Not to come off as a corporate shill, but the company I work for (IP.com) has products for just this sort of thing. The Prior Art Database is used by a lot of big name companies in releasing technical disclosures to prevent future patents. We also have Innovation Q, which protects data privately. Innovation Q is really designed for corporate users, though, as it is subscription based and also adds features like document search, conversion, and management.
For an individual user like yourself, I'd suggest the following.
Save your file in a format that will be accessible years from now (like ASCII text).
MD5 the file (or substitute your favorite hashing algorythm)
Take out a classified ad in the newspaper each day (that you have a file to timestamp) with the filename and MD5 of the file (good luck getting the paper to print the MD5 correctly)
buy and keep a copy of the paper for your records (optional)
This should allow you to prove you had a file that produced THIS signature on a certain date. You can then recalculate the MD5 of the file you have (and if you haven't modified it) it should produce the same hash - which would lead one to believe that this IS the same file. This should be fairly compelling evidence.
Yes, it is *possible* to get another file to produce the same MD5, but it is unlikely.
Another option would be to print out the journal entry and have it notarized. This would be much easier to fake than the MD5 method - but courts have accepted notarized documents for ages.
I love Photoshop, but I wouldn't really consider it for this type of work. It really works best with single images - not working on a video sequence.
Even though I wouldn't trade Photoshop for (regular) Gimp, I wouldn't have any qualms about using FilmGimp if that's the tool I needed for the job.
I don't know why so many people are so passionate and interested in the tools other people use. Using the same tool doesn't make somebody a good designer/director/programmer/etc. When was the last time you went by a nice house being built and said "Say, nice work. What kind of hammer you using?"
I took the 'Stumpy' test - where it shows you six pictures and asks you to choose a word that describes them.
Looks like their system is hosed right now because it showed me 4 pictures of horses, 1 of a cowboy, and one of a turtle.
When it asked: What are these pictures of?
I answered "things"
apparently it didn't like my answer.
Funny thing though, the images are being pulled by image number from the getty images database. You could write a piece of software to lookup the images at getty, pull the keyword list (that getty assigns to all photos) and cross reference the list to get the answer.
--
Then this got me thinking about the whole thing in general. My answer WAS correct. Reminds me of the Cheers episode where Cliff is on Jeopardy and answers the final Jeopardy question: "Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen."
Not the answer they were looking for, but is it wrong?
I was being a smartass the other day while watching sesame street with my daughter. They had pictures of 4 animals and asked which one didn't belong. kangaroo rabbit grasshopper fish
they, of course, were looking for 'fish' - because the other three live on land or travel by hopping.
I popped up that the answer could be the kangaroo - because the other three are native to north america. Or it could be the grasshopper, as the only one with an exoskeleton.
My wife reminded me that it was a kid's show.:)
It comes down to the fact that if an strict mechanism is used to judge the answers (like a computer) it may not be able to handle legitimate answers from humans.
--
Seems both the questioner and questionee need to be intelligent to participate.
So, you believe that you have the right to make companies give you whatever you want, however you want it? So, you want a kid's meal with no toy, huh? That's not their problem. The toy is part of the package.
I want a big mac without the extra layer of bread in the middle, and leave off one of the burgers. Hell, just sell me a bun. What do you mean you don't sell buns? You sell burgers. They have buns on them. Just take the burger off. What do you mean "get the hell out?" Ouch... ouch! Alright, I'm leaving...
Companies sell products. If you don't like the product the way it's sold, don't buy it. You do NOT have the right to request a special modified just-for-me version of the product. If the company decides to offer the opportunity for customization, good for them.
This analogy doesn't really correlate to how the web works. When you go to a website, you don't get everything back as a single package. What you get is the recipe (HTML) for putting the page together. It's then up to your browser to get all the pieces and assemble them together for you (make subsequent calls for images, etc.)
So using the same analogy - it would be like ordering the kids meal, and getting a list of the stuff you are supposed to ask for (one at a time) at the next counter.
You then make a trip up for the hamburger, a trip up for the fries, a trip up for the drink, and then decide "screw the toy" and not return back to the counter. Did you do anything wrong?
In this case (or in the case of the web) sites are relying on the user to do the work necessary to retrieve the ads - by having your browser 'block' ads - it is typically just telling the browser not to do additional work when the request matches a certain pattern. In effect you are just choosing not to follow all the instructions they gave you.
