that is the difference everybody keeps trying to put a finger on. It's the artist that wants the code to be "right" for it's own sake... the businessmen just want it done so they can sell it.
Exactly, what made your company interesting and worth buying was what you DELIVERED! At this point you've missed 8 "releases" spending the entire time essentially rebuilding and re-documenting according to "old and slow" rules. Because of the overwhelming paperwork, your division is now a "loss".
While you needed more structure, your new owners sacrificed ALL your productivity for writing reports!!! They made no money from buying you.. worst is that your employees probably lost the creativity that make the whole thing worth buying in the first place.
These are union production workers, not office staff. My point is that what good do clocks do if you're not going to have supervisors simply go look at start up time to see that the people are in their place? If the clocks are not at the work area, to verify the worker is within a few feet of their workstation, what is the point? If they put the clocks 1000 feet from the work area, what good does that really do? Somebody still has to verify the workers are there on time, playing games with number of minutes to walk to the work area and the months of extra time from salary people to make it all work out "fairly"... what did you really get out of it? I understand trust and verify, but how did the clocks really add the "verify" step if a boss isn't going to do the job of bossing?
I worked for years punching a clock and it was always within sight of the workstation I was expected to be at. I got paid the time exactly on the card, because they weren't playing numbers games with how many minutes I might need to be early to walk to the station... I was there or I wasn't.
they may not have proposed technology, but they sat in meetings while other company's engineers discussed patented technology in the pool and quietly slipped out then edited their patents to cover the work-arounds in meetings they were "part" of.... They did far more than just "omit" patents, they used inside knowledge that was shared under contract to hold everybody honoring the contract IP hostage... and they did it on purpose, it wasn't some kind of oversight or change in management. This case has been around for years the FTC is clearly going after the easiest to get fruit... while the DoJ repeatedly sues the companies that stopped doing business with Rambus for "anti-competitive" practices... funny huh!
that's an excellent example because that kind of thing is legally held under seal until the parents are ready to discuss it. Many adopted kids are taken from abusive parents and strict separation and protection of the new parents is in order. Having some wanabe CSI show up at your door would be a big legal problem as the state guarantees that confidentiality.
Rambus signed a disclosure contract with JEDEC then didn't honor it. They didn't disclose all the patents they were working on, and they didn't disclose that they would use information from joint meetings held under the contract to edit their own patents. The courts actually let Rambus filch on the contract and get way with suing using material discovered by misleading the committee. That's why the FTC is involved, because there was a long-standing contract that was legally enforced until Rambus broke it, willfully. The industry arranged it's own affairs, Rambus broke their trust and the courts somehow saw Rambus as the "victim" when they basically lied in a contract to get IP knowledge. There's a dozen other cases right behind this (many of the IP related shinagians here on slashdot) where companies are using loopholes to get out of long term industry agreements then sue the licensees of the technology again. The FTC is in the business of making sure contracts written are fair to everybody, and this whole Rambus ruling is bad law... it will ruin contractual arrangements for everybody.
the FTC's problem is that JEDEC had a contract that Rambus pretended to sign that was supposed to prevent a situation like this from happening. Rambus basically lied from the moment the contract was presented and did not fulfill their sharing arrangements from the start. The lower courts let them out of the contract then let them sue all the manufacturers over information Rambus withheld/shared that was supposed to be under contract... at this stage in the game it's impossible for companies to write good contracts to share IP thanks to what Rambus and a few others about the same time pulled. Basically anybody can withdraw from one of these "industry standard" IP compacts and start suing all the people that paid license fees to the standard group and the courts just sat back and allowed it!!!!
the price of admition to JEDEC open meetings was a contract that you would put all your patents on the table and that information shown was considered "shared" and "safe" under the contract everybody signed. Rambus broke both.. they did not disclose all of their patented technology and actually lead joint discussions in that direction, and they took information about JEDEC direction back to the patent lawyers and edited the patents they didn't disclose to cover stuff that JEDEC engineers were working (SDRAM, DDR, ect.) on to avoid/work around patent issues. Then they dropped the meetings, said they "quit" and started filing suits.
Then they somehow got a court to say that the sharing contract was just a "suggestion" and couldn't actually take away the changes they made to the patents... then used the meetings they tainted as evidence in court JEDEC was willfully violating their precious patents. Then they had the gull to sue that JEDEC colluded to exclude the expensive RAMBUS ram from the market after they tainted the open discussion and started suing over patents!!!
