Let me see... He has no money, but he apparently has enough for an internet connection, a domain name registration, and some shoddy hosting service.
At one time in college my furniture consisted of: A folding table I bought at Wal-Mart for $25 A folding chair I bought at Wal-Mart for $10 (That served as my kitchen table, and my computer table)
For a bed, I had an old army cot that I got for free, and a sleeping bag.
So yeah, I'm really buying the whole story of using FedEx boxes cause he had no money.
More likely he did it because he thought it was cute. Like how we used to make chairs out of cases of empty beer bottles.
Whatever, he would not have had a problem if he simply talked about it on a blog, and posted a few pictures. But instead he went out and registered 'fedexfurniture.com' and is amazed that FedEx has a problem with that.
Seriously, it's a bad article that is not well thought out.
Considering if I pick up my 2.4Ghz telephone to take a call, it completely whacks out my 802.11 wireless internet signal... It doesn't seem at all clear to me that scarcity of the frequency was created by the FCC. Rather it was the FCC which was created to manage the already existing reality.
Now it's true that the FCC has gone beyond the boundaries of what otherwise rationale people would consider prudent. But that's not the focal point of this article.
It's the blatantly obvious things which shouldn't be patented.
If you come up with a new algorithm that sorts video files by programmatically analyzing the video and using a calculated height of the people in the video as your sort variable... you know what? That's pretty cool and pretty complicated. I agree, you ought to be able to get a patent.
But I don't think you ought to be allowed to patent a graphical button which commands the computer to sort in either an ascending or descending fashion.
Similarly speaking, this boneheaded Apple patent. Using a paddle wheel to move up or down a linear list? How exactly does placing these software function any different on a mobile device than on an Atari 2600 game? Seriously, how is it different?
You ought not to be able to patent the bubble sort just because you use it on your video file names, instead of person names. Same principle here.
Having the government preselecting the winners and losers in such a large endeavor rather than market forces is a losing proposition.
You seem to be operating under the failed assumption that government isn't already selecting the winners and losers.
We've got about $500 billion, plus another $20 billion or so directed at propping up the oil industry and al the instable countries they get oil from.
That's a lot of pork.
What we're saying is, if we're going to go spend that money, let's do it on something worthwhile. I'd love it if we operated in a free market, but we don't. Not with Republicans in charge.
Such a move would severely upset the structure of balance.
Although I don't think long term it would impact oil companies or auto companies, as there would be some product created to replace what it is they presently sell. But change is hard to push for.
Yeah yeah, I know. He used coded language to make him sound all moderate and shit. So what you're saying is he's simply pandering to the kooky right, he doesn't actually mean what he says...
which brings into question the whole notion of Bush actually standing for anything.
He's talking about todays politicians using bashing science for political gain.
The whole evolution debate is just such utter complete bullshit... It's like a bunch of kids suffering an inferiority complex. Yet we have a President and a Congress pandering to them.
Two reasons I don't see this happening:
- It would be bad for the oil companies and Saudi princes Bush is beholden to.
- It was something John Kerry suggested during the campaign.
Although the second reason isn't as strong as the first.
Conoco/Phillips is opposing a law in Oklahoma which prohibits companies from disallowing employees to store firearms in their cars while on company parking lots.
The NRA is opposing Conoco/Phillips and claims they are going to boycott because the company is anti-gun.
But what seems really at issue here is how much soul do you owe to the company store?
You can't stop to buy donuts at the Mr. Donut while in uniform because it harms the image of the company?
If you're a employee of Ford, you can't drive a Dodge onto the company parking lot?
It's pretty easy to come up with reasons why an employer might want to do something. What is more difficult, and really should be the burden of the law is what right does the employee have to live his own life seperate from that of the company?
Then I suggest you prepare for a future where the U.S. & other "First Word" economies have fallen stagnant and collapsed into a pale shell of their former selves, while countries who ignore or at the most pay lip service to IP laws like China completely dominate the global economy.
