It already is! Recall that work is measured in joules (distance of mass per time). Then look outside the window at a modern European or American nation.
Where are all the joules (work) coming from? Not by human effort! 90% of it is from machines. Look at all the energy that goes into driving North Americans to their Labour Day holidays!
Some might disagree and say that all of the output of these machines isn't "work", as does the article author when claiming that 50% of modern work is in service industries (like McDonalds). That's because he's already accepted an altered definition of work that excludes non-human efforts.
Take the perspective of a 17th century economist and ask what tasks account for most of the "work" done in a nation- the list includes plowing, digging, hammering, sewing, scrubbing, and chopping (amoung similar things). Today all but one of those (scrubbing) are performed by machines. As Roblimo mentioned last week, agricultural food production is the only really important job. The US makes 5x more food than it did a century ago by employing 10x fewer people.
The time when most work is performed by machine has long since come. A more accurate description of the question facing us in the future (as addressed by the article) is: What happens when unskilled jobs cease to exist?
After, they loudly condemned NASA for ever wanting to send humans up into space in the first place.
Those people never changed their tune- the media and the rest of you just only listen right after an accident.
The prominent anti-shuttle articles were written long before the program had any disasters. But nobody likes to hear the downside unless the sad facts are staring them right in the face.
I tell them to shut down all power except minimal heating, and then draw straws and kill three of their male crew. That way they'll have supplies for 70 days.
In that time period, another shuttle (with a crew of two volunteers) can rendezvous and extract them by spacewalk.
It is because NASA didn't want to make a spectacle of ordering men to commit suicide that they were reluctant to check for surface damage to the heat panels. They lost all the crew because they were too scared to face the risk of losing 3 of them.
They attempted to use the patent system exactly as it was intended: To secure for an inventor the exclusive right to his discovery for 21 years.
When the US government reneged on that patent and used airplanes without paying what the Wrights demanded, they deprived them of funds that could've exceeded $50,000,000,000 in today's dollars.
Rather than evading the patent system in that one rare instance where they where the big victim, the government should've overhauled patent law in general. Instead they left the law as it had been when the Wrights tried to (ab)use it.
That sounds like a relatively small improvement in the odds.
I'm also dubious about anything nearby the Challenger explosion surviving. However, there are some helpful factors.
If two pounds of foam can make such a big hole, imagine what a chunk of metal shrapnel from an exploding rocket would do.
But the damage from the foam only became dangerous in the high-stress environment of atmospheric re-entry. After a booster explosion, you'd only have to glide down from 3000m or so. You could do this with parachutes (either a large one for the whole craft, or even individual ejection-seats).
Other design improvements could've helped survivablity in that accident: If the vehicle had been designed as a traditional nosecone capsule rather than a spaceplane, it's default tumbling behavior might've been to
If the boosters had used a stabler fuel than hydrogen, then the explosion would've been weaker, or might not even have happened at all. (The rockets could've been smaller if the military hadn't thought they'd need the shuttle to lift spy satellites. (They wouldn't have thought that if the Nixon administration hadn't passed down a mandate that all US satellites would be launched by shuttle (He wouldn't have done that if he didn't need a circle argument to justify Pentagon support for a shuttle (Nixon wouldn't have needed a shuttle at all if he hadn't been trying to be a greater President than JFK))))
Disregarding the two catastrophes which were attributed to mismanagement, the system is 105 for 105.
That's misattribution... or at least not hitting the root cause.
It's acceptable (for some purposes) to disregard the fatalities during the 1960s ELV (expendable launch vehicle) space research- they were due to design errors that were corrected. But you can't similarly discount the shuttle accidents from its safety record.
The reason "mismanagement" killed two shuttles is because the shuttle is a too complex design, especially since one stated goal of the shuttle program was "reduced launch cost". You can't repeat something complicated and do it correctly each time, while under constant pressure to reduce cost. But that pressure is unavoidable- partly because most shuttle missions are meaningless to begin with.
