Except this isn't SaaS. It's just a subscription payment model. These are still standard desktop applications that you download and install on your PC.
I think Adobe's biggest mistake is using the term "Cloud" to refer to a product that really has nothing to do with the cloud (yes, they give you some cloud storage to use, but that's it). The word "cloud" is causing the majority of the confusion about how this works.
An "obviousness test" is actually pretty simple. Since an invention must actually do something, you can just ask some experts in the field to come up with every way they can think of to do the same thing. If they come up with the original invention, then it was obvious and shouldn't be patentable.
Another situation that can't be so easily tested, but should make an "invention" unpatentable are those that are "discovered" by brute force. If someone (randomly?) tries known/existing drugs against various conditions, and one works (for any value of "works"), there wasn't really any invention, just discovery of something that already existed.
Why 10 years? I think copyright should only last long enough for the creator of the work to earn an amount of money equivalent to a standard* wage that would have been earned during the time it took to create the work. There's no reason that creators of copyrighted works should expect to be paid more for their time than any other worker.
If a band releases one album each year, then as soon as the band members each receive income equivalent to one year's pay, the copyright on that album should terminate.
If a writer takes a week to write a magazine article, the copyright should terminate once the writer earns one week's pay.
I think the primary cause of the confusion is that there are two version numbers. It sounds like the "new" version is dropping IE6-8 support when, in fact, both 1.9 and 2.0 are "new" versions. It would have been better if they shared a version number with some sort of modifier:
2.0 - 2.0 without legacy support 2.0L - 2.0 with legacy support (IE6-8)
Simply changing the version number makes the difference clear while mitigating the worry/panic.
If we are really serious about opposing this stuff the only real answer is get our own full time team working on it.
The problem with lobbying, is it really only make sense to lobby for change. Trying to set up (and fund) a lobbying organization to lobby for the status quo sounds almost farcical. Somehow there should be more "inertia" in the system, so that "doing nothing" is valued extremely highly. This inertia would essentially represent the un-voiced vote of the population that has not weighed in on an issue.
This is one of the biggest problems with our current legal system, which in my opinion makes the system "broken."
Right now, we have two sides arguing the extremes, but no one arguing for the truth. We already have a group who is supposed to be determining the truth - the jury. Unfortunately, this group is explicitly forbidden from doing their own research, collecting their own evidence, or making a determination that the truth is anything but either of the two extremes presented by the prosecution and the defense.
I have similar concerns about evidence. If a piece of evidence is improperly obtained, it is thrown out. The problem is that it is _still evidence_ of the truth. We should be trying to determine the truth, and any and all evidence, no matter how it was obtained, should be considered. Having said that, I think that the act of improperly obtaining evidence should be tried as a crime itself. If evidence is obtained by police illegally, that evidence is still _real_ and should used, but the police involved should be tried for violating the law.
The goal of our legal system should always be to determine the truth, even if that truth doesn't align with either the prosecutor's or defense's position.
In this case, I have to disagree. There's only a very small part of Silverlight that is unique to it. Most of Silverlight (>99%?) is applicable to WPF, Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro, etc. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest benefits of using.NET - you can use the same languages, libraries, UI architecture, etc. everywhere without having to have a completely different skill set for writing web services, desktop apps, browser apps, tablet apps, mobile apps. Other than Microsoft's solution, I'm not aware of another single architecture that you can learn once and apply to all those platforms.
There seems to be a lot of people who think that Apple Corps is no longer an active corporation. This is not true - they continue to release CDs (mostly remasters and compilations, including the very popular "1" and "Let It Be Naked"), and DVDs ("Beatles Anthology," "The Concerts for Bangladesh," "Imagine"), and are currently working on a Beatles-themed Cirque Du Soleil show for the Mirage in Las Vegas.
All the discussion about fair use, parody, etc. applies only to copyright claims. This a clearly a TRADEMARK dispute. As far as I know, "fair use" doesn't apply to trademarks, although the "requirements" for infringement are much higher (e.g., will the customer be confused, etc.).
My experiences and those of my co-workers has not been too good:
Co-worker #1: four 40GB 75GXP drives - one failed (cycles up and down on power up) within 4 months. Another failed the next month.
Co-worder #2: two 45GB 75GXP drives - one failed (constant reseeking requiring reboot) within 4 months.
Co-worker #3: two 60GB 75GXP drives - one DOA (no spin-up), first replacement DOA (no spin-up), second replacement OK.
Myself: two 60 GB 75GXP drives - one failed (constant reseeking until bus lockup) within 3 months.