Impossible. For China to succeed while paying lip service to IP laws, they need the "First World" countries to create IP.
Without IP laws, there would be no creation to begin with.
You should study a little U.S. history. One of the main reasons that the U.S. became such an economic powerhouse is because it "stole" a LOT of industrial technology from Europe, over and above the European countrys' protests about "patented technology".
Yep. But we didn't allow Americans to steal from Americans did we?
You should go read up on French history before advocating the elimination of Copyright.
It's ok for you to sell your soul to Apple and buy their hardware and software. But somehow it's wrong for the millions of the rest of us to buy Microsoft because we just want things to work well together.
Don't attack me for having a differing opinion. You're the one whining about Microsoft and calling them evil.
You are free to not enter into the bargain by making the purchase, but don't complain when companies act to protect their investments.
So why is it ok for you to whine on and on endlessly about Microsoft, but I can't point out the evil of Apple's ways? What I'm pointing out here is your bloody hypocrisy and your inconsistency even in putting action to your own supposed morals.
If you don't like the product that Microsoft makes, then don't buy it. But please quit trying to rationalize your decision by claiming you are doing so for moral grounds, when you are so obviously willing to abandon your supposed morals to make Apple happy.
This matter is already settled law. It has been for over 200 years, and is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution.
And our move from an industrial economy into a more knowledge based economy is only going to make this the all more important. So you're right, the laws in this capacity are going to become stronger... not weaker.
I have seen no compelling argument yet that people are entitled to free music, free software, or even free pr0n and as such the government should change the laws to support this.
What's wrong or right depends on individual users -- and a good many people don't like being treated like criminals by the software they bought.
So let me get this straight. If I buy the upgrade to MacOSX 10.10 which runs on Intel hardware which is virtually identical to my box at home with the exception of a DRM chip locking me out...
I'm not being treated like a criminal?
Oh heck, let's go back to the days when MacOS ran on Motorola 68000 processors. There was an add-on to the Amiga which would let it run MacOS, but you had to have the MacOS ROMs. Apple refused to sell these to people, unless they were in exchange for damaged ROMs. Why? Because you hadn't bought their hardware, so you were therefore evil.
This crap has been going on for a long time.
I think there are perfectly valid choices to made in regards to one platform or another based upon technical needs.
But to claim one is more "moral" then the other, shows a clearly juvenile thought process.
Definately. If not for the existence of IE we'd still be stuck with Netscape 4.x which believe it or not was even worse in regards to Standards.
Competition is good.
That is, as long as it's actually from creative people introducing exciting new products. When you try to instill competition by kneecapping the dominant player back down to the lowest common denominator... you really aren't going to see much improve.
Enterprise Services is a series of wrappers around COM+ which help to eliminate some of the COM+ pains when doing.NET development. For instance, auto registering the package and settings, which is one of the big headaches.
Perhaps the people claiming otherwise should justify their position rather than repeating the sounds of the echo chamber?
If I have a choice between a company which sells both a proprietary OS on top of proprietary hardware... or one which sells a proprietary OS which runs on open standards based hardware. There's no contest... I'll go with the option that gives me the most flexibility in my purchasing choices of hardware.
Apple is a throwback to everything that was wrong about the computing world in the 1980s. Just because popular opinion on slashdot cheers for a return to those bad old days, doesn't make them right.
Microsoft has far more talented developers than Apple or Sun, because they are capable of writing an OS that stays up for more than 90 days on a wide variety of hardware from Dell, to Compaq, to shit I put together myself?
Whatever.
I've never liked Apple. This move just reconfirms why I can't stand the company and their draconian vision of hardware.
I'm familiar with configuring COM+ from the olden days, and it was a pain. You have to script it. Once you've done that, it's really not that big of a pain to deploy.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me see... He has no money, but he apparently has enough for an internet connection, a domain name registration, and some shoddy hosting service.
At one time in college my furniture consisted of:
A folding table I bought at Wal-Mart for $25
A folding chair I bought at Wal-Mart for $10
(That served as my kitchen table, and my computer table)
For a bed, I had an old army cot that I got for free, and a sleeping bag.
