Doesn't fictional work come under "Copyright" rather than "Patent"?
If Knight just copyrights the story, there should be no issue. Patenting it seems like a stupid move - although it effectivly locks out any one else from writing a story about the following:
going to sleep based on a wish/prayer
trying to regain memories you don't have
philosophy of life
(my list, not one that I've seen) plus any others covered.
Thank you for noticing I was joking - I was going for funny mods.
I actually do like Google, and some of the stuff I have seen from them is pretty cool, actually. I have a gmail account, I use their search, I have used Google Calculator functions on search (if that's what it's called).
In short, they do really cool stuff, and release it for free.
Pure speculation, but do the guy and gals at GoogleLabs have conversations like this:
Programmer 1: Hey wouldn't it be cool if we could #####
Programmer 2: That would be awesome. Completely useless to the general public, but a few geeks would love it
Programmer 1: Lets do it, just to see if we can. If we release it Beta, it doesn't really matter if it works.
Programmer 2: Yeah, lets do it!
...but I feel like giving a different perspective.
In Australia, the closest equivalent we have is the TFN (Tax File Number). The only people that end up with it are:
The Australian Tax Office
Your current employer(s)
Any bank (credit union, building society etc) that pays interest
Possibly private health insurance (due to tax breaks for those that have it) - note: private health is voluntary here
As far as I can tell, it is NOT an offence to refuse to give it to any of these groups. That includes the Tax Office themselves. There are consequences of not quoting it, however. Namely, all tax payable is taken out at the maximum tax rate. To not give it to the ATO means that your tax return can be delayed while they search for you by name and DOB.
Also, it's pretty crap as ID for banks, because all they get is a small note on the screen of your account details that says "TFN received" or similar. This makes much more sense, IMHO.
3pm? Man, you had it bad. For me it was 4pm Monday to Thursday, and 4:30 on Fridays. If you worked 9-5 Monday to Friday, you needed a lunch hour (along with everybody else) to do your banking in.
According to me, 2.4k of 359,196k is 6 ppm (or about 0.000006%), and as a result, is far less than is allowed by fair use (10%, depending on context). As this is the case, I feel fully justified in offering the following statement as payment for the half a frame which was downloaded:
Fuck off, you tit.
John Keating: Gentlemen, open your texts to page 21 of this introduction. Mr. Perry, will you read the opening paragraph of the preface entitled "Understanding Poetry"? Neil:[reading] "Understanding Poetry," by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D. "To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: One, how artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and two, How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry." John Keating: Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not lighting a pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"
I have to say, though, that I agree with John Keating - you can't describe poetry like this. The other quote about this sort of thing is this:
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" -- Laurie Anderson (I think)
The book would be "Dogbert's Clues for the Clueless", and I remember the one you are talking about.
In olden times, people were a lot more sensitive (man says "bull feathers" and an old woman faints). Now, it's ok to use such words (weather reporter says "... the weather just looks f#$@! for tomorrow"). In the future, it will be necessary to use words that cause people and their pets to catch fire (picture of man and dog running away, on fire).
I may have missed one frame, and got the words slightly wrong, but that is the gist of it.
I'm an Australian, and I have to say that most of the individual Americans that I have met are nice people. I would also like to say that I think the government of the USA (at all levels) appears to be a bad thing (maybe that's because we only hear the bad stuff).
In short: individuals are nice enough, it's populations as a whole that are bad and have a bad image.
In agreement with the parent post, I submit the following statement:
To make a law that men [people] will not follow serves to bring all laws into dispute.
Unfortunately, my memory is not as good as it could be, and I can't remember who said it. If this is incorrect, or you can provide the name of the person who said it, please provide it or correct me.
Not only extract tabs, but to be able to "dock" them into existing windows would be incredibly useful. I belive it was done with Galeon (GNOME browser from about 4 years ago). There were problems with it, however. For instance, you could dock a full browser window into a file download dialog box, which was not resizable. Some bounds checking would be needed.
Also, for those that like IE's behaviour, perhaps a "duplicate tab" as well as "new tab"? I only suggest this because "new tab" (or window) suggests a clean, new, empty interface, whereas "duplicate tab/window" should copy complete history, etc.
AC, please enlighten us as to how the "flame" is grammatically incorrect. Aside from the non-capitialisation of the first-person personal pronoun, which I put down to a broken keyboard, what is wrong with the sentence as stated?
Next time, please include your explanation with your laughter, as it makes it easier for everyone to not make the same mistakes in the future. This is how we learn.
I saw a while ago (probably here, but my memory for some details is flaky) that downloading movies is not "just like shoplifting", and indeed, not theft.
It is, however, just like counterfeiting, in that you now have a copy, just not a legitimate one. Photocopying money is not theft, any more than downloading a movie is theft. If people picked the right analogies, this problem wouldn't occur quite so much.
