We don't pay a fee, but advertisers do. Whenever people re-run a program without consent, the industry loses control over possible advertising revenue. The industry is just trying to protect their control for as long as possible. They did the same with audio tapes, VCRs, cd burners, and DVDs.
Is it illegal to copy them? Yes.
Do I understand their desire to maintain control? Yes.
When I was in high school I got a job, busted my ass, and eventually got a nice car. I worked hard in school, got a scholarship, and attended college. Now, I'm in a great job and I'm able to buy all the things I need and some things that I just want.
I don't pretend I didn't get help from other people, directly or indirectly. I make an effort to thank and help the people who helped me and I don't flaunt what I have. However, I worked the hardest to get where I am today. Now, I actually get grief from people who think I'm too successful.
At what point does a business go from a hard working company to an "evil corporation" to be paranoid about?
A large group of people who are appalled at the thought of being given free, state-of-the-art Microsoft hardware in hopes that their help will make it better
are also...
A large group of people who are thrilled at the thought of being given free, state-of-the-art Linux software in hopes that their help will make it better
Maybe E-Bay does realize just how ridiculous the whole patent idea is.
With the great number of companies trying to patent the most ridculously obvious technologies, perhaps it's emerged as a self-defense mechanism. Sure, patenting something like a hyperlink or a thumbnail gallery is stupid. Everyone who has used the Internet for even a short period of time knows that these are commonly used. Ask yourself though, as a large company (with available money to burn on lawyers), if you're willing to take the risk that some other schmuck will try to patent it first... and possibly... just maybe... win. Losing the right to a patent also decreases the options for someone else to try.
If E-Bay were to win that sort of patent (and they won't) they could prove they aren't also a bunch of schmucks by announcing that they have no intention of ever enforcing such a patent, but explain they were doing so to protect themselves from just that sort of abuse.
Or... it could just be my wishful thinking that a large company genuinely has the interest of the common web guy at heart.
Important people know the difference
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
Keep in mind that the people who have the final word on hiring tech guys usually know the difference between CS and CIS. I have no doubt you could get a job with either, but our company, for example, has turned away some highly qualified DB people because they don't have the strong programming background that a CS degree would have given them (and we're looking for).
Because the curriculum is so much more difficult, it is also apparent to most employers that a CS guy could adapt to a CIS job. It's not so easy to move the other way. My suggestion is to increase your marketable skills and give yourself as many options as possible with the CS degree.
Where's the problem with a mouse/keyboard combo?
on
3D GUI Project
·
· Score: 1
Last time I checked, the majority of people who tried out Quake or other first-person shooters only took a few minutes to get the feel of aiming with a mouse and using forward/backward keys to move. The same concept could easily be applied to a user interface. I don't understand the need for new equipment as thousands of users already have a common way of moving through a 3D space. Someone could aim/move themselves towards an application and click on a title bar to lock/unlock themselves to it. The mouse could then revert to normal operation for 2D on the window.
If anyone has used that old Logitech(?) 3D mouse they may remember the muscle fatigue after some use, despite it being fairly light. I don't doubt there is a yet to be designed piece of equipment that will be great, but it's unnecessary now.
IMHO, I have yet to feel the need for a 3D interface for my development machine or home machine, but I can recognize the "cool" factor that goes with it.
When the Japanese motorcycles imitated the look of the Harleys they were not exact duplicates. What they Japanese were trying to market was the feel of riding that type of motorcycle. However, the end product was a motorcycle not a feeling. If the sound was the end product (say, maybe a song, maybe like a Metallica song) I think the arguement would be much stronger that it *can* be protected.
A lot more goes into a GUI design than picking an attractive color scheme. When someone takes a GUI and copies it, file-for-file or just conceptually, they are duplicating the feeling and hundreds of hours of research and testing. When they duplicate the feeling, they are duplicating the actual product. In this case, the product *is* the feel and design.
I think the Apple design group is probably thrilled that people like their designs so much, but Apple is a business and they do have a right to control their *products* however they please.