So if you want to call it mismanagement, it can only be due to the administrative decision to fly Space Shuttles at all.
For more info, read Hickam's full editorial, which the NYTimes abridged in their printing. Easterbrook's article is also excellent (written as it was before Challenger even lifted off). As were the slashdot threads from the 72 hours following the Columbia destruction.
His intent is more clear if you read the whole essay, not just the version abridged for the NYTimes.
(I wish the slashdot editors would add a link to the full story into the summary!)
I'll exerpt Hickam's answer to those 2 questions:
Simply put, had that spaceplane been on top of the stack, the destruction of Columbia would not have occurred because its wings would have been out of the line of fire. Challenger would probably not have happened, either. Had the spaceplane been above the explosion, it likely would have been able to punch out and glide back home.
Yes, I see the chart, and don't see what the problem is. 8 drinks will get even the heftiest man to 0.15%. Unless you're more than 240 pounds... prehaps I'm being insensitive towards obesity?
(I'm not saying that 0.15% is a legal limit for incapacity, but it's pretty good. Try to spill some on the CD case for more evidence)
The difference being, the speed limit is a LAW and the EULA is a CONTRACT.
Each individual speed limit is just a regulation. Ignorance of a location-specific regulation can be a defense. Drivers, however, agreed to read and obey all speed limit signs before getting a license. Operating a motor vehicle without paying enough attention to notice properly-installed speed limit signs is a violation in itself.
So either way he argues it, he deserves the fine.
There's additional differences between speedlimits and EULAs: EULAs forbid you from doing something you have the legal right to do (use software once you've paid for it). Traffic rules permit you to drive cars on government property, which is illegal unless you play by their rules.
What country are you in? That may apply somewhere (it did in the UK, recently), but it's not like that in the US. There, copyright law allows you to duplicate a computer program if such reproduction is essential to it's normal operation.
In fact, the GPL relies on a similar mechanism.
The GPL is nothing like an EULA, although scaremongers try to invent similarities. The GPL does depend on copyright, of course... but differently than an EULA. EULAs are actually less related to copyright than you thought.
Some people look at the postition you describe, and try to claim it invalidates the GPL. They argue that since the user of a GPLed program doesn't communicate consent back to the publisher, no contract can be made.
This isn't a problem though- there's actually nothing wrong with the GPL not going into effect until the parties actually meet up, which could be years later or never.
The GPL can be considered a standby contract which the recipient can employ if by some chance the copyright holder accuses him of infringement.
Signing a contract with a handwritten signature has a stronger legal standing than other means of indicating acceptance. There had to be a special law passed to make digital signatures equivalent to handwritten ones in the US.
Note that a core requirement for a digital signature to be strongly valid is that a record is made of the transaction- both parties know not just when the transaction occured, but also who the other party was. That is not the case with shrinkwrap or typical click-thru.
I read the article, thanks. He COULD BOOT LINUX WITHOUT BOOTING WINDOWS.
All that happened is after making any change to the BIOS, such as changing the boot device to CD-Rom, he could now boot windows without going through the startup-license.
He COULD NOT get the warning back, or boot off of a Linux CD.
The fact that he couldn't get the warning back means he's good to go. Your statement that he couldn't boot of a Linux CD is incorrect- he never tried. Because he was in a contrary mood and only wanted to cause aggravation with Dell, he stopped trying when the warning disappeared. If he had rebooted once more with the Linux CD inserted, it would've loaded. I suspect that he really didn't feel like installing Linux at all, and gave up once it became possible.
This guy wasn't interested in making the computer run, only making a irritating EULA situation look as bad as possible to throw up an alarm.
Hog wash. The size of the orbiter precludes an inline configuration.
The existence of a large orbiter is the design flaw. There is no need for the launch vehicle to be "reusable". It serves no purpose except good publicity. A shuttle zooming downward to a 3-point landing projects an image of confidence and control. A capsule drifting to a soggy splashdown is humiliating by comparison- but the crew could survive the reentry even with the pilots unconcious and total failure of all onboard electronics.
