Too many old timers who will rail against it and too many idiots who will have a hard time with the concept.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting away from two systems and dropping the one that makes the least amount of sense but there will be hard resistance from a majority of people. Like anything else that is hard, Americans don't want to cut the cord but hope the future generations find a better way to deal with the problems it presents. It will be disruptive to society and that's just too hard a nut to crack for Joe Sixpack.
True but beating up on the entire western world isn't as popular around here as beating on Americans. So, even of the rest of the western or even the entire world does what someone is bitching it's just fashionable to act like only Americans do it. It's kind of like a racist claiming that only certain races take advantage of welfare and such.
The fact that I have used a system that does essentially the *exact* same thing in 1990, 7 years prior to Kodak filing for a patent, invalidates the claim Kodak is making.
Yeah, and the Wright brothers flew a plane who's basic design is based on the same aeronautic principals that are still used to this day. I guess Boeing and AirBus should just hang it up and realize that their patents are bunk.
Whether or not it should can be set aside in this instance
No, it can't be set aside because by your standards a patent on a hybrid vehicle would be invalidated by prior art ala Karl Benz since both vehicles use internal combustion at some point and they both take a passenger to a destination on four wheels. Or the ENIAC would make just about any electrical calculating device unpatentable since they all calculate, fundamentally.
It's not the end product of what it does that matters, it's the process and the hardware supporting that process. Without the ability to patent innovations that spur on more efficient ways of coming to a similar end result, R&D in the private sector would come to a halt.
Actually, you couldn't in Apple's case given both the software and the doubtless proprietary hardware. You're not seeing my statement as inclusive where it fits your needs but otherwise you do. This is the kind of Slashdot bickering that muddies the water.
And I thought that software was covered as copyright while the processes were covered as patents.
Odd. I always thought that a specific process done by specific hardware qualified as a patent. But since you obviously have no interest in expounding on your claims I guess there isn't much to discuss.
So you're claiming that any system caught a still image on any device and could preview said picture while viewing a video feed should automatically invalidate the Kodak claim? I just want to back this up with asking if you looked over the specifics of the patent... They're not really the same thing. Kodak's system does what your system does, yes. But Kodak's system takes it further with specifics that were doubtlessly lacking in your video production unit of 1990. Note language like "single integrated circuit" and you should understand what I'm talking about.
Dance around the issue all you want but it doesn't hold any water with me. I see you as limited and outdated by your inability to deal with the subject at hand.
They should have put video footage of the Hindenburg ablaze with Herbert Morrison crying "Oh the humanity" in the background followed by the reporter looking directly into the camera and saying, in a grim voice, "this could be happening in Japan as we speak!"
Call me a sack of shit but I've downloaded mIRC myself about 15 times in my life and I have never sent anyone a dime for it. I know I'm far from being the only one who can honestly say this.
Downloads have nothing to do with marketshare or (in this case) profit.
I agree that, to quote Bill Shakespear, "when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."
But as a non-Republican conservative I think it is high time that the Republicans try to rope in some of the elements of their party that have not only shown them in a bad light but has also let some ideals get in the way of the facts.
Science on conservatism need not be at odds. Basing our entire future on prophecy of any nature is a failing. Morals need not be defended by religious zealotry. If you can't figure out your moral code without screaming that it's God's will to do so then maybe there is an underlying problem that needs addressed first.
So in this vein, I ask that people let their elected officials know that science needs to be given merit and consideration.
I also ask that Slashdotters understand that some of the most unscientific people I know are also Democrats. Party affiliation and scientific acceptence are not aligned as closely as what some may have you think.
I don't see this as a return to frugality - I see this as a warning shot for the industry.
If I was paying for it, I wouldn't have made the switch.
Uh, sorry? I'm not seeing the warning shot here, I'm seeing a guy admitting that if his new toy would have cost him some bucks it just wouldn't have happened.
In the meantime, I really don't think there is enough high level thinking going on in most consumer markets to support your assumption. The market still quivers in anticipation over every new tech toy. 3D isn't big yet but it will be. This was a mistimed market after the wide acceptance of affordable LCD/Plasma displays and the analog broadcast ban in the past 5 years. Had 3D been introduced 2 years ago it would have had a much faster adoption.
And if they don't the end result is death for Pandora. Give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, they will still be able to offer some of what you're looking for without turning to utter crap. If you felt that this was the end result of all publicly traded companies you wouldn't be involved with anything resembling modern technology and you sure as hell wouldn't be on Slashdot.
