GSM vs. CDMA? We have both here(US), and for the most part they both equally suck.
Same can be said for lots of standards.
Somehow people have it in their head that global automagically equals better.
Reason?? In a discussion about fission??? Heck it's nigh impossible to get people to allow *any* kind of power facility near them. NIMBY is alive and kicking our butt.
There were supposed to be an additional 25 or so percent of area (wild approximation) that was on the disc and would be opened eventaully. Then, after a few months, they realeased a whole new disc instead. I think thay may have opened those areas by now, I don't know. I quit long ago.
If you bought the whole album them burn the playlist set up in the same order as the cd. If your ripping software supports CDDB or gracenote, then it will add the album info as if it was a original CD.
And if you are burning and re-ripping, you are still illegial byt your standards. Just because Apple doesn't do anything to stop you from doing it that way does not mean that you're not still bypassing the DRM.
Either way you are breaking the DCMA.
Also condsider the possiblity that someone mya use this and not share it at all. (i.e. use thier music in an non-ipod player)
WAAAHHH!! Make the meanies go away!!!!! </badgering>
Ok, so the games reflect what thier creators see as reality, to an extent. The art is cruel because the humanity they see is inherently cruel, as much as we would like to pretend otherwise.
Well my DVD drive probably did come with such software (don't they all?).
Yeah, I remember now, because the POS software didn't work worth a crap, or at all. Some crap about overlays. The authoring software that came with it was almost as bad.
Seems pretty stupid of MS not to license the codec, since most new systems have a dvd reader at least.
Your first example doesn't seem likely or to apply here. If you are giving the process away for the good of everyone, what use is patent protection? (you are not getting paid either way) And what difference does it make if someone you don't like figures out how to implement your process, when you are giving it away anyway. (also I think linux distros would be hesitant to incorporate patented code, even if it is OSS licnesed. You may be nice with the patent, but who knows about your heirs? That kind of thing.)
The second example, yes they spent resources to come up with this new idea. But MS also has to spend the resources to figure out how to do it (unless they do something otherwise illegial, like stealing the source) on thier system. It has always been the case that competeing companies try to develop thier own versions of thier competitors (successful) features. The company that does it first (Apple) usually ends up with some short term advantage regardless.
The PC end of the industry was founded in cloning (not outright copying) what someone else first designed. Yet, this has not stopped innovation in the PC industry. It lead to a continual raising of the standards of what the PC should do. Companies have to keep innvoating because the advantage from thier past innvoations will only last for so long.
The same thing has worked for Apple too. They have benefited from being the first to fully implement several technolgies, while the PC end plays catch-up. (USB, firewire, non-boring case design, we could go on...)
Look at AMD vs Intel. Everything one of them does is one-upped in short order. Yet they still work at it.
What motivation does a company have to try to produce something better when the whole industry is a minefield of concepts that you can't touch because someone else thought of them first? Perhaps software patents could be useful, but not in their present form.
Perhaps a very short lifespan, give the inventing comapny a year or so of monopoly, then open it up. I can't help thinking we may be laying a legal minefield for others to inherit.
It's a small (but useful) addition to an existing concept. The code itself is protected by copyright, so the only use for getting a patent for this is to prevent anyone else from advancing thier UI.
Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not conecpts. In software specific implementations (the code) are already covered by copyright and trade secrets. Here it is being used to say that noone but Patentholder may make something that does X. Only in computing do we allow such control of concepts.
What if everything was done this way? "Sorry FooCo has a patent on cars with three doors, you can't put that rear door on your truck." "Sorry BarCorp has a patent on methods of displaying text on a screen, you'll have to stick with the teletype or license from them."
This is why software patents just don't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
GSM vs. CDMA? We have both here(US), and for the most part they both equally suck. Same can be said for lots of standards. Somehow people have it in their head that global automagically equals better.
..with watercooling, I overclocked my PC Jr to a amazing 11 mhz!!! WOOT!!!!
Reason?? In a discussion about fission??? Heck it's nigh impossible to get people to allow *any* kind of power facility near them. NIMBY is alive and kicking our butt.
You mean we can repost? Cool! How does one do this?
Sure they can, just bring them in for questioing for classified reasons for a calssified length of time in a classified location. Like they do now.
Do I get a medal now?
Anyone care to explain?
Are we censoring the threads now? Will I get booted for making this post??Thoughtcrime in the comments?
All your frequency circuitry are belong to submarine patent!!!
There were supposed to be an additional 25 or so percent of area (wild approximation) that was on the disc and would be opened eventaully. Then, after a few months, they realeased a whole new disc instead. I think thay may have opened those areas by now, I don't know. I quit long ago.
Meanwhile our schools continue the slide into the abyss. Just great! Feh!
He's giving just as much respect as they deserve. Probably more. They're lucky he doesn't sue them for libel/slander.
only works on whole ablums unfortunately
Either way you are breaking the DCMA.
Also condsider the possiblity that someone mya use this and not share it at all. (i.e. use thier music in an non-ipod player)Seems like the governments in Europe were getting along just fine without a meta-government anyway.
But, I'm not there so maybe you shouldn't listen to me.WAAAHHH!!
Make the meanies go away!!!!!
</badgering>
Ok, so the games reflect what thier creators see as reality, to an extent. The art is cruel because the humanity they see is inherently cruel, as much as we would like to pretend otherwise.
Yeah, I remember now, because the POS software didn't work worth a crap, or at all. Some crap about overlays. The authoring software that came with it was almost as bad.
Seems pretty stupid of MS not to license the codec, since most new systems have a dvd reader at least.Welcome to the remains of the failed US legal system, have fun!
Put the dvd in, WiMP pops up and starts going. Or do I have some unique magical copy of WiMP? (maybe I downloaded some obscure update that added it??)
Either way it will never happen, too inconvienent.
All he needs is a P-P-Powerbook! Infinite battery life too!
And at least this way the sleazebag didn't profit from it. Also, note that the scammer only actually paid the (crazy high) import duty.
Because raving nationalism is great as long as you're not from the US, right??
The second example, yes they spent resources to come up with this new idea. But MS also has to spend the resources to figure out how to do it (unless they do something otherwise illegial, like stealing the source) on thier system. It has always been the case that competeing companies try to develop thier own versions of thier competitors (successful) features. The company that does it first (Apple) usually ends up with some short term advantage regardless.
The PC end of the industry was founded in cloning (not outright copying) what someone else first designed. Yet, this has not stopped innovation in the PC industry. It lead to a continual raising of the standards of what the PC should do. Companies have to keep innvoating because the advantage from thier past innvoations will only last for so long.The same thing has worked for Apple too. They have benefited from being the first to fully implement several technolgies, while the PC end plays catch-up. (USB, firewire, non-boring case design, we could go on...)
Look at AMD vs Intel. Everything one of them does is one-upped in short order. Yet they still work at it.
What motivation does a company have to try to produce something better when the whole industry is a minefield of concepts that you can't touch because someone else thought of them first? Perhaps software patents could be useful, but not in their present form.Perhaps a very short lifespan, give the inventing comapny a year or so of monopoly, then open it up. I can't help thinking we may be laying a legal minefield for others to inherit.
Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not conecpts. In software specific implementations (the code) are already covered by copyright and trade secrets. Here it is being used to say that noone but Patentholder may make something that does X. Only in computing do we allow such control of concepts.
What if everything was done this way? "Sorry FooCo has a patent on cars with three doors, you can't put that rear door on your truck." "Sorry BarCorp has a patent on methods of displaying text on a screen, you'll have to stick with the teletype or license from them."This is why software patents just don't make sense.