You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. Nothing more annoying than a niche station from ANOTHER STATE interfering with your daily news update.
I'll agree with that. I'm not sure exactly why it's on topic, but, I'm sure it applies here somewhere. EVERYONE needs to take a deep breath and remember this nice little non-equation once in a while when telling us things about everything scientific. Especially things that start as headlines a la 'One new study suggests'...
Well ok, maybe not 'illegal' spelling tests but it's 'strongly discouraged' because it's not a standardized test and it makes to students feel bad if they suck at it... All of this I'm told by one of my more dramatic 'teacher-type' friends, so I don't know how true it is, nor to what extent it would be enforced, but they seemed to be pretty upset about it. *shrug*
Logic. That's what bothers end-users. To them, computers are something that should just work. They don't care how, they never will, and no, they don't even think it would be 'neat' to know a little more. They like being dependant on someone else to fix it for them, just like I am when I want someone to do my taxes.
I am saying this after 10+ years of end-user, and even tier two, and internal tech support - meaning I only talk to other oh so aptly titled 'techs.' I'm a coder at heart so I love learning everything I can, but these MIS types come in two varieties: those who care why the things they say fix things, and those who care what time it is, and how close they are to going home for their next six-pack and Letterman night. I'd say that the second type is the more common lately, which is why they are so easily offshored to someone with no more english speaking skills than the telephone you call them on. Anyway I'm getting off in a tangent. Users will not learn a command prompt even though it would vastly improve their lives. They've seen enough hacker movies to know that they just don't like black screens with white text and funny looking squiggle characters in the prompt. They think that typing "make install" amounts to hacking, and they really don't want to get caught in Sandra Bullock's version of 'the Net,' so they'd like to stick to 'real' applications that come in a box with 'real' shrink wrap and pretty jewel cases on the CD's or DVDs, or downloaded from officially expensive websites, with nice splash screens that tell them in uncertain terms how far alon g their install is.
It's a fact -- that's the way they like it. I'd imagine the same can be said of folks who drive a car like it's a kitchen appliance. "Oil change? What? My car runs just fine, and the oil light isn't even on right now."
Well, I'm not so sure I buy that whole round plastic thing:) But I think your intentions are good.
I see plenty of people go online and click that little icon that says 'you must install this and ten other spyware executables, for which you cannot sue or, and you'll get spam, click ok to to play OUR version of solitaire which has prettier seashells on the cards.' Or you know, snood, which expires, and forces my mom and sister (not computer types) to learn how to uninstall it, and download a new copy every time it does. I think what people really want is a more clever use of smiley faces, now if you labeled your Plastic Discs with pretty colored smiley faces, with even more cleverly painted tongues hanging out of their squiggly mouths, you'd be able to have them run it on whatever operating system you like. They'd just learn it for the smileys. (Used to work for second graders too, way back when they'd get a scratch n sniff smiley sticker for passing what we used to call Spelling Tests. That's of course before they were illegal in the US - no I'm not even kidding about that.)
Right on, General Welfare doesn't mean 'the welfare system'. You have to watch out with those kinds of things, or you might encourage people not to work by misinterpreting the constitution, or even worse, give the someone a rallying cry. Although, whoever called 'the welfare system' 'welfare' obviously knew what they were doing when that provision is sitting there in the constitution, asking for you to get them confused... right? hehe.
No, I'm saying that making available working software implementing the concept in question illustrates that the person applying for the patent can't claim to be the originator of the idea, unless they can somehow imply that the person who first revealed the information somehow acquired it from them. If someone else has it first, then you aren't the first to have it. I would fail to see how you can argue with that.
Well, that's actually a good point. I like the 'burn the money' idea. Nice! I don't want you to think I'm a total jackass, and while I do lean conservative, I'd say that in a lot of ways I'm more of a centrist. I don't hate unions as such, I just don't like when they cross the lines and endanger industries. I'm not a 'big company' guy at all costs either, I just think that it's ok to benefit personally from your investments in time and/or human resources. It's also ok to encourage others to learn how to do the same. Telling people that they shouldn't try to start their own business because it's not likely they'd succeed is a silly idea, like saying 'don't vote for him, he won't win anyway.' I don't expect everyone to start their own business, and certainly not to build their own factories, but it's all gotta start somewhere. So, if that mom and pop (nice) business happens to become very successful (walmart) I don't think that the mere aspect of success is enough to make them 'evil'. Though I would agree it's often easier, and more common for successful people and corporations to let 'evil-ness' toward others run the show in the name of money alone, I don't think it's a pre-requisite. Free enterprise must still exist, and I believe must be encouraged, after all, it's what provides the tax money for the rest of the things people like to complain about. And where would we be as a society if we couldn't complain about the government?
