Yeah, this kinda sounds like programmers vs Microsoft. The programmers ultimately win because they can produce stuff WITHOUT Microsoft. Although, Windows XP and Linux are a lot more complicated than a woodworking jig.
This whole thing seems almost exactly like the music sharing issue. If the music is cool, and it's reasonably priced, then the sharee will likely go out and buy their own copy.
The purpose of having a metal template is to have a durable pattern that wont wear on the equipment. If Cabinet maker A lends the pattern to Cabinet maker B and cabinet maker B LIKES the pattern. Then Cabinet maker B will likely buy their own metal template so they don't have to constantly bother Cabinet maker A, or have to rely on a wooden copy with is more fragile.
So the moral of the story is:
Make good stuff, keep your prices reasonable and people will willingly, gladfully buy your IP.
Make marginal, uncreative stuff, keep prices high, treat customers like dirt and your customers will pirate your stuff since they use it sparingly and don't want to buy your overpriced crap.
Honestly, I think that this license would be more relevant to machining patterns. Producing metal copies of a metal part is far more profound than creating wooden copies of a metal part.
You can't sign away your personal freedom. You can't read a document, sign it, and become an indentured servant with no rights, but you can sign a EULA and let a company do whatever it likes to you with its neglicence.
You can come close depending on the terms of a contract. If you contract to do a certain amount of work at a certain price that is binding. If the severance clause in the contract is steep enough, then you can effectively indenture yourself, bankruptcy then becomes the only way out.
Ironically enough, our banking industry is trying hard to make it easier for someone to indenture themselves to big finance. They want to eliminate certain forms of bankruptcy. People get into money trouble, thats what bankruptcy is for. Part of the finance industry is looking at someone and making GOOD loans. They want the ability to make POOR loans and hold individuals permanently liable.
Of course, they want no changes in the laws affecting CORPORATE bankruptcy and CORPORATE responsibility. The fact that they have little responsibility as is, notwithstanding.
The next step is to return to inherited debt. Then you can indenture your children and grandchildren as well to mega-finance corporations.
I'm not sure how Schmeiser could violate the patent. He isn't selling the patented seed. Nor is he violating a licensing agreement (he didn't sign one).
I'm not sure that Schmeiser had any obligation to either preserve or destroy his contaminated crop. Had the Round-Up spray been sold with a license (as is the seed) then he would be bound to paying a technology fee for his crop.
As it is, Schmeiser probably found a loophole in the licensing terms.
There is little substantial difference between feudalism, communism, facism, royalism and lazze-fair capitalism beyond there names. It's like dressing Mickey Mouse in a sailor suit and calling him Daffy Duck.
They all mean the same thing and evolve in the same manner. All the power and influence are placed in the hands of the very few. Everyone else prospers or suffers at their mercy.
Our nation and world is coming dangerously close to a global capital feudalism via the policies of the WTO, World Bank and IMF. These organization promote "market freedom" but their freedom is the freedom to oppress the little guy, expropriate local resources for global behemoth coroporations, put small companies out of business and barter labor like a commodity to drive every worker into the lowest possible denominator.
Totalitarianism is all the same. The people in charge of "Capitalist" Russia are the same individuals who were running "Communist" USSR. The "Capitalist" barons of China are the same people running the "Communist" party.
The totalitarianists have simply discovered that chaotic chronie dictatorships are easier to maintain than rigid planned dictatorships. Internal competition keeps the chronies biting at each other and not the leader.
They all do the same thing, only one wears a sailor suit, the other has red shorts with yellow buttons. Our global corporations are becoming dangerously close to permanently taking the US manufacturing base overseas along with our independence. They have placed their willing syncophant in the White House. They are actively working on permanently riggin elections with electronic voting machines that can be manipulated at will with no possibility of oversight or recount.
We need a service whereby illiterate people open all our software for us. In such a case, they cannot claim that we agreed to the license, nor could our agents as they cannot read;-)
Having been defeated one most of their "French Champagne" ink patents, they will start leasing you printers instead of selling them. You will buy licenses with every ink cartridge you buy.
Using their printers with anauthorized or modified cartridges will be a violation of the printer lease.
Just never forget that patents exist to encourage inventors to disclose their methods and findings to the public; ie, to prevent monopolies via propriatary scienitific discoveries... including, for example, proprietary protocals
Yeah, as if someone needed to be told how to use a FUCKIN COOKIE to store a set of personal preferences.
I believe that state legislators DO have the authority to make their student population recite this every morning if the "Under God" portion is struck.
