Or, for a simpler example, only allow (via htaccess) users to load moronirishnewspaper.com/STORYNUMBER if the referrer is moronirishnewspaper.com. Otherwise, they get redirected to moronirishnewspaper.com's home page. This easily solves the OH NO! PEOPLE ARE LINKING TO OUR ARTICLES AND DRIVING TRAFFIC TO US! problem*. Of course, this doesn't solve the PEOPLE ARE LINKING TO US, HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM PAY FOR DOING THAT? problem*.
* Where "problem" is defined as "completely not a problem."
The patents were filed beginning in 1997. Does anyone know if scanners from 1996 were able to scan in a document, launch an e-mail application, and attach said document to the e-mail? A quick Google Groups search did uncover a "photo scanning service" that promised to scan your photo and send it to you via e-mail. https://groups.google.com/group/nyc.singles/browse_thread/thread/6b8e902ec9996435/a1a550f3f5398a27?hl=en&q=scan+attach+to+e-mail#a1a550f3f5398a27
Also, for reference (and since people might not read the article), here are links to the patents in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US6185590 http://www.google.com/patents/US6771381 http://www.google.com/patents/US7477410 http://www.google.com/patents/US7986426
Case in point: Muppet Babies. Go try to find a (legal) copy of that anywhere. You might be able to find some old VHS tapes on Amazon, but no DVDs, Blu-Rays, streaming, etc. Why? Because the show used music and clips from movies. To put the shows on DVD, you would need to get rights to every single movie clip and song snippet they used. Even if said snippet was 50 years old. The complexity of this is so overwhelming that there is no Muppet Babies DVD out there.
Or, it could mimic a toddler well enough to cause the normal reactions people have to toddlers not their own -- annoyance, irritation, revulsion, anger, etc.
Maybe it's just the dad in me, but after having kids my reaction to other peoples' toddler is "how cute", "awwww", or (if they are misbehaving) an understanding nod and "boy, have I been there!"
Christmas begins on November 1st (when retailers toss aside the Halloween decorations for the Christmas ones), continues until January 1st (when they begin to focus on Valentine's Day), and makes a brief resurgence in July. Thus, Christmas has about 92 days and takes up a quarter of the year.
As a parent, I can tell you that I've found 90% of parenting to be "make it up as you go along." You can try to make a plan for what you will do if something happens, but 9 times out of 10 something else will happen to mess up those plans. It's the ultimate on the job training. Nothing prepares you for parenthood. (I shake my head sadly at people who say "I have a dog so I know what it's like to be a parent.") It's not for the feint of heart and it isn't easy.
Sadly, too many parents have a baby thinking it'll be easy/fun or thinking it will cement their relationship (if anything, it's a source of relationship stress). Then, when their parenthood fantasy is shattered, they find themselves with a crying, hungry, pooping bundle that they don't want the responsibility for.
Now that you mention it, why hasn't Santa been arrested? He's giving away toys for free that he "makes in his workshop." Translation: He's got a factory producing knock-off products of popular copyrighted toys which he then gives away resulting in lost sales for the toy industry the world over. Santa should be Number One on the Copyright Violators Most Wanted List!
Going to the movies is expensive enough. The 4 tickets I need to buy for my wife, two kids*, and me easily costs over $25. I don't need to pay an additional surcharge just to see 3D when most of the 3D movies are "we're in post-production and decided to take on 3D now" junk. (I'm going by opinions I've heard from plenty of other people who have seen 3D movies.) I'm on a limited budget and going to the movies is a rare event for us so we'll stick to the normal-priced 2D movies. We definitely don't feel like we're missing anything.
* Another reason we avoid 3D movies: My younger son doesn't like the 3D effects and often winds up trying to watch the movie without the glasses. So I end up paying extra for him to view a harder-to-watch version of the movie!
Those were different issues than copyright though. If you bought a car and then were told you can never sell that car (even back to another dealership as a trade-in), it would wreck havoc with the car market. Many people expect to be able to turn their cars in when they get to a certain age in order to get a discount on a new car. And dealerships count on selling those traded-in cars as used for a profit.
