It's always the fault of the RIAA for not offering a similarly competitive alternate for P2P. It's always the fault of the RIAA for keeping prices too high. It's always the fault of the RIAA for sueing everyone in existance.
It's never the fault of the person that violated the copyright law in the first place, is it?
Price, occording to the "Order Now" link, is estimated at $99. Not bad for all the schematics, docs, tutorials, an ebook, sdk, tools, cart, and more... with royalty-free game distribution...
In what way is this info reliable? I never send a crash report. In fact, I even turn off the error reporting service (on WinXP).
Assuming I'm not the only one that does so, is this 5% sampling a sampling of those that actually *do* report or a sampling of the entire spectrum of windows users? How many is 5%? How many WinXP installs are there? A total of 10% of all Windows Installations?
I use a different root than the actual email address. If someone does send the root (there is no such it autmotically gets rejected). Of course, I have abotut 80 aliases and none of them have been abused.
I don't think spam originates from Microsoft or Amazon (even Yahoo) or ebay or others. I think they use lookup attacks (they have one email address and they just start matching against a dictionary of domains and hope they get you).
hotmail on the other hand, open up a new account called "xadlkjfapdklfjqpeioru@hotmail.com" and you'll get about 90 emails a day the first week. I can't understand it, Hotmail must give them away but for everyone else, no problems (with any aliases).
Good point... Professional means your getting paid to do it. Hobbyist and Philanthropists do it for not pay.
I think it rather stems from rediculous deadlines and the need to cut corners. Tell me, what deadlines are so critical in the OSS community that if it's not completed by X date then you're out of a job and can't feed your family or make a house payment?
Drawing a comparison is futile. It doesn't take all things into consideration and I've seen my fair share of difficult to read OSS code. Of course, I've seen my share of difficult to read "professional" code also.
In fact, that's where I get into disputes often at work. I'm very discipled and do not compromise on my code and technique while most others do.
I turn in less defects from the get-go, I typically take less time writing it from the get-go, less time maintaining it, people have less troubles understanding it, and it works.
But, my coworkers complain that if *they* employ the same techniques it'll "take too long" and "introduce many defects". To which I agree. I've spent a few years getting it into my second-nature and trying to pick up best practices and techniques and put them to use. It won't happen from day one.
In any case, I'm a professional programmer because I get paid to do what I do, how else would I pay my bills??? I have not contributed to OSS but I have released my own software (source included) for use however except from re-selling it without my permission (which I think is quite reasonable).
I don't agree that professional programmers are worse programmers than OSS or vise-versa. I believe professional programmers are under time constraints and aren't concerned about employing the best techniques or most advanced when their paychecks may be in limbo if deadlines aren't met.
OSS programmers/contributers, on the other hand, can do whatever they want without managers breathing down their neck and can make it as pretty/advanced as they want, or as crappy as they see fit.
In my case, however, I'm "too" disciplined to compromise. I have left a company in the past because they were pushing on me something that would jeoperdize the integrity of the project and I will not be responsible for such. Not anyone else I've ever worked with in almost 7 years of programming and consulting (totaling about 10 different companies ranging from small to mid to fortune 500) have I encountered another that cares as much as I do.
First of all he LIED by saying he was doing 60MPH. Next, he was doing 114 (there is not a place in the US that allows that and in residential it's 25MPH). I'm sure the accident investigators would have been able to notice that he was well above 60MPH but even so, he lied and the black box said otherwise. If it was my children or loved one that was killed, I'd feel glad that he was put behind bars for reckless driving. There's no excuse. Privacty implication or not, I don't think the black-box thing is being abused in this case.
Thanks for the idea, think I'll go patent it now and cash in in three years and retire early...
Step 1: check slashdot daily Step 2: read truly genius idea given mod'd as funny in comments Step 3: quit joking about it and actually do it Step 4: wait 3 years for the rest of the industry to implement it Step 5: receive notice of accepted patent Step 6: sue sue sue Step 7: profit profit profit
Too many steps but who cares as long as the "profit" part works =))
In California this is a right-to-work state so those non-compete's don't have any effect because you have to work to make a living and the only way to work is to practice your trade.
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
In California this is a right-to-work state so those non-compete's don't have any effect because you have to work to make a living and the only way to work is to practice your trade.
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
The obvious solution isn't to penalize the spammer, but the beneficiary of the spam is obvious because an email contact or a phone number or something, eventually, at some point, they have to charge your card to get your money.
The one who benefits from the spam should be penalized since they are the one's paying for the spam and instigating it.
Well, because ma and pa and grandma have a harder time using most Distro's and having no probs with Windows and/or Mac, I would argue that Open Soruce isn't "reaching the masses" as of yet. Linux intimdates the heckers out of grandma... software names like Gnome and Gimp and Mozilla, companies called Trolltech and so on, isn't exactly "beckoning the masses", especially those who are deeply religious.
I'd say OSS may be hitting hard with the geeks and *some* companies, but so far, most of the average users I know and encounter still use Windows (by choice) and haven't taken a liking much to Linux. I've tried RedHat and wasn't too impressed but I'll get over it.
Of course, I also started programming on a Mac and then went to 'dows and, while I like the non-commercialization feel of Linux (meaning there's still room to create your own wheel, not every element of functionality is wrapped up into an endless entanglement of API's)...
Personally, I'm not terribly impressed with the look-and-feel of most OSS. I won't argue quality because I haven't really judged it or paid attention, WinXP/2k rarely ever crashes on me so it's not a selling point the Linux is more stable (and these are my dev boxes)...
As much as I agree that there were too macny restrictions considering the Power companies here in california were "deregulated" it did come to light that most of the power crises was a hoax. What's more troubling than the power crisis is that our elected officials or any other aren't requiring back the money we gave them to bail them out (of a hoax). Why isn't there a crises now? We aren't giving them money and nothing much has changed since then but there's no crises now...
Completely deregulating won't make things more competitive. If they aren't willing to allow competitors access to their lines now unless the law mandates it, and even then, they find the loopholes, what makes you think they will willingly provide "competitive" access to their lines when there is no accountability and oversight?
I see so many complaints about Real. I watch a TV station online and have an option, to use 300k Windows Media, or 300k Real Media. Without contestation, Real Media uses less memory, less CPU, has better sound quality, doesn't skip or break connection, run out of buffer, or whatever.