However, I believe that this is a COMPLETE waste of time. Furthermore, it burns kids brains into a state of bored resentment before you even get started.
Lastly, loyalty oaths are the modis operadi of tyrannical states. It's unamerican to make kids stand up every morning and pledge allegiance to a "flag". It's a right of every American citizen to be 'disloyal'. Thats what makes this a democratic nation, the freedom to dissent.
The final line "With liberty and justice for all" is apparantly untrue. Otherwise, why would hordes of people be compelled to swear loyalty every morning. Real loyalty is inspired not imposed.
The pressure on this BS morning brain blow is extremely virulent. I sub teach since the Bangalore has been tapped to replace American programmers. When they request everyone to stand and recite with hand dutifully placed over heart, I remain seated and continue what I'm doing. You wouldn't believe the types of strange looks I get. It's one of shock and utter disbelief like a man opposing the will of Saddam Hussein would get.
I believe in patriotism in all. I always stand and sing "The Star Spangled Banner" before sporting events. Largely because it's fun, partly because it's not an insipid loyalty oath with parochial references.
Pursuant to patriotism, I would suggest that schools do put some civic patriotism time in the morning. However, instead of reciting the same dumb-ass loyalty oath every morning (as if school-children are likely to start an American insurrection on any given day) I would suggest actually reading our governing documents.
Why has it never occured to congress that our citizens can recite the pledge of allegiance, however they don't know the constitution from a hole in their head. The only reason many people know the pre-amble is from "School House Rock". I daresay that "I'm just a bill" is more informative than most civic classes in school. (For a real hoot, check out the Simpsons parody "I'm just an amendment" (reg. anti flag burning amendment)).
How about it, on monday the pre-amble to the constitution. How about some federalist papers, what about good old Tom Paine. You might actually inspire a bit of thought in the morning instead of groaning. Let the students choose passages and read them.
Lastly let me say that I am 100% loyal to the Constitution of the United states. Yeah, thats one thing that the pledge doesn't address. The pledge talks about loyalty to flags and governments, not to the constitution itself. Thats what leads me to say that the pledge is a BS waste of time
I pledge my loyalty to opposing the loyalty oath!!!!!
At my old company, the IT guys had entire conference room filled with old monitors. I was absoluetly shocked.
I myself got a tongue-lashing for implementing a dual monitor system without official approval. I wish I'd known about that room full of old monitors, with $30 PCI video cards, they could've all been put to good use;-)
As it was, the purchasing guy told me they were selling them to salvage for pennies on the dollar.
Just rig the viewer two display the page in panes. Divide the website in half or thirds. Either that or you can have mutliple website open in panes simultaneously.
The thing that really sucks about dual monitors is that it's very difficult to adjust BOTH to match. The monitor calibration systems out their (not color matching) only deal with a single monitor.
I long for the day when NVidia and ATI bundles monitor calibration software.
The human eye is much more sensitive to horizontal information than vertical. The evolutionary reasons are simple. More nasty things come from the sides than from above.
The phsyiological reason is easy as well. The eye socket is shaped so there is more visibility to the sides than the top or botton.
Basically, we're tuned to live in a horizontal world. You may not be aware but you have about almost 180 degrees of horizonal peripheral vision available to you. We can easily utlize more horizontal pixels. Squares cut down on our field of vision.
Like the Pontiac commerical said, "Wider is Better".
The thing that gets me while working with two monitors is that my neck gets craned a little bit. Why, because I often switch "primary" monitors depending on the application. A center monitor makes things clear.
Ultimately, I think we'll have curved continuous displays, the wider-the better.
So why are all the browser controls at the *top* of the browser window instead of down the side?
Actually putting controls on the side instead of the top would be more optimal. Most documents don't take advantage of horizontal space but are lacking in vertical. My Office apps have most of the controls moved from the top to the side.
Interesting solution. I've got another. Actually it's from Microsoft Visual Studio.
The latest Visual Studio ditches the old MDI document interface. Instead they present documents in tabbed frames. One can add a tabbed from and drag document to and from each other. I'd like to see a similar concept on a desktop. That is I could divide a monitor into one or more "virtual" monitors.
When I maximized, an app would maximize to the "virtual" monitor. The virtual monitors would have lined dividers that could be resized at will. Resizing a virtual monitor would automatically resize it's contents (and those of adjacent virtual monitors). Dragging a maximized window from one vitual monitor to another would automatically resize it as well.
This isn't really a large leap. It could be accomplished by tweaking the window manager to accept this "mode". Either that or the card manufacturers could provide this option at the driver level.