If you want to fly "spam in a can" on top of a larger rockets then welcome back to 1960!
Yeah, when launches cost 30% as much and were 1400% safer...
Kudos to Taco and everyone at OSDN for their ongoing global domination!
Have you seen Surasshudot Japan? Aside from the slightly more elaborate character set, it's indistinguishable from the original. OSDN-approved, too. (Nobody there seems to like me, I wonder why...)
Everyone should just hire some blind people to set up their systems for them.
Or you could hire a child of under 18.
But staffing is expensive. It's more economical to ingest 5-8 beers prior to installation. Nobody can be held to contracts entered while in "diminished capacity", such as having a blood alcohol content of 0.15%.
That's a good point I guess. I never close it, just wait for Mozilla to crash. It usually takes less than 200 days. Of course, a certain power-failure interrupted my last browsing session...
Umm... Google owns software patents. Sergey is listed as an inventor. Other companies are now resuming the fight for web-search dominance, and this patent is part of Google's defense.
It means that no one else in the US can use their highly-successful ranking algorithm. Google stands to benefit greatly from software patents- I can't expect them to take such an expensive moral stand.
(Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos stood against software patents, even though his company benefits from them. But there's much more to Amazon.com than a piece of software. Google basically justs rents access to that algorithm and their webcrawled database- and othercompanies have equally extensive databases...)
It's really a software EULA. Dell is trying to address the loophole often pointed out by anti-shrinkwrap advocates:
When someone buys a computer with Microsoft(tm) Windows XP (r) pre-installed, he's been subjected to neither the shrinkwrap EULA nor the click-thru one.
Microsoft, naturally, wants all their users to have gone through the agreements. Dell is trying to keep Microsoft happy.
Hardware isn't just a license, it's tangible.
Even accepting the harshest possible legal interpretation, you can still buy a Dell computer and do whatever you like with the hardware. You'll just have to reformat the hard-drive to clear off that pesky EULA message before using it.
I'd recommend Linux as an easy way to wipe the drive, and still have a functional computer afterwards. If you're a Slashdot member, you were probably planning that anyhow, right?
I've heard that courts have upheld them, but I can't find a judge's opinion on the matter. I already posted comment linking to the court's opinion. I'm just replying to you directly since you seem interested, and don't want you to miss out if you don't re-read this page.
Attempting to make a purchase into a license after the sale has taken place, just doesn't seem legally enforcable.
It isn't, but the highest US Court to consider the issue so far does not agree. Read the bile that is the ProCD opinion.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, so we have some hope that sanity will overcome. If a cooperative software vendor wanted to speed the case to a victorious conclusion, he could just modify 1% of his shrinkwrap EULAs to include an extra provision- something outlandish like an additional $1000 monthly fee as long as the product is installed. The ensuing lawsuit would clearly demonstrate the folly of the ProCD position.
If shrinkwrap/clickwrap is genuinely an opportunity to enter into an arbitrary contract, then such a clause would stand up (and IT departments would start hiring a lot more lawyers to install patches). But of course, intelligent judges will realize that a person engaged in opening/installing software is in no position to pore through legalese, and that contractual agreements cannot be a conventional part of such events.
If the user can't be bothered to read the agreement before accepting it,
But the fact is, they're not "accepting an agreement". They are either "installing software" or "applying a patch".
Either of those activities is something they are legally allowed to do, since they've already paid for the software.
Popping up a piece of legalese and claiming that a person agrees to it by performing some other action- which you have no right to forbid him from doing- is invalid. Watch this: "By closing this browser window, you agree to mail Minna Kirai $700". Is that binding? (I wish).
The ProCD decision widely cited as precedent for the validity of shrinkwrap licensing is simply wrong. If it ever gets kicked up to the Supreme Court, they'll immediately see why. It claims that by opening a box, the user has indicated acceptance of a license. But it is impossible to "indicate" anything if the other party has no idea whether or not you've performed the action! "Indication" can only happen if communication occurs.