This matters to the FTC because the industry had a contractual arrangement between manufacturers to disclose/share patents in an open manner so the FTC didn't have to bog the courts down with frivolous lawsuits. Rambus came in, broke long established contractual terms and then actually got a court to say such terms in trade associations were just "suggestions" and that individual patent owners could withdraw from whatever arrangements they set up whenever they wanted. note this affected MP3 when several companies used contract loopholes to withdraw their patents form established agreements then re-sued companies that had already paid up. This affected MPEG-LA in the same way. The recent Agilent lawsuit over some hardware decoder was also another patent revoked from an industry association then they sued all the members. The FTC wants a stop to the practice of a few SCO types breaking the system.
this monopoly was put in place way back in the early 90's and Intel was complicit getting Rambus on JEDEC in the first place. Somebody really oughta than Intel for funding Rambus a la SCO to do this to the industry.
and it was just before the submarine patent changes were put into effect, so they altered their patent descriptions to cover stuff they heard in "open" meetings. They abused the hell out of the patent office and even the FTC can't let the court's decision stand because it would wreak havoc on contractual dealings between companies.
if she said the things she said in the real world it would be child abuse.. that can range from hitting and punching to emotional harm. They punish parents for it every day. It's just that there was no "real" space verbal threats or setups, the kids did all that, not the mother. So it's "freedom of speech" based that the states hands are tied, it's too hard to prove in court that the mother really knew she was harming a teenage girl and not just online "play".
It would be child abuse if an adult did this repeatedly to a minor in real space. Open and shut. If you were a teacher, babysitter, parent, neighbor and continually harassed a child this way they'd put this on the books and probably take YOUR kids away as well.
But it didn't happen in "real" space, it was just "online" and so you'd never get a court to agree that "anonymous" freedom of speech could be proven to cause harm.
If a parent did that to another kid in real space it would be contributing to deliquency, or child abuse, but done via only text messages and never face to face it would be hard to prosecute. They prove emotional abuse all the time in stalker cases or divorce cases..like that call put on the radio a few months back from Alex Baldwin to his daughter...I'd like to see how that went over in court (restraining orders, loss of visitation, etc) but the mother never actually met the kid she was harassing and didn't harass her in "real" space so getting an actual case would be really hard and make even bigger leaps on freedom of speech grounds.
it has nothing to do with the robot at all. Wherever the operator is, can they be shot at? If they're in an office in New York, can I crash an airplane into it to get them? Can I bomb the robot operator on the subway? poison gas them? The operator is a soldier in a foreign battle front, what methods can the other side use to get at them?
no army can take on people. The US just doesn't have the guts to be a real empire yet.
Rome solved that problem more than once. When they conquered Carthage the final time, they murdered everyone there and for miles around, knocked down every building, tore up every road, killed every plant and animal and salted the soil so plants couldn't even grow there.
but those things don't track PEOPLE, they track targets like cities or buildings. These are specifically to target individual people and follow them so real people don't have to... and we don't have to bomb them out.
because these are designed to track and target PEOPLE, not other machines or buildings. I'd agree that the smart missiles fired from ships are probably over the line. So when they send out a party to sabotage a ship 1000 miles away carrying these missiles is it terrorism or self defense. Should those ships be "open season" anytime they are in missile lock range? Why can't people in fisherboats with TNT blow them up?
this would be like them crashing airplanes in to buildings? At least a person had the guts to sacrifice themselves for the mission. How is using robots really any different than terrorism when we start killing people not holding guns? Aren't terrorists cowards because they use surprise against people not prepared? If we use robots against people that cannot hope to counter them is it any different?
A robot has no life, so a robot has no right to self defense. A robot has no ethical right to kill a person to take a position from a person. Using machinery just makes it require fewer people be convinced to help murder.
People have no idea how civil the US really is. For all the guns we have the vast majority are kept peacefully. This is the middle of hunting season.. for two weeks in November here in Michigan there are over half a million people going into the woods armed to shoot dear. There will only be a half dozen accidents.