I don't expect my Pandora Tangerine Dream channel to become laced with Lady Caca just yet. Chill and give it a chance.
Otherwise, if you're willing to pay all the bills, I'm sure they'd accept your counteroffer.
Deposing a foreign government is much different than having masses of people believe in a certain set of ideas or ideals. Again one is clearly defined, either Britain is occupying or they are not. The other is much more difficult in that it will breed all levels of skepticism and the contempt people will feel in using this ideology as a deception to a greater goal. That's what I'm talking about. You see it all the time in conspiracy theory circles and this will be no different.
As much as I respect Gandhi, I wouldn't take this bit of wisdom as an absolute.
His fight was a much different cause in the nature of defined sides, lines and goals. A war of information can not be as easily defined and the goals in this case are so numerous and with so many different outcomes that I really can't see anyone claiming victory conclusively. I guess that means all involved will claim some kind of victory but even in that case most of them will be wrong.
Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook.
As a side note, I left FF months ago for Chrome and haven't looked back. I think most of the FF fanbase are those who still remember the glory days of old, not taking note that if you're praising FF and scoffing at IE you're just making yourself look like an ass to anyone who really shops around for software.
I switched to Chrome recently as well. I don't see myself going back to Firefox for a long time. I understand that they're well respected around here for being one of the early open source works to make serious in-roads on the desktop but it really is time to let it go.
In that case the next question is does he have the power to do this without pandering to other elected officals who find themselves in the same boat. I don't think that he has the power to do all of this single handedly. He would have to find a ton of people ready to drop out of politics who are willing to leave office with the scorn of the public hanging over their heads. It's another situation that is nearly impossible given all the elements involved. The only other option is to get a majority of voters on board but that has even worse odds.
The problem with "real meat" in most budgets is that it means cutting service. Someone is going to have to do without something in order to put all the ducks back in a row and that someone is probably going to bitch and moan about it.
For Jerry to do what he needs to do to really turn things around he'll never have a snowballs chance in hell for re-election to the post. Reform looks good on paper but in action it's an ugly thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Too many old timers who will rail against it and too many idiots who will have a hard time with the concept.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting away from two systems and dropping the one that makes the least amount of sense but there will be hard resistance from a majority of people. Like anything else that is hard, Americans don't want to cut the cord but hope the future generations find a better way to deal with the problems it presents. It will be disruptive to society and that's just too hard a nut to crack for Joe Sixpack.
True but beating up on the entire western world isn't as popular around here as beating on Americans. So, even of the rest of the western or even the entire world does what someone is bitching it's just fashionable to act like only Americans do it. It's kind of like a racist claiming that only certain races take advantage of welfare and such.
Zero predates Islam and Christianity.
The fact that I have used a system that does essentially the *exact* same thing in 1990, 7 years prior to Kodak filing for a patent, invalidates the claim Kodak is making.
Yeah, and the Wright brothers flew a plane who's basic design is based on the same aeronautic principals that are still used to this day. I guess Boeing and AirBus should just hang it up and realize that their patents are bunk.
Whether or not it should can be set aside in this instance
No, it can't be set aside because by your standards a patent on a hybrid vehicle would be invalidated by prior art ala Karl Benz since both vehicles use internal combustion at some point and they both take a passenger to a destination on four wheels. Or the ENIAC would make just about any electrical calculating device unpatentable since they all calculate, fundamentally.
It's not the end product of what it does that matters, it's the process and the hardware supporting that process. Without the ability to patent innovations that spur on more efficient ways of coming to a similar end result, R&D in the private sector would come to a halt.
Actually, you couldn't in Apple's case given both the software and the doubtless proprietary hardware. You're not seeing my statement as inclusive where it fits your needs but otherwise you do. This is the kind of Slashdot bickering that muddies the water.
And I thought that software was covered as copyright while the processes were covered as patents.
Odd. I always thought that a specific process done by specific hardware qualified as a patent. But since you obviously have no interest in expounding on your claims I guess there isn't much to discuss.
So you're claiming that any system caught a still image on any device and could preview said picture while viewing a video feed should automatically invalidate the Kodak claim? I just want to back this up with asking if you looked over the specifics of the patent... They're not really the same thing. Kodak's system does what your system does, yes. But Kodak's system takes it further with specifics that were doubtlessly lacking in your video production unit of 1990. Note language like "single integrated circuit" and you should understand what I'm talking about.
Dance around the issue all you want but it doesn't hold any water with me. I see you as limited and outdated by your inability to deal with the subject at hand.