The parties to a shrinkwrap or click-thru "license" are not in communication, thus they have no way to enter a contract.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Doom took 10 guys to make. Yep, you're wrong. 1 John Carmack 2 Michael Abrash 3 John Romero 4 Sandy Peterson 5 Dave Taylor 6 Shawn Green 7 Adrian Carmack 8 Kevin Cloud 9 Robert Prince 10 Paul Radek
So frankly I see no problem in patenting an algorithm. I see no problem is patenting software. I see no problem in pathenting a business method.
Especially with the example of business methods, you're ignoring the very function patents were created to serve.
Patents are meant to encourage disclosure of discoveries- to ensure that an inventor won't just use a creation in his lab for his own benefit, but share it with the world without risking immediate duplication.
Something like a business method can have no use without disclosing it. So the original justification for patents then doesn't apply.
So that's what it is! I give job interviews, and ask "What is the largest or most impressive computer program you've ever written?"
Frequently if the applicant is an MIT student, they respond with "a pinball game". Now I can see what assignment those kids were fulfilling with that game.
Note that I don't consider it very impressive if a student has never made any program larger than a single semester's final project. A good programmer should have some love of the art, and will have 1-2 good hobbyist projects under his belt. In the case of Gizmoball, it's even less of an achievement, since the students get a good quantity of examplecode provided. Isn't it reasonable to expect that MIT students can roll their own elastic-collision physics?
Re:Knowledge is power.
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You CANNOT get credit for coursework via this method.
Duh, he's talking about trends in the near-future. The fact that MIT doesn't currently give credit for non-paying online students is irrelevant.
Someday, the marketplace will drive colleges to split up their student-based revenue into two parellel streams: testing and tutoring.
A person will be able to independently decide whether he wants MIT to educate him about a subject, to certify that he's been educated on it, or both. For quality schools, that certification will often be much more elaborate than a single test event.
To some extent, a student can already choose to get only the tutoring portion and not the testing. This is called "auditing a class". But today, a person who's already so expert in a subject that she can safely skip each lecture and still pass the final has no way to avoid paying for those lecture sessions.
Slashdot Mirror
"Most manual labor performed by machines"?
It already is! Recall that work is measured in joules (distance of mass per time). Then look outside the window at a modern European or American nation.
Where are all the joules (work) coming from? Not by human effort! 90% of it is from machines. Look at all the energy that goes into driving North Americans to their Labour Day holidays!
Some might disagree and say that all of the output of these machines isn't "work", as does the article author when claiming that 50% of modern work is in service industries (like McDonalds). That's because he's already accepted an altered definition of work that excludes non-human efforts.
Take the perspective of a 17th century economist and ask what tasks account for most of the "work" done in a nation- the list includes plowing, digging, hammering, sewing, scrubbing, and chopping (amoung similar things). Today all but one of those (scrubbing) are performed by machines. As Roblimo mentioned last week, agricultural food production is the only really important job. The US makes 5x more food than it did a century ago by employing 10x fewer people.
The time when most work is performed by machine has long since come. A more accurate description of the question facing us in the future (as addressed by the article) is: What happens when unskilled jobs cease to exist?
After, they loudly condemned NASA for ever wanting to send humans up into space in the first place.
Those people never changed their tune- the media and the rest of you just only listen right after an accident.
The prominent anti-shuttle articles were written long before the program had any disasters. But nobody likes to hear the downside unless the sad facts are staring them right in the face.
I tell them to shut down all power except minimal heating, and then draw straws and kill three of their male crew. That way they'll have supplies for 70 days.
In that time period, another shuttle (with a crew of two volunteers) can rendezvous and extract them by spacewalk.
It is because NASA didn't want to make a spectacle of ordering men to commit suicide that they were reluctant to check for surface damage to the heat panels. They lost all the crew because they were too scared to face the risk of losing 3 of them.
They attempted to use the patent system exactly as it was intended: To secure for an inventor the exclusive right to his discovery for 21 years.