Really think about that, you have more violence at NASCAR or any European football event. Those guns are at homes securely locked the rest of the year with minimal incidents. Granted, rifles and shotguns are not the same as handguns but "guns" are not the problem.
of course if this is the case then the "war front" includes programmers here in the USA. If you build these and are on-call for troubleshooting field units (via satellite link from Kansas), you are a combatant and somebody will find a way to take you out at your house... Attacking you is not terrorism because you are affecting the war front directly.
Precisely, people want robots to do what is NOT ETHICAL. They want the control to be centralized. It's cute when you don't have to be responsible for the decisions. This won't be funny when we start trying one star generals for war crimes when these things misfire or are misused. They CANNOT work without instruction... somebody gave the order and now it's mass, pre-meditated murder a desk general can't have emotional trauma from unit losses.
I think Gundam Wing did a good job exploring the issue. Train a bunch of kids from birth to run giant army crushing robots... then turn them lose. But the kids can't use the robots for murder of all the people of earth because that's not sporting, not fair and only fight armies. Ultimately, a "right" person can't use grossly overpowering weapons on other people that are incapable of defending themselves.
That's why they almost never use "Coke" as a trademark. If you see it in print, every bottle, fountain dispenser, truck, poster, calender, etc has "Coca-Cola" in their classic script with the "dynamic ribbon device" the white-silver twisty ribbon thingy. They went so far as to commission somebody to make a patentable shape for their classic bottle shape and they keep the bottle shape in production so the trademark doesn't slip even a little.
Another example is McDonald's. Every item that goes out to a customer has some element of trademark or patent to it. They were using much different sandwich wrap than other people. The yellow-red straw is trademarked, the yellow stripped french fry box, the napkins are folded differently, the paper cup sizes were non-standard, and the yellow arch or arches are frickin' sacred.
exactly, they are specific about what is Godzilla and not suing every 'zilla that's a thrilla. They do release really crappy 'zilla movies every so often and they license merchandise regularly so they are still in business selling the brand. I think the Coke comparison is a good one. Trademark is about identity, and they're using their identity just like Coca-Cola continually updates and markets their identity.
I still think these Mickey Mouse lawyers need a Keenex and to stop crying over spilled Coke. They should spend time Googling things to do with their kids like Rollerblading or Jet-Skiing.
Slashdot Mirror
that is the difference everybody keeps trying to put a finger on. It's the artist that wants the code to be "right" for it's own sake... the businessmen just want it done so they can sell it.
Exactly, what made your company interesting and worth buying was what you DELIVERED! At this point you've missed 8 "releases" spending the entire time essentially rebuilding and re-documenting according to "old and slow" rules. Because of the overwhelming paperwork, your division is now a "loss".
While you needed more structure, your new owners sacrificed ALL your productivity for writing reports!!! They made no money from buying you.. worst is that your employees probably lost the creativity that make the whole thing worth buying in the first place.
it helps if they're getting blown up in space battles! Thins out the upper management, people get promoted quicker.
These are union production workers, not office staff. My point is that what good do clocks do if you're not going to have supervisors simply go look at start up time to see that the people are in their place? If the clocks are not at the work area, to verify the worker is within a few feet of their workstation, what is the point? If they put the clocks 1000 feet from the work area, what good does that really do? Somebody still has to verify the workers are there on time, playing games with number of minutes to walk to the work area and the months of extra time from salary people to make it all work out "fairly"... what did you really get out of it? I understand trust and verify, but how did the clocks really add the "verify" step if a boss isn't going to do the job of bossing?
I worked for years punching a clock and it was always within sight of the workstation I was expected to be at. I got paid the time exactly on the card, because they weren't playing numbers games with how many minutes I might need to be early to walk to the station... I was there or I wasn't.
they may not have proposed technology, but they sat in meetings while other company's engineers discussed patented technology in the pool and quietly slipped out then edited their patents to cover the work-arounds in meetings they were "part" of.... They did far more than just "omit" patents, they used inside knowledge that was shared under contract to hold everybody honoring the contract IP hostage... and they did it on purpose, it wasn't some kind of oversight or change in management. This case has been around for years the FTC is clearly going after the easiest to get fruit... while the DoJ repeatedly sues the companies that stopped doing business with Rambus for "anti-competitive" practices... funny huh!
that's an excellent example because that kind of thing is legally held under seal until the parents are ready to discuss it. Many adopted kids are taken from abusive parents and strict separation and protection of the new parents is in order. Having some wanabe CSI show up at your door would be a big legal problem as the state guarantees that confidentiality.
