"This preview just shows me an unpolished, poorly laid out graphics editor that acts more like a glorified (Microsoft) Paint, rather than any type of competition to Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro," wrote one user.
"We cannot have an all-encompassing progress-repressing system in place..."
So now making a copy of someone else's work and claiming it as your own is considered "progress"?
Tell me, how do you make a living? How would you feel if some random schlub got paid for the work YOU did?
"It is unclear why others should not also be permitted to profit from involving themselves with it."
You say that as if somebody who makes a copy of someone else's work, and re-distributes it as his/her own, is somehow involved in the creation of that work. You live in a fantasy world.
While I disagree with how long copryrights have been extended here, I don't see what's wrong with the concept of consistency in global copyright laws. With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best.
Then again, you were probably just looking for a reason to take your daily swipe at "greedy" corporations.
"If everyone waits for everyone else's opinion before they can make a decision, no wonder we have organizations with forms to change forms, where Dilbert stories are all true, and employees read Slashdot all day instead of working (because 50% of their projects won't go anywhere, and the other 50% of their projects are pending some approval process or another)."
IANAPL, but I don't believe these changes would eliminate the "prior art" concept.
If the inventor could prove that he/she was in fact the original inventor, and that the idea was stolen, these changes would allow the inventor to challenge the patent obtained by the company.
And whose rights is Microsoft violating? Are people/companies free to release their code under whatever conditions they please, but only as long as they placate those who feel entitled to a portion of the profit?
You just go ahead and try to take someone to court based on a breach of an ambiguous, un-written, un-signed "social" contract. I wish you luck with that.
I thought people/companies were free (as in speech!) to release their code under whatever license terms they wish. Does "free as in Free Software" actually mean "whatever the FSF deems acceptable"?
The entire submission was a cut-and-paste from the linked article. No credit was given to the original author. That's unethical, editors, and you should neither reward submitters for it, nor make yourselves accessories by posting it.
Thinking in absolutes like "good" and "evil" indicates an unwillingness to consider every aspect of the subject being considered. Claiming that Google is incapable of wrongdoing or that Time Warner does nothing but evil only identifies you as a mindless zealot. I doubt you are capable of seeing anything but good in Google, no matter what they might do.
...clustering around your "own kind" is easier than rounding yourself out by interacting with a diverse blend of people, but that would require open-ness to the possibility that you are not the center of the universe.
This isn't about geek "persecution", it's about geek arrogance.
If they're going to succeed in portraying Wikipedia as a mature, reliable alternative to traditional encyclopedias, then they aught to make damned sure that their ducks are in a row. Their disregard of customer concerns is a shameful.
If, in the long-term, Wikipedia's image is tarnished by this, it is well-deserved.
Slashdot Mirror
...BETA!!
We've cooked our food on teflon-coated pans for how long? I don't see people dropping dead because of it.
For these people, opposing new technology is its own justification.
I thought the Evil Religious Right(tm) had cornered the market on unreasonable opposition to scientific progress. What am I supposed to make of this??
So now making a copy of someone else's work and claiming it as your own is considered "progress"?
Tell me, how do you make a living? How would you feel if some random schlub got paid for the work YOU did?
"It is unclear why others should not also be permitted to profit from involving themselves with it."
You say that as if somebody who makes a copy of someone else's work, and re-distributes it as his/her own, is somehow involved in the creation of that work. You live in a fantasy world.
Copyrights still have an important place in our society.
Or you don't believe that writers, musicians, actors, or programmers should be compensated for their work?
No, and in Soviet Russia, the "I confused phonographic with pornogrpahic" joke overuses YOU!
While I disagree with how long copryrights have been extended here, I don't see what's wrong with the concept of consistency in global copyright laws. With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best.
Then again, you were probably just looking for a reason to take your daily swipe at "greedy" corporations.
You work for the federal government too??
Umm... what exactly does this story have to do with the "extreem right wing"?
IANAPL, but I don't believe these changes would eliminate the "prior art" concept.
If the inventor could prove that he/she was in fact the original inventor, and that the idea was stolen, these changes would allow the inventor to challenge the patent obtained by the company.
Then said "young inventor" needs to keep his/her invention (and other supporting materials) away from prying eyes. Oh wait, that's how it is now too!
And whose rights is Microsoft violating? Are people/companies free to release their code under whatever conditions they please, but only as long as they placate those who feel entitled to a portion of the profit?
You just go ahead and try to take someone to court based on a breach of an ambiguous, un-written, un-signed "social" contract. I wish you luck with that.
I suppose it's easier to give an unaccountable moderation than actually answer my question.
I thought people/companies were free (as in speech!) to release their code under whatever license terms they wish. Does "free as in Free Software" actually mean "whatever the FSF deems acceptable"?
Is that to suggest that the manner in which the **AAs assert their IP rights is what gets Slashbots frothing?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard. This is a clear double standard.
Google has website shut down, asserting their intelelctual property rights = reasonable
MPAA has website shut down, asserting their intellectual property rights = Gestapo
You haven't watched cable "news" channels lately, have you...
The entire submission was a cut-and-paste from the linked article. No credit was given to the original author. That's unethical, editors, and you should neither reward submitters for it, nor make yourselves accessories by posting it.
...as soon as I come across a few hundred dollars that I would otherwise just flush down the toilet.
Thinking in absolutes like "good" and "evil" indicates an unwillingness to consider every aspect of the subject being considered. Claiming that Google is incapable of wrongdoing or that Time Warner does nothing but evil only identifies you as a mindless zealot. I doubt you are capable of seeing anything but good in Google, no matter what they might do.
So they initiated fusion at (near) room temperature. That's great.
Not to be crass, but wake me up when they can make it produce more energy than it consumes.
...clustering around your "own kind" is easier than rounding yourself out by interacting with a diverse blend of people, but that would require open-ness to the possibility that you are not the center of the universe.
This isn't about geek "persecution", it's about geek arrogance.
Informative my ass. I guess righteous indignation + paranoia = easy karma these days.
More trash, that's just what we need!
If they're going to succeed in portraying Wikipedia as a mature, reliable alternative to traditional encyclopedias, then they aught to make damned sure that their ducks are in a row. Their disregard of customer concerns is a shameful.
If, in the long-term, Wikipedia's image is tarnished by this, it is well-deserved.