I can't remember where I heard this (or I'd include a link), but I believe one of the reasons we need to keep launching the shuttle is that we risk losing the knowledge if we don't.
As with most technical projects, it is almost impossible to entirely document something, leaving a good amount of knowledge locked in people's memories. With retirement/attrition/etc. it is important to keep the event active so that the current staff (which changes over time) always has 1st hand experience with the process.
eMusic's offerings are subscription based, but allow unlimited downloads.
I poked around their site, but don't yet see enough artists/titles in their database to be worth my $9.99/month yet. Too bad. It's sort of a catch-22 for them. Probably need more subscribers to build their collection, but can't get more subscribers until their collection is bigger.
I don't think you realize that there are broader uses for Java (or C#) than embedded scripting in browsers.
I'm a Java developer, and I know quite a few other Java developers and none of us develop applets. It's all server-side application programming or desktop application programming.
Both these languages are nice general purpose tools for getting all sorts of things done, not just doing lame Javaduke animations in your browser.
So, fine, turn it off in your browser... it wont affect a single thing that the majority of people using those languages care about anyway.
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
It's funny that people assume downloading from a company costs nothing. I can only guess that these are people who are unaware that most companies pay for whatever bandwidth they use, as opposed to the all-you-can-drink type access you get from home/dorm internet access.
Unlike the 'real world' example of the tire mentioned in the BW article... software developers have a much harder time controlling the environment in which their software is used.
For example, If I buy a car tire from firestone, but instead use it on some home-build dune-buggy that I use to drive over lava fields in Hawaii and the tire blows (flipping me into the lava) should Firestone pay? I wasn't using the tire according to the specs that they call for the tire.
Imposing liability on software will only force software manufacturers to list hardware/software configurations on which they are willing to accept liability. If you use the software outside of that configuration, then you're on your own. My guess is that this would disqualify just about everybody, as they'll only be able to certify a limited amount of equipment (as it will entail actually owning that equipment to test).
I mean, would you accept liability on a product that can be used on a multi-use computer that may have god-knows-what software/hardware config?
So this will lead to something like:
the back of the software box listing the exact system requirments that the software is good for (and liable on) and if you use it outside of that environment, you're no longer using the software as it was intended.
Which then just gives software companies even more reason to offer less support, as they'll then only need to offer support on their specific hardware, or risk the liability of condoning the use of their software on unsafe/untested environments.
more incentive to legislate the demise of the multi-use computer in favor of locked computing appliances... which is exactly what a number of people would like (think DRM)
there's a page on richoh's site dealing with their Velocity product that seems to do this.
Velocity Workflow software features a modular design that enables you to manage multiple print engines, balance print jobs or split print jobs between Aficio color and/or black and white print engines.
This seems to be for those using their systems, but seems to offer evidence that the idea at least exists out there. Years back when I worked at Xerox, I thought I remembered something in development to balance a job between the B&W DocuTech and a color printer... but don't know if it ever became a product, got worked into existing stuff, or became obsolete due to reduced printing costs on the color devices.
--
BTW - searching google for split print color b&w popped this up first result.
If I were a network executive I'd definitely be scared by that list... why?
It's not as much the fact that people are pirating, but that these people would rather download the numerous episodes of ALF than watch what's currently on TV.
Hollywood has been leading the best prevention against piracy by producing stuff that nobody would want to own in the first place. Who knows, maybe writing a good script would be seen as a breach of the DMCA because it would promote the desire to own and copy.
You can't say that the patent office shouldn't grant patents on common sense ideas. The only way a patent examiner can show that something was *common* is by finding relevant prior art. If the idea has existed, THEN the examiner can deem it as common sense because somebody talked/wrote about it before.
A patent examiner doesn't have the luxury of just saying, "oh, well this is obvious." If it was so obvious, then why is there NO prior art mentioning it in the past?
Let's face it, as computer geeks, we think just about any computer idea is obvious because it all builds from prior knowledge. But to the patent office, they can't be so subjective. They need to guage the public's knowledge NOT by what they THINK the public knows... but by what the public has shown it knows through prior art references.
If something is truly common knowledge, then some reference to it must exist somewhere. That's the problem that places like IP.com are trying to solve. Make prior art more easily visible to examiners to prevent these "bad" patents from issuing.
Registrant:
SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
SEC
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
>> I dont care that Company A just hired a $500,000 a
>> year graphic artist for their website.... The $50.00
>> clipart CD graphics are fine in my eyes.
Actually, when design of a functional product is done properly, you don't notice it. It's a funny thing that many people think it makes it GOOD if it calls attention to itself.
If your intent is to make people notice the design, then a conspicuous design is good. If your intent is for people to USE the service, then a design that calls attention to itself is bad. I've run into so many customers who want an "eye catching background" for their sites. I try to tell them that if you notice it, it stops being a BACKGROUND and becomes a FOREGROUND.
--
So there's nothing wrong with a high paid artist/HCI specialist - but if they do their job properly, you probably won't even notice their work. All you'll know is that you were able to use the site without problems.
One possible advantage to software vendors moving toward subscription based pricing models is that it could free up your OS mobility.
I've got over $3000 tied up in various pieces of software from Adobe, Macromedia, and Strata... so even though OS X looks pretty spiffy - changing from w2k is pretty unlikely as I not only need to look at the cost of the new hardware, but also the cost of migrating software.
-
On the other hand, it could also bite the software vendors in the butt, because they might find out that the folks who spent $500 on a particular piece of software just because they needed it once will never need it again.
The information on the IP.com web site referrring to $109 per publication is NOT for the open source product, but instead for the (already released) Disclosures Database. This is a similar product, but geared more toward traditional business IP protection.
The product mentioned in the Salon article is not yet listed on the IP.com website.