But you do NOT have the right to connect to the server and say, "Give me your page without ads." You might as well be able to connect to a site then and say, "Hey, site, give me just the leftmost frame... uhhh... words 10 through 12... and, could you make it green for me, i think that's pretty."
They do deliver the page without ads. The HTML has the instructions telling you where to go get the ads. All you are doing is taking the content that they've sent you (instructions) and not following every one. That's like me giving directions to the airport to somebody and accusing them of stealing if they don't follow them precicely. If they don't, they may not get the outcome I intended, but if I wanted otherwise, I shouldn't have relied on them to follow my directions.
Years ago I did web work for Sentry (a company that makes fireproof safes). They have a "media safe" specifically for computer media.
From their description: While paper chars at 450 F (232 C), damage to computer media can occur at temperatures as low as 125 F (52 C). The interior of a Fire-Safe Media Chest or File remains well below this damage level during an average fire.
If I remember correctly, they're only rated to keep the temperature in a safe range for about 30 or 60 minutes - hopefully enough for the firefighters to have done their work.
One thing about the fire safes - make sure to keep them locked. A lot of people don't think of this, because they're only worried about fire, not theft - but if the floor/table they're sitting on gives way and they drop and the door pops open, it doesn't really matter how good the container is at resisting fire.
Kent Displays has different displays that use a technology that only uses power to update the display - that way, when the image is static, it uses no power.
Don't know if they fully support what you're looking for - looks like they go up to 800x600.
With your method, you've just moved presentation code back into the logic.
I'd rather let a few simple php elements be in my presentation template than let presentation code be baked into application logic.
<? if (foo) { ?>
display this <? } ?>
seems to be far easier to maintain than wondering why there are references to old stylesheet elements and uses of deprecated tags appearing in your output just because some smartypants decided that it was easier to load a whole table worth of information into a pre-HTML-formatted variable
I'm not trolling, but I'm not sure I see the point here. I used to do a lot of vinyl sign work, and I don't really see the 'dependency on Microsoft products' being an issue in this sector.
Typically, the sign design stations are dedicated boxes as when they're not in use designing, or driving the plotter, they're not making money. Your typical setup will cost you thousands of dollars for a good plotter - so the OS really doesn't add a lot to the total cost.
If your problem is that there isn't any free sign design software - that has nothing to do with MS. MS doesn't make ANY sign software - but most sign software is written for Windows (some Mac too).
The Roland cutter I used to work with would accept HPGL files that were sent to the serial port, so you may want to start there, but the problem isn't just getting data to the cutter. It's in having a good design program to work with to generate the information.
If your purpose is to get rid of the 'reliance on MS' then maybe you can get an older copy of FlexiSign, CASmate, or CADLink Signlab (which all started as Win3.1 apps) and get them to run under Wine.
If that doesn't suit your purpose, then it means your question was mis-stated and that your care isn't in removing a dependence on MS software... but instead to get sign software for free. Maybe you can get in touch with the maker of a piece of cheap sign software... and offer to partner with them to do the porting to linux for them.
A fertile M.U.L.E. - we could have used one of those on planet Irata.... wonder if I can genetically engineer them to be born already outfitted for Smithore?
So when the basement floods, or a fire breaks out, you can feel secure knowing that not one, but two copies of your data were destroyed at the same time.
RAID != backup.
Raid == fault tolerance. When one drive goes bad, your data is still ok.
Backup is for allowing you to get a system up and running again in the face of total catastrophy. Like a meteor hitting the house.
So use raid setups, but don't think you are off the hook for doing backups. Not unless you really could do without the data.
My example was at the simplest level to show that printer dot != pixel, and that it takes many printer dots to show one pixel.
The process of halftoning is far more complex than my example - but was enough to show the point for this discussion.
The perfect imagesetter would be able to draw 256 different sizes of dots, to print what is effectively 257 levels of color, counting 0% and 100%. Obviously, to draw dots this way the resolution of your imagesetter has to be many times your line screen. A good guideline is 16 : 1. So printing a line screen of 150 lpi requires an imagesetter capable of resolving at least 2,400 spots to the linear inch.
