The rumors that I've seen haven't mentioned a price. I'd figure $50 or so more than the 'AirPort Express Base Station with AirTunes' device which gives similar music-only functionality, so that would be $170-$200.
Of course, it could just replace it at the same price.
There are rumors that there will be a device introduced alongside this that will allow basically that use, yes. (Basically a small network access point that can be streamed the movie/song from your authorized computer.)
It won't go to any device, but your DVD player can't download movies anyway. It will take a 'compatable' player, and Apple will probably have standard outs for normal TVs on it.
What they are really saying is that they will let you try listening to their music without paying for it first. If you want to do anything with it, you have to pay.
Come singularity I want to be able to buy music, not just rent it.
But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one. Then maybe the media companies would realize that people don't want to pay for something continually.
And, well, if other idiots think that renting music is better than buying than maybe they should be allowed too.
Good points. Which is why it is important to have well-qualified people reviewing the claims: they can throw out any application that is too vague. It's a bit of a check and balance system: people file patents that are as vague as possible, to cover as much as possible, and the patent examiners throw out ones that are overly broad.
But you also are being a little loose in your definitons: In the transmission design example, you patent the novel implementation design of the new transmission. The non-novel parts of the design shouldn't be in the patent: they are irrelevent, but it is about the implementation of the design. A well written patent will mention only the essential details, and the rest is open to whatever best fits a particular case. Which of course means that changing those nonessential details doesn't mean you have stepped outside of the coverage of the patent. (And if there are two completely different ways to implent the essential details, file two patents!)
Of course, this is all how I think the patent system should work, from the reasoning in my economics classes, common sense, and the orginal arguments behind creating the system in the first place. This only bears a passing resemblence to the way it currently works in this country.
Patents are supposed to be on a specific implementation of a specific idea. If I see your idea and come up with my own, different, implementation, that should not be covered by your patent.
So, from your argument, copyright already does that for software. So what's the point of the patent again?
(Note: Ideas are not supposed to be patentable or copyrightable. Only implementations or expressions of them (respectively) are.)
The flaws in the Nuremburg defense are if the person executing the order can reasonably be sure the order itself is illegal or immoral. It is not always a bad defense. If they have no reason to believe there was not a good reason to obey the order or instruction, the blame for the action should be given to those who issued the order.
"I was just following orders" is an attempt to pass the blame. Sometimes the blame legitmately needs to be passed to those responsible, and sometimes it doesn't. Ignoring the attempt offhand does not help justice.
The main point really is that he believes he was fired because he is being blamed for something that is not his fault: He did what he was told, and what he was told was authorized by his bosses and the appropriate people. Blaming the mailclerk for the mail isn't good policy. (He's a little more involved then a mailclerk I assume, but how much I don't know.)
Then, if he doesn't want to work there, he can quit. There is a huge difference in being able to tell a prospective employeer that you quit because of the culture of blame-passing, and having to tell them you were fired because you released private data to the public.
Speed isn't important yet: First you have to actually do it, then you worry about speed. First, though, you make a prototype that works. They don't actually have that yet (just parts, of which this is one), so they don't know what the potential speed bottlenecks are. (Or what might be the best way to handle them.)
If you want to actually make money, the best is probably a combination. When first downloaded you get full functionality, for a time. This gets you hooked on all the features. Then the trial period runs out and the features are limited. You know the features are there, and you can still use the program, but to reactivate all the features you need to pay.
Simply shutting down the program at the end of the trial period, for me at least, means I will stop running the program and thinking about it. I'll probably check to see if there is another way to do what I need, without using your program. If you want me to pay, you need to keep me using it, but disable enough that I think paying is worth it.
I wrote my thesis using LaTeX and it was such an easy process once I learned the syntax.
And that's the problem right there. You have to learn, and read, the syntax yourself. That's a lot of work for just marking up documents, especially since Word or WordPerfect can do a decent job with a lot less of a learning curve.
LaTeX makes some sense if you are doing lots of documents professionally, but for someone who's likely to only write a handful of papers it's overkill. And if you are laying out lots of documents professionally, Quark or a competitor is probably worth the investment. The learning curve is about the same, and it has more cred outside the geek-world.
How about the risk of them getting run down by a cab crossing the street? It's far more likely. Given the logic of some of these measures, the appropriate thing to do would be to make sure no one was allowed to walk anywhere.