Rambus signed a disclosure contract with JEDEC then didn't honor it. They didn't disclose all the patents they were working on, and they didn't disclose that they would use information from joint meetings held under the contract to edit their own patents. The courts actually let Rambus filch on the contract and get way with suing using material discovered by misleading the committee. That's why the FTC is involved, because there was a long-standing contract that was legally enforced until Rambus broke it, willfully. The industry arranged it's own affairs, Rambus broke their trust and the courts somehow saw Rambus as the "victim" when they basically lied in a contract to get IP knowledge. There's a dozen other cases right behind this (many of the IP related shinagians here on slashdot) where companies are using loopholes to get out of long term industry agreements then sue the licensees of the technology again. The FTC is in the business of making sure contracts written are fair to everybody, and this whole Rambus ruling is bad law... it will ruin contractual arrangements for everybody.
the FTC's problem is that JEDEC had a contract that Rambus pretended to sign that was supposed to prevent a situation like this from happening. Rambus basically lied from the moment the contract was presented and did not fulfill their sharing arrangements from the start. The lower courts let them out of the contract then let them sue all the manufacturers over information Rambus withheld/shared that was supposed to be under contract ... at this stage in the game it's impossible for companies to write good contracts to share IP thanks to what Rambus and a few others about the same time pulled. Basically anybody can withdraw from one of these "industry standard" IP compacts and start suing all the people that paid license fees to the standard group and the courts just sat back and allowed it!!!!
the price of admition to JEDEC open meetings was a contract that you would put all your patents on the table and that information shown was considered "shared" and "safe" under the contract everybody signed. Rambus broke both.. they did not disclose all of their patented technology and actually lead joint discussions in that direction, and they took information about JEDEC direction back to the patent lawyers and edited the patents they didn't disclose to cover stuff that JEDEC engineers were working (SDRAM, DDR, ect.) on to avoid/work around patent issues. Then they dropped the meetings, said they "quit" and started filing suits.
Then they somehow got a court to say that the sharing contract was just a "suggestion" and couldn't actually take away the changes they made to the patents... then used the meetings they tainted as evidence in court JEDEC was willfully violating their precious patents. Then they had the gull to sue that JEDEC colluded to exclude the expensive RAMBUS ram from the market after they tainted the open discussion and started suing over patents!!!
This matters to the FTC because the industry had a contractual arrangement between manufacturers to disclose/share patents in an open manner so the FTC didn't have to bog the courts down with frivolous lawsuits. Rambus came in, broke long established contractual terms and then actually got a court to say such terms in trade associations were just "suggestions" and that individual patent owners could withdraw from whatever arrangements they set up whenever they wanted. note this affected MP3 when several companies used contract loopholes to withdraw their patents form established agreements then re-sued companies that had already paid up. This affected MPEG-LA in the same way. The recent Agilent lawsuit over some hardware decoder was also another patent revoked from an industry association then they sued all the members. The FTC wants a stop to the practice of a few SCO types breaking the system.
this monopoly was put in place way back in the early 90's and Intel was complicit getting Rambus on JEDEC in the first place. Somebody really oughta than Intel for funding Rambus a la SCO to do this to the industry.
and it was just before the submarine patent changes were put into effect, so they altered their patent descriptions to cover stuff they heard in "open" meetings. They abused the hell out of the patent office and even the FTC can't let the court's decision stand because it would wreak havoc on contractual dealings between companies.
if she said the things she said in the real world it would be child abuse.. that can range from hitting and punching to emotional harm. They punish parents for it every day. It's just that there was no "real" space verbal threats or setups, the kids did all that, not the mother. So it's "freedom of speech" based that the states hands are tied, it's too hard to prove in court that the mother really knew she was harming a teenage girl and not just online "play".
It would be child abuse if an adult did this repeatedly to a minor in real space. Open and shut. If you were a teacher, babysitter, parent, neighbor and continually harassed a child this way they'd put this on the books and probably take YOUR kids away as well.
But it didn't happen in "real" space, it was just "online" and so you'd never get a court to agree that "anonymous" freedom of speech could be proven to cause harm.