Using the formula of: levels = (printer_res / screen_rule)^2 + 1
means that a print device at 2400dpi running 150lpi will be able to reproduce 256 (257 actually) so that is good - BUT, the image you are trying to reproduce doesn't need to be 2400PPI - since a good deal of the printer dots are used just to represent a single shade.
rule of thumb - image_res = screen_rule * 2 So my whole point was that, in the case of a grayscale image to a 2400dpi printer (running 150lpi) - you only need to send image data at 300+PPI.
Which means your final printout would be: 300 PPI 2400 DPI 150 LPI - all three would be true, hence why it is important to distinguish between DPI and PPI. Since if somebody asked, what DPI is that picture, the answer is 2400, but the resolution of the image is no better than 300 PPI.
Nothing you said was wrong, I think you just missed my point because I had used a very simple example in my first post.
Not that anyone cares, but it should be 200ppi (pixels per inch)
DPI (dots per inch) more accurately describes print devices where a number of print dots are needed to accurately describe a single pixel.
For example, to show a single 50% black square pixel - you'd need a 2x2 array of black dots (BWBW) - so if your image is 100PPI - you need a print device at least 200PPI to show the same resolution. For a monitor this doesn't really apply - as each pixel corresponds to a single pixel of image data. (Unless of course they were talking about the individual R G B elements - but the article seemed to indicate the contrary)
---
Just a pet peeve, as its often hard to get people to understand that there ARE differences between DPI, PPI, and LPI in the print world.
I think the honest answer for a lot of us would be "... the same thing I do now, just less of it."
I think a lot of us like what we do (otherwise we'd be in a different profession already.) What gets to be a drag about any job is the fact you do it whether or not you feel like doing it on any given day.
There are things I do on the side that I do for enjoyment, but if I switched careers to do those things full-time, then they would become tedious too. Doing things when you WANT to do them is fun... doing things when you HAVE to do them is work.
A few people have commented how this may hurt the TV/broadcast industry.
Sony said it would continue to offer repairs and manufacture tapes for the format, adding the move would not affect its Betacam products for the broadcasting industry
... so one would surmise that NO, this won't hurt the TV broadcast industry. It sounds like it is just the consumer level Beta product.
What we REALLY need... Is to declare domain names just like the old west claim "Fisrt come, first serve."
Funny, I thought this was already declaring domain names like early US land expansion... the people with more money and power get to push the original inhabitants off their property, even though they were there first.
Actually, I was *not* one of the artists who submitted. I bookmarked the submission site, but forgot about it until it had already closed. If they were still looking, I would consider making a submission, but without any direction it would most likely be a waste of time.
This was the nature of my post. Unless they can give a general idea of what was wrong, or what they're looking for, I don't see how ANY artist could provide something. It's a total shot in the dark.
In the design world, their response is the equivalent of filing a bug report that consists solely of "I got an error." Unless you can be a little more detailed, there's really nothing that can be done to help.
We received 106 entries altogether. Many thanks to all of you who took the time to participate! The entries were very creative and showed a lot of design talent. Unfortunately, there was no entry that spoke to us as the logo we should use. So for now, the FreeBSD Foundation will remain logoless.
This is the type of critique that will drive a designer insane. Most artists are used to taking criticism (at least ones with actual art training) - but it's very difficult to take "no direction" criticism, as it leaves you with no way to improve your work.
Instead of saying none of the entries were "it", they should be saying WHY none of the entries are acceptable so that future designers will have some idea what to do so as not to make the same mistakes apparently made by the first crew.
Sounds suspiciously like "we each had our favorites, and couldn't reach a consensus."
Re:more taxpayer money down the toilet
on
Stellar Water Fountain
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But aren't there more pressing issues that we should be devoting our resources to?
[snip]
I like science as much as the next guy, provided that it is science that benefits humanity. This masturbatory gee-whiz hobbyist garbage is a shameful waste of precious resources.
Waste of resources? Exactly how much of the public money (of yours) has gone into this project? Seeing as it comes from a research team in Japan, you'd seem to only have a right to complain if you actually pay taxes in Japan.
Isn't the whole point of research - to find knowledge whether or not you have an immediate practical need? Granted, this probably won't directly lead to a cancer cure, but learning about stellar development and lifecycle seems to be relevant since all life on earth depends on our own neighboring star. (not that we'd be able to do anything about it, if we found something wrong, anyway):)
Halfway through the movie, they stop in the middle of the scene and the director comes in and tells the staff to go home because they ran out of money. One of the actors says the problem is the lack of sponsors - ie. bags that say things like "chips", etc. So they all decide that in order to keep working, they'll raise money by product placement. After that, shots show them noticeably changing their position on screen to show off labels on cans, or specifically working product names into dialog, etc.