Different objects (mouse vs. desk) would have different terminal speeds. The terminal velocity is not only dependent on the speed of an object but also the density of the air through which the object moves.
That's why science teachers pay so much for that glass cylinder with the feather and the penny in it. To think... they could have spent that money on this mouse.
Isn't the point of the 18 wheels on a truck of that size to evenly distribute it's unusually large weight over many places? Let's get a stuntman rolling that thing on one wheel over the mouse.
And what's the terminal velocity of a mouse, anyway? Bolt that mouse down to the desk (now there's an attractive feature) and then throw the whole desk out the window. Then I may be impressed with the durability.
You want a real test? Find your typical cubicle dweller, take away his mouse, bolt that ugly thing down to his desk, and give him five minutes to destroy it out of sheer frustration.
Last time I checked the government was made up of people. If the government is doing what they think is right then it would follow that they are doing what people think is right. I don't doubt there are corrupt, yet powerful, people in the world, but we don't live in the X-Files.
By the way, the Department of Energy tested the Iridium phones a while back when they were considering buying some similar phones. When they sent the phones to San Dia National Laboratories (after the companies claims that they were secure and couldn't be jammed) they were returned with a pretty negative report.
There are entirely too many opportunities for a third party to cause a computer to "break down" or become inoperable. As a software developer, who has (many times) caused Windows to hang because of errors in my code, I doubt that a user would be able to determine that it was my code, not their Microsoft, that caused the blue screen.
A computer owner who takes their monitor to a repair shop to find out it was hopelessly dead would report it to consumer affairs as "broken monitor" completely unaware that the "Quake Optimizer" their son downloaded had set a refresh rate too high for it to handle.
When a VCR can change it's OS to support recording your oven or refrigerator can be upgraded by your neighbor to reach absolute zero, I'll consider placing them in the same QA category as my computer.
Slashdot Mirror
the programs come in to my television for free
We don't pay a fee, but advertisers do. Whenever people re-run a program without consent, the industry loses control over possible advertising revenue. The industry is just trying to protect their control for as long as possible. They did the same with audio tapes, VCRs, cd burners, and DVDs.
Is it illegal to copy them? Yes.
Do I understand their desire to maintain control? Yes.
Do I think they will lose money? Some.
Do I think it's so horrible? No.
Why does this industry think that people would take the time and effort to copy and distribute their televisions programs?
It's a pretty strong assumption that people actually subject themselves to the original showing of most of the mind-numbing crap in the first place.
When I was in high school I got a job, busted my ass, and eventually got a nice car. I worked hard in school, got a scholarship, and attended college. Now, I'm in a great job and I'm able to buy all the things I need and some things that I just want.
I don't pretend I didn't get help from other people, directly or indirectly. I make an effort to thank and help the people who helped me and I don't flaunt what I have. However, I worked the hardest to get where I am today. Now, I actually get grief from people who think I'm too successful.
At what point does a business go from a hard working company to an "evil corporation" to be paranoid about?
A large group of people who are appalled at the thought of being given free, state-of-the-art
Microsoft hardware in hopes that their help will make it better
are also...
A large group of people who are thrilled at the thought of being given free, state-of-the-art
Linux software in hopes that their help will make it better
Maybe E-Bay does realize just how ridiculous the whole patent idea is.
With the great number of companies trying to patent the most ridculously obvious technologies, perhaps it's emerged as a self-defense mechanism. Sure, patenting something like a hyperlink or a thumbnail gallery is stupid. Everyone who has used the Internet for even a short period of time knows that these are commonly used. Ask yourself though, as a large company (with available money to burn on lawyers), if you're willing to take the risk that some other schmuck will try to patent it first... and possibly... just maybe... win. Losing the right to a patent also decreases the options for someone else to try.
If E-Bay were to win that sort of patent (and they won't) they could prove they aren't also a bunch of schmucks by announcing that they have no intention of ever enforcing such a patent, but explain they were doing so to protect themselves from just that sort of abuse.
Or... it could just be my wishful thinking that a large company genuinely has the interest of the common web guy at heart.