WM on the other hand consumes my CPU and memory and eventually gives me an out of memory error and I have a PIII 1 GHz with 512 MB ram, and another P4 1.7GHz 512MB Ram. My OS's are WinXP Pro SP1 and Win2k Pro (I have removable primary hard drives)
I'm using the latest RealOne player and I don't get bombarded with ads. I create an email alias for every individual recipient and I have yet to see an offense by Real Media. And there is an option to not have start center startup with Windows because it doesn't start with my Windows.
In all actuality, I'd rather not use Real because I do prefer WM. My other options are Creative player and it takes 1 minute to initialize. But in this case, for online streaming, Real Media is the winner. Everything else isn't a pleasant experience (for online streaming) and quicktime isn't an option in this case.
Okay, lets go through the _obvious_ projects that are either foundations of currently used MS technology in production, or directly used... and see how useful MSR is (or isn't). and I stress "obvious" and "in production" and "foundation" or "directly relatated". Anything not obvious or "possibly but not obvious" are not checked. Items marked with a (+) are projects that appear to be a foundation for future production or that appear to be going direction into production at some point in the near future or that have a strong association with a product that is currently in production but the MSR project is currently not effecting production.<P>
I read the description for each project before reaching these conclusions and thus no conclsion can be made by the title alone (in most cases).<P>
(*) = Obvious<BR> ( ) = Not Obvious or Not Effecting Products<BR> (+) = Appears to be related to current product<BR> but the MSR is not currently effecting<BR> production with project identified<BR> (/) = Appears to effect current product in part<BR> but not probably entirely... or parts of<BR> research described appear to already be<BR> used in production currently<BR> (.) = Alias to another project<BR>
(long list warning)<BR>
1) ( ) Adaptive Systems and Interaction<BR> 2) (*) Advanced Compiler Technology<BR> 3) (*) Advanced Programming Languages<BR> 4) (*) AsmL<BR> 5) (*) AutoAlbum<BR> 6) (*) AutoDJ<BR> 7) ( ) Automatic Lexical Learning<BR> 8) (*) Bartok (See 2)<BR> 9) ( ) Behave!<BR> 10) (+) Boxwood<BR> 11) (/) CAMDIS<BR> 12) (*) ClearType<BR> 13) (*) Collaborative Video Viewing<BR> 14) (*) Common Annotation Framework<BR> 15) ( ) Communication, Collaboration, and Signal<BR> Processing<BR> 16) (/) Component Applications<BR> 17) (*) Cryptography and Anti-Piracy<BR> 18) (*) Data Management, Exploration, and Data<BR> Mining<BR> 19) (*) Data Mining in Commerce Server<BR> 20) ( ) Data Mountain<BR> 21) (.) Data-Driven Machine Translation (NLP)<BR> 22) (*) Database<BR> 23) (*) Detours<BR> 24) (/) Distributed Meetings<BR> 25) (*) Distributed Systems<BR> 26) (*) Document Processing and Understanding<BR> 27) ( ) Dr. Who<BR> 28) ( ) Easy Living<BR> 29) ( ) EyeCU (Reminds me of the movie AntiTrust<BR> 30) ( ) Face Modeling<BR> 31) ( ) Farsite (Napster anyone?)<BR> 32) (*) Filtering for Junk Email and Parental<BR> Controls<BR> 33) (*) Flatland (See 14)<BR> 34) (*) Foundations of Software Engineering<BR> 35) (+) Generics (future release.NET Framework)<BR> 36) ( ) Graphics (Related to 30)<BR> 37) (.) H-Colorings (Theory Group)<BR> 38) (*) Hardware Devices (Pocket PC Foundations)<BR> 39) (*) Hardware Systems (See 38)<BR> 40) ( ) Harold (I once read about future plans to<BR> implement technology from this project<BR> 41) ( ) Social Computing Group<BR> 42) ( ) Indy Performance Modeling Infrastructure<BR> 43) (*) Information Retrieval and Analysis<BR> 44) ( ) Integrated Systems<BR> 45) ( ) Intelligent Systems<BR> 46) (*) Interactive Visual Media <BR> 47) ( ) Internet Graphics<BR> 48) ( ) Internet Graphs<BR> 49) (.) Internet Media (Theory Group)<BR> 50) (*) IPv6<BR> 51) ( ) JetStream<BR> 52) (/) Junk-Mail Filtering<BR> 53) (/) KidTalk<BR> 54) ( ) Koh-i-Noor<BR> 55) ( ) Large Display User Experience<BR> 56) (+) Lead Line (Very interesting project - it<BR> also spawned Chat 2.5 and V-Chat)<BR> 57) (*) Lookout (Clippy anyone?)<BR> 58) ( ) Machine Learning and Applied Statistics<BR>
I don't feel like documenting all the rest of them. It appears that MSR is proving itself just from these 55% of the total listings on MSR Project list page.<BR>
Please, go check your facts before posting about how useless they are.<BR>
Until you copy the license / activation files along with the ebook file.
This is true. But unless that activation and a key file for all the resources you want are tied together, it won't work. You can't use someone elses key on your own activation (the install of Libronix initially requires an activation similar to MS WinXP Activation)...
Also, there are over 2000 individual resources. You'll be hard pressed to find an activation floating around with a license for each of the files (granted it can be cracked it hasn't yet)... it makes it an annoyance although subsequent upgrades don't seem to break previous versions... I do not know if it still gets verified with a network connection anything beyond the initial activation and each licensing. I have two licenses, together, that totals me 147 resources. Soon, I'll have a 3rd (to replace one of the two I already have) that will give me access to about 80 more resources.
It's really not a bad model at all. I doubt the *AA cartels will be as forgiving however, as this publisher is.
I've experienced worse. I've purchased a $115 book called "Fundamentals of Database Design" that has an ebook of itself on the CD-ROM (why I purchased it) but can't be activated (to print or view the images) because the ebook publisher is out of business and I can't return the book (I've contacted the book publisher) because the CD was already opened.
I've also purchased ebooks for Acrobat E-Book reader and had to reformat the system and too bad for me. Have to purchase them again. Can't print. Can't copy and paste. Can't lend. Can't give away. What's the use? EBooks are something I tend to avoid unless they are the MS Press CHM's, or some PDF's, and Libronix. MS E-Book reader books are generally more forgiving also, but all the Acrobat EBook Reader books I've encountered are locked down toothe and nail and I have no interest in further purchasing such books because of that.
I've seen a DRM for ebooks that I actually don't have any qualms with, and think it's the best that it can get and still be DRM, though I don't like DRM in the least...
It's called Libronix. Actually, it's primarily for religious publications... Libronix is an e-book reader and format... but I haven't seen any books non-Christian on the format... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist... http://www.libronix.com
Here's how it works.