So yeah, I'm really buying the whole story of using FedEx boxes cause he had no money.
More likely he did it because he thought it was cute. Like how we used to make chairs out of cases of empty beer bottles.
Whatever, he would not have had a problem if he simply talked about it on a blog, and posted a few pictures. But instead he went out and registered 'fedexfurniture.com' and is amazed that FedEx has a problem with that.
Seriously, it's a bad article that is not well thought out.
Considering if I pick up my 2.4Ghz telephone to take a call, it completely whacks out my 802.11 wireless internet signal... It doesn't seem at all clear to me that scarcity of the frequency was created by the FCC. Rather it was the FCC which was created to manage the already existing reality.
Now it's true that the FCC has gone beyond the boundaries of what otherwise rationale people would consider prudent. But that's not the focal point of this article.
It's the blatantly obvious things which shouldn't be patented.
If you come up with a new algorithm that sorts video files by programmatically analyzing the video and using a calculated height of the people in the video as your sort variable... you know what? That's pretty cool and pretty complicated. I agree, you ought to be able to get a patent.
But I don't think you ought to be allowed to patent a graphical button which commands the computer to sort in either an ascending or descending fashion.
Similarly speaking, this boneheaded Apple patent. Using a paddle wheel to move up or down a linear list? How exactly does placing these software function any different on a mobile device than on an Atari 2600 game? Seriously, how is it different?
You ought not to be able to patent the bubble sort just because you use it on your video file names, instead of person names. Same principle here.
Having the government preselecting the winners and losers in such a large endeavor rather than market forces is a losing proposition.
You seem to be operating under the failed assumption that government isn't already selecting the winners and losers.
We've got about $500 billion, plus another $20 billion or so directed at propping up the oil industry and al the instable countries they get oil from.
That's a lot of pork.
What we're saying is, if we're going to go spend that money, let's do it on something worthwhile. I'd love it if we operated in a free market, but we don't. Not with Republicans in charge.
Who are the Republicans going to run?
Bill "Terri Schiavo" Frist?
John McCain will never get the nomination. either would Chuck Hagel.
Who do they have left that's worth voting for?
I had not heard she was running.
Does the thought scare you that much?
Agreed.
Such a move would severely upset the structure of balance.
Although I don't think long term it would impact oil companies or auto companies, as there would be some product created to replace what it is they presently sell. But change is hard to push for.
There seems to be two types of conservatives...
The wingnuts usually go off on rants about some kookie concept without regards to fact.
The moonbats just say "If President Bush believes it, so do I!"
At least the wingnuts are fun to debate with. The moonbats are just pathetic.
He just did just this past week...
Yeah yeah, I know. He used coded language to make him sound all moderate and shit. So what you're saying is he's simply pandering to the kooky right, he doesn't actually mean what he says...
which brings into question the whole notion of Bush actually standing for anything.
I don't think he's talking about SAT scores.
He's talking about todays politicians using bashing science for political gain.
The whole evolution debate is just such utter complete bullshit... It's like a bunch of kids suffering an inferiority complex. Yet we have a President and a Congress pandering to them.
Two reasons I don't see this happening:
- It would be bad for the oil companies and Saudi princes Bush is beholden to.
- It was something John Kerry suggested during the campaign.
Although the second reason isn't as strong as the first.
Conoco/Phillips is opposing a law in Oklahoma which prohibits companies from disallowing employees to store firearms in their cars while on company parking lots.
The NRA is opposing Conoco/Phillips and claims they are going to boycott because the company is anti-gun.
But what seems really at issue here is how much soul do you owe to the company store?
You can't stop to buy donuts at the Mr. Donut while in uniform because it harms the image of the company?
If you're a employee of Ford, you can't drive a Dodge onto the company parking lot?
It's pretty easy to come up with reasons why an employer might want to do something. What is more difficult, and really should be the burden of the law is what right does the employee have to live his own life seperate from that of the company?