If this were extended to homes as well then moving into a home would mean that's where you're going to live for the rest of your life (unless you have enough money to buy a 2nd or 3rd home).
Here's the set my son has: http://www.knex.com/monster-jam/ Specifically, http://www.knex.com/monster-jam/product.php?pc=57058
Notice the Lego-like blocks and mini-figure. In theory, the plastic truck top connects on top. In practice, the bricks don't stay locked together and the whole thing pops apart.
Re:Last time I went to the Lego Store...
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 1
Big shame. I'd think this would lead to increased sales. They could enforce a "no copyrighted names" policy (so you couldn't make a "Bilbo Baggin's Hobbit Hole" set, but you could make a "halfling hut") so as to escape any legal liability. It would also be used in conjunction with the Cuusoo program. Cuusoo projects could be lists for people to buy even as they vote for Lego to make the set official.
Yes, this has always been this way. Lego is it's own plural.
Lego = one brick Lego = many bricks Legos = pasta sauce
Legolas - Elf who fights alongside Gimli and Aragorn.
Which begs the question: Would the minifig version of him be Lego Legolas?
Re:Last time I went to the Lego Store...
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 1
You can buy specific bricks on their website also via their Pick-A-Brick section: http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Pick-A-Brick-ByTheme
My only recommendation to them to improve the area would be to allow people to make lists of parts. Then, people could come up with cool Lego builds, post the parts list with build instructions, and let people order exactly those parts from Lego.com. At first glance this seems to be the opposite of "free wheeling creativity", but it would encourage people to come up with cooler Lego constructs to post online.
We had a K'nex set to our youngest kid. He built it (with my wife's help) and was very happy to have a "working" monster truck... until pushing said truck caused the top of it to come off. The bricks just wouldn't fit in the right way and neither would the K'nex minifigure. The best we could do was get it in properly so it would be a "look but don't touch" toy. Not very useful if you want to play with it. Meanwhile, we've never had issues with Legos coming apart like that (and Legos have wheeled sets so they could easily be used to make a truck).
They have a few generic kits still. For Chanukah one night, my kids each got a package of "plain" Legos. It was just a big box of assorted Legos. The included instruction book was more to help kids get started. (Put these blocks together like this and you get a duck. Put those together like that and you get a house.) Yes, they have their branded sets too. (As do I. I got a Lego Lord of the Rings Shelob set for my cubicle. It's nice having Shelob, Gollum, Sam, and Frodo watching me work. Oh and the One Ring. My preciousssss.) My son loves following the instructions to put together his sets. When he gets overwhelmed, it's one of his favorite "unwinding" activities.
Not to mention have gas in your car's gas tank. And electronics that could be used to create and explosion? Do you have a cell phone at home? Or a clock radio? Then you have enough at home to make an explosive device.
Of course, I don't have the know-how to connect the two, but that seems to be a minor compared to having "things that could be used to create explosives."
If you want to punish the criminal, you need a child of about 0 - 3 months. As a parent, I can tell you that this is termed "Parental Hell." Your just-born child isn't on any particular schedule. They've been used to sleeping and waking as they please and having nutrients and waste products flow through the umbilical cord whenever they need to. Now, they're in a cold, scary world and can't communicate with those odd big things that are taking care of them. They'll wake at 10pm and at 12am and 1:30am and 2am and 2:15am and 4am and 5:47am just minutes before your alarm rings. They'll need to be changed at 1am when you've had 2 hours of sleep over the past 3 days combined while wriggling so they put their feet in their poop unless you stop them and while trying to pee on you. They'll need to be fed at 1:30 am after which they will barf on you and soil their diaper again a half hour later. They'll wait until you change their diaper and then go again forcing you to do a second diaper change.
Of course, all times are arbitrary and are subject to change with no notice whatsoever. If you can survive the first three months of parenthood, you can survive anything!
A few days of this and the criminals will be begging to be locked up in maximum security!
(Note: Despite all this, I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything. I am, however, thankful that we are out of the diaper stage for good!)