There's one scene of a lightning filled sky in front of the mad scientist's house with a Pepsi sign (IIRC) inserted in the foreground.
This attempt at poking fun was probably the funniest thing in that movie, though.
You're not paying for the CD at all, you're paying for what's on it!
I would agree... but there is one problem with that. Why is there a difference in price between casette and CD? They've already paid everyone involved in making the master recording, so that's not it... and I know full well that you can actually duplicate CDs for less than you can duplicate tape, so its definitely not a material cost.
The difference is that CDs are priced by what they think the market will bear. I have no problem paying to support artists (and all the other people necessary to produce them). I'm happy to pay a little to a store that gives me the benefit of immediate access (as opposed to online/shipping, etc.) - but if they want to run the "you're paying for the content" argument, then the cost should be the same regardless of the media.
I remember back in the days when software first started coming out on CD-ROMs. You had to pay extra to get floppy sets. That made sense because the media cost more. But in music, you purchase on a less expensive (to produce) media and pay more. Curious.
Re:Discovery vs Invention
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
On Patents:
Patents should last 10 years maximum, ever. All patentable things must meet the following criteria:
1) Non-obvious - a technical person (or technical review board perhaps?) in the field in question wouldn't consider this a trivial and obvious solution.
2) No prior art - it has never been done before.
3) No inclusion of prior art - The work being patented must be the sole intellectual work of the patentee. It cannot contain intellectual work of others, even if those others didn't patent their work (example, patenting a peice of software that relies on algorithms you got from a programming magazine... you could still patent portions of your software, but not that portion, and no "portion" that contains those algorithms).
Are you at all familiar with patent requirements, or are you just making general statements based on your perceptions of what a patent is? Your statements would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of anything having to do with the patent system.
Re: number 1 & 2 35 U.S.C. - 102 and 103 require that patents be new and non-obvious. The main criteria for determining both being the existence of prior art. Patents that are granted, even when something has been done before, is not something done by design... but rather due to the examiner not locating the relevant prior art when examining the application.
Re: #3 The main strength of a patent lies in the 'claims' portion of the patent. That is the section where you describe the limits of what your invention does. If you were to include code from somewhere else that does exactly what that other code does, then you would not be able to include it in your claims - because there would be prior art to prevent it.
However, it you use an encryption algorythm, for example, as part of a process for transmitting data over spaghetti noodles - then your claim would be for the transmission of the data (using that encryption over that medium) and would not generally apply to the included technology, but to a specific implementation of it.
Your patent wouldn't block the original work, but how that work applies within your specific context. Your claim would be limited to the use of that algorythm when applied to data transmission over spaghetti noodles. Other uses of that original algorythm would be subject to whatever restrictions (if any) originally applied.
The laws I cited were US specific, but they're similar elsewhere:
Depending on how good your relationship with your boss (and how much power he has)... you may be able to get him to change your job title. (not necessarily your duties)
Titles don't really cost anything, but at least that way your resume (at first glance) will contain what looks like related job experience.
The problem is that most HR reps or placement agents don't have a clue about anything technical, and therefore need to look for objective measures of skill (degree, titles, etc.) Even though you and I know that a degree doesn't make somebody a good programmer, it's all they have to go on when trying to reduce a huge stack of underqualified applicants to a manageable amount to bring in for interviews.
Slashdot Mirror
For an individual user like yourself, I'd suggest the following.
This should allow you to prove you had a file that produced THIS signature on a certain date. You can then recalculate the MD5 of the file you have (and if you haven't modified it) it should produce the same hash - which would lead one to believe that this IS the same file. This should be fairly compelling evidence.
Yes, it is *possible* to get another file to produce the same MD5, but it is unlikely.
Another option would be to print out the journal entry and have it notarized. This would be much easier to fake than the MD5 method - but courts have accepted notarized documents for ages.
- vin
I love Photoshop, but I wouldn't really consider it for this type of work. It really works best with single images - not working on a video sequence.