The system recognizes the "resources" that you supply it, usually from download or CD-ROM and then requres a license key... license key is keyed to the "activation" of the product. Basically, it says you can access these resources but not those ones...
You can copy the resources to any computer your want but only those PC that have a valid license can access them... if you're friend wants to, they can purchase a license from your copied file and view it themselves.
You can install the Librinix system on any other PC for backups and when it installs, just supply the activation confirmation supplied when originally activated and then "restore" the license key backed up and you can view it on any PC you want, that has your activation code. It doesn't restrict how many times you activate but you cannot use any license that was granted with an activation not your own.
This means you can use it on your 5 computers at home and your laptop but you can't necessarily do so on your friends PC unless you installed and used your activation and supply him your licences for each resource or collection of resources (I have 147 resources licensed to me)...
In all, it's fairly unintrusive but goes a long way against sharing unless you want your personal info distributed on the net...
That's the best (meaning least intrusive) implementation I've seen so far.
yOu haVE beeN GiVEN manY OppURtunItiES tO puRchASE proDuct X viA thE MILlioNS of emAilS YOu reCieVE eAch wEEk. You HAVe refuSED. We NOw HavE YoUR EmaiLS RansOM. If YOu FAil to puRChasE braND X by SundOWn FridAY usINg InterNET eXplorER 5.01 or HigHER WitH WindOWs 2000 SeCURity SETtings MimIMUm... You'LL neVeR SeE youR EmailS agAiN;)). You ARe PRevEnTIng Us froM UsinG You As a StatiStIC. We HOPe YoU wiLL dO the riGhT ThinG.
I've had an email address for about a year that was not once used for any reason at all. Never received, never sent. One day, I sent an email to a relative who had just got their email account and was excited to be on the web.
A month later, I got forwarded one of those "send this to x people and Bill Gates will send you $3,014 for each 3rd person... no really, it's true, just the other day I recevied my $10 million dollar check from..."
I replied and told her never to do that again or she will be blocked and I'll never email her. I explained to her why she shouldn't do that. It's because someone somewhere along the line will get the 30 times forwarded message and will glean the 100's of emails that are a part of the message body from all the forwards and put you on a list.
Now, everyday I get 1 or 2 Univerity Diplomas emails, they just don't stop sending them, Every day Janna wants to know what I was doing last night, King Kong keeps wanting me to buy some Herbal Viagra alternatives, FBI snooper detection prevention software, and a chance to win a free 3 carot dimand after I send $2,000 to sponser some foundation... yeah... uh huh...
I'll tell you, those funnies you send and recieve everyday is a really good way.
The other way is to reply to a spam to be removed from a mailing list. In the same mail account, I replied to a few to be removed from the list and shortly after the volume of messages recived almost doubled. Now it's a useless email account that receives over 600 emails per week. It's sad because I've only sent and recieved less than 10 legitimate messages from that account in the past 5 years and this is what I get in return for it.
Bottom line:
* Warn your friends and family not to send
you forwarded email. Explain to them
that most of those messages are hoaxes,
anyway. Companies don't pay to you to blast
the Internet with messages.
* Second, don't reply to spams when you do
receive them or it will just confirm an
active account. I used to spoof returned
mail notices but those don't help any,
they also make it worse.
* Third, if you do recieve a mass-forward,
you're already at odds.
* Each time you sign up to a new web-site, read
the privacy statement. Usually, you're info
will be shared with a partner. Check that
partners privacy, because usually that partner
will share your info with a partner and so on.
Your email address is usually not kept secret
anymore. They make too much money by selling
to people. If they are European based, then
it might be more secure because of privacy
laws.
* Opt-out of those "important updates from the
company and their partners". This will just
generate more unwanted messages than you'll
care about. I've opted-in to some in the past
that were supposed to be monthy tech news
updates on important issues. Well, one day it
became daily. They changed their policy with
out notifying me.
* Most sites reserve the right to change their
privacy policies at-will and with no obligation
to notify you. They expect you to keep up
on this yourself. The best advice is to do
so. I've cancelled membership to some sites
because of this. My data is not theirs to
profit from while I profit nothing from it.
* Obvious names, such as "kitty@domain.com,
bmwlover@domain.com, studmuff@domain.com, etc"
are likely culprits. Sometimes they perform
dictionary based attacks on many domains and
it may just be your lucky number. What's
worse, is that they CC so all emails are there
and other spammers gather those emails and then
you are placed on another list.
* Anything else not mentioned. Keep in mind,
these are only spam "reduction" techniques. I
think it's very difficult and next to
impossible to not be spammed. Being aware of
certain actions that will trigger a result and
preventing those actions, will help greatly.
* If they leave a return address, sometimes you
can complain and have their account revoked.
This won't stop them, they'll open another
account and continue.
* Push for a law that allows the sponsor of the
spam to be sued for damages and inconveniences
rather than the sender. For example, I've
recived over 200 unvirsity diplomas messages
which all have the same phone number, but each
message is from a different sender. If we can
sue the owner of the phone number, than that
would go a great distance because it would
make people afraid to market in that mannor.
If an inventor marketed their product before filing a patent, their patent would either be not granted or would be unenforceable as their own marketed invention could be construed as prior art.
That's not true. If the inventor releases or makes known the invention to the public, they have up to 1 year (365 days) where they can file for a patent and still be granted. Therefore, by doing so, it does not constitute prior art.
Also, prior art is defined as a previous granted pantent. Public domain is defined as having been released to the public (without a patent or via expired patent).
For the inventor, their own work will not be considered prior art if they release it to the public and within a year file for a patent. If someone else, however, files a patent similar, then the publicly released invention will be considered either public domain (not patentable) or patented if the inventor files for a patent within a year and the patent is granted.
I'm ready to be modded troll for this. So be it. I will propose a very unpopular opinion with the Slashdot crowd.
It makes perfect sense that avid supporters of OSS would be against software patents. Because the very thing patented is that very thing they want to get their hands on. It makes sense because free software means no money to pay for licensing in the first place.
But that doesn't mean that patents shouldn't exist and that the USPTO made a mistake in existing or accepting them in the first place.
Patents, in the physical world, are there to do 3 main things. 1) _Help_ prevent cheap immatations. 2) Cause a competitor to find another alternate way to solve the problem (perhaps even a better way). 3) Protect the invention of the patentee, whether R&D was significantly invested or not.