I'd also mention that I agree with your mention of healthcare. In my opinion, maybe not quite so humble as yours (but I'm trying!), I think that the government its a little lax on the enforcement of anti-competitive practices. If, for example, there were more entities purchasing healthcare from more providers, then the prices would go down. I think that somewhere in there is the fact that people sue from time to time when things are really not the fault of the doctors etc. I don't necessarily think that there should be a cap on damages, but there has to be some more measure of what is frivolous and not... and since there is not much black letter on the subject, perhaps there needs to be. I don't want to sound like I'm purporting to have all the answers, because I certainly don't. I just think that it requires a little pause before demands are made of the hands that feed us. You are correct not to excuse them from their humane responsibilities, and certainly you're right that it's not so black and white. And getting back to the topic of the page I do think that it's good that there is the opportunity for regulation on polluting in this way, but I don't necessarily think that the EPA or any NGO should necessarily be the ones to do it. I also don't think that people working in the factories should be voting on how much pollution they're allowed to emit either, which only slightly parallels my original post on the subject.
Granted. You're right it's difficult to start a factory. I suppose that was a bad example, and I'm just a little upset about the fact that people seem to think they are entitled to work in one place or another. People don't realize that businesses hire people because they have a need that an employee fills. They don't hire people because the people need jobs. People should be free to express their opinions on how to improve the working environment as well as ways to improve productivity, but ultimately, if people are given the right to choose every aspect of their work life by a majority vote, then where is the incentive for business owners (who have overcome much adversity, as it is indeed difficult to start businesses -- yet still possible) to hire people to work for them? A business who sets their hours based on popular vote would end up with employees coming it at 8:30, leaving at 4:30 and taking 2 hour lunches, and that's not good for competing with companies in foreign markets, or maybe even against the the businesses in the same field down the street or across state lines. In the end, decisions about what happens in a company have to be driven by the money, or else the people working there, being pissed off about what they don't like, won't have a company to work for at all. If you're ever in Pittsburgh, take a ride by the empty steel mills, and you can see what I mean... There is still a lot of steel manufactured in the world, just not there because the employees demanded too much. The airline industry there almost suffered a similar fate, but the employees eventually conceded in the face of a bankrupt US Air, and now, the company is profitable again, and able to continue paying for pensions and whatnot. It's just a fact of life. You can't have everything you want in your workplace, if you still want to have a workplace.
Oh right, you're right. It's impossible for anyone to start a business. Nobody can do that. What a ridiculous idea. I can't believe I suggested that it were possible.
I'd agree the owners are to blame, but damnit, people who work for someon in business should not get a say in it. They are paid by the company because there is stuff for them to do, not because it wants to give them a job. If you don't like your job in the factory, quit, but you DON'T get a say in it. You can complain that it's unsafe, you can get them to fix that, but you cannot say what should and shouldn't be done in general, that's why they PAY you, to do what you're TOLD. Start your own factory and hire people if you want to make the rules. Follow the laws, yes the owners have to do that, provide fair and safe conditions for workers, sure, that's important too, and to make sure that nobody dies, of course, but make the workplace an all out democracy? Hell no. It's nobody's 'right' to work anywhere. And certainly it's not up to the workers to create a workplace they 'like'.
Well, if the reason you have to have a paper trail is to prevent programming errors from having an effect, then ok, I can see that. But if it's to 'guaruntee that they aren't hacked' then that's ridiculous. If i'm clever enough to hack one memory location, then I'm sure i'm clever enough to hack two. if you don't know where I'm going with this, then, perhaps you need a paper trail to tell you that that's really coffee you're buying at starbucks and not just what someone told you is coffee... they might be lying, and we need a paper trail to verify!