Even though I wouldn't trade Photoshop for (regular) Gimp, I wouldn't have any qualms about using FilmGimp if that's the tool I needed for the job.
I don't know why so many people are so passionate and interested in the tools other people use. Using the same tool doesn't make somebody a good designer/director/programmer/etc. When was the last time you went by a nice house being built and said "Say, nice work. What kind of hammer you using?"
- vin
I took the 'Stumpy' test - where it shows you six pictures and asks you to choose a word that describes them.
:)
Looks like their system is hosed right now because it showed me 4 pictures of horses, 1 of a cowboy, and one of a turtle.
When it asked:
What are these pictures of?
I answered "things"
apparently it didn't like my answer.
Funny thing though, the images are being pulled by image number from the getty images database. You could write a piece of software to lookup the images at getty, pull the keyword list (that getty assigns to all photos) and cross reference the list to get the answer.
--
Then this got me thinking about the whole thing in general. My answer WAS correct. Reminds me of the Cheers episode where Cliff is on Jeopardy and answers the final Jeopardy question:
"Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen."
Not the answer they were looking for, but is it wrong?
I was being a smartass the other day while watching sesame street with my daughter. They had pictures of 4 animals and asked which one didn't belong.
kangaroo
rabbit
grasshopper
fish
they, of course, were looking for 'fish' - because the other three live on land or travel by hopping.
I popped up that the answer could be the kangaroo - because the other three are native to north america. Or it could be the grasshopper, as the only one with an exoskeleton.
My wife reminded me that it was a kid's show.
It comes down to the fact that if an strict mechanism is used to judge the answers (like a computer) it may not be able to handle legitimate answers from humans.
--
Seems both the questioner and questionee need to be intelligent to participate.
This analogy doesn't really correlate to how the web works. When you go to a website, you don't get everything back as a single package. What you get is the recipe (HTML) for putting the page together. It's then up to your browser to get all the pieces and assemble them together for you (make subsequent calls for images, etc.)
So using the same analogy - it would be like ordering the kids meal, and getting a list of the stuff you are supposed to ask for (one at a time) at the next counter.
You then make a trip up for the hamburger, a trip up for the fries, a trip up for the drink, and then decide "screw the toy" and not return back to the counter. Did you do anything wrong?
In this case (or in the case of the web) sites are relying on the user to do the work necessary to retrieve the ads - by having your browser 'block' ads - it is typically just telling the browser not to do additional work when the request matches a certain pattern. In effect you are just choosing not to follow all the instructions they gave you.
They do deliver the page without ads. The HTML has the instructions telling you where to go get the ads. All you are doing is taking the content that they've sent you (instructions) and not following every one. That's like me giving directions to the airport to somebody and accusing them of stealing if they don't follow them precicely. If they don't, they may not get the outcome I intended, but if I wanted otherwise, I shouldn't have relied on them to follow my directions.
Years ago I did web work for Sentry (a company that makes fireproof safes). They have a "media safe" specifically for computer media.
From their description:
While paper chars at 450 F (232 C), damage to computer media can occur at temperatures as low as 125 F (52 C). The interior of a Fire-Safe Media Chest or File remains well below this damage level during an average fire.
If I remember correctly, they're only rated to keep the temperature in a safe range for about 30 or 60 minutes - hopefully enough for the firefighters to have done their work.
One thing about the fire safes - make sure to keep them locked. A lot of people don't think of this, because they're only worried about fire, not theft - but if the floor/table they're sitting on gives way and they drop and the door pops open, it doesn't really matter how good the container is at resisting fire.
Kent Displays has different displays that use a technology that only uses power to update the display - that way, when the image is static, it uses no power.
Don't know if they fully support what you're looking for - looks like they go up to
800x600.
Route some speech-to-text software into Eliza and have the answers come back via text-to-speech and you could keep them chatting for hours.
... and on and on.
I'm calling to offer you fantastic rates on long distance.
What makes you think I need fantastic rates on long distance?
You may be paying 10 to 15 percent too much on your bill.
Why do you think it is that I may be paying 10 to 15 percent too much on my bill?
With your method, you've just moved presentation code back into the logic.
I'd rather let a few simple php elements be in my presentation template than let presentation code be baked into application logic.