People who think guns are either a problem or a solution are primitive. That includes you.
They should have put video footage of the Hindenburg ablaze with Herbert Morrison crying "Oh the humanity" in the background followed by the reporter looking directly into the camera and saying, in a grim voice, "this could be happening in Japan as we speak!"
I'm sure people would have ate it up.
Call me a sack of shit but I've downloaded mIRC myself about 15 times in my life and I have never sent anyone a dime for it. I know I'm far from being the only one who can honestly say this.
Downloads have nothing to do with marketshare or (in this case) profit.
I agree that, to quote Bill Shakespear, "when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."
But as a non-Republican conservative I think it is high time that the Republicans try to rope in some of the elements of their party that have not only shown them in a bad light but has also let some ideals get in the way of the facts.
Science on conservatism need not be at odds. Basing our entire future on prophecy of any nature is a failing. Morals need not be defended by religious zealotry. If you can't figure out your moral code without screaming that it's God's will to do so then maybe there is an underlying problem that needs addressed first.
So in this vein, I ask that people let their elected officials know that science needs to be given merit and consideration.
I also ask that Slashdotters understand that some of the most unscientific people I know are also Democrats. Party affiliation and scientific acceptence are not aligned as closely as what some may have you think.
I don't see this as a return to frugality - I see this as a warning shot for the industry.
If I was paying for it, I wouldn't have made the switch.
Uh, sorry? I'm not seeing the warning shot here, I'm seeing a guy admitting that if his new toy would have cost him some bucks it just wouldn't have happened.
In the meantime, I really don't think there is enough high level thinking going on in most consumer markets to support your assumption. The market still quivers in anticipation over every new tech toy. 3D isn't big yet but it will be. This was a mistimed market after the wide acceptance of affordable LCD/Plasma displays and the analog broadcast ban in the past 5 years. Had 3D been introduced 2 years ago it would have had a much faster adoption.
The 911 call was made by the victim.
As are blanket statements. Thanks for playing.
So does that mean that anyone who's against taxes is also a racist?
And if they don't the end result is death for Pandora. Give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, they will still be able to offer some of what you're looking for without turning to utter crap. If you felt that this was the end result of all publicly traded companies you wouldn't be involved with anything resembling modern technology and you sure as hell wouldn't be on Slashdot.
I don't expect my Pandora Tangerine Dream channel to become laced with Lady Caca just yet. Chill and give it a chance.
Otherwise, if you're willing to pay all the bills, I'm sure they'd accept your counteroffer.
the creators have lost my respect and with that, it is easier for me to walk away for now they will think of the share holder, not the customer
I'm curious, if you have these kinds of issues with small companies that go public, why are you here?
Deposing a foreign government is much different than having masses of people believe in a certain set of ideas or ideals. Again one is clearly defined, either Britain is occupying or they are not. The other is much more difficult in that it will breed all levels of skepticism and the contempt people will feel in using this ideology as a deception to a greater goal. That's what I'm talking about. You see it all the time in conspiracy theory circles and this will be no different.
As much as I respect Gandhi, I wouldn't take this bit of wisdom as an absolute.
His fight was a much different cause in the nature of defined sides, lines and goals. A war of information can not be as easily defined and the goals in this case are so numerous and with so many different outcomes that I really can't see anyone claiming victory conclusively. I guess that means all involved will claim some kind of victory but even in that case most of them will be wrong.
Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook.
As a side note, I left FF months ago for Chrome and haven't looked back. I think most of the FF fanbase are those who still remember the glory days of old, not taking note that if you're praising FF and scoffing at IE you're just making yourself look like an ass to anyone who really shops around for software.
I switched to Chrome recently as well. I don't see myself going back to Firefox for a long time. I understand that they're well respected around here for being one of the early open source works to make serious in-roads on the desktop but it really is time to let it go.
The boy just played far too much Minecraft.
In that case the next question is does he have the power to do this without pandering to other elected officals who find themselves in the same boat. I don't think that he has the power to do all of this single handedly. He would have to find a ton of people ready to drop out of politics who are willing to leave office with the scorn of the public hanging over their heads. It's another situation that is nearly impossible given all the elements involved. The only other option is to get a majority of voters on board but that has even worse odds.
The problem with "real meat" in most budgets is that it means cutting service. Someone is going to have to do without something in order to put all the ducks back in a row and that someone is probably going to bitch and moan about it.
For Jerry to do what he needs to do to really turn things around he'll never have a snowballs chance in hell for re-election to the post. Reform looks good on paper but in action it's an ugly thing.