Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
Essentially my response is "So what?". Why should the whole world be dependent on your approval for using an idea? Good ideas are a dime a dozen. Good implementations are far more valuable, and in the case of software are protected by copyright. If another company does a better implementation, well tough, it's called competition, and is the basis of our capitalist economies. Patents are all about stifling competition.
The saturation of the market is the whole point of convergence. How else are you going to get people to upgrade without making them feel their phone is out of date. How else are you going to grow revenue except by targettig some piece of other markets like low end camera, and portable music players...
This is the year to vote libertarian, or anything except the big two. Tactical voting is voting for the status quo.
You will always be wasting your vote, until enough people consistently don't vote for one of the big 2 to frighten them into advocating a fair electoral system.
The sense of entitlement to your vote that they have is one of the reasons that they will never stand up for your interests.
Is that I had disabled javascript from doing "everything" to windows in the javascript preferences, but lo and behold I find (from reading here) that it seems I need to also set a dozen crypric about:config preferences. That is really lousy security, and completely misleading.
All the people saying "well, IE is just as bad" completely miss the point. IE is recommended to not use by CERT, and the department of homeland security. You got really low standards if you think being no worse than that is some kind of mitigating factor.
The "trusted" part of the Browser UI should be unchangable by the remote site, period.
I don't want to hold a really really heavy device to my ear to hear the phone because it has a gigantic hard drive built into it. And there's no way that a phone-integrated digital camera is ever going to really replace the high-end markets for other devices (think digital SLR, powerful computer, etc).
Sure they are not going to take the high end, because the high end is by definition very specialized, but you can bet that taking all the low end stuff away from "camera companies" hurts them. There is a lot less volume in the high end, though margins are better. You can see the same thing at Sun, with Linux eating into their market from the bottom up. And once you lose the low end, the mid-range is next to fall.
Can a software developer say patents don't apply to him, only to those users who use the developer's (highly detailed) copyrighted "instructions" on how to use an (existing) computer to do something.
Well, I know he can say it, but is it in any way valid?
They may compete indirectly with Windows, etc.. but they compete directly with each other. They occupy the same niche in the same environment. It's far better to have competition in the unix desktop, otherwise you get stuck with stuff like CDE for ages.
Re:Finally something to address this....
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 1
If they were able to specify the solution to you exactly, why would they employ you? You'd be nothing more than a well paid compiler.
If a work can stand alone WITHOUT modification to the source, then that work is NEVER a derivative of the thing it can stand seperate from.
But the embedded company is not distributing source code. They are distributing a binary module, which due to the number of inline functions in the linux kernel more than likely does contain some "kernel code", and so could be seen as a derived work. A wiork, which unless they distribute under the GPL (with source code), they have no right to distribute. This is more than likely why NVidia don't distribute a binary that interfaces directly to the kernel.
The NVidia driver consists of two parts: an evil binary-only lump of driver, and an source code bit that sits between the kernel and that lump of a driver and must be compiled to match your running kernel. That part may be considered a derivative, but the binary-only lump is not.
I don't think that the wrapper source code would be considered a derived work either. The source code after all contains nothing of the kernel, and was written exclusively by NVidia. The compiled wrapper probably is a derived work of both the wrapper code, and the kernel (because of inline functions), but since that's done by a user and not distributed by NVidia, it has no real impact. I think that NVidia don't distribute the compiled wrapper for precisely that reason.
I do not deny that natural selection occurs, species are formed and adapt, and that a change in allele frequencies occur.
How come you say that natural selection occurs? Don't you mean that evolution occurs? From my understanding (which is limited), evolution is "a fact". Darwin's explanation of that fact is his "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". There are alternative scientific explanations, some of them largely debunked, and Darwin's has most (all?) of the evidence pointing towards it being correct, but the mechanism of evolution is still debated among scientists.
For example gravity is similarly "a fact", but the fact that Newton's "Theory of Gravity" has been superceeded by Einstein's doesn't change the fact of gravity.
For a Christian a "Theory of Evolution by Divine Intervention" would be as good an explanation as any (albeit one totally lacking evidence). But it seems to me that if you say that natural selection exists, then you have accepted Darwin's explanation for evolution (and man's origins).
Here's one: The body keeps renewing itself continuously. Bones keep taking fresh calcium and keep rebuilding themselves. The stomach lining renews itself every five days (if it didn't change that often we would have to contend with big holes in our stomach). The skin is replaced every month, the liver every six weeks, and the skeleton every three months. In one year from today, 98 percent of the atoms in our body will be exchanged for new ones. In one year, excepting the two percent, we become new bodies. How do we ever get old?
Some work? Hundreds of Billions of dollars were wasted on it. There is no way that having to make that kind maintenance cost can be considered not "in such bad shape after all".
If you've got an indecency complaint to make, you should be able to make your -own- copy of the event.
Copyright, broadcast flag, not being prescient...
The fact that the stations are licensed means that they are subject to regulation. Nobody is forcing them to broadcast. They are free to stop anytime they feel the regulations aren't worth the hassle. They are also free to lobby against the regulations, or vote for people who oppose such regulations.
People don't demand identity verification though, and anyway, that's not what Verisign et al guarentee.
Pretty much all you can be sure of is that Verisign issued the cert, and the level of encryption provided by the SSL connection.
Since that is such a poor offering, and internet users still accept those certs without question, there is no good reason to be paying money to Verisign for their non-service. That's what this seems designed to replace.