<? if (foo) { ?>
display this
<? } ?>
seems to be far easier to maintain than wondering why there are references to old stylesheet elements and uses of deprecated tags appearing in your output just because some smartypants decided that it was easier to load a whole table worth of information into a pre-HTML-formatted variable
<? echo loadsAndLoadsOfCrap ?>
I'm not trolling, but I'm not sure I see the point here. I used to do a lot of vinyl sign work, and I don't really see the 'dependency on Microsoft products' being an issue in this sector.
... but instead to get sign software for free. Maybe you can get in touch with the maker of a piece of cheap sign software ... and offer to partner with them to do the porting to linux for them.
Typically, the sign design stations are dedicated boxes as when they're not in use designing, or driving the plotter, they're not making money. Your typical setup will cost you thousands of dollars for a good plotter - so the OS really doesn't add a lot to the total cost.
If your problem is that there isn't any free sign design software - that has nothing to do with MS. MS doesn't make ANY sign software - but most sign software is written for Windows (some Mac too).
The Roland cutter I used to work with would accept HPGL files that were sent to the serial port, so you may want to start there, but the problem isn't just getting data to the cutter. It's in having a good design program to work with to generate the information.
If your purpose is to get rid of the 'reliance on MS' then maybe you can get an older copy of FlexiSign, CASmate, or CADLink Signlab (which all started as Win3.1 apps) and get them to run under Wine.
If that doesn't suit your purpose, then it means your question was mis-stated and that your care isn't in removing a dependence on MS software
A fertile M.U.L.E. - we could have used one of those on planet Irata. ... wonder if I can genetically engineer them to be born already outfitted for Smithore?
So when the basement floods, or a fire breaks out, you can feel secure knowing that not one, but two copies of your data were destroyed at the same time.
RAID != backup.
Raid == fault tolerance. When one drive goes bad, your data is still ok.
Backup is for allowing you to get a system up and running again in the face of total catastrophy. Like a meteor hitting the house.
So use raid setups, but don't think you are off the hook for doing backups. Not unless you really could do without the data.
The whole point of having different linux distos is to allow people to pick the one that suits them.
Don't like what RH is doing? Pick a different distro. Don't like what any of them are doing
My example was at the simplest level to show that printer dot != pixel, and that it takes many printer dots to show one pixel.
The process of halftoning is far more complex than my example - but was enough to show the point for this discussion.
Using the formula of:
levels = (printer_res / screen_rule)^2 + 1
means that a print device at 2400dpi running 150lpi will be able to reproduce 256 (257 actually) so that is good - BUT, the image you are trying to reproduce doesn't need to be 2400PPI - since a good deal of the printer dots are used just to represent a single shade.
rule of thumb - image_res = screen_rule * 2
So my whole point was that, in the case of a grayscale image to a 2400dpi printer (running 150lpi) - you only need to send image data at 300+PPI.
Which means your final printout would be:
300 PPI
2400 DPI
150 LPI
- all three would be true, hence why it is important to distinguish between DPI and PPI. Since if somebody asked, what DPI is that picture, the answer is 2400, but the resolution of the image is no better than 300 PPI.
Nothing you said was wrong, I think you just missed my point because I had used a very simple example in my first post.
- vin
Not that anyone cares, but it should be 200ppi (pixels per inch)
DPI (dots per inch) more accurately describes print devices where a number of print dots are needed to accurately describe a single pixel.
For example, to show a single 50% black square pixel - you'd need a 2x2 array of black dots (BWBW) - so if your image is 100PPI - you need a print device at least 200PPI to show the same resolution. For a monitor this doesn't really apply - as each pixel corresponds to a single pixel of image data. (Unless of course they were talking about the individual R G B elements - but the article seemed to indicate the contrary)
---
Just a pet peeve, as its often hard to get people to understand that there ARE differences between DPI, PPI, and LPI in the print world.
- vin
I think the honest answer for a lot of us would be "... the same thing I do now, just less of it."
... doing things when you HAVE to do them is work.
I think a lot of us like what we do (otherwise we'd be in a different profession already.) What gets to be a drag about any job is the fact you do it whether or not you feel like doing it on any given day.
There are things I do on the side that I do for enjoyment, but if I switched careers to do those things full-time, then they would become tedious too. Doing things when you WANT to do them is fun
Actually, I was *not* one of the artists who submitted. I bookmarked the submission site, but forgot about it until it had already closed. If they were still looking, I would consider making a submission, but without any direction it would most likely be a waste of time.
