Don't you see this is Microsoft making good on their promise for better security. Your computer cannot connect to the network then it is much more secure.
I think you missed the point. The real innovation isn't in standards, it is in implementation of them. For instance TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP are all free to use. IF royalties were required to use these not near the money would have been made off of them. The money is generated by the tools and bodies needed to build around the standards. More money is made by having these standards be free because more people will use the standards and more people will need tools and contractors.
I agree that it would be best to fix the patent system, but the W3C doesnt' have the power to do this, but they do have the power to set up a standards system that allows defensive stratagies. I think it is a good step by the W3C.
but I'm also saying getting rid of royalty patents would remove a different avenue of profit.
Yes it would. But that's not what the WC3 is doing, they aren't ending software patents. They are saying that nothing that requires paying royalties on a patent to implement can be part of the standard. You can patent your cool new *ML generator but you can't require everyone who uses *ML to pay a fee. This will allow more people to inovate not stifel inovation.
Do you really think not getting exclusive patents on a standard precludes profit? I work for a company that has made money of XML and Java, they don't hold the profit off of either. There has been a great deal of money made off of technologies that the companies don't hold the patent for. You are just Trolling.
Actually allowing the companies to patent it, but only as royalty free allows for defensive patents. That way someone not in the standards org can't patent it.
It's time to dust off the Cthulhu for president campaign. After why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for the greatest evil of all Cthulhu.
I think as long as they can convince people that a new computer is needed, software doesn't really have to need the power.
Plus new computers always seem much faster, because when people get them they don't have all that spyware and trojans running on it yet to slow them down.
If you use e-mail, the web, etc., it's not legacy free.
RTFA it isn't about legacy uses, it's about legacy hardware design. The way you define legacy then nothing we call a computer could be thought of as anything other than legacy. Do you use the computer to perform mathematical functions? Then it is legacy See what I mean?
To me it is kind of like the difference between droping a 10 ton rock on you or a 50 ton rock. Either way you are dead. the 50 ton rock doesn't make you deader. If 'regular' rocket fuel caught fire the mission is toast no real chance for escape, same with the LOX
My question is how does it compare to the "gang of 4" Design Patterns book (ISBN 0201633612). It is a fairly complete catalog of patterns.
I did notice that Fowlers book has code examples in Java, but I didn't find that code was important in describing patterns.
An even better idea is a spam deposit, like the stamp idea. But the reciever gets to decide if it is spam, a yes means the charge is made and a no means the charge isn't made. I also think that the fee shouldn't entirely go to the reciever if it is spam, it should be split with the isp.
However, Phipps said he doubts that JBoss software will pass the compliance test. Basing his opinion on public information, he said, JBoss software does not appear to implement all of the J2EE specification.
Sun should already know if JBoss can pass the test since sun already had the test suite and JBoss is freely avaliable. My guess is they were pouring over the spec next to JBoss with a fine toothed comb to find things that weren't implemented and add the to the suite before it is released.
Slashdot Mirror
I think $0 is better. looks more like SCO and will better reflect their legal debt.
Don't you see this is Microsoft making good on their promise for better security. Your computer cannot connect to the network then it is much more secure.
I wonder if this is related to the comercial I saw this morning with sprint now selling pcs laptop cards for wireless internet connectivity.
I think you missed the point. The real innovation isn't in standards, it is in implementation of them. For instance TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP are all free to use. IF royalties were required to use these not near the money would have been made off of them. The money is generated by the tools and bodies needed to build around the standards. More money is made by having these standards be free because more people will use the standards and more people will need tools and contractors.
I agree that it would be best to fix the patent system, but the W3C doesnt' have the power to do this, but they do have the power to set up a standards system that allows defensive stratagies. I think it is a good step by the W3C.
Yes it would. But that's not what the WC3 is doing, they aren't ending software patents. They are saying that nothing that requires paying royalties on a patent to implement can be part of the standard. You can patent your cool new *ML generator but you can't require everyone who uses *ML to pay a fee. This will allow more people to inovate not stifel inovation.
Do you really think not getting exclusive patents on a standard precludes profit? I work for a company that has made money of XML and Java, they don't hold the profit off of either. There has been a great deal of money made off of technologies that the companies don't hold the patent for. You are just Trolling.
Actually allowing the companies to patent it, but only as royalty free allows for defensive patents. That way someone not in the standards org can't patent it.
Protection against unreasonable search is where the right to privacy is derived from, Mostly by the Warren court.
I believe on 9/11 the guys in the plane over Penn. were talking to family on a PCS phone before they rushed the hijakers.
We could punch into paper tape.
It's time to dust off the Cthulhu for president campaign. After why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for the greatest evil of all Cthulhu.
One More word:
Bosheer
I think as long as they can convince people that a new computer is needed, software doesn't really have to need the power.
Plus new computers always seem much faster, because when people get them they don't have all that spyware and trojans running on it yet to slow them down.
I only think you need a working example of a perpetual motion machine. All others are issued on plans and descriptions.
RTFA it isn't about legacy uses, it's about legacy hardware design. The way you define legacy then nothing we call a computer could be thought of as anything other than legacy. Do you use the computer to perform mathematical functions? Then it is legacy See what I mean?
To me it is kind of like the difference between droping a 10 ton rock on you or a 50 ton rock. Either way you are dead. the 50 ton rock doesn't make you deader. If 'regular' rocket fuel caught fire the mission is toast no real chance for escape, same with the LOX
My question is how does it compare to the "gang of 4" Design Patterns book (ISBN 0201633612). It is a fairly complete catalog of patterns.
I did notice that Fowlers book has code examples in Java, but I didn't find that code was important in describing patterns.
So you don't use banks or credit cards then? Because I don't know of a bank or credit card company that has opened up their software.
Or that too. My point was it was the tool set not the language.
Sounds to me like your problem is your .NET tool set not XML.
Well there is PGPFone
An even better idea is a spam deposit, like the stamp idea. But the reciever gets to decide if it is spam, a yes means the charge is made and a no means the charge isn't made. I also think that the fee shouldn't entirely go to the reciever if it is spam, it should be split with the isp.
However, Phipps said he doubts that JBoss software will pass the compliance test. Basing his opinion on public information, he said, JBoss software does not appear to implement all of the J2EE specification.
Sun should already know if JBoss can pass the test since sun already had the test suite and JBoss is freely avaliable. My guess is they were pouring over the spec next to JBoss with a fine toothed comb to find things that weren't implemented and add the to the suite before it is released.
Your hair does help protect you against skin cancer by shading the part of your body that would get the most sun.