How about those of us who don't own IP adresses? Does it allow us to use something else, like digital signing with a hidden key whose pair is regestered in the DNS?
Because it didn't happen anytime. It happened when she was using DDR. I think it's reasonable to put them together in the story so long as the rest of the facts are presented.
Because ultimately if it's for prior art, all it means is that someone else should have patented it earlier. It would be far better to get them rejected for being trivial or obvious.
2. The US government is pro-business (as it should be, IMHO).
I agree that they are, but it's not as it should be. They should be working to ensure a competitive market, not making things easy for corporate giants to establish monopolies, and directing business towards their personal favourites.
What If I on my Vendor1 RDBMS, export XML data, and send it to you on your Vendor2 RDBMS, where you import it.
Then I send you my "Vendor1 SQL" Query that works wonderfully on my RDBMS. What do you do? Would it be easier if I sent you some sort of "XML Query" instead?
Slashdot Mirror
The saturation of the market is the whole point of convergence. How else are you going to get people to upgrade without making them feel their phone is out of date. How else are you going to grow revenue except by targettig some piece of other markets like low end camera, and portable music players...
This is the year to vote libertarian, or anything except the big two. Tactical voting is voting for the status quo.
You will always be wasting your vote, until enough people consistently don't vote for one of the big 2 to frighten them into advocating a fair electoral system.
The sense of entitlement to your vote that they have is one of the reasons that they will never stand up for your interests.
Is that I had disabled javascript from doing "everything" to windows in the javascript preferences, but lo and behold I find (from reading here) that it seems I need to also set a dozen crypric about:config preferences. That is really lousy security, and completely misleading.
All the people saying "well, IE is just as bad" completely miss the point. IE is recommended to not use by CERT, and the department of homeland security. You got really low standards if you think being no worse than that is some kind of mitigating factor.
The "trusted" part of the Browser UI should be unchangable by the remote site, period.
Sure they are not going to take the high end, because the high end is by definition very specialized, but you can bet that taking all the low end stuff away from "camera companies" hurts them. There is a lot less volume in the high end, though margins are better. You can see the same thing at Sun, with Linux eating into their market from the bottom up. And once you lose the low end, the mid-range is next to fall.
Can a software developer say patents don't apply to him, only to those users who use the developer's (highly detailed) copyrighted "instructions" on how to use an (existing) computer to do something.
Well, I know he can say it, but is it in any way valid?
They may compete indirectly with Windows, etc.. but they compete directly with each other. They occupy the same niche in the same environment. It's far better to have competition in the unix desktop, otherwise you get stuck with stuff like CDE for ages.
If they were able to specify the solution to you exactly, why would they employ you? You'd be nothing more than a well paid compiler.
For example gravity is similarly "a fact", but the fact that Newton's "Theory of Gravity" has been superceeded by Einstein's doesn't change the fact of gravity.
For a Christian a "Theory of Evolution by Divine Intervention" would be as good an explanation as any (albeit one totally lacking evidence). But it seems to me that if you say that natural selection exists, then you have accepted Darwin's explanation for evolution (and man's origins).
I'm not getting your point. How is "you can't distribute this code and use our service at the same time" not a restriction on distributing the code?
Here's one: The body keeps renewing itself continuously. Bones keep taking fresh calcium and keep rebuilding themselves. The stomach lining renews itself every five days (if it didn't change that often we would have to contend with big holes in our stomach). The skin is replaced every month, the liver every six weeks, and the skeleton every three months. In one year from today, 98 percent of the atoms in our body will be exchanged for new ones. In one year, excepting the two percent, we become new bodies. How do we ever get old?
Google will give you more results.
98% of the atoms in your body are replaced each year. Are you still the same person?
Some work? Hundreds of Billions of dollars were wasted on it. There is no way that having to make that kind maintenance cost can be considered not "in such bad shape after all".
The fact that the stations are licensed means that they are subject to regulation. Nobody is forcing them to broadcast. They are free to stop anytime they feel the regulations aren't worth the hassle. They are also free to lobby against the regulations, or vote for people who oppose such regulations.
reply to myself.
If you add citibank.co.jp to your allow popups list, it works. Previously I had tried www.citibank.co.jp
Well, FUD or no, I can't get
www.citibank.co.jp->english->(red) citibank online sign in->(blue) citibank online sign in
to work with firefox, even after enabling all javascript features. If you can find a way to get the english login screen to open let me know.
People don't demand identity verification though, and anyway, that's not what Verisign et al guarentee.
Pretty much all you can be sure of is that Verisign issued the cert, and the level of encryption provided by the SSL connection.
Since that is such a poor offering, and internet users still accept those certs without question, there is no good reason to be paying money to Verisign for their non-service. That's what this seems designed to replace.
How about those of us who don't own IP adresses? Does it allow us to use something else, like digital signing with a hidden key whose pair is regestered in the DNS?
Because ultimately if it's for prior art, all it means is that someone else should have patented it earlier. It would be far better to get them rejected for being trivial or obvious.
yeah, but having to type:
driver@volvo> park --parallel --time +5 --left
befrore getting out of the car gets to be a drag.
What If I on my Vendor1 RDBMS, export XML data, and send it to you on your Vendor2 RDBMS, where you import it.
Then I send you my "Vendor1 SQL" Query that works wonderfully on my RDBMS. What do you do? Would it be easier if I sent you some sort of "XML Query" instead?