Appearantly, by the fact that most inventors choose to file for a patent before marketing their product indicates that a high percentage of inventors would rather be compensated and protected for their invention. It also suggesst that the patent itself is a key motivation for releasing the invention. I'm not going to say that inventions wouldn't exist were it not for patents, as clearly through the ages there have been inventtions by people who had no protection. But they were few. And with patents in place, now, there are many.
The problem with software, is that it's all "intellectual" and "conceptual" mostly. And that they file so broadly that it covers much more than what you're patenting. The real problem, is that the USPTO stopped requiring an actual working prototype of the patent before being patented. Because that would stop all the broadness. If you haven't really invented or implemented all the 150 claims but only 30 of them, then you patent the 30 claims. That's where the problem is, otherwise, broadness is just paper and they are accepting the patent on whatever the patentee says.
Also, in such a competitive environment as software, much more of the patents are more a matter of securing your position in the marketplace. Sad, but true. Also for deliberate abuse. Think 1-click, think JPEG patent, etc. The true inventors want their invention to be used by the masses. Of course, add current business practice and the need for short term gains into the mix, and you have your self an unhealthy need to control whatever can be controlled. But, since patent law allows for a limited-time monopoly on the invention, it's really not illegal to hold the industry for ransom.
Now, to address the matter at heart. Just because you don't agree with patents and that you want OSS to be able to do anything they want in the software world (because you would rather not pay) does not mean that patents are evil in the first place.
I'm quite certain if you figured out a way to compress 500GB into 1k that you would be filing for at least 10 patents before you ever opened your mouth that you figured it out... or... would you "give" it to the OSS community? You see, patents have their place. It's the abuse of the patents that need to be discouraged by the system that awards them in the first place. By abuse, I don't mean howt hey are licensed. By abuse, I mean what they cover and their actual inventiveness and originality.
I've been using computers since the Apple//. I'm a programmer but rarely work more than 40 hours a week.
I used to have strong headaches (unusual for me) an ever increasing eye strain (I've always been sensitive to light but this was much more intense than I usually experience) and lack of sleep (I'm a night owl, but only when I use the computer too much)... and all kinds of other problems. Usually irritated and sore, strained eyes.
I got a glare filter at first and the headaches went away but the straining didn't.
Years go by. 3 months ago I get a Sony 17.1 LCD TFT. No more headaches. Instantly no more strainging. Good sleep patterns (probly an effect of me getting married in the same time frame as when I got the LCD)... my eyes are better, no more sore or irritated (unless I deprive myself of sleep)...
Don't know exactly if it makes a different scientifically, but I do know that when I start to use my server for more than 30 mintues (CRT) I start to get "light-headed" and my eyes again strain and irritate until I turn away and it's all better again.
I have experienced, I think there is a relation (with me) in this. Others I know that have programmed for 30 years or more have no eye problems. So it must be in the person or the monitor or other factors considered. Nonetheless, I think CRT/LCD differences are significant and make a diifference on the eye.
Or maybe he does in a certain sense. I know people argue that since nothing is "physically" stolen there's no harm.
If I create a piece of software or music and expect to be paid in return for allowing you to use it, what gives you the right to tell me "I don't agree with your licensing terms so I'll just rip it"... or "I can't afford it so I'll use it anyway without paying for it because you wouldn't have had my sale anyway"... or "it's not worth paying for so I'll just conveniently infringe on your copyright protections anyway"... or "if they made the price cheaper I'd buy it"... yeah, that's why people copy Windows ($199) and Office ($349-600) and copy and locate serial generators for WinZip ($29) as well... because ($29) is too expensive, huh?... "It's my PC so I should be able to rip your legally protected all I want"...
I've met people who were going to go purchase a CD until someone else comes along and says "I'll make you a coyp of the MP3's" so they get that "copy" and don't purchase the CD because they already have it (and can burn it to a real CD if they choose). I've also met people who were about to go to the movie theatre to watch a movie (Episode I) and someone gives them a rip of a prerelease downloaded from the net and then in the end they didn't go to the theatre and instead watched it over and over again on the PC.
The fact is, piracy does cost. And even if they didn't lose a sale because they wouldn't have the sale in the first place, it's still not your right (constitutionally or legally) to tell the copyright owner to go shove it.
The same atttitude you carry for the large copyright owners you'll pass on to the smaller independant or individual copyright holders, also. Because when you want to infringe for then you will and nothing will stop you and only your endless justifications will manipulate you into thinking you are Doing The Right Think (TM).
You make this arguement all you want. Until you actually want to make money off something you do you and only find everyone takes it in a free for all, you'll never understand and will always make your excuses.
To set the record straight, I'm against DRM. I'm against stupid legislation. I'm against the ever expanding rights of large monolithic corporations and decreasing concern from the consumer. I'm not an affiliate of anything supporting thier cause. But I'm sick of all the lies and excuses of the people who deliberately infringe and act like there's nothing wrong. If it was meant for you to use for free they would have provided it that way. Of course, I agree, that to purchase the CD then have to pay to listen to it in a PC is nothing more than greedy, by ripping it isn't making a statement. It just feeds their agenda and gives them justification.
I'm getting married soon and we looked at various photographers and the quality of their photographs and in particular whether or not we get the negatives and proofs. Most of them don't. However, the best photographer (meaning best with candid shots, lighting, scenery, posing and so on) also gives the negatives away with a written notice that they can be duplicated and will accept phone calls to any photo shop that has questions. She will also digitize them and provide them on a CD if we choose.
I don't see the problem. I've only been looking at a few photographers but when you are specifically looking for one who will give away the negatives (at no extra cost -- and the total cost being competitive with any other photographer) you'd be surprised how easy they are to find. It's only a matter of whether you like the quality of the work.
Some photographers choose to make money from their reprints and that's their business model. Others aren't in it for the money and seem to make more of it and would rather suit the customer's needs and not view the customers photo and the photographers "intellectual property". Well, those are the photographers I choose to do business with.
All you have to do is ask "do I get to keep the negatives". Yes or no. If no, "thank you for your time but we'll keep looking for another photographer that does". If yes, then view the quality of their work.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always the fault of the RIAA for not offering a similarly competitive alternate for P2P. It's always the fault of the RIAA for keeping prices too high. It's always the fault of the RIAA for sueing everyone in existance.
It's never the fault of the person that violated the copyright law in the first place, is it?
Thanks,
Leabre
Price, occording to the "Order Now" link, is estimated at $99. Not bad for all the schematics, docs, tutorials, an ebook, sdk, tools, cart, and more... with royalty-free game distribution...
