There are times when it makes since to go with the lowest bidder, but it usually isn't government services. If the government wants something done correctly, without spelling out the most minor details or anticipating every possible short-cut, it should probably handle it on its own.
I noticed that particular passage, too. One of the things that bothered me about his "decision making" is that spiritual healer is not the opposite of evolution or science. I can't remember a single science or math class where spiritual healers came up even once. I don't recall any lesson about how species evolve including, "therefore, spiritual healers suck". Moreover, "That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor." Who does that? I would have been driven off by the "semi-clothed" aspect, but the its not science would have never crossed my mind.
Moreover, if it worked, I would want to "use my science" to learn more about it and figure out how it works. If I just accept that it was magic, I would close my mind to learning.
The issue isn't our relationship with Google, but Google's relationship with its employees. If Google pays it employees in cash, this is obviously taxable. Can Google pay its employees in "free" lunch? If employees buy their own lunches, they can't deduct it from income. In effect, providing lunch to its employees is a form of tax-free compensation. In an ideal world, my employer would pay all my bills directly, and I would be taxed only on the remainder. Of course, that can't work.
By the way, we pay for Google searches by being exposed to advertising in the same way we pay for network television.
This is just another example of the disconnect between the studios and their customers. Studios believe that they are selling a license but customers believe that they are buying a product. The studios don't want to be explicit about this because they know that customers would revolt. That is why they work behind the scenes (a court case is behind the scenes for most people) to impose their view of the world without making an announcement. Customers won't like it at first, but eventually people will learn to adjust. However, as part of that new paradigm, studios should provide a free backup service so that the media travels with the person and not a particular downloaded copy.
This being said, I have no idea how someone can generally sell an mp3 in the traditional sense absent some sort of registry system. In theory, if I delete my copy of an mp3 before "selling" it to someone else that has the same character as selling a CD. However, there is no way to know if I actually deleted my copy absent some sort of ownership registry. Selling a CD has that same problem because there is no way to know if someone made a digital copy before selling the physical media. However, that is an enforcement problem and not necessarily a copyright problem assuming that everyone follows the rules.
Interesting. I might go ahead and read Speaker for the Dead. I didn't get past Ender's Game because I could see how quickly they slapped some material on the end of Ender's Game to nominally connect it to a sequel.
At best, you would be encouraging him to find a different game. Presumably, he would find one without player kills.
People generally find jobs because they need a job--not because they are too bored to do something else.
There is no problem with putting a tracking device on a child as long as it is only used for good. Since there is nothing that could possibly go wrong, it is probably a good idea.
It is probably a trademark issue. The stranger the name (i.e., distinct) the easier it is to protect the name. If you named your operating system, Functional Operating System, you will have a harder time than if you had named your operating system, Big Slick.
If the information is need-to-know only, then giving the people that need-to-know false information will lead to wasted time. If a person doesn't need to know, then the person shouldn't have the information in the first place. The example in the article of burying useful information in a sea of noise still presumes that someone can exceed their access in the first place. Those things should be preventable in the first instance.
I agree that this is a subtle point. I always assumed that these scammers were taking a shotgun approach and trying to get as many responses as possible. I always thought it was about volume and not efficiency.
I agree with one caveat. Since he is telling the story, he gets to spin it to his advantage. I noticed that he only quotes her and not himself. He may not have been as reasonable as it sounds.
You can't talk about crushing innovation in the abstract. First, what affect if any does patent protection have on this type of "invention"? Absent a patent, would somebody have done this anyway? You can't crush the inevitable. Second, the question in this context is whether this patent should be entitled to patent protection. Stated another way, is this a patent to an idea or an application of that idea? Is this a special way of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement or is it the idea itself? One deserves patent protection and the other does not.
As strange as this may sound, Judges are supposed to use their experience but not their knowledge. Technically speaking, knowing computer programming may present a bias in this case. Taking an extreme example, a Judge shouldn't precede over a murder trial that he or she witnessed. Here, the Judge is basically saying, "I know difficult code. I have written difficult code. And, this sir, is not difficult code." Since, Oracle's argument depends in-part on the value of this code, the Judge has arguably decided that issue, which may come up if Oracle is not happy.
I don't disagree with the Judge, but he is not supposed to be making these kinds of factual findings.
Even in the face of no opposition, a Plaintiff doesn't automatically win. The Plaintiff still has the burden of proving entitlement to a favorable judgment. Unlike a forfeit in sports, you still have to play the game in Court.
Sony wants to sell licenses to use software that happens to be distributed via physical media. In contrast, consumers think of themselves as buying physical media containing software. In other words, consumers believe that any license is attached to the media, whereas Sony wants the license to attach to the person. Because there is no physical media associated with digitally distributed content, consumers don't have any trouble with that concept in that arena. However, in the case of physical media, Sony wants to screw consumers on both sides. If you lose the disc, you can't play the game anymore and if you sell the disc to someone else they can't use it.
If Sony wants to switch to solely licensing software, they should stop selling discs. Otherwise, they should anticipate consumer revolt and rightly so.
According to the article, the City of Boston had a policy allowing officers to arrest people in those circumstances. No one will get fired for following this type of policy. I'm thinking the punishment will be an informal finger wag.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the patentability of genes. The Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Federal Circuit with instructions to try again in light of a different and recent Supreme Court case, Prometheus v. Mayo. Ordinarily, this would be RTFA, but since the article is wrong, it would be RTF(case), but I'm guessing the writer isn't here.