And, as for putting stuff in my luggage... The main reason I carried items in my carry-on was so they didn't get stolen. If it was in my hands, I could watch it. I'm not even allowed to lock the stuff I turn over to the airline. (And would you trust minimum-wage baggage handlers?)
Nah. It's just that they've learned from the RIAA's mess. They realize they are where the music industry was in the mid-90's, with downloading movies just becoming practical, and they don't want to loose control of their revenue stream.
Apple showed that people will pay for downloads, if they are presented with few enough restrictions. So, the MPAA is trying to pre-empt the P2P people by getting legal downloads in place before illegal ones take off.
And your human scheduler will be able to predict when a thunderstorm will hit?
A computer can come up with a rational base schedule, at least as well as a human. It takes some programming, but it's not that hard a problem. (I've done it, for a situation which needed a set number of people on at all times.)
I wouldn't turn it completely over to the computer at this point: they'll have trouble when something unexpected happens, but handing the grudge work over to the computer and having a human as backup who can say when it is obviously making dumb choices will only lead to less work for the human, and more consistent management of the operations.
Give the computer a chance to learn, and some feedback, and it will probably do better than a human in the long run.
Actually, the defaults aren't different. But the (independent) programmer is likely to know what they can put in the contract to change that better than the artist, and the programmer is more likely to be able to sway their client with technobabble.
Yes, but the code also isn't likely to exist yet. So you are going to have to hire someone to write it. And then they own the code (depending on your contract), and may not open-source it.
Or there may be one proprietary software house with code for your situation, but no open source code. In which case it is cheaper in the short term (and less risky) to just buy a licence to their code.
Remember: the more rent the programmer can charge you the more money they can make. So, if there is a company with a small speciality, it might be able to keep it's code to itself and charge rent indefinately. Open Source benifits the users directly, and only benifts the programmers indirectly, if at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The rumors that I've seen haven't mentioned a price. I'd figure $50 or so more than the 'AirPort Express Base Station with AirTunes' device which gives similar music-only functionality, so that would be $170-$200.
Of course, it could just replace it at the same price.
There are rumors that there will be a device introduced alongside this that will allow basically that use, yes. (Basically a small network access point that can be streamed the movie/song from your authorized computer.)
It won't go to any device, but your DVD player can't download movies anyway. It will take a 'compatable' player, and Apple will probably have standard outs for normal TVs on it.
Yes, but Apple intended that.
In all of the above cases: the fact that people will not buy the product. People will notice. (And, a couple of those have been tried.)
Would you notice if a webpage was changed discretely? Will people stop using IE?
What they are really saying is that they will let you try listening to their music without paying for it first. If you want to do anything with it, you have to pay.
Which isn't a bad idea, acutally...
Windows is reasonably priced?
Riiiight. Um, good luck with that.
Come singularity I want to be able to buy music, not just rent it.
But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one. Then maybe the media companies would realize that people don't want to pay for something continually.
And, well, if other idiots think that renting music is better than buying than maybe they should be allowed too.
Good points. Which is why it is important to have well-qualified people reviewing the claims: they can throw out any application that is too vague. It's a bit of a check and balance system: people file patents that are as vague as possible, to cover as much as possible, and the patent examiners throw out ones that are overly broad.
But you also are being a little loose in your definitons: In the transmission design example, you patent the novel implementation design of the new transmission. The non-novel parts of the design shouldn't be in the patent: they are irrelevent, but it is about the implementation of the design. A well written patent will mention only the essential details, and the rest is open to whatever best fits a particular case. Which of course means that changing those nonessential details doesn't mean you have stepped outside of the coverage of the patent. (And if there are two completely different ways to implent the essential details, file two patents!)
Of course, this is all how I think the patent system should work, from the reasoning in my economics classes, common sense, and the orginal arguments behind creating the system in the first place. This only bears a passing resemblence to the way it currently works in this country.
Patents are supposed to be on a specific implementation of a specific idea. If I see your idea and come up with my own, different, implementation, that should not be covered by your patent.
So, from your argument, copyright already does that for software. So what's the point of the patent again?
(Note: Ideas are not supposed to be patentable or copyrightable. Only implementations or expressions of them (respectively) are.)
I can't claim any great insight: I just described what the programs I've actually paid for did...
Heh. Honestly, when I hit 'reply', there wasn't a single comment on the page...