Which is no different than what Apple does.
Oh wait, yeah, it is. Microsoft still let's me buy my own hardware.
Impossible. For China to succeed while paying lip service to IP laws, they need the "First World" countries to create IP.
Without IP laws, there would be no creation to begin with.
Yep. But we didn't allow Americans to steal from Americans did we?
You should go read up on French history before advocating the elimination of Copyright.
Once again... oddly hypocritical.
It's ok for you to sell your soul to Apple and buy their hardware and software. But somehow it's wrong for the millions of the rest of us to buy Microsoft because we just want things to work well together.
Don't attack me for having a differing opinion. You're the one whining about Microsoft and calling them evil.
You are free to not enter into the bargain by making the purchase, but don't complain when companies act to protect their investments.
So why is it ok for you to whine on and on endlessly about Microsoft, but I can't point out the evil of Apple's ways? What I'm pointing out here is your bloody hypocrisy and your inconsistency even in putting action to your own supposed morals.
If you don't like the product that Microsoft makes, then don't buy it. But please quit trying to rationalize your decision by claiming you are doing so for moral grounds, when you are so obviously willing to abandon your supposed morals to make Apple happy.
Agreed.
This matter is already settled law. It has been for over 200 years, and is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution.
And our move from an industrial economy into a more knowledge based economy is only going to make this the all more important. So you're right, the laws in this capacity are going to become stronger... not weaker.
I have seen no compelling argument yet that people are entitled to free music, free software, or even free pr0n and as such the government should change the laws to support this.
If you want to program... you should get a job as a waiter and program in your off work hours.
What's wrong or right depends on individual users -- and a good many people don't like being treated like criminals by the software they bought.
So let me get this straight. If I buy the upgrade to MacOSX 10.10 which runs on Intel hardware which is virtually identical to my box at home with the exception of a DRM chip locking me out...
I'm not being treated like a criminal?
Oh heck, let's go back to the days when MacOS ran on Motorola 68000 processors. There was an add-on to the Amiga which would let it run MacOS, but you had to have the MacOS ROMs. Apple refused to sell these to people, unless they were in exchange for damaged ROMs. Why? Because you hadn't bought their hardware, so you were therefore evil.
This crap has been going on for a long time.
I think there are perfectly valid choices to made in regards to one platform or another based upon technical needs.
But to claim one is more "moral" then the other, shows a clearly juvenile thought process.
Definately. If not for the existence of IE we'd still be stuck with Netscape 4.x which believe it or not was even worse in regards to Standards.
Competition is good.
That is, as long as it's actually from creative people introducing exciting new products. When you try to instill competition by kneecapping the dominant player back down to the lowest common denominator... you really aren't going to see much improve.
Enterprise Services is a series of wrappers around COM+ which help to eliminate some of the COM+ pains when doing .NET development. For instance, auto registering the package and settings, which is one of the big headaches.
Perhaps the people claiming otherwise should justify their position rather than repeating the sounds of the echo chamber?
If I have a choice between a company which sells both a proprietary OS on top of proprietary hardware... or one which sells a proprietary OS which runs on open standards based hardware. There's no contest... I'll go with the option that gives me the most flexibility in my purchasing choices of hardware.
Apple is a throwback to everything that was wrong about the computing world in the 1980s. Just because popular opinion on slashdot cheers for a return to those bad old days, doesn't make them right.
Apple doesn't treat customers like scum the way Microsoft does.
you're right... Apple is far worse and always has been.
Microsoft has far more talented developers than Apple or Sun, because they are capable of writing an OS that stays up for more than 90 days on a wide variety of hardware from Dell, to Compaq, to shit I put together myself?
Whatever.
I've never liked Apple. This move just reconfirms why I can't stand the company and their draconian vision of hardware.
Why wouldn't you use Enterprise Services?
I'm familiar with configuring COM+ from the olden days, and it was a pain. You have to script it. Once you've done that, it's really not that big of a pain to deploy.