This was the nature of my post. Unless they can give a general idea of what was wrong, or what they're looking for, I don't see how ANY artist could provide something. It's a total shot in the dark.
In the design world, their response is the equivalent of filing a bug report that consists solely of "I got an error." Unless you can be a little more detailed, there's really nothing that can be done to help.
This is the type of critique that will drive a designer insane. Most artists are used to taking criticism (at least ones with actual art training) - but it's very difficult to take "no direction" criticism, as it leaves you with no way to improve your work.
Instead of saying none of the entries were "it", they should be saying WHY none of the entries are acceptable so that future designers will have some idea what to do so as not to make the same mistakes apparently made by the first crew.
Sounds suspiciously like "we each had our favorites, and couldn't reach a consensus."
Waste of resources? Exactly how much of the public money (of yours) has gone into this project? Seeing as it comes from a research team in Japan, you'd seem to only have a right to complain if you actually pay taxes in Japan.
Isn't the whole point of research - to find knowledge whether or not you have an immediate practical need? Granted, this probably won't directly lead to a cancer cure, but learning about stellar development and lifecycle seems to be relevant since all life on earth depends on our own neighboring star. (not that we'd be able to do anything about it, if we found something wrong, anyway)
Reminds me of the scene in Return of the Killer Tomatoes" (The movie George Clooney *doesn't* list on his resume)
Very cheesy movie.
Halfway through the movie, they stop in the middle of the scene and the director comes in and tells the staff to go home because they ran out of money. One of the actors says the problem is the lack of sponsors - ie. bags that say things like "chips", etc. So they all decide that in order to keep working, they'll raise money by product placement. After that, shots show them noticeably changing their position on screen to show off labels on cans, or specifically working product names into dialog, etc.
There's one scene of a lightning filled sky in front of the mad scientist's house with a Pepsi sign (IIRC) inserted in the foreground.
This attempt at poking fun was probably the funniest thing in that movie, though.
I would agree
The difference is that CDs are priced by what they think the market will bear. I have no problem paying to support artists (and all the other people necessary to produce them). I'm happy to pay a little to a store that gives me the benefit of immediate access (as opposed to online/shipping, etc.) - but if they want to run the "you're paying for the content" argument, then the cost should be the same regardless of the media.
I remember back in the days when software first started coming out on CD-ROMs. You had to pay extra to get floppy sets. That made sense because the media cost more. But in music, you purchase on a less expensive (to produce) media and pay more. Curious.
Are you at all familiar with patent requirements, or are you just making general statements based on your perceptions of what a patent is? Your statements would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of anything having to do with the patent system.
Re: number 1 & 2
35 U.S.C. - 102 and 103 require that patents be new and non-obvious. The main criteria for determining both being the existence of prior art. Patents that are granted, even when something has been done before, is not something done by design
Re: #3
The main strength of a patent lies in the 'claims' portion of the patent. That is the section where you describe the limits of what your invention does. If you were to include code from somewhere else that does exactly what that other code does, then you would not be able to include it in your claims - because there would be prior art to prevent it.
However, it you use an encryption algorythm, for example, as part of a process for transmitting data over spaghetti noodles - then your claim would be for the transmission of the data (using that encryption over that medium) and would not generally apply to the included technology, but to a specific implementation of it.
Your patent wouldn't block the original work, but how that work applies within your specific context. Your claim would be limited to the use of that algorythm when applied to data transmission over spaghetti noodles. Other uses of that original algorythm would be subject to whatever restrictions (if any) originally applied.
The laws I cited were US specific, but they're similar elsewhere:
35 USC 102:
35 USC 103:
Depending on how good your relationship with your boss (and how much power he has) ... you may be able to get him to change your job title. (not necessarily your duties)
Titles don't really cost anything, but at least that way your resume (at first glance) will contain what looks like related job experience.
The problem is that most HR reps or placement agents don't have a clue about anything technical, and therefore need to look for objective measures of skill (degree, titles, etc.) Even though you and I know that a degree doesn't make somebody a good programmer, it's all they have to go on when trying to reduce a huge stack of underqualified applicants to a manageable amount to bring in for interviews.
Confidential?
We are in trouble if the best way we know to keep things confidential is to give them to a major newspaper.