Thanks,
Leabre
In what way is this info reliable? I never send a crash report. In fact, I even turn off the error reporting service (on WinXP).
Assuming I'm not the only one that does so, is this 5% sampling a sampling of those that actually *do* report or a sampling of the entire spectrum of windows users? How many is 5%? How many WinXP installs are there? A total of 10% of all Windows Installations?
Come on... I think this info is not reliable.
Thanks,
Leabre
I use a different root than the actual email address. If someone does send the root (there is no such it autmotically gets rejected). Of course, I have abotut 80 aliases and none of them have been abused.
I don't think spam originates from Microsoft or Amazon (even Yahoo) or ebay or others. I think they use lookup attacks (they have one email address and they just start matching against a dictionary of domains and hope they get you).
hotmail on the other hand, open up a new account called "xadlkjfapdklfjqpeioru@hotmail.com" and you'll get about 90 emails a day the first week. I can't understand it, Hotmail must give them away but for everyone else, no problems (with any aliases).
Thanks,
Leabre
Good point... Professional means your getting paid to do it. Hobbyist and Philanthropists do it for not pay.
I think it rather stems from rediculous deadlines and the need to cut corners. Tell me, what deadlines are so critical in the OSS community that if it's not completed by X date then you're out of a job and can't feed your family or make a house payment?
Drawing a comparison is futile. It doesn't take all things into consideration and I've seen my fair share of difficult to read OSS code. Of course, I've seen my share of difficult to read "professional" code also.
In fact, that's where I get into disputes often at work. I'm very discipled and do not compromise on my code and technique while most others do.
I turn in less defects from the get-go, I typically take less time writing it from the get-go, less time maintaining it, people have less troubles understanding it, and it works.
But, my coworkers complain that if *they* employ the same techniques it'll "take too long" and "introduce many defects". To which I agree. I've spent a few years getting it into my second-nature and trying to pick up best practices and techniques and put them to use. It won't happen from day one.
In any case, I'm a professional programmer because I get paid to do what I do, how else would I pay my bills??? I have not contributed to OSS but I have released my own software (source included) for use however except from re-selling it without my permission (which I think is quite reasonable).
I don't agree that professional programmers are worse programmers than OSS or vise-versa. I believe professional programmers are under time constraints and aren't concerned about employing the best techniques or most advanced when their paychecks may be in limbo if deadlines aren't met.
OSS programmers/contributers, on the other hand, can do whatever they want without managers breathing down their neck and can make it as pretty/advanced as they want, or as crappy as they see fit.
In my case, however, I'm "too" disciplined to compromise. I have left a company in the past because they were pushing on me something that would jeoperdize the integrity of the project and I will not be responsible for such. Not anyone else I've ever worked with in almost 7 years of programming and consulting (totaling about 10 different companies ranging from small to mid to fortune 500) have I encountered another that cares as much as I do.
Thanks,
Shawn
First of all he LIED by saying he was doing 60MPH. Next, he was doing 114 (there is not a place in the US that allows that and in residential it's 25MPH). I'm sure the accident investigators would have been able to notice that he was well above 60MPH but even so, he lied and the black box said otherwise. If it was my children or loved one that was killed, I'd feel glad that he was put behind bars for reckless driving. There's no excuse. Privacty implication or not, I don't think the black-box thing is being abused in this case.
Thanks,
Leabre
Thanks for the idea, think I'll go patent it now and cash in in three years and retire early...
Step 1: check slashdot daily
Step 2: read truly genius idea given mod'd as funny in comments
Step 3: quit joking about it and actually do it
Step 4: wait 3 years for the rest of the industry to implement it
Step 5: receive notice of accepted patent
Step 6: sue sue sue
Step 7: profit profit profit
Too many steps but who cares as long as the "profit" part works =))
Thanks,
Leabre
In California this is a right-to-work state so those non-compete's don't have any effect because you have to work to make a living and the only way to work is to practice your trade.
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
Thanks,
Leabre
In California this is a right-to-work state so those non-compete's don't have any effect because you have to work to make a living and the only way to work is to practice your trade.
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
Thanks,
Leabre
This may be redundant but...
The obvious solution isn't to penalize the spammer, but the beneficiary of the spam is obvious because an email contact or a phone number or something, eventually, at some point, they have to charge your card to get your money.
The one who benefits from the spam should be penalized since they are the one's paying for the spam and instigating it.
Thanks,
Leabre
Well, because ma and pa and grandma have a harder time using most Distro's and having no probs with Windows and/or Mac, I would argue that Open Soruce isn't "reaching the masses" as of yet. Linux intimdates the heckers out of grandma... software names like Gnome and Gimp and Mozilla, companies called Trolltech and so on, isn't exactly "beckoning the masses", especially those who are deeply religious.
I'd say OSS may be hitting hard with the geeks and *some* companies, but so far, most of the average users I know and encounter still use Windows (by choice) and haven't taken a liking much to Linux. I've tried RedHat and wasn't too impressed but I'll get over it.
Of course, I also started programming on a Mac and then went to 'dows and, while I like the non-commercialization feel of Linux (meaning there's still room to create your own wheel, not every element of functionality is wrapped up into an endless entanglement of API's)...
Personally, I'm not terribly impressed with the look-and-feel of most OSS. I won't argue quality because I haven't really judged it or paid attention, WinXP/2k rarely ever crashes on me so it's not a selling point the Linux is more stable (and these are my dev boxes)...
. z Z
Thanks,
Shawn
As much as I agree that there were too macny restrictions considering the Power companies here in california were "deregulated" it did come to light that most of the power crises was a hoax. What's more troubling than the power crisis is that our elected officials or any other aren't requiring back the money we gave them to bail them out (of a hoax). Why isn't there a crises now? We aren't giving them money and nothing much has changed since then but there's no crises now...
Completely deregulating won't make things more competitive. If they aren't willing to allow competitors access to their lines now unless the law mandates it, and even then, they find the loopholes, what makes you think they will willingly provide "competitive" access to their lines when there is no accountability and oversight?
Thanks,
Me
MS likes to use simple names for all their products... Word, Money, SQL Server, Windows, Echange...
Why not rename Palladium to...
MS Vault(tm)...
All your next-generation secure computing base are belong to us!!!!
I see so many complaints about Real. I watch a TV station online and have an option, to use 300k Windows Media, or 300k Real Media. Without contestation, Real Media uses less memory, less CPU, has better sound quality, doesn't skip or break connection, run out of buffer, or whatever.