So if you had a widescreen monitor and wanted 3 documents side by side, you would simply create 2 additional "virtual displays" and move mazimized apps into them. One could resize or remove the virtual displays at will.
Matrox tried to push triple-head configurations with their Parhelia. Everything they said made a LOT of sense. Morover, it's actually a useful configuration for shooter games where the main monitor is your forward view and the sides are your peripheral vision.
Of course, most dual-head rigs are the result of having an extra monitor from an upgrade, etc... Most people don't have 2 extra monitors laying around;-)
As flat panel prices continue to plummet, i can see the possibility of LCD panel arrays for reasonable prices. Basically, just string three 15" LCDs together. Lower resolutions are fine because you'll get lots of extra horizonal pixels. An array would allow for very small seem that could simulate a really wide display.
I use a 17" and a 15". The 15 is from Goodwill, and is on the built-in video that I haven't been using since I installed a VooDoo3
Two different sizes are OK as long as you don't run them at the same resolution. I had a 19"/17" setup at work once via a Matrox dual-head. Using the same resolution was just weird as somtime I would span monitors. for things to look right, you really need to use a lower resolution on the smaller.
Excellent example. Though in this case, theres and even better way.
Newer keyboards have dedicated audio navigation controls. Some of the Microsoft (and logitech) ergonomics are sweet. Most apps will automatically map these keys now so pressing the ">>" button should automatically get the next track without changing window focus.
Your desktop space determines what you can do. If your physical desk was only 1'x1' you could only write or have a reference source, not both. A 2'x2' desk allows you to do more without juggling.
Many applications just don't work right when they aren't fully maximized on the desktop. They're not optimized to get 50% of the display and still navigate properly.
Myself I typically maintain a "main" application on one monitor and a handful of other applications on the other. My taskbar is on the secondary display. Eventually, I'll add a third display.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this kinda sounds like programmers vs Microsoft. The programmers ultimately win because they can produce stuff WITHOUT Microsoft. Although, Windows XP and Linux are a lot more complicated than a woodworking jig.
This whole thing seems almost exactly like the music sharing issue. If the music is cool, and it's reasonably priced, then the sharee will likely go out and buy their own copy.
The purpose of having a metal template is to have a durable pattern that wont wear on the equipment. If Cabinet maker A lends the pattern to Cabinet maker B and cabinet maker B LIKES the pattern. Then Cabinet maker B will likely buy their own metal template so they don't have to constantly bother Cabinet maker A, or have to rely on a wooden copy with is more fragile.
So the moral of the story is:
Make good stuff, keep your prices reasonable and people will willingly, gladfully buy your IP.
Make marginal, uncreative stuff, keep prices high, treat customers like dirt and your customers will pirate your stuff since they use it sparingly and don't want to buy your overpriced crap.
Honestly, I think that this license would be more relevant to machining patterns. Producing metal copies of a metal part is far more profound than creating wooden copies of a metal part.
I wonder if the jig license prevents the user from modifying the jig (reverse engineering).
You can't sign away your personal freedom. You can't read a document, sign it, and become an indentured servant with no rights, but you can sign a EULA and let a company do whatever it likes to you with its neglicence.
You can come close depending on the terms of a contract. If you contract to do a certain amount of work at a certain price that is binding. If the severance clause in the contract is steep enough, then you can effectively indenture yourself, bankruptcy then becomes the only way out.
Ironically enough, our banking industry is trying hard to make it easier for someone to indenture themselves to big finance. They want to eliminate certain forms of bankruptcy. People get into money trouble, thats what bankruptcy is for. Part of the finance industry is looking at someone and making GOOD loans. They want the ability to make POOR loans and hold individuals permanently liable.
Of course, they want no changes in the laws affecting CORPORATE bankruptcy and CORPORATE responsibility. The fact that they have little responsibility as is, notwithstanding.
The next step is to return to inherited debt. Then you can indenture your children and grandchildren as well to mega-finance corporations.
Happy Birthday -
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear xxxx,
Happy birthday to you.
*
If I could reproduce music in this forum, I would communicate the notes as well.
Now come sue me you IP Motherfuckers!!!!!!
I'm not sure how Schmeiser could violate the patent. He isn't selling the patented seed. Nor is he violating a licensing agreement (he didn't sign one).
I'm not sure that Schmeiser had any obligation to either preserve or destroy his contaminated crop. Had the Round-Up spray been sold with a license (as is the seed) then he would be bound to paying a technology fee for his crop.
As it is, Schmeiser probably found a loophole in the licensing terms.