Myself: two 60 GB 60GXP drives - one failed (constant reseeking until bus lockup) within 2 months.
So, of 14 drives (twelve 75GXP, two 60GXP), 7 were DOA or failed within the first 4 months. And, no, I'm not being selective about which drives/co-workers I'm listing. I am listing all of the IBM drives that I know of that were purchased by my co-workers in the last few months.
At this point, this is approaching (has reached?) a statistically significant sample and the numbers don't look good.
--Doug
As a self-taught professional programmer, I feel it is MY responsibility to keep up-to-date on the latest technologies. My labor is a commodity, and I try to provide the best product (me) for my customer (my employer) that I can. If the cost of using my labor goes up (because of training costs, etc.), my job security goes down. It's a competitive world, and I'm willing to do what I have to retain my position as a highly-valued (and valuable) asset. As such, I probably spend at least $100 a month on books and magazines, and I take the time (at home) to read and learn about new technologies.
I would be very interested in buying a TiVo (or UltimateTV since dual DirecTV receivers would be nice), but I have absolutely no interest in paying a subscription fee for a directory service. This is especially true since my DirecTV subscription already includes an excellent directory.
I would really like a stand-along digital recorder that would record the raw MPEG-2 video/audio stream from a DirecTV receiver. I am willing to pay $500 for such a device, but I'm not willing to pay $15 (or more) each month just to use it.
Unfortunately there has already been a dangerous precedent set that domain names are, in fact, "names." If domain names were considered "titles," then all of these issues go away. It is perfectly legal for me to write a magazine article and title is "Microsoft Sucks" (or whatever), but if I create something NAMED "Microsoft Sucks" then there are trademark issues.
So far, I have not seen anyone use the "title" or "description" defense in these types of cases. It will really simply things if domain names were considered "arbitrary" text, which may correspond to a name, a description, a title, or some other related or unrelated term.
I don't know about your ISP, but in my experience, most ISPs don't give out ANY IP addresses. Even my broadband cable internet provider doesn't give out static IP addresses (you can't even pay for one).
Slashdot Mirror
When you ask someone else to pay your medical bills, it's only right that they have the final say.
For taking performance enhancing drugs?
If you only want Photoshop, that's just $10/mo.
Actually, as part of this transition, they are lowering the price for individual applications (like Photoshop) from $20/mo. to $10/mo.
Except this isn't SaaS. It's just a subscription payment model. These are still standard desktop applications that you download and install on your PC.
I think Adobe's biggest mistake is using the term "Cloud" to refer to a product that really has nothing to do with the cloud (yes, they give you some cloud storage to use, but that's it). The word "cloud" is causing the majority of the confusion about how this works.
An "obviousness test" is actually pretty simple. Since an invention must actually do something, you can just ask some experts in the field to come up with every way they can think of to do the same thing. If they come up with the original invention, then it was obvious and shouldn't be patentable.
Another situation that can't be so easily tested, but should make an "invention" unpatentable are those that are "discovered" by brute force. If someone (randomly?) tries known/existing drugs against various conditions, and one works (for any value of "works"), there wasn't really any invention, just discovery of something that already existed.
Why 10 years? I think copyright should only last long enough for the creator of the work to earn an amount of money equivalent to a standard* wage that would have been earned during the time it took to create the work. There's no reason that creators of copyrighted works should expect to be paid more for their time than any other worker.
If a band releases one album each year, then as soon as the band members each receive income equivalent to one year's pay, the copyright on that album should terminate.
If a writer takes a week to write a magazine article, the copyright should terminate once the writer earns one week's pay.
* "Standard" would have to be defined.
I think the primary cause of the confusion is that there are two version numbers. It sounds like the "new" version is dropping IE6-8 support when, in fact, both 1.9 and 2.0 are "new" versions. It would have been better if they shared a version number with some sort of modifier:
2.0 - 2.0 without legacy support
2.0L - 2.0 with legacy support (IE6-8)
Simply changing the version number makes the difference clear while mitigating the worry/panic.
If we are really serious about opposing this stuff the only real answer is get our own full time team working on it.
The problem with lobbying, is it really only make sense to lobby for change. Trying to set up (and fund) a lobbying organization to lobby for the status quo sounds almost farcical. Somehow there should be more "inertia" in the system, so that "doing nothing" is valued extremely highly. This inertia would essentially represent the un-voiced vote of the population that has not weighed in on an issue.
This is one of the biggest problems with our current legal system, which in my opinion makes the system "broken."