When the US government reneged on that patent and used airplanes without paying what the Wrights demanded, they deprived them of funds that could've exceeded $50,000,000,000 in today's dollars.
Rather than evading the patent system in that one rare instance where they where the big victim, the government should've overhauled patent law in general. Instead they left the law as it had been when the Wrights tried to (ab)use it.
That sounds like a relatively small improvement in the odds.
I'm also dubious about anything nearby the Challenger explosion surviving. However, there are some helpful factors.
If two pounds of foam can make such a big hole, imagine what a chunk of metal shrapnel from an exploding rocket would do.
But the damage from the foam only became dangerous in the high-stress environment of atmospheric re-entry. After a booster explosion, you'd only have to glide down from 3000m or so. You could do this with parachutes (either a large one for the whole craft, or even individual ejection-seats).
Other design improvements could've helped survivablity in that accident:
If the vehicle had been designed as a traditional nosecone capsule rather than a spaceplane, it's default tumbling behavior might've been to
If the boosters had used a stabler fuel than hydrogen, then the explosion would've been weaker, or might not even have happened at all. (The rockets could've been smaller if the military hadn't thought they'd need the shuttle to lift spy satellites. (They wouldn't have thought that if the Nixon administration hadn't passed down a mandate that all US satellites would be launched by shuttle (He wouldn't have done that if he didn't need a circle argument to justify Pentagon support for a shuttle (Nixon wouldn't have needed a shuttle at all if he hadn't been trying to be a greater President than JFK))))
Disregarding the two catastrophes which were attributed to mismanagement, the system is 105 for 105.
That's misattribution... or at least not hitting the root cause.
It's acceptable (for some purposes) to disregard the fatalities during the 1960s ELV (expendable launch vehicle) space research- they were due to design errors that were corrected. But you can't similarly discount the shuttle accidents from its safety record.
The reason "mismanagement" killed two shuttles is because the shuttle is a too complex design, especially since one stated goal of the shuttle program was "reduced launch cost". You can't repeat something complicated and do it correctly each time, while under constant pressure to reduce cost. But that pressure is unavoidable- partly because most shuttle missions are meaningless to begin with.
So if you want to call it mismanagement, it can only be due to the administrative decision to fly Space Shuttles at all.
For more info, read Hickam's full editorial, which the NYTimes abridged in their printing. Easterbrook's article is also excellent (written as it was before Challenger even lifted off). As were the slashdot threads from the 72 hours following the Columbia destruction.
His intent is more clear if you read the whole essay, not just the version abridged for the NYTimes.
(I wish the slashdot editors would add a link to the full story into the summary!)
I'll exerpt Hickam's answer to those 2 questions:
Yes, I see the chart, and don't see what the problem is. 8 drinks will get even the heftiest man to 0.15%. Unless you're more than 240 pounds... prehaps I'm being insensitive towards obesity?
(I'm not saying that 0.15% is a legal limit for incapacity, but it's pretty good. Try to spill some on the CD case for more evidence)
The difference being, the speed limit is a LAW and the EULA is a CONTRACT.
Each individual speed limit is just a regulation. Ignorance of a location-specific regulation can be a defense. Drivers, however, agreed to read and obey all speed limit signs before getting a license. Operating a motor vehicle without paying enough attention to notice properly-installed speed limit signs is a violation in itself.
So either way he argues it, he deserves the fine.
There's additional differences between speedlimits and EULAs: EULAs forbid you from doing something you have the legal right to do (use software once you've paid for it). Traffic rules permit you to drive cars on government property, which is illegal unless you play by their rules.
What country are you in? That may apply somewhere (it did in the UK, recently), but it's not like that in the US. There, copyright law allows you to duplicate a computer program if such reproduction is essential to it's normal operation.
In fact, the GPL relies on a similar mechanism.
The GPL is nothing like an EULA, although scaremongers try to invent similarities. The GPL does depend on copyright, of course... but differently than an EULA. EULAs are actually less related to copyright than you thought.