If a parent did that to another kid in real space it would be contributing to deliquency, or child abuse, but done via only text messages and never face to face it would be hard to prosecute. They prove emotional abuse all the time in stalker cases or divorce cases..like that call put on the radio a few months back from Alex Baldwin to his daughter...I'd like to see how that went over in court (restraining orders, loss of visitation, etc) but the mother never actually met the kid she was harassing and didn't harass her in "real" space so getting an actual case would be really hard and make even bigger leaps on freedom of speech grounds.
it has nothing to do with the robot at all. Wherever the operator is, can they be shot at? If they're in an office in New York, can I crash an airplane into it to get them? Can I bomb the robot operator on the subway? poison gas them? The operator is a soldier in a foreign battle front, what methods can the other side use to get at them?
no army can take on people. The US just doesn't have the guts to be a real empire yet.
Rome solved that problem more than once. When they conquered Carthage the final time, they murdered everyone there and for miles around, knocked down every building, tore up every road, killed every plant and animal and salted the soil so plants couldn't even grow there.
but those things don't track PEOPLE, they track targets like cities or buildings. These are specifically to target individual people and follow them so real people don't have to ... and we don't have to bomb them out.
because these are designed to track and target PEOPLE, not other machines or buildings. I'd agree that the smart missiles fired from ships are probably over the line. So when they send out a party to sabotage a ship 1000 miles away carrying these missiles is it terrorism or self defense. Should those ships be "open season" anytime they are in missile lock range? Why can't people in fisherboats with TNT blow them up?
this would be like them crashing airplanes in to buildings? At least a person had the guts to sacrifice themselves for the mission. How is using robots really any different than terrorism when we start killing people not holding guns? Aren't terrorists cowards because they use surprise against people not prepared? If we use robots against people that cannot hope to counter them is it any different?
A robot has no life, so a robot has no right to self defense. A robot has no ethical right to kill a person to take a position from a person. Using machinery just makes it require fewer people be convinced to help murder.
People have no idea how civil the US really is. For all the guns we have the vast majority are kept peacefully. This is the middle of hunting season.. for two weeks in November here in Michigan there are over half a million people going into the woods armed to shoot dear. There will only be a half dozen accidents.
Really think about that, you have more violence at NASCAR or any European football event. Those guns are at homes securely locked the rest of the year with minimal incidents. Granted, rifles and shotguns are not the same as handguns but "guns" are not the problem.
of course if this is the case then the "war front" includes programmers here in the USA. If you build these and are on-call for troubleshooting field units (via satellite link from Kansas), you are a combatant and somebody will find a way to take you out at your house... Attacking you is not terrorism because you are affecting the war front directly.
Precisely, people want robots to do what is NOT ETHICAL. They want the control to be centralized. It's cute when you don't have to be responsible for the decisions. This won't be funny when we start trying one star generals for war crimes when these things misfire or are misused. They CANNOT work without instruction... somebody gave the order and now it's mass, pre-meditated murder a desk general can't have emotional trauma from unit losses.
I think Gundam Wing did a good job exploring the issue. Train a bunch of kids from birth to run giant army crushing robots... then turn them lose. But the kids can't use the robots for murder of all the people of earth because that's not sporting, not fair and only fight armies. Ultimately, a "right" person can't use grossly overpowering weapons on other people that are incapable of defending themselves.
That's why they almost never use "Coke" as a trademark. If you see it in print, every bottle, fountain dispenser, truck, poster, calender, etc has "Coca-Cola" in their classic script with the "dynamic ribbon device" the white-silver twisty ribbon thingy. They went so far as to commission somebody to make a patentable shape for their classic bottle shape and they keep the bottle shape in production so the trademark doesn't slip even a little.
Another example is McDonald's. Every item that goes out to a customer has some element of trademark or patent to it. They were using much different sandwich wrap than other people. The yellow-red straw is trademarked, the yellow stripped french fry box, the napkins are folded differently, the paper cup sizes were non-standard, and the yellow arch or arches are frickin' sacred.
exactly, they are specific about what is Godzilla and not suing every 'zilla that's a thrilla. They do release really crappy 'zilla movies every so often and they license merchandise regularly so they are still in business selling the brand. I think the Coke comparison is a good one. Trademark is about identity, and they're using their identity just like Coca-Cola continually updates and markets their identity.
I still think these Mickey Mouse lawyers need a Keenex and to stop crying over spilled Coke. They should spend time Googling things to do with their kids like Rollerblading or Jet-Skiing.