Right now, we have two sides arguing the extremes, but no one arguing for the truth. We already have a group who is supposed to be determining the truth - the jury. Unfortunately, this group is explicitly forbidden from doing their own research, collecting their own evidence, or making a determination that the truth is anything but either of the two extremes presented by the prosecution and the defense.
I have similar concerns about evidence. If a piece of evidence is improperly obtained, it is thrown out. The problem is that it is _still evidence_ of the truth. We should be trying to determine the truth, and any and all evidence, no matter how it was obtained, should be considered. Having said that, I think that the act of improperly obtaining evidence should be tried as a crime itself. If evidence is obtained by police illegally, that evidence is still _real_ and should used, but the police involved should be tried for violating the law.
The goal of our legal system should always be to determine the truth, even if that truth doesn't align with either the prosecutor's or defense's position.
You can try DVDFab from Fentao and see if that works for you: http://www.dvdfab.com/
In this case, I have to disagree. There's only a very small part of Silverlight that is unique to it. Most of Silverlight (>99%?) is applicable to WPF, Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro, etc. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest benefits of using .NET - you can use the same languages, libraries, UI architecture, etc. everywhere without having to have a completely different skill set for writing web services, desktop apps, browser apps, tablet apps, mobile apps. Other than Microsoft's solution, I'm not aware of another single architecture that you can learn once and apply to all those platforms.
There seems to be a lot of people who think that Apple Corps is no longer an active corporation. This is not true - they continue to release CDs (mostly remasters and compilations, including the very popular "1" and "Let It Be Naked"), and DVDs ("Beatles Anthology," "The Concerts for Bangladesh," "Imagine"), and are currently working on a Beatles-themed Cirque Du Soleil show for the Mirage in Las Vegas.
All the discussion about fair use, parody, etc. applies only to copyright claims. This a clearly a TRADEMARK dispute. As far as I know, "fair use" doesn't apply to trademarks, although the "requirements" for infringement are much higher (e.g., will the customer be confused, etc.).
--Doug
- Co-worker #1: four 40GB 75GXP drives - one failed (cycles up and down on power up) within 4 months. Another failed the next month.
- Co-worder #2: two 45GB 75GXP drives - one failed (constant reseeking requiring reboot) within 4 months.
- Co-worker #3: two 60GB 75GXP drives - one DOA (no spin-up), first replacement DOA (no spin-up), second replacement OK.
- Myself: two 60 GB 75GXP drives - one failed (constant reseeking until bus lockup) within 3 months.
- Myself: two 60 GB 60GXP drives - one failed (constant reseeking until bus lockup) within 2 months.
So, of 14 drives (twelve 75GXP, two 60GXP), 7 were DOA or failed within the first 4 months. And, no, I'm not being selective about which drives/co-workers I'm listing. I am listing all of the IBM drives that I know of that were purchased by my co-workers in the last few months.At this point, this is approaching (has reached?) a statistically significant sample and the numbers don't look good. --Doug
As a self-taught professional programmer, I feel it is MY responsibility to keep up-to-date on the latest technologies. My labor is a commodity, and I try to provide the best product (me) for my customer (my employer) that I can. If the cost of using my labor goes up (because of training costs, etc.), my job security goes down. It's a competitive world, and I'm willing to do what I have to retain my position as a highly-valued (and valuable) asset. As such, I probably spend at least $100 a month on books and magazines, and I take the time (at home) to read and learn about new technologies.
I disagree completely.
I would be very interested in buying a TiVo (or UltimateTV since dual DirecTV receivers would be nice), but I have absolutely no interest in paying a subscription fee for a directory service. This is especially true since my DirecTV subscription already includes an excellent directory.
I would really like a stand-along digital recorder that would record the raw MPEG-2 video/audio stream from a DirecTV receiver. I am willing to pay $500 for such a device, but I'm not willing to pay $15 (or more) each month just to use it.
--Doug
Unfortunately there has already been a dangerous precedent set that domain names are, in fact, "names." If domain names were considered "titles," then all of these issues go away. It is perfectly legal for me to write a magazine article and title is "Microsoft Sucks" (or whatever), but if I create something NAMED "Microsoft Sucks" then there are trademark issues. So far, I have not seen anyone use the "title" or "description" defense in these types of cases. It will really simply things if domain names were considered "arbitrary" text, which may correspond to a name, a description, a title, or some other related or unrelated term.
I don't know about your ISP, but in my experience, most ISPs don't give out ANY IP addresses. Even my broadband cable internet provider doesn't give out static IP addresses (you can't even pay for one).