Slashdot Mirror
3 1/2? Ha. My first virus was "Stoned" on a 5 1/4. The best part was the cure program was called "aspirin".
But, yes, the boot sector virus spoiled many a day. Also, does anyone even remeber when Michaelangelo Day is anymore?
The second rule of the darknet is that you do NOT talk about the darknet!
If Knight just copyrights the story, there should be no issue. Patenting it seems like a stupid move - although it effectivly locks out any one else from writing a story about the following:
(my list, not one that I've seen) plus any others covered.
Compare the list above with the list below:
Anybody spot the prior art?
I actually do like Google, and some of the stuff I have seen from them is pretty cool, actually. I have a gmail account, I use their search, I have used Google Calculator functions on search (if that's what it's called).
In short, they do really cool stuff, and release it for free.
Pure speculation, but do the guy and gals at GoogleLabs have conversations like this:
Programmer 1: Hey wouldn't it be cool if we could #####
Programmer 2: That would be awesome. Completely useless to the general public, but a few geeks would love it
Programmer 1: Lets do it, just to see if we can. If we release it Beta, it doesn't really matter if it works.
Programmer 2: Yeah, lets do it!
To the Google guys: Keep up the good work.
But Google says Do no evil. Where does it say that for Microsoft?
Wait, are you saying that something Google released is out of beta?
(No I didn't read the article, and I find it amusing that almost nothing from Google ever makes it out of beta)
In Australia, the closest equivalent we have is the TFN (Tax File Number). The only people that end up with it are:
As far as I can tell, it is NOT an offence to refuse to give it to any of these groups. That includes the Tax Office themselves. There are consequences of not quoting it, however. Namely, all tax payable is taken out at the maximum tax rate. To not give it to the ATO means that your tax return can be delayed while they search for you by name and DOB.
Also, it's pretty crap as ID for banks, because all they get is a small note on the screen of your account details that says "TFN received" or similar. This makes much more sense, IMHO.
<shameless plug> I got it from ZeStuff (they were advertising on Ctrl-Alt-Del comic, what was I supposed to do?).
3pm? Man, you had it bad. For me it was 4pm Monday to Thursday, and 4:30 on Fridays. If you worked 9-5 Monday to Friday, you needed a lunch hour (along with everybody else) to do your banking in.
If MS Office saves as Microsoft Document by default, it disqualifies itself from consideration.
*Please, I can't be the only one who remembers this, surely?
It's either very clever, or true.
Of course it's bad form: she got caught. If she had gotten away with it, it would be business as usual.
According to me, 2.4k of 359,196k is 6 ppm (or about 0.000006%), and as a result, is far less than is allowed by fair use (10%, depending on context). As this is the case, I feel fully justified in offering the following statement as payment for the half a frame which was downloaded:
Fuck off, you tit.
Thanks and regards,
Neil: [reading] "Understanding Poetry," by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D. "To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: One, how artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and two, How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry."
John Keating: Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not lighting a pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"
Stolen shamelessly from IMDB
I have to say, though, that I agree with John Keating - you can't describe poetry like this. The other quote about this sort of thing is this:
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" -- Laurie Anderson (I think)
"I wanna do it again!"
*Runs off to find the end of the queue*
It's Red (Morgan Freeman) from The Shawshank Redemption
In olden times, people were a lot more sensitive (man says "bull feathers" and an old woman faints). Now, it's ok to use such words (weather reporter says "... the weather just looks f#$@! for tomorrow"). In the future, it will be necessary to use words that cause people and their pets to catch fire (picture of man and dog running away, on fire).
I may have missed one frame, and got the words slightly wrong, but that is the gist of it.
In short: individuals are nice enough, it's populations as a whole that are bad and have a bad image.
To make a law that men [people] will not follow serves to bring all laws into dispute.
Unfortunately, my memory is not as good as it could be, and I can't remember who said it. If this is incorrect, or you can provide the name of the person who said it, please provide it or correct me.
- Press CTRL - N, followed immediately by Esc.
Don't laugh, that's exactly what I do when I am forced to use IE.
Also, for those that like IE's behaviour, perhaps a "duplicate tab" as well as "new tab"? I only suggest this because "new tab" (or window) suggests a clean, new, empty interface, whereas "duplicate tab/window" should copy complete history, etc.
Hi to every one who is a happy citizen of Alpha Complex. But not to those who are commie-mutant-traitors.
Next time, please include your explanation with your laughter, as it makes it easier for everyone to not make the same mistakes in the future. This is how we learn.
Everything is possible. Pass the word. -- Rita Mae Brown, "Six of One"
It is, however, just like counterfeiting, in that you now have a copy, just not a legitimate one. Photocopying money is not theft, any more than downloading a movie is theft. If people picked the right analogies, this problem wouldn't occur quite so much.