You're correct, but here's a side note:
Some people look at the postition you describe, and try to claim it invalidates the GPL. They argue that since the user of a GPLed program doesn't communicate consent back to the publisher, no contract can be made.
This isn't a problem though- there's actually nothing wrong with the GPL not going into effect until the parties actually meet up, which could be years later or never.
The GPL can be considered a standby contract which the recipient can employ if by some chance the copyright holder accuses him of infringement.
Signing a contract with a handwritten signature has a stronger legal standing than other means of indicating acceptance. There had to be a special law passed to make digital signatures equivalent to handwritten ones in the US.
Note that a core requirement for a digital signature to be strongly valid is that a record is made of the transaction- both parties know not just when the transaction occured, but also who the other party was. That is not the case with shrinkwrap or typical click-thru.
I read the article, thanks. He COULD BOOT LINUX WITHOUT BOOTING WINDOWS.
All that happened is after making any change to the BIOS, such as changing the boot device to CD-Rom, he could now boot windows without going through the startup-license.
He COULD NOT get the warning back, or boot off of a Linux CD.
The fact that he couldn't get the warning back means he's good to go. Your statement that he couldn't boot of a Linux CD is incorrect- he never tried. Because he was in a contrary mood and only wanted to cause aggravation with Dell, he stopped trying when the warning disappeared. If he had rebooted once more with the Linux CD inserted, it would've loaded. I suspect that he really didn't feel like installing Linux at all, and gave up once it became possible.
This guy wasn't interested in making the computer run, only making a irritating EULA situation look as bad as possible to throw up an alarm.
Hog wash. The size of the orbiter precludes an inline configuration.
The existence of a large orbiter is the design flaw. There is no need for the launch vehicle to be "reusable". It serves no purpose except good publicity. A shuttle zooming downward to a 3-point landing projects an image of confidence and control. A capsule drifting to a soggy splashdown is humiliating by comparison- but the crew could survive the reentry even with the pilots unconcious and total failure of all onboard electronics.
If you want to fly "spam in a can" on top of a larger rockets then welcome back to 1960!
Yeah, when launches cost 30% as much and were 1400% safer...
Kudos to Taco and everyone at OSDN for their ongoing global domination!
Have you seen Surasshudot Japan? Aside from the slightly more elaborate character set, it's indistinguishable from the original. OSDN-approved, too.
(Nobody there seems to like me, I wonder why...)
Everyone should just hire some blind people to set up their systems for them.
Or you could hire a child of under 18.
But staffing is expensive. It's more economical to ingest 5-8 beers prior to installation. Nobody can be held to contracts entered while in "diminished capacity", such as having a blood alcohol content of 0.15%.
That's a good point I guess. I never close it, just wait for Mozilla to crash. It usually takes less than 200 days. Of course, a certain power-failure interrupted my last browsing session...
How about Google?
Umm... Google owns software patents. Sergey is listed as an inventor. Other companies are now resuming the fight for web-search dominance, and this patent is part of Google's defense.
It means that no one else in the US can use their highly-successful ranking algorithm. Google stands to benefit greatly from software patents- I can't expect them to take such an expensive moral stand.
(Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos stood against software patents, even though his company benefits from them. But there's much more to Amazon.com than a piece of software. Google basically justs rents access to that algorithm and their webcrawled database- and other companies have equally extensive databases...)
It's really a software EULA. Dell is trying to address the loophole often pointed out by anti-shrinkwrap advocates:
Microsoft, naturally, wants all their users to have gone through the agreements. Dell is trying to keep Microsoft happy.
Hardware isn't just a license, it's tangible.
Even accepting the harshest possible legal interpretation, you can still buy a Dell computer and do whatever you like with the hardware. You'll just have to reformat the hard-drive to clear off that pesky EULA message before using it.
I'd recommend Linux as an easy way to wipe the drive, and still have a functional computer afterwards. If you're a Slashdot member, you were probably planning that anyhow, right?