WM on the other hand consumes my CPU and memory and eventually gives me an out of memory error and I have a PIII 1 GHz with 512 MB ram, and another P4 1.7GHz 512MB Ram. My OS's are WinXP Pro SP1 and Win2k Pro (I have removable primary hard drives)
I'm using the latest RealOne player and I don't get bombarded with ads. I create an email alias for every individual recipient and I have yet to see an offense by Real Media. And there is an option to not have start center startup with Windows because it doesn't start with my Windows.
In all actuality, I'd rather not use Real because I do prefer WM. My other options are Creative player and it takes 1 minute to initialize. But in this case, for online streaming, Real Media is the winner. Everything else isn't a pleasant experience (for online streaming) and quicktime isn't an option in this case.
Thanks,
Leabre
Okay, lets go through the _obvious_ projects that are either foundations of currently used MS technology in production, or directly used... and see how useful MSR is (or isn't). and I stress "obvious" and "in production" and "foundation" or "directly relatated". Anything not obvious or "possibly but not obvious" are not checked. Items marked with a (+) are projects that appear to be a foundation for future production or that appear to be going direction into production at some point in the near future or that have a strong association with a product that is currently in production but the MSR project is currently not effecting production.<P>
.NET Framework)<BR>
I read the description for each project before reaching these conclusions and thus no conclsion can be made by the title alone (in most cases).<P>
(*) = Obvious<BR>
( ) = Not Obvious or Not Effecting Products<BR>
(+) = Appears to be related to current product<BR>
but the MSR is not currently effecting<BR>
production with project identified<BR>
(/) = Appears to effect current product in part<BR>
but not probably entirely... or parts of<BR>
research described appear to already be<BR>
used in production currently<BR>
(.) = Alias to another project<BR>
(long list warning)<BR>
1) ( ) Adaptive Systems and Interaction<BR>
2) (*) Advanced Compiler Technology<BR>
3) (*) Advanced Programming Languages<BR>
4) (*) AsmL<BR>
5) (*) AutoAlbum<BR>
6) (*) AutoDJ<BR>
7) ( ) Automatic Lexical Learning<BR>
8) (*) Bartok (See 2)<BR>
9) ( ) Behave!<BR>
10) (+) Boxwood<BR>
11) (/) CAMDIS<BR>
12) (*) ClearType<BR>
13) (*) Collaborative Video Viewing<BR>
14) (*) Common Annotation Framework<BR>
15) ( ) Communication, Collaboration, and Signal<BR>
Processing<BR>
16) (/) Component Applications<BR>
17) (*) Cryptography and Anti-Piracy<BR>
18) (*) Data Management, Exploration, and Data<BR>
Mining<BR>
19) (*) Data Mining in Commerce Server<BR>
20) ( ) Data Mountain<BR>
21) (.) Data-Driven Machine Translation (NLP)<BR>
22) (*) Database<BR>
23) (*) Detours<BR>
24) (/) Distributed Meetings<BR>
25) (*) Distributed Systems<BR>
26) (*) Document Processing and Understanding<BR>
27) ( ) Dr. Who<BR>
28) ( ) Easy Living<BR>
29) ( ) EyeCU (Reminds me of the movie AntiTrust<BR>
30) ( ) Face Modeling<BR>
31) ( ) Farsite (Napster anyone?)<BR>
32) (*) Filtering for Junk Email and Parental<BR>
Controls<BR>
33) (*) Flatland (See 14)<BR>
34) (*) Foundations of Software Engineering<BR>
35) (+) Generics (future release
36) ( ) Graphics (Related to 30)<BR>
37) (.) H-Colorings (Theory Group)<BR>
38) (*) Hardware Devices (Pocket PC Foundations)<BR>
39) (*) Hardware Systems (See 38)<BR>
40) ( ) Harold (I once read about future plans to<BR>
implement technology from this project<BR>
41) ( ) Social Computing Group<BR>
42) ( ) Indy Performance Modeling Infrastructure<BR>
43) (*) Information Retrieval and Analysis<BR>
44) ( ) Integrated Systems<BR>
45) ( ) Intelligent Systems<BR>
46) (*) Interactive Visual Media <BR>
47) ( ) Internet Graphics<BR>
48) ( ) Internet Graphs<BR>
49) (.) Internet Media (Theory Group)<BR>
50) (*) IPv6<BR>
51) ( ) JetStream<BR>
52) (/) Junk-Mail Filtering<BR>
53) (/) KidTalk<BR>
54) ( ) Koh-i-Noor<BR>
55) ( ) Large Display User Experience<BR>
56) (+) Lead Line (Very interesting project - it<BR>
also spawned Chat 2.5 and V-Chat)<BR>
57) (*) Lookout (Clippy anyone?)<BR>
58) ( ) Machine Learning and Applied Statistics<BR>
I don't feel like documenting all the rest of them. It appears that MSR is proving itself just from these 55% of the total listings on MSR Project list page.<BR>
Please, go check your facts before posting about how useless they are.<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
Leabre
Until you copy the license / activation files along with the ebook file.
This is true. But unless that activation and a key file for all the resources you want are tied together, it won't work. You can't use someone elses key on your own activation (the install of Libronix initially requires an activation similar to MS WinXP Activation)...
Also, there are over 2000 individual resources. You'll be hard pressed to find an activation floating around with a license for each of the files (granted it can be cracked it hasn't yet)... it makes it an annoyance although subsequent upgrades don't seem to break previous versions... I do not know if it still gets verified with a network connection anything beyond the initial activation and each licensing. I have two licenses, together, that totals me 147 resources. Soon, I'll have a 3rd (to replace one of the two I already have) that will give me access to about 80 more resources.
It's really not a bad model at all. I doubt the *AA cartels will be as forgiving however, as this publisher is.
I've experienced worse. I've purchased a $115 book called "Fundamentals of Database Design" that has an ebook of itself on the CD-ROM (why I purchased it) but can't be activated (to print or view the images) because the ebook publisher is out of business and I can't return the book (I've contacted the book publisher) because the CD was already opened.
I've also purchased ebooks for Acrobat E-Book reader and had to reformat the system and too bad for me. Have to purchase them again. Can't print. Can't copy and paste. Can't lend. Can't give away. What's the use? EBooks are something I tend to avoid unless they are the MS Press CHM's, or some PDF's, and Libronix. MS E-Book reader books are generally more forgiving also, but all the Acrobat EBook Reader books I've encountered are locked down toothe and nail and I have no interest in further purchasing such books because of that.
