"If a country has the resources to send a ship across the ocean, there are far more resources in the ocean so coming to our continent is absurd."
That's not a fair comparison because the shipbuilder doesn't necessarily have the technical capacity to mine the oceans, whereas the spaceship builder is guaranteed the technical capacity to mine the asteroids.
But if you don't buy enough songs, you get on the list where they sue you and accuse you publicly of possessing child pornography. And that is extortion.
But now that it's (finally) coming out, a server with 192GiB of ram is pretty cheap. There are plenty of gamers with access or who can even afford a $15k box.
So you made big money by charging more than you had to, right?, stealing from the customers who apparently had no better choice than to work with you, and therefore no leverage in the price negotiations.
We have a pretty strong economy, actually. The strongest on the planet. It's just not as strong as people would like it to be, or imagine it could be, if only X had been handled differently.
Why would this get tagged as greed? If you ask me, it's the/. readers that are greedy for thinking that inventors shouldn't get legal protection for their hard work.
In response to the "get rid of patents" posts: if you had your way we would still be living in the 19th century. Why should I spend a ton of time and invest potentially millions of dollars coming up with an invention? Because my hard work will pay off and I can make a profit. This profit motive is protected by the patent process. If you take that away, why should I invest all that time and money?
The fact is, without patents we would have far fewer inventions and technology would advance at a much slower pace.
Now lets talk about patent "trolls." Lets say I invent something, but don't want to actually deal with developing a commercial product. Thanks to patent "trolls," I can sell my patent to them! This allows me to still be rewarded for my hard work, without having to develop a business around my idea.
The problem is that having 90% of all patents be complete unoriginal BS leads naturally to impulses to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of the whole system.
If we were only now talking about the millionth patent coming up some time in the next 25 years, I bet there'd be absolutely no one suggesting we get rid of patents.
I'd actually argue that's probably untrue at most work sites. For example, in every one of the last 5 buildings I've worked in, sharing a ride in the right elevator could get you into an area with an rj45 port, whereas getting into the server room required passing a badge access door that was only used by 5 people who all knew each other, with an expectation that anyone else would be escorted.
Whether or not he's been watching too much Burn Notice, Burn Notice is right about that one. You can get into about 90% of offices that way. It's actually happened (twice!) at mine, and the building is poorly designed (as recently as 20 years ago!), so improving security is difficult. Anything older than 15 years (pre-9/11) is probably similarly difficult to physically secure.
Yes, the version numbering matters. Because people with Cs in their titles make deployment decisions based on potentially false assumptions about the versioning. For example, there are going to be organizations stuck on firefox 4 for years because their CTO/CIO thinks that firefox 5 obviously represents a major upgrade and serious risk to their organization.
That may not be the case. We have a clue about the technical issues, and there isn't really reason to believe they'd raise the launch costs by more than 10x, at which point it would still cut costs in half.
That would be funnier if patents weren't being granted for obvious 'inventions'. The obviousness qualification has unfortunately been dropped for patents filed since roughly 2000. As a result, you now have people 'inventing' things that are obvious to everyone in the field, and unless you have documented proof of your prior art and good lawyers and a good legal budget you are screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Trolling. No one is that stupid. Even on the internet.
Yeah, SJ was quite the jerk for not checking in to coordinate.
"If a country has the resources to send a ship across the ocean, there are far more resources in the ocean so coming to our continent is absurd."
That's not a fair comparison because the shipbuilder doesn't necessarily have the technical capacity to mine the oceans, whereas the spaceship builder is guaranteed the technical capacity to mine the asteroids.
But if you don't buy enough songs, you get on the list where they sue you and accuse you publicly of possessing child pornography. And that is extortion.
I would have, but I was quoting the parent.
I'm fascinated by the notion of the hymenology council myself.
Yeah, but the western hemisphere's economy is bigger than the EU.
But now that it's (finally) coming out, a server with 192GiB of ram is pretty cheap. There are plenty of gamers with access or who can even afford a $15k box.
They will survive as long as they want, they have plenty of cash to survive several flops in a row.
So you made big money by charging more than you had to, right?, stealing from the customers who apparently had no better choice than to work with you, and therefore no leverage in the price negotiations.
We have a pretty strong economy, actually. The strongest on the planet. It's just not as strong as people would like it to be, or imagine it could be, if only X had been handled differently.
Why would this get tagged as greed? If you ask me, it's the /. readers that are greedy for thinking that inventors shouldn't get legal protection for their hard work.
In response to the "get rid of patents" posts: if you had your way we would still be living in the 19th century. Why should I spend a ton of time and invest potentially millions of dollars coming up with an invention? Because my hard work will pay off and I can make a profit. This profit motive is protected by the patent process. If you take that away, why should I invest all that time and money?
The fact is, without patents we would have far fewer inventions and technology would advance at a much slower pace.
Now lets talk about patent "trolls." Lets say I invent something, but don't want to actually deal with developing a commercial product. Thanks to patent "trolls," I can sell my patent to them! This allows me to still be rewarded for my hard work, without having to develop a business around my idea.
The problem is that having 90% of all patents be complete unoriginal BS leads naturally to impulses to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of the whole system.
If we were only now talking about the millionth patent coming up some time in the next 25 years, I bet there'd be absolutely no one suggesting we get rid of patents.
I'd actually argue that's probably untrue at most work sites. For example, in every one of the last 5 buildings I've worked in, sharing a ride in the right elevator could get you into an area with an rj45 port, whereas getting into the server room required passing a badge access door that was only used by 5 people who all knew each other, with an expectation that anyone else would be escorted.
Whether or not he's been watching too much Burn Notice, Burn Notice is right about that one. You can get into about 90% of offices that way. It's actually happened (twice!) at mine, and the building is poorly designed (as recently as 20 years ago!), so improving security is difficult. Anything older than 15 years (pre-9/11) is probably similarly difficult to physically secure.
And if you turn around and say 'yes, I installed it correctly', you think Intel wants the publicity of fighting you over it?
That's surely true, and yet none of those problems is going to be fatal. In some cases these companies have dealt with said problems for 10+ decades.
I think the evidence is pretty clearly in on the free market not working.
Yes, the version numbering matters. Because people with Cs in their titles make deployment decisions based on potentially false assumptions about the versioning. For example, there are going to be organizations stuck on firefox 4 for years because their CTO/CIO thinks that firefox 5 obviously represents a major upgrade and serious risk to their organization.
Sounds like version inflation to me.
That may not be the case. We have a clue about the technical issues, and there isn't really reason to believe they'd raise the launch costs by more than 10x, at which point it would still cut costs in half.
You may have missed the point of his sig.
The rest of your post was so thoughtfully composed, I felt like you might want to know that it's just 'adhere'.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adhere
That would be funnier if patents weren't being granted for obvious 'inventions'. The obviousness qualification has unfortunately been dropped for patents filed since roughly 2000. As a result, you now have people 'inventing' things that are obvious to everyone in the field, and unless you have documented proof of your prior art and good lawyers and a good legal budget you are screwed.
That article and all of its links seem to imply that the patents in question have expired.
As a deaf lipreader, yeah, that's my preference, thanks for asking.