
SCO must have disclosed code to the Library of Congress when it registered their copyright to the UNIX code
You only need to submit 50 pages of code to file a copyright for source code, so there may not be much information at the LoC to peruse.
If you make software patentable it is hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any function or piece of code is a candidate. Software is different from zippers and technical machines. Very different.
I disagree. You could say the same about zippers: "If you make zippers patentable thatis hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any piece of metal is a candidate."
However, we know you can't patent any piece of metal, just like you can't patent any function or piece of code.
The claims in a software patent have to be very detailed to protect the exact implementation of the code. The LZW patent did not stop the creation of other methods for compressing image data -- it only stopped (illegal) use of the same method.
MS could have written from scratch, a unique plugin architecture that did not violate the Eolas patent. That the chose not to do this (and then got caught) is why they were found guilty.
Copyrights are ok to protect branding
Er, trademarks protect branding. But anyway...
Why should "software alone" be excepted? Isn't deciding that putting frozen ice on a stick (Epperson's Popsicle patent) "like patenting a shortcut for a daily commute"?
Patents protect original inventions. I don't see why putting 1s and 0s in a creative, unique way is any different from putting frozen ice on a wooden stick.
What is next - patents on physical laws
If people created physical laws, then yes, that would follow.
I really don't see why the Slashdot party line seems to be that "software patents are bad." Yes, software is just algorithmic expression, but certainly it is creative algorthmic expression -- and unique software inventions should be patentable.
All sorts of metal clothes fasteners existed before the zipper, yet it was clearly a unique invention.
If "Acme Clothing Connectors" had used the same method, after it had been patented, then they would have infringed.
All sorts of plugin technologies existed before Eolas created a unique method for allowing plugins/applets to run inside IE.
If MS used the same method (which appears to be the case), after it had been patented, then it infringed.
Why is this "idiocy?"
OS X has system-wide application support for multi-button mice: right button is context menu, scroll wheel does what you think, etc -- just like Windows.
The software that came with my Logitech mouse by default sets the scroll-button click to be double-click, but everything can be customized.
It's too bad that Apple doesn't publicize this fact -- too many people make the same mistake you did and assume your stuck with a one button mouse if you choose to buy a Mac.
That clunky single-button of theirs is probably the reason #1 I don't want an Apple machine.
;-)
If that's really your #1 reason, then do yourself a favor, buy a Mac and then...I know this is a stretch...spend the extra $25 or so for a three button mouse. You'll be just fine, trust me.
/* bugs worked out (re: infinity != 32768) */
void Sue();
void CounterSue();
void main()
{
Sue();
}
void Sue() {
CounterSue();
}
void CounterSue() {
Sue();
}
They don't give a shred of information as to how they accomplish that heretofore impossible feat
Which is exactly why their patent has nothing to do with a free-standing hologram. Their patent has to do with the, as you stated, the "unhard" part of the equation.
tell me how The holographic image generator 200 actually manages to display a real time changing holographic image
Good question, but that's not the issue. People seem to be believe this company has invented a new type of holographic technology -- they haven't. What they've done is invented a method to accept tactile-less input from a hologram, regardless of the holographic techonology. That's why the images are fakes.
What this company needs now is a partner who has some good holographic technology in the works.
Let's see, according to the patent, it was filed on June 6, 1995, and awarded April 23, 2002. Almost seven years is not "some measure of difficulty?"
I see nothing on their website (other than very obviously mocked up fake pictures) or in the patent that says they really know how to do this.
Huh? Their patent appears to explain exactly how to do this (hint: see the "DETAILED DESCRIPTION" section).