Keep in mind that the people who have the final word on hiring tech guys usually know the difference between CS and CIS. I have no doubt you could get a job with either, but our company, for example, has turned away some highly qualified DB people because they don't have the strong programming background that a CS degree would have given them (and we're looking for).
Because the curriculum is so much more difficult, it is also apparent to most employers that a CS guy could adapt to a CIS job. It's not so easy to move the other way. My suggestion is to increase your marketable skills and give yourself as many options as possible with the CS degree.
Last time I checked, the majority of people who tried out Quake or other first-person shooters only took a few minutes to get the feel of aiming with a mouse and using forward/backward keys to move. The same concept could easily be applied to a user interface. I don't understand the need for new equipment as thousands of users already have a common way of moving through a 3D space. Someone could aim/move themselves towards an application and click on a title bar to lock/unlock themselves to it. The mouse could then revert to normal operation for 2D on the window.
If anyone has used that old Logitech(?) 3D mouse they may remember the muscle fatigue after some use, despite it being fairly light. I don't doubt there is a yet to be designed piece of equipment that will be great, but it's unnecessary now.
IMHO, I have yet to feel the need for a 3D interface for my development machine or home machine, but I can recognize the "cool" factor that goes with it.
When the Japanese motorcycles imitated the look of the Harleys they were not exact duplicates. What they Japanese were trying to market was the feel of riding that type of motorcycle. However, the end product was a motorcycle not a feeling. If the sound was the end product (say, maybe a song, maybe like a Metallica song) I think the arguement would be much stronger that it *can* be protected.
A lot more goes into a GUI design than picking an attractive color scheme. When someone takes a GUI and copies it, file-for-file or just conceptually, they are duplicating the feeling and hundreds of hours of research and testing. When they duplicate the feeling, they are duplicating the actual product. In this case, the product *is* the feel and design.
I think the Apple design group is probably thrilled that people like their designs so much, but Apple is a business and they do have a right to control their *products* however they please.
Different objects (mouse vs. desk) would have different terminal speeds. The terminal velocity is not only dependent on the speed of an object but also the density of the air through which the object moves.
That's why science teachers pay so much for that glass cylinder with the feather and the penny in it. To think... they could have spent that money on this mouse.
Isn't the point of the 18 wheels on a truck of that size to evenly distribute it's unusually large weight over many places? Let's get a stuntman rolling that thing on one wheel over the mouse.
And what's the terminal velocity of a mouse, anyway? Bolt that mouse down to the desk (now there's an attractive feature) and then throw the whole desk out the window. Then I may be impressed with the durability.
You want a real test? Find your typical cubicle dweller, take away his mouse, bolt that ugly thing down to his desk, and give him five minutes to destroy it out of sheer frustration.
I knew this article was important, but it was so wordy that I got bored and just went on to the next article.
Yea... so this should have been posted to the EULA thread. Punchlines are more effective when the set-up is executed well. So shoot me.
I knew this article was important, but it was so wordy that I got bored and just went on to the next article.
Last time I checked the government was made up of people. If the government is doing what they think is right then it would follow that they are doing what people think is right. I don't doubt there are corrupt, yet powerful, people in the world, but we don't live in the X-Files.
By the way, the Department of Energy tested the Iridium phones a while back when they were considering buying some similar phones. When they sent the phones to San Dia National Laboratories (after the companies claims that they were secure and couldn't be jammed) they were returned with a pretty negative report.
There are entirely too many opportunities for a third party to cause a computer to "break down" or become inoperable. As a software developer, who has (many times) caused Windows to hang because of errors in my code, I doubt that a user would be able to determine that it was my code, not their Microsoft, that caused the blue screen.
A computer owner who takes their monitor to a repair shop to find out it was hopelessly dead would report it to consumer affairs as "broken monitor" completely unaware that the "Quake Optimizer" their son downloaded had set a refresh rate too high for it to handle.
When a VCR can change it's OS to support recording your oven or refrigerator can be upgraded by your neighbor to reach absolute zero, I'll consider placing them in the same QA category as my computer.