There is little substantial difference between feudalism, communism, facism, royalism and lazze-fair capitalism beyond there names. It's like dressing Mickey Mouse in a sailor suit and calling him Daffy Duck.
They all mean the same thing and evolve in the same manner. All the power and influence are placed in the hands of the very few. Everyone else prospers or suffers at their mercy.
Our nation and world is coming dangerously close to a global capital feudalism via the policies of the WTO, World Bank and IMF. These organization promote "market freedom" but their freedom is the freedom to oppress the little guy, expropriate local resources for global behemoth coroporations, put small companies out of business and barter labor like a commodity to drive every worker into the lowest possible denominator.
Totalitarianism is all the same. The people in charge of "Capitalist" Russia are the same individuals who were running "Communist" USSR. The "Capitalist" barons of China are the same people running the "Communist" party.
The totalitarianists have simply discovered that chaotic chronie dictatorships are easier to maintain than rigid planned dictatorships. Internal competition keeps the chronies biting at each other and not the leader.
They all do the same thing, only one wears a sailor suit, the other has red shorts with yellow buttons. Our global corporations are becoming dangerously close to permanently taking the US manufacturing base overseas along with our independence. They have placed their willing syncophant in the White House. They are actively working on permanently riggin elections with electronic voting machines that can be manipulated at will with no possibility of oversight or recount.
We need a service whereby illiterate people open all our software for us. In such a case, they cannot claim that we agreed to the license, nor could our agents as they cannot read ;-)
Printer manufacturers are likely next.
Having been defeated one most of their "French Champagne" ink patents, they will start leasing you printers instead of selling them. You will buy licenses with every ink cartridge you buy.
Using their printers with anauthorized or modified cartridges will be a violation of the printer lease.
Of course graphite contaminant floting in the air and sooting up the entire station is of no concern to you.
;-)
Regarding graphite conduction, I'm sure that it would make ANY part misbehave. It would be better to use the metal shell of a pen
There is also a danger that the pen will break. Imagine the pain of trying to clean off the walls (& Floating) in Zero G.
Just never forget that patents exist to encourage inventors to disclose their methods and findings to the public; ie, to prevent monopolies via propriatary scienitific discoveries ... including, for example, proprietary protocals
Yeah, as if someone needed to be told how to use a FUCKIN COOKIE to store a set of personal preferences.
I believe that state legislators DO have the authority to make their student population recite this every morning if the "Under God" portion is struck.
However, I believe that this is a COMPLETE waste of time. Furthermore, it burns kids brains into a state of bored resentment before you even get started.
Lastly, loyalty oaths are the modis operadi of tyrannical states. It's unamerican to make kids stand up every morning and pledge allegiance to a "flag". It's a right of every American citizen to be 'disloyal'. Thats what makes this a democratic nation, the freedom to dissent.
The final line "With liberty and justice for all" is apparantly untrue. Otherwise, why would hordes of people be compelled to swear loyalty every morning. Real loyalty is inspired not imposed.
The pressure on this BS morning brain blow is extremely virulent. I sub teach since the Bangalore has been tapped to replace American programmers. When they request everyone to stand and recite with hand dutifully placed over heart, I remain seated and continue what I'm doing. You wouldn't believe the types of strange looks I get. It's one of shock and utter disbelief like a man opposing the will of Saddam Hussein would get.
I believe in patriotism in all. I always stand and sing "The Star Spangled Banner" before sporting events. Largely because it's fun, partly because it's not an insipid loyalty oath with parochial references.
Pursuant to patriotism, I would suggest that schools do put some civic patriotism time in the morning. However, instead of reciting the same dumb-ass loyalty oath every morning (as if school-children are likely to start an American insurrection on any given day) I would suggest actually reading our governing documents.
Why has it never occured to congress that our citizens can recite the pledge of allegiance, however they don't know the constitution from a hole in their head. The only reason many people know the pre-amble is from "School House Rock". I daresay that "I'm just a bill" is more informative than most civic classes in school. (For a real hoot, check out the Simpsons parody "I'm just an amendment" (reg. anti flag burning amendment)).
How about it, on monday the pre-amble to the constitution. How about some federalist papers, what about good old Tom Paine. You might actually inspire a bit of thought in the morning instead of groaning. Let the students choose passages and read them.
Lastly let me say that I am 100% loyal to the Constitution of the United states. Yeah, thats one thing that the pledge doesn't address. The pledge talks about loyalty to flags and governments, not to the constitution itself. Thats what leads me to say that the pledge is a BS waste of time
I pledge my loyalty to opposing the loyalty oath!!!!!