Thanks,
Leabre
I've seen a DRM for ebooks that I actually don't have any qualms with, and think it's the best that it can get and still be DRM, though I don't like DRM in the least...
It's called Libronix. Actually, it's primarily for religious publications... Libronix is an e-book reader and format... but I haven't seen any books non-Christian on the format... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist... http://www.libronix.com
Here's how it works.
The system recognizes the "resources" that you supply it, usually from download or CD-ROM and then requres a license key... license key is keyed to the "activation" of the product. Basically, it says you can access these resources but not those ones...
You can copy the resources to any computer your want but only those PC that have a valid license can access them... if you're friend wants to, they can purchase a license from your copied file and view it themselves.
You can install the Librinix system on any other PC for backups and when it installs, just supply the activation confirmation supplied when originally activated and then "restore" the license key backed up and you can view it on any PC you want, that has your activation code. It doesn't restrict how many times you activate but you cannot use any license that was granted with an activation not your own.
This means you can use it on your 5 computers at home and your laptop but you can't necessarily do so on your friends PC unless you installed and used your activation and supply him your licences for each resource or collection of resources (I have 147 resources licensed to me)...
In all, it's fairly unintrusive but goes a long way against sharing unless you want your personal info distributed on the net...
That's the best (meaning least intrusive) implementation I've seen so far.
Thanks,
Leabre
DeaR reCipieNT,
;)). You ARe PRevEnTIng Us froM UsinG You As a StatiStIC. We HOPe YoU wiLL dO the riGhT ThinG.
yOu haVE beeN GiVEN manY OppURtunItiES tO puRchASE proDuct X viA thE MILlioNS of emAilS YOu reCieVE eAch wEEk. You HAVe refuSED. We NOw HavE YoUR EmaiLS RansOM. If YOu FAil to puRChasE braND X by SundOWn FridAY usINg InterNET eXplorER 5.01 or HigHER WitH WindOWs 2000 SeCURity SETtings MimIMUm... You'LL neVeR SeE youR EmailS agAiN
I've had an email address for about a year that was not once used for any reason at all. Never received, never sent. One day, I sent an email to a relative who had just got their email account and was excited to be on the web.
..."
A month later, I got forwarded one of those "send this to x people and Bill Gates will send you $3,014 for each 3rd person... no really, it's true, just the other day I recevied my $10 million dollar check from
I replied and told her never to do that again or she will be blocked and I'll never email her. I explained to her why she shouldn't do that. It's because someone somewhere along the line will get the 30 times forwarded message and will glean the 100's of emails that are a part of the message body from all the forwards and put you on a list.
Now, everyday I get 1 or 2 Univerity Diplomas emails, they just don't stop sending them, Every day Janna wants to know what I was doing last night, King Kong keeps wanting me to buy some Herbal Viagra alternatives, FBI snooper detection prevention software, and a chance to win a free 3 carot dimand after I send $2,000 to sponser some foundation... yeah... uh huh...
I'll tell you, those funnies you send and recieve everyday is a really good way.
The other way is to reply to a spam to be removed from a mailing list. In the same mail account, I replied to a few to be removed from the list and shortly after the volume of messages recived almost doubled. Now it's a useless email account that receives over 600 emails per week. It's sad because I've only sent and recieved less than 10 legitimate messages from that account in the past 5 years and this is what I get in return for it.
Bottom line:
* Warn your friends and family not to send
you forwarded email. Explain to them
that most of those messages are hoaxes,
anyway. Companies don't pay to you to blast
the Internet with messages.
* Second, don't reply to spams when you do
receive them or it will just confirm an
active account. I used to spoof returned
mail notices but those don't help any,
they also make it worse.
* Third, if you do recieve a mass-forward,
you're already at odds.
* Each time you sign up to a new web-site, read
the privacy statement. Usually, you're info
will be shared with a partner. Check that
partners privacy, because usually that partner
will share your info with a partner and so on.
Your email address is usually not kept secret
anymore. They make too much money by selling
to people. If they are European based, then
it might be more secure because of privacy
laws.
* Opt-out of those "important updates from the
company and their partners". This will just
generate more unwanted messages than you'll
care about. I've opted-in to some in the past
that were supposed to be monthy tech news
updates on important issues. Well, one day it
became daily. They changed their policy with
out notifying me.
* Most sites reserve the right to change their
privacy policies at-will and with no obligation
to notify you. They expect you to keep up
on this yourself. The best advice is to do
so. I've cancelled membership to some sites
because of this. My data is not theirs to
profit from while I profit nothing from it.
* Obvious names, such as "kitty@domain.com,
bmwlover@domain.com, studmuff@domain.com, etc"
are likely culprits. Sometimes they perform
dictionary based attacks on many domains and
it may just be your lucky number. What's
worse, is that they CC so all emails are there
and other spammers gather those emails and then
you are placed on another list.
* Anything else not mentioned. Keep in mind,
these are only spam "reduction" techniques. I
think it's very difficult and next to
impossible to not be spammed. Being aware of
certain actions that will trigger a result and
preventing those actions, will help greatly.
* If they leave a return address, sometimes you
can complain and have their account revoked.
This won't stop them, they'll open another
account and continue.
* Push for a law that allows the sponsor of the
spam to be sued for damages and inconveniences
rather than the sender. For example, I've
recived over 200 unvirsity diplomas messages
which all have the same phone number, but each
message is from a different sender. If we can
sue the owner of the phone number, than that
would go a great distance because it would
make people afraid to market in that mannor.
Well, hope this helps,
Leabre
If an inventor marketed their product before filing a patent, their patent would either be not granted or would be unenforceable as their own marketed invention could be construed as prior art.
That's not true. If the inventor releases or makes known the invention to the public, they have up to 1 year (365 days) where they can file for a patent and still be granted. Therefore, by doing so, it does not constitute prior art.
Also, prior art is defined as a previous granted pantent. Public domain is defined as having been released to the public (without a patent or via expired patent).
For the inventor, their own work will not be considered prior art if they release it to the public and within a year file for a patent. If someone else, however, files a patent similar, then the publicly released invention will be considered either public domain (not patentable) or patented if the inventor files for a patent within a year and the patent is granted.
Thanks,
Shawn
I'm ready to be modded troll for this. So be it. I will propose a very unpopular opinion with the Slashdot crowd.
It makes perfect sense that avid supporters of OSS would be against software patents. Because the very thing patented is that very thing they want to get their hands on. It makes sense because free software means no money to pay for licensing in the first place.
But that doesn't mean that patents shouldn't exist and that the USPTO made a mistake in existing or accepting them in the first place.