Anyone else read that and wonder what IBM would want with the International Space Station?
Of course, they could probably run it better than NASA these days...
The flaws in the Nuremburg defense are if the person executing the order can reasonably be sure the order itself is illegal or immoral. It is not always a bad defense. If they have no reason to believe there was not a good reason to obey the order or instruction, the blame for the action should be given to those who issued the order.
"I was just following orders" is an attempt to pass the blame. Sometimes the blame legitmately needs to be passed to those responsible, and sometimes it doesn't. Ignoring the attempt offhand does not help justice.
The main point really is that he believes he was fired because he is being blamed for something that is not his fault: He did what he was told, and what he was told was authorized by his bosses and the appropriate people. Blaming the mailclerk for the mail isn't good policy. (He's a little more involved then a mailclerk I assume, but how much I don't know.)
Then, if he doesn't want to work there, he can quit. There is a huge difference in being able to tell a prospective employeer that you quit because of the culture of blame-passing, and having to tell them you were fired because you released private data to the public.
Speed isn't important yet: First you have to actually do it, then you worry about speed. First, though, you make a prototype that works. They don't actually have that yet (just parts, of which this is one), so they don't know what the potential speed bottlenecks are. (Or what might be the best way to handle them.)
If you want to actually make money, the best is probably a combination. When first downloaded you get full functionality, for a time. This gets you hooked on all the features. Then the trial period runs out and the features are limited. You know the features are there, and you can still use the program, but to reactivate all the features you need to pay.
Simply shutting down the program at the end of the trial period, for me at least, means I will stop running the program and thinking about it. I'll probably check to see if there is another way to do what I need, without using your program. If you want me to pay, you need to keep me using it, but disable enough that I think paying is worth it.
And that's the problem right there. You have to learn, and read, the syntax yourself. That's a lot of work for just marking up documents, especially since Word or WordPerfect can do a decent job with a lot less of a learning curve.
LaTeX makes some sense if you are doing lots of documents professionally, but for someone who's likely to only write a handful of papers it's overkill. And if you are laying out lots of documents professionally, Quark or a competitor is probably worth the investment. The learning curve is about the same, and it has more cred outside the geek-world.
I'm trying to use the same style logic as that used for the security measures at airports, not actual sense.
How about the risk of them getting run down by a cab crossing the street? It's far more likely. Given the logic of some of these measures, the appropriate thing to do would be to make sure no one was allowed to walk anywhere.
And, as for putting stuff in my luggage... The main reason I carried items in my carry-on was so they didn't get stolen. If it was in my hands, I could watch it. I'm not even allowed to lock the stuff I turn over to the airline. (And would you trust minimum-wage baggage handlers?)
Nah. It's just that they've learned from the RIAA's mess. They realize they are where the music industry was in the mid-90's, with downloading movies just becoming practical, and they don't want to loose control of their revenue stream.
Apple showed that people will pay for downloads, if they are presented with few enough restrictions. So, the MPAA is trying to pre-empt the P2P people by getting legal downloads in place before illegal ones take off.
And your human scheduler will be able to predict when a thunderstorm will hit?
A computer can come up with a rational base schedule, at least as well as a human. It takes some programming, but it's not that hard a problem. (I've done it, for a situation which needed a set number of people on at all times.)
I wouldn't turn it completely over to the computer at this point: they'll have trouble when something unexpected happens, but handing the grudge work over to the computer and having a human as backup who can say when it is obviously making dumb choices will only lead to less work for the human, and more consistent management of the operations.
Give the computer a chance to learn, and some feedback, and it will probably do better than a human in the long run.
I'd complain, but you seem to be doing better with my post than I did.
Actually, the defaults aren't different. But the (independent) programmer is likely to know what they can put in the contract to change that better than the artist, and the programmer is more likely to be able to sway their client with technobabble.
Yes, but the code also isn't likely to exist yet. So you are going to have to hire someone to write it. And then they own the code (depending on your contract), and may not open-source it.
Or there may be one proprietary software house with code for your situation, but no open source code. In which case it is cheaper in the short term (and less risky) to just buy a licence to their code.
Remember: the more rent the programmer can charge you the more money they can make. So, if there is a company with a small speciality, it might be able to keep it's code to itself and charge rent indefinately. Open Source benifits the users directly, and only benifts the programmers indirectly, if at all.