At my old company, the IT guys had entire conference room filled with old monitors. I was absoluetly shocked.
;-)
I myself got a tongue-lashing for implementing a dual monitor system without official approval. I wish I'd known about that room full of old monitors, with $30 PCI video cards, they could've all been put to good use
As it was, the purchasing guy told me they were selling them to salvage for pennies on the dollar.
Nope, software would be a lot easier.
Just rig the viewer two display the page in panes. Divide the website in half or thirds. Either that or you can have mutliple website open in panes simultaneously.
The thing that really sucks about dual monitors is that it's very difficult to adjust BOTH to match. The monitor calibration systems out their (not color matching) only deal with a single monitor.
I long for the day when NVidia and ATI bundles monitor calibration software.
The human eye is much more sensitive to horizontal information than vertical. The evolutionary reasons are simple. More nasty things come from the sides than from above.
The phsyiological reason is easy as well. The eye socket is shaped so there is more visibility to the sides than the top or botton.
Basically, we're tuned to live in a horizontal world. You may not be aware but you have about almost 180 degrees of horizonal peripheral vision available to you. We can easily utlize more horizontal pixels. Squares cut down on our field of vision.
Like the Pontiac commerical said, "Wider is Better".
Three would be better.
The thing that gets me while working with two monitors is that my neck gets craned a little bit. Why, because I often switch "primary" monitors depending on the application. A center monitor makes things clear.
Ultimately, I think we'll have curved continuous displays, the wider-the better.
It's of little use if there are more than a few documents on the desktop. Who wants 20 little windows tiled vertically.
Of more use is a managed interface where you can specify that you want 2 or 3 vertical windows and than allow switching documents in and out of them.
So why are all the browser controls at the *top* of the browser window instead of down the side?
Actually putting controls on the side instead of the top would be more optimal. Most documents don't take advantage of horizontal space but are lacking in vertical. My Office apps have most of the controls moved from the top to the side.
Interesting solution. I've got another. Actually it's from Microsoft Visual Studio.
The latest Visual Studio ditches the old MDI document interface. Instead they present documents in tabbed frames. One can add a tabbed from and drag document to and from each other. I'd like to see a similar concept on a desktop. That is I could divide a monitor into one or more "virtual" monitors.
When I maximized, an app would maximize to the "virtual" monitor. The virtual monitors would have lined dividers that could be resized at will. Resizing a virtual monitor would automatically resize it's contents (and those of adjacent virtual monitors). Dragging a maximized window from one vitual monitor to another would automatically resize it as well.
This isn't really a large leap. It could be accomplished by tweaking the window manager to accept this "mode". Either that or the card manufacturers could provide this option at the driver level.
So if you had a widescreen monitor and wanted 3 documents side by side, you would simply create 2 additional "virtual displays" and move mazimized apps into them. One could resize or remove the virtual displays at will.
Matrox tried to push triple-head configurations with their Parhelia. Everything they said made a LOT of sense. Morover, it's actually a useful configuration for shooter games where the main monitor is your forward view and the sides are your peripheral vision.
;-)
Of course, most dual-head rigs are the result of having an extra monitor from an upgrade, etc... Most people don't have 2 extra monitors laying around
As flat panel prices continue to plummet, i can see the possibility of LCD panel arrays for reasonable prices. Basically, just string three 15" LCDs together. Lower resolutions are fine because you'll get lots of extra horizonal pixels. An array would allow for very small seem that could simulate a really wide display.
I use a 17" and a 15". The 15 is from Goodwill, and is on the built-in video that I haven't been using since I installed a VooDoo3
Two different sizes are OK as long as you don't run them at the same resolution. I had a 19"/17" setup at work once via a Matrox dual-head. Using the same resolution was just weird as somtime I would span monitors. for things to look right, you really need to use a lower resolution on the smaller.
Excellent example. Though in this case, theres and even better way.
Newer keyboards have dedicated audio navigation controls. Some of the Microsoft (and logitech) ergonomics are sweet. Most apps will automatically map these keys now so pressing the ">>" button should automatically get the next track without changing window focus.
Agreed, imagine it this way.
Your desktop space determines what you can do. If your physical desk was only 1'x1' you could only write or have a reference source, not both. A 2'x2' desk allows you to do more without juggling.
Many applications just don't work right when they aren't fully maximized on the desktop. They're not optimized to get 50% of the display and still navigate properly.
Myself I typically maintain a "main" application on one monitor and a handful of other applications on the other. My taskbar is on the secondary display. Eventually, I'll add a third display.