All of which leads me to the conclusion that, while some gun control would be good, what we really need is a huge culture shift. Too many people think "GUNS = COOL TOYS." What we should really be thinking is "GUN = SCARY KILLING DEVICE." Yes, there are valid reasons to have a "SCARY KILLING DEVICE" in your house, but you need to treat that SCARY KILLING DEVICE with care and respect, not like a toy. Sadly, I'm at a loss as to how to change the "GUNS = COOL TOYS" mentality. It is too deeply ingrained in some people. (Sadly, those people aren't easily recognized or I'd say that effective gun control would be ban people from having guns if they thought "GUNS = COOL TOYS.")
Well, Apple does have a patent on rounded corners and what's a wheel but a square with *VERY* rounded corners? *cue Apple suing every car manufacturer for patent infringement*
I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make money and selling the photos for ads is actually a good idea. The way they went about it though was all wrong. Instead of "all your photos can be sold for ads by us to anyone and we won't share the money", they should have made an opt-in system that let people receive ad proposals from companies. Users could then accept or deny these requests and Instagram would share in the payments. Everyone would win under this system and there wouldn't have been a huge outcry.
For me it was more than just the filters. (Actually, it wasn't filters at all since I never used them.) It was ease of use. Click a photo, type a caption, hit send. The photo then would appear in my Twitter stream and I could receive "likes" or comments from other Instagram users.
I'm exploring ways of just uploading the photos to a special section of my self-hosted Wordpress blog. I already have plugins in place to tweet when I make a new post. By using Twitter Cards, I might be able to have the photo appear in a Twitter stream when it is tweeted out. (Like Instagram used to do but recently discontinued.) Of course, Wordpress allows for comments and I'm sure I can find or write a "likes" plugin. Once that's done, I'll essentially have a self-hosted mini-Instagram. (Or at least the parts of it that I care about.)
In addition, they claim the right to sell use of your name in advertisements. I blog under a pseudonym, but I've worked hard to build a reputation with that pseudonym. I don't want Instagram allowing some company to use my pseudonym in their ads (without my permission) just because I used that same pseudonym when I signed up with their service.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, for a simpler example, only allow (via htaccess) users to load moronirishnewspaper.com/STORYNUMBER if the referrer is moronirishnewspaper.com. Otherwise, they get redirected to moronirishnewspaper.com's home page. This easily solves the OH NO! PEOPLE ARE LINKING TO OUR ARTICLES AND DRIVING TRAFFIC TO US! problem*. Of course, this doesn't solve the PEOPLE ARE LINKING TO US, HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM PAY FOR DOING THAT? problem*.
* Where "problem" is defined as "completely not a problem."
The patents were filed beginning in 1997. Does anyone know if scanners from 1996 were able to scan in a document, launch an e-mail application, and attach said document to the e-mail? A quick Google Groups search did uncover a "photo scanning service" that promised to scan your photo and send it to you via e-mail. https://groups.google.com/group/nyc.singles/browse_thread/thread/6b8e902ec9996435/a1a550f3f5398a27?hl=en&q=scan+attach+to+e-mail#a1a550f3f5398a27
Also, for reference (and since people might not read the article), here are links to the patents in question:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6185590
http://www.google.com/patents/US6771381
http://www.google.com/patents/US7477410
http://www.google.com/patents/US7986426
Case in point: Muppet Babies. Go try to find a (legal) copy of that anywhere. You might be able to find some old VHS tapes on Amazon, but no DVDs, Blu-Rays, streaming, etc. Why? Because the show used music and clips from movies. To put the shows on DVD, you would need to get rights to every single movie clip and song snippet they used. Even if said snippet was 50 years old. The complexity of this is so overwhelming that there is no Muppet Babies DVD out there.
Maybe it's just the dad in me, but after having kids my reaction to other peoples' toddler is "how cute", "awwww", or (if they are misbehaving) an understanding nod and "boy, have I been there!"
Christmas begins on November 1st (when retailers toss aside the Halloween decorations for the Christmas ones), continues until January 1st (when they begin to focus on Valentine's Day), and makes a brief resurgence in July. Thus, Christmas has about 92 days and takes up a quarter of the year.