Salon.com quote:
"The Foresight Institute, a nonprofit nanotechnology think tank, will announce later this month that it is forming an alliance with IP.com, a Rochester, N.Y., start-up dedicated to protecting intellectual property through the publication of new ideas."
Slashdot Mirror
I can't remember where I heard this (or I'd include a link), but I believe one of the reasons we need to keep launching the shuttle is that we risk losing the knowledge if we don't.
As with most technical projects, it is almost impossible to entirely document something, leaving a good amount of knowledge locked in people's memories. With retirement/attrition/etc. it is important to keep the event active so that the current staff (which changes over time) always has 1st hand experience with the process.
You can download tracks you want right now.
eMusic's offerings are subscription based, but allow unlimited downloads.
I poked around their site, but don't yet see enough artists/titles in their database to be worth my $9.99/month yet. Too bad. It's sort of a catch-22 for them. Probably need more subscribers to build their collection, but can't get more subscribers until their collection is bigger.
I don't think you realize that there are broader uses for Java (or C#) than embedded scripting in browsers.
... it wont affect a single thing that the majority of people using those languages care about anyway.
I'm a Java developer, and I know quite a few other Java developers and none of us develop applets. It's all server-side application programming or desktop application programming.
Both these languages are nice general purpose tools for getting all sorts of things done, not just doing lame Javaduke animations in your browser.
So, fine, turn it off in your browser
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
It's funny that people assume downloading from a company costs nothing. I can only guess that these are people who are unaware that most companies pay for whatever bandwidth they use, as opposed to the all-you-can-drink type access you get from home/dorm internet access.
- vin
For example, If I buy a car tire from firestone, but instead use it on some home-build dune-buggy that I use to drive over lava fields in Hawaii and the tire blows (flipping me into the lava) should Firestone pay? I wasn't using the tire according to the specs that they call for the tire.
Imposing liability on software will only force software manufacturers to list hardware/software configurations on which they are willing to accept liability. If you use the software outside of that configuration, then you're on your own. My guess is that this would disqualify just about everybody, as they'll only be able to certify a limited amount of equipment (as it will entail actually owning that equipment to test).
I mean, would you accept liability on a product that can be used on a multi-use computer that may have god-knows-what software/hardware config?
So this will lead to something like:
Which then just gives software companies even more reason to offer less support, as they'll then only need to offer support on their specific hardware, or risk the liability of condoning the use of their software on unsafe/untested environments.
Think about it.
This seems to be for those using their systems, but seems to offer evidence that the idea at least exists out there. Years back when I worked at Xerox, I thought I remembered something in development to balance a job between the B&W DocuTech and a color printer
--
BTW - searching google for split print color b&w popped this up first result.
If I were a network executive I'd definitely be scared by that list ... why?
It's not as much the fact that people are pirating, but that these people would rather download the numerous episodes of ALF than watch what's currently on TV.
Hollywood has been leading the best prevention against piracy by producing stuff that nobody would want to own in the first place. Who knows, maybe writing a good script would be seen as a breach of the DMCA because it would promote the desire to own and copy.
You can't say that the patent office shouldn't grant patents on common sense ideas. The only way a patent examiner can show that something was *common* is by finding relevant prior art. If the idea has existed, THEN the examiner can deem it as common sense because somebody talked/wrote about it before.
... but by what the public has shown it knows through prior art references.
A patent examiner doesn't have the luxury of just saying, "oh, well this is obvious." If it was so obvious, then why is there NO prior art mentioning it in the past?
Let's face it, as computer geeks, we think just about any computer idea is obvious because it all builds from prior knowledge. But to the patent office, they can't be so subjective. They need to guage the public's knowledge NOT by what they THINK the public knows
If something is truly common knowledge, then some reference to it must exist somewhere. That's the problem that places like IP.com are trying to solve. Make prior art more easily visible to examiners to prevent these "bad" patents from issuing.
- vin
... make sure to do your whois.
Registrant:
SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
SEC
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
[snip]
>> I dont care that Company A just hired a $500,000 a
>> year graphic artist for their website.... The $50.00
>> clipart CD graphics are fine in my eyes.
Actually, when design of a functional product is done properly, you don't notice it. It's a funny thing that many people think it makes it GOOD if it calls attention to itself.
If your intent is to make people notice the design, then a conspicuous design is good. If your intent is for people to USE the service, then a design that calls attention to itself is bad. I've run into so many customers who want an "eye catching background" for their sites. I try to tell them that if you notice it, it stops being a BACKGROUND and becomes a FOREGROUND.
--
So there's nothing wrong with a high paid artist/HCI specialist - but if they do their job properly, you probably won't even notice their work. All you'll know is that you were able to use the site without problems.
- vin
One possible advantage to software vendors moving toward subscription based pricing models is that it could free up your OS mobility.
... so even though OS X looks pretty spiffy - changing from w2k is pretty unlikely as I not only need to look at the cost of the new hardware, but also the cost of migrating software.
I've got over $3000 tied up in various pieces of software from Adobe, Macromedia, and Strata
-
On the other hand, it could also bite the software vendors in the butt, because they might find out that the folks who spent $500 on a particular piece of software just because they needed it once will never need it again.
- vin
The information on the IP.com web site referrring to $109 per publication is NOT for the open source product, but instead for the (already released) Disclosures Database. This is a similar product, but geared more toward traditional business IP protection.
The product mentioned in the Salon article is not yet listed on the IP.com website.
Salon.com quote:
"The Foresight Institute, a nonprofit nanotechnology think tank, will announce later this month that it is forming an alliance with IP.com, a Rochester, N.Y., start-up dedicated to protecting intellectual property through the publication of new ideas."
(i.e. the announcement is not formal yet)
- vin