I've heard that courts have upheld them, but I can't find a judge's opinion on the matter.
I already posted comment linking to the court's opinion. I'm just replying to you directly since you seem interested, and don't want you to miss out if you don't re-read this page.
Attempting to make a purchase into a license after the sale has taken place, just doesn't seem legally enforcable.
It isn't, but the highest US Court to consider the issue so far does not agree. Read the bile that is the ProCD opinion.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, so we have some hope that sanity will overcome. If a cooperative software vendor wanted to speed the case to a victorious conclusion, he could just modify 1% of his shrinkwrap EULAs to include an extra provision- something outlandish like an additional $1000 monthly fee as long as the product is installed. The ensuing lawsuit would clearly demonstrate the folly of the ProCD position.
If shrinkwrap/clickwrap is genuinely an opportunity to enter into an arbitrary contract, then such a clause would stand up (and IT departments would start hiring a lot more lawyers to install patches). But of course, intelligent judges will realize that a person engaged in opening/installing software is in no position to pore through legalese, and that contractual agreements cannot be a conventional part of such events.
If the user can't be bothered to read the agreement before accepting it,
But the fact is, they're not "accepting an agreement". They are either "installing software" or "applying a patch".
Either of those activities is something they are legally allowed to do, since they've already paid for the software.
Popping up a piece of legalese and claiming that a person agrees to it by performing some other action- which you have no right to forbid him from doing- is invalid. Watch this: "By closing this browser window, you agree to mail Minna Kirai $700". Is that binding? (I wish).
The ProCD decision widely cited as precedent for the validity of shrinkwrap licensing is simply wrong. If it ever gets kicked up to the Supreme Court, they'll immediately see why. It claims that by opening a box, the user has indicated acceptance of a license. But it is impossible to "indicate" anything if the other party has no idea whether or not you've performed the action! "Indication" can only happen if communication occurs.
The parties to a shrinkwrap or click-thru "license" are not in communication, thus they have no way to enter a contract.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Doom took 10 guys to make.
Yep, you're wrong.
1 John Carmack
2 Michael Abrash
3 John Romero
4 Sandy Peterson
5 Dave Taylor
6 Shawn Green
7 Adrian Carmack
8 Kevin Cloud
9 Robert Prince
10 Paul Radek
So frankly I see no problem in patenting an algorithm. I see no problem is patenting software. I see no problem in pathenting a business method.
Especially with the example of business methods, you're ignoring the very function patents were created to serve.
Patents are meant to encourage disclosure of discoveries- to ensure that an inventor won't just use a creation in his lab for his own benefit, but share it with the world without risking immediate duplication.
Something like a business method can have no use without disclosing it. So the original justification for patents then doesn't apply.
So that's what it is! I give job interviews, and ask "What is the largest or most impressive computer program you've ever written?"
Frequently if the applicant is an MIT student, they respond with "a pinball game". Now I can see what assignment those kids were fulfilling with that game.
Note that I don't consider it very impressive if a student has never made any program larger than a single semester's final project. A good programmer should have some love of the art, and will have 1-2 good hobbyist projects under his belt. In the case of Gizmoball, it's even less of an achievement, since the students get a good quantity of example code provided. Isn't it reasonable to expect that MIT students can roll their own elastic-collision physics?
You CANNOT get credit for coursework via this method.
Duh, he's talking about trends in the near-future. The fact that MIT doesn't currently give credit for non-paying online students is irrelevant.
Someday, the marketplace will drive colleges to split up their student-based revenue into two parellel streams: testing and tutoring.
A person will be able to independently decide whether he wants MIT to educate him about a subject, to certify that he's been educated on it, or both. For quality schools, that certification will often be much more elaborate than a single test event.
To some extent, a student can already choose to get only the tutoring portion and not the testing. This is called "auditing a class". But today, a person who's already so expert in a subject that she can safely skip each lecture and still pass the final has no way to avoid paying for those lecture sessions.