As a parent, I can tell you that I've found 90% of parenting to be "make it up as you go along." You can try to make a plan for what you will do if something happens, but 9 times out of 10 something else will happen to mess up those plans. It's the ultimate on the job training. Nothing prepares you for parenthood. (I shake my head sadly at people who say "I have a dog so I know what it's like to be a parent.") It's not for the feint of heart and it isn't easy.
Sadly, too many parents have a baby thinking it'll be easy/fun or thinking it will cement their relationship (if anything, it's a source of relationship stress). Then, when their parenthood fantasy is shattered, they find themselves with a crying, hungry, pooping bundle that they don't want the responsibility for.
Now that you mention it, why hasn't Santa been arrested? He's giving away toys for free that he "makes in his workshop." Translation: He's got a factory producing knock-off products of popular copyrighted toys which he then gives away resulting in lost sales for the toy industry the world over. Santa should be Number One on the Copyright Violators Most Wanted List!
Going to the movies is expensive enough. The 4 tickets I need to buy for my wife, two kids*, and me easily costs over $25. I don't need to pay an additional surcharge just to see 3D when most of the 3D movies are "we're in post-production and decided to take on 3D now" junk. (I'm going by opinions I've heard from plenty of other people who have seen 3D movies.) I'm on a limited budget and going to the movies is a rare event for us so we'll stick to the normal-priced 2D movies. We definitely don't feel like we're missing anything.
* Another reason we avoid 3D movies: My younger son doesn't like the 3D effects and often winds up trying to watch the movie without the glasses. So I end up paying extra for him to view a harder-to-watch version of the movie!
Those were different issues than copyright though. If you bought a car and then were told you can never sell that car (even back to another dealership as a trade-in), it would wreck havoc with the car market. Many people expect to be able to turn their cars in when they get to a certain age in order to get a discount on a new car. And dealerships count on selling those traded-in cars as used for a profit.
If this were extended to homes as well then moving into a home would mean that's where you're going to live for the rest of your life (unless you have enough money to buy a 2nd or 3rd home).
Here's the set my son has: http://www.knex.com/monster-jam/ Specifically, http://www.knex.com/monster-jam/product.php?pc=57058
Notice the Lego-like blocks and mini-figure. In theory, the plastic truck top connects on top. In practice, the bricks don't stay locked together and the whole thing pops apart.
Big shame. I'd think this would lead to increased sales. They could enforce a "no copyrighted names" policy (so you couldn't make a "Bilbo Baggin's Hobbit Hole" set, but you could make a "halfling hut") so as to escape any legal liability. It would also be used in conjunction with the Cuusoo program. Cuusoo projects could be lists for people to buy even as they vote for Lego to make the set official.
Legolas - Elf who fights alongside Gimli and Aragorn.
Which begs the question: Would the minifig version of him be Lego Legolas?
You can buy specific bricks on their website also via their Pick-A-Brick section: http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Pick-A-Brick-ByTheme
My only recommendation to them to improve the area would be to allow people to make lists of parts. Then, people could come up with cool Lego builds, post the parts list with build instructions, and let people order exactly those parts from Lego.com. At first glance this seems to be the opposite of "free wheeling creativity", but it would encourage people to come up with cooler Lego constructs to post online.
We had a K'nex set to our youngest kid. He built it (with my wife's help) and was very happy to have a "working" monster truck... until pushing said truck caused the top of it to come off. The bricks just wouldn't fit in the right way and neither would the K'nex minifigure. The best we could do was get it in properly so it would be a "look but don't touch" toy. Not very useful if you want to play with it. Meanwhile, we've never had issues with Legos coming apart like that (and Legos have wheeled sets so they could easily be used to make a truck).