Patents, in the physical world, are there to do 3 main things. 1) _Help_ prevent cheap immatations. 2) Cause a competitor to find another alternate way to solve the problem (perhaps even a better way). 3) Protect the invention of the patentee, whether R&D was significantly invested or not.
Appearantly, by the fact that most inventors choose to file for a patent before marketing their product indicates that a high percentage of inventors would rather be compensated and protected for their invention. It also suggesst that the patent itself is a key motivation for releasing the invention. I'm not going to say that inventions wouldn't exist were it not for patents, as clearly through the ages there have been inventtions by people who had no protection. But they were few. And with patents in place, now, there are many.
The problem with software, is that it's all "intellectual" and "conceptual" mostly. And that they file so broadly that it covers much more than what you're patenting. The real problem, is that the USPTO stopped requiring an actual working prototype of the patent before being patented. Because that would stop all the broadness. If you haven't really invented or implemented all the 150 claims but only 30 of them, then you patent the 30 claims. That's where the problem is, otherwise, broadness is just paper and they are accepting the patent on whatever the patentee says.
Also, in such a competitive environment as software, much more of the patents are more a matter of securing your position in the marketplace. Sad, but true. Also for deliberate abuse. Think 1-click, think JPEG patent, etc. The true inventors want their invention to be used by the masses. Of course, add current business practice and the need for short term gains into the mix, and you have your self an unhealthy need to control whatever can be controlled. But, since patent law allows for a limited-time monopoly on the invention, it's really not illegal to hold the industry for ransom.
Now, to address the matter at heart. Just because you don't agree with patents and that you want OSS to be able to do anything they want in the software world (because you would rather not pay) does not mean that patents are evil in the first place.
I'm quite certain if you figured out a way to compress 500GB into 1k that you would be filing for at least 10 patents before you ever opened your mouth that you figured it out... or... would you "give" it to the OSS community? You see, patents have their place. It's the abuse of the patents that need to be discouraged by the system that awards them in the first place. By abuse, I don't mean howt hey are licensed. By abuse, I mean what they cover and their actual inventiveness and originality.
Thanks,
Me
I've been using computers since the Apple //. I'm a programmer but rarely work more than 40 hours a week.
I used to have strong headaches (unusual for me) an ever increasing eye strain (I've always been sensitive to light but this was much more intense than I usually experience) and lack of sleep (I'm a night owl, but only when I use the computer too much)... and all kinds of other problems. Usually irritated and sore, strained eyes.
I got a glare filter at first and the headaches went away but the straining didn't.
Years go by. 3 months ago I get a Sony 17.1 LCD TFT. No more headaches. Instantly no more strainging. Good sleep patterns (probly an effect of me getting married in the same time frame as when I got the LCD)... my eyes are better, no more sore or irritated (unless I deprive myself of sleep)...
Don't know exactly if it makes a different scientifically, but I do know that when I start to use my server for more than 30 mintues (CRT) I start to get "light-headed" and my eyes again strain and irritate until I turn away and it's all better again.
I have experienced, I think there is a relation (with me) in this. Others I know that have programmed for 30 years or more have no eye problems. So it must be in the person or the monitor or other factors considered. Nonetheless, I think CRT/LCD differences are significant and make a diifference on the eye.
Thanks,
Me
Or maybe he does in a certain sense. I know people argue that since nothing is "physically" stolen there's no harm.
If I create a piece of software or music and expect to be paid in return for allowing you to use it, what gives you the right to tell me "I don't agree with your licensing terms so I'll just rip it"... or "I can't afford it so I'll use it anyway without paying for it because you wouldn't have had my sale anyway"... or "it's not worth paying for so I'll just conveniently infringe on your copyright protections anyway"... or "if they made the price cheaper I'd buy it"... yeah, that's why people copy Windows ($199) and Office ($349-600) and copy and locate serial generators for WinZip ($29) as well... because ($29) is too expensive, huh?... "It's my PC so I should be able to rip your legally protected all I want"...
I've met people who were going to go purchase a CD until someone else comes along and says "I'll make you a coyp of the MP3's" so they get that "copy" and don't purchase the CD because they already have it (and can burn it to a real CD if they choose). I've also met people who were about to go to the movie theatre to watch a movie (Episode I) and someone gives them a rip of a prerelease downloaded from the net and then in the end they didn't go to the theatre and instead watched it over and over again on the PC.
The fact is, piracy does cost. And even if they didn't lose a sale because they wouldn't have the sale in the first place, it's still not your right (constitutionally or legally) to tell the copyright owner to go shove it.
The same atttitude you carry for the large copyright owners you'll pass on to the smaller independant or individual copyright holders, also. Because when you want to infringe for then you will and nothing will stop you and only your endless justifications will manipulate you into thinking you are Doing The Right Think (TM).
You make this arguement all you want. Until you actually want to make money off something you do you and only find everyone takes it in a free for all, you'll never understand and will always make your excuses.
To set the record straight, I'm against DRM. I'm against stupid legislation. I'm against the ever expanding rights of large monolithic corporations and decreasing concern from the consumer. I'm not an affiliate of anything supporting thier cause. But I'm sick of all the lies and excuses of the people who deliberately infringe and act like there's nothing wrong. If it was meant for you to use for free they would have provided it that way. Of course, I agree, that to purchase the CD then have to pay to listen to it in a PC is nothing more than greedy, by ripping it isn't making a statement. It just feeds their agenda and gives them justification.
Flame away but you know it's true.
Thanks,
Me
I'm getting married soon and we looked at various photographers and the quality of their photographs and in particular whether or not we get the negatives and proofs. Most of them don't. However, the best photographer (meaning best with candid shots, lighting, scenery, posing and so on) also gives the negatives away with a written notice that they can be duplicated and will accept phone calls to any photo shop that has questions. She will also digitize them and provide them on a CD if we choose.
I don't see the problem. I've only been looking at a few photographers but when you are specifically looking for one who will give away the negatives (at no extra cost -- and the total cost being competitive with any other photographer) you'd be surprised how easy they are to find. It's only a matter of whether you like the quality of the work.
Some photographers choose to make money from their reprints and that's their business model. Others aren't in it for the money and seem to make more of it and would rather suit the customer's needs and not view the customers photo and the photographers "intellectual property". Well, those are the photographers I choose to do business with.
All you have to do is ask "do I get to keep the negatives". Yes or no. If no, "thank you for your time but we'll keep looking for another photographer that does". If yes, then view the quality of their work.
It's simple.
Thanks,
Me