Slashdot Mirror
There are times when it makes since to go with the lowest bidder, but it usually isn't government services. If the government wants something done correctly, without spelling out the most minor details or anticipating every possible short-cut, it should probably handle it on its own.
Moreover, if it worked, I would want to "use my science" to learn more about it and figure out how it works. If I just accept that it was magic, I would close my mind to learning.
The issue isn't our relationship with Google, but Google's relationship with its employees. If Google pays it employees in cash, this is obviously taxable. Can Google pay its employees in "free" lunch? If employees buy their own lunches, they can't deduct it from income. In effect, providing lunch to its employees is a form of tax-free compensation. In an ideal world, my employer would pay all my bills directly, and I would be taxed only on the remainder. Of course, that can't work.
By the way, we pay for Google searches by being exposed to advertising in the same way we pay for network television.
This is just another example of the disconnect between the studios and their customers. Studios believe that they are selling a license but customers believe that they are buying a product. The studios don't want to be explicit about this because they know that customers would revolt. That is why they work behind the scenes (a court case is behind the scenes for most people) to impose their view of the world without making an announcement. Customers won't like it at first, but eventually people will learn to adjust. However, as part of that new paradigm, studios should provide a free backup service so that the media travels with the person and not a particular downloaded copy.
This being said, I have no idea how someone can generally sell an mp3 in the traditional sense absent some sort of registry system. In theory, if I delete my copy of an mp3 before "selling" it to someone else that has the same character as selling a CD. However, there is no way to know if I actually deleted my copy absent some sort of ownership registry. Selling a CD has that same problem because there is no way to know if someone made a digital copy before selling the physical media. However, that is an enforcement problem and not necessarily a copyright problem assuming that everyone follows the rules.
Interesting. I might go ahead and read Speaker for the Dead. I didn't get past Ender's Game because I could see how quickly they slapped some material on the end of Ender's Game to nominally connect it to a sequel.
I guess this is a big deal. I tried Red Hat a long time ago and I have never looked back. I'm just going to stick with Slackware.
iControl
At best, you would be encouraging him to find a different game. Presumably, he would find one without player kills.
People generally find jobs because they need a job--not because they are too bored to do something else.
There is no problem with putting a tracking device on a child as long as it is only used for good. Since there is nothing that could possibly go wrong, it is probably a good idea.
It is probably a trademark issue. The stranger the name (i.e., distinct) the easier it is to protect the name. If you named your operating system, Functional Operating System, you will have a harder time than if you had named your operating system, Big Slick.
If the information is need-to-know only, then giving the people that need-to-know false information will lead to wasted time. If a person doesn't need to know, then the person shouldn't have the information in the first place. The example in the article of burying useful information in a sea of noise still presumes that someone can exceed their access in the first place. Those things should be preventable in the first instance.
For political reasons, it couldn't be called a tax. The Supreme Court wasn't impressed by the semantics.
At least initially, replicating someone's fingerprints should be too expensive for general use. Most of us wouldn't be worth impersonating.
I agree that this is a subtle point. I always assumed that these scammers were taking a shotgun approach and trying to get as many responses as possible. I always thought it was about volume and not efficiency.
I agree with one caveat. Since he is telling the story, he gets to spin it to his advantage. I noticed that he only quotes her and not himself. He may not have been as reasonable as it sounds.
You can't talk about crushing innovation in the abstract. First, what affect if any does patent protection have on this type of "invention"? Absent a patent, would somebody have done this anyway? You can't crush the inevitable. Second, the question in this context is whether this patent should be entitled to patent protection. Stated another way, is this a patent to an idea or an application of that idea? Is this a special way of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement or is it the idea itself? One deserves patent protection and the other does not.
As strange as this may sound, Judges are supposed to use their experience but not their knowledge. Technically speaking, knowing computer programming may present a bias in this case. Taking an extreme example, a Judge shouldn't precede over a murder trial that he or she witnessed. Here, the Judge is basically saying, "I know difficult code. I have written difficult code. And, this sir, is not difficult code." Since, Oracle's argument depends in-part on the value of this code, the Judge has arguably decided that issue, which may come up if Oracle is not happy. I don't disagree with the Judge, but he is not supposed to be making these kinds of factual findings.
Even in the face of no opposition, a Plaintiff doesn't automatically win. The Plaintiff still has the burden of proving entitlement to a favorable judgment. Unlike a forfeit in sports, you still have to play the game in Court.
At least you can't accuse them of fabricating evidence.
True, but it would have to be a lieutenant that didn't otherwise have access to the information.
Sony wants to sell licenses to use software that happens to be distributed via physical media. In contrast, consumers think of themselves as buying physical media containing software. In other words, consumers believe that any license is attached to the media, whereas Sony wants the license to attach to the person. Because there is no physical media associated with digitally distributed content, consumers don't have any trouble with that concept in that arena. However, in the case of physical media, Sony wants to screw consumers on both sides. If you lose the disc, you can't play the game anymore and if you sell the disc to someone else they can't use it.
If Sony wants to switch to solely licensing software, they should stop selling discs. Otherwise, they should anticipate consumer revolt and rightly so.
According to the article, the City of Boston had a policy allowing officers to arrest people in those circumstances. No one will get fired for following this type of policy. I'm thinking the punishment will be an informal finger wag.
You may get your wish, but not today.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the patentability of genes. The Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Federal Circuit with instructions to try again in light of a different and recent Supreme Court case, Prometheus v. Mayo. Ordinarily, this would be RTFA, but since the article is wrong, it would be RTF(case), but I'm guessing the writer isn't here.
He probably wants to spend more time with his family.