They have a few generic kits still. For Chanukah one night, my kids each got a package of "plain" Legos. It was just a big box of assorted Legos. The included instruction book was more to help kids get started. (Put these blocks together like this and you get a duck. Put those together like that and you get a house.) Yes, they have their branded sets too. (As do I. I got a Lego Lord of the Rings Shelob set for my cubicle. It's nice having Shelob, Gollum, Sam, and Frodo watching me work. Oh and the One Ring. My preciousssss.) My son loves following the instructions to put together his sets. When he gets overwhelmed, it's one of his favorite "unwinding" activities.
Guns don't kill people. Pens and pencils do! (NRA's new slogan.)
ACK! Don't link to that article!! Oh, great. Now all of Slashdot has to be arrested. *sneaks out the back door*
Not to mention have gas in your car's gas tank. And electronics that could be used to create and explosion? Do you have a cell phone at home? Or a clock radio? Then you have enough at home to make an explosive device.
Of course, I don't have the know-how to connect the two, but that seems to be a minor compared to having "things that could be used to create explosives."
If you want to punish the criminal, you need a child of about 0 - 3 months. As a parent, I can tell you that this is termed "Parental Hell." Your just-born child isn't on any particular schedule. They've been used to sleeping and waking as they please and having nutrients and waste products flow through the umbilical cord whenever they need to. Now, they're in a cold, scary world and can't communicate with those odd big things that are taking care of them. They'll wake at 10pm and at 12am and 1:30am and 2am and 2:15am and 4am and 5:47am just minutes before your alarm rings. They'll need to be changed at 1am when you've had 2 hours of sleep over the past 3 days combined while wriggling so they put their feet in their poop unless you stop them and while trying to pee on you. They'll need to be fed at 1:30 am after which they will barf on you and soil their diaper again a half hour later. They'll wait until you change their diaper and then go again forcing you to do a second diaper change.
Of course, all times are arbitrary and are subject to change with no notice whatsoever. If you can survive the first three months of parenthood, you can survive anything!
A few days of this and the criminals will be begging to be locked up in maximum security!
(Note: Despite all this, I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything. I am, however, thankful that we are out of the diaper stage for good!)
All of which leads me to the conclusion that, while some gun control would be good, what we really need is a huge culture shift. Too many people think "GUNS = COOL TOYS." What we should really be thinking is "GUN = SCARY KILLING DEVICE." Yes, there are valid reasons to have a "SCARY KILLING DEVICE" in your house, but you need to treat that SCARY KILLING DEVICE with care and respect, not like a toy. Sadly, I'm at a loss as to how to change the "GUNS = COOL TOYS" mentality. It is too deeply ingrained in some people. (Sadly, those people aren't easily recognized or I'd say that effective gun control would be ban people from having guns if they thought "GUNS = COOL TOYS.")
Sounds like something someone with a low IQ would claim.
Well, Apple does have a patent on rounded corners and what's a wheel but a square with *VERY* rounded corners? *cue Apple suing every car manufacturer for patent infringement*
I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make money and selling the photos for ads is actually a good idea. The way they went about it though was all wrong. Instead of "all your photos can be sold for ads by us to anyone and we won't share the money", they should have made an opt-in system that let people receive ad proposals from companies. Users could then accept or deny these requests and Instagram would share in the payments. Everyone would win under this system and there wouldn't have been a huge outcry.
For me it was more than just the filters. (Actually, it wasn't filters at all since I never used them.) It was ease of use. Click a photo, type a caption, hit send. The photo then would appear in my Twitter stream and I could receive "likes" or comments from other Instagram users.
I'm exploring ways of just uploading the photos to a special section of my self-hosted Wordpress blog. I already have plugins in place to tweet when I make a new post. By using Twitter Cards, I might be able to have the photo appear in a Twitter stream when it is tweeted out. (Like Instagram used to do but recently discontinued.) Of course, Wordpress allows for comments and I'm sure I can find or write a "likes" plugin. Once that's done, I'll essentially have a self-hosted mini-Instagram. (Or at least the parts of it that I care about.)
In addition, they claim the right to sell use of your name in advertisements. I blog under a pseudonym, but I've worked hard to build a reputation with that pseudonym. I don't want Instagram allowing some company to use my pseudonym in their ads (without my permission) just because I used that same pseudonym when I signed up with their service.