I'd also like to point out that I'm commenting on this as if it were an Application not a granted patent. I don't think that they can buy the farm on this compiliation procedure in general, but they might have a particular way of doing it that they will get the grant for.. I'm not a patent attorney so I don't know what sort of legal angle they're actually going for here.. If they're trying to say they invented the ajax from high level language compiler, then they'll likely lose that one, or it will be overturned if it does become granted. If they are going for one particular way of doing it, then they might get what they want, and may actually deserve it. Lighten up folks.
Wasn't AjaxPro.net released before the original patent was filed? Even if it wasn't RELEASED before that it was likely in some tangible form somewhere before that date... I think that it wasn't likely the first one either, but just as an example, there is probably a ton of prior art.
The compelling and forthcoming reason will be that they will end-of-life XP and 2003 with a year or two. If the employees who are still hooked on office and visual studio want to be able to continue to function, they will be forced to upgrade. Also, those bulk discounts they get on Dell and HP computers will be bundling in vista, and the cost of 'downgrading' each installation will eventually become a factor for those who want to stay with XP. It'll be slow, but it'll happen. I personally think that linux, open office, and various other development platforms apart visual studio would more than suffice the needs of the masses, but they aren't inclined to think so, because for one, they dont' already use them, and they are already cheaper etc. The only way that vista will lose out in the end is if the adoption of the linux (superior, granted) systems is more universal. This includes your parents, and grandparents dialing up from their vacation homes, as well as educational institutions whose 'computer skills' classes are focused entirely on office. The puzzling fact that Macs are on every media display of computers versus the overwhelming the lack of mac adoption serves as an example of the power of the status quo marketing agreements to influence the way people buy computing software, namely their operating systems.
Hah, ok. I still am not convinced it's a failure, just a bumpy road. I wouldn't be very upset if it does turn out to be a failure, but there is this sneaky little lock in device called an enterprise agreement people have with microsoft, and then also bulk busniess contracts with dell etc, and one way or another those products will end up in all of those shops eventually. I hope it does fail, serves them right for not coming out with a new product for over 6 years, but I just don't think it ultimately will.
Well it's an slow starter out of the gate. I haven't seen anyone say that it's a failure other than die hard linux folks. BUT most of what I do read is that you should not run out and buy it and DON'T upgrade an XP installation, but wait till you get it pre-installed on your next computer, because dealing with the hardware necessary, and lack of drivers etc, is more than your joe user wants to handle. I have one machine with vista on it, and it is clearly marked as working with vista, and sometimes the 'working' part isn't so clear... So, like I said, in 2 years we won't be talking about the failure of vista, but we might be talking about how it's finally getting to be the starndard. Remember XPSP2? everyone was saying for months that they were 'never going to sp2 because it broke too many things! and it made the sky start to fall if you sneezed or unplugged your computer during installation.' Ok, so I made that last bit up.
I saw the headlines on the news sites, and I thought... surely slashdot will pick this one up... this is certainly news that matters! This could get interesting... I mean, sure it starts with donuts... but in the future I imagine pokey office space looking endorser testimony about how they can't get going in the morning without their spiked tofu... "Man this 'jolt(tm) yogurt' really keeps me awake!"
Slashdot Mirror
You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. Nothing more annoying than a niche station from ANOTHER STATE interfering with your daily news update.
I'll agree with that. I'm not sure exactly why it's on topic, but, I'm sure it applies here somewhere. EVERYONE needs to take a deep breath and remember this nice little non-equation once in a while when telling us things about everything scientific. Especially things that start as headlines a la 'One new study suggests'...
So instead of it being full of gewey nougat, it's actually hollow, like a chocolate bunny. Cadbury's ad agent's prayers have been answered!
rock and roll man, I couldn't agree more.
Well ok, maybe not 'illegal' spelling tests but it's 'strongly discouraged' because it's not a standardized test and it makes to students feel bad if they suck at it... All of this I'm told by one of my more dramatic 'teacher-type' friends, so I don't know how true it is, nor to what extent it would be enforced, but they seemed to be pretty upset about it. *shrug*
Logic. That's what bothers end-users. To them, computers are something that should just work. They don't care how, they never will, and no, they don't even think it would be 'neat' to know a little more. They like being dependant on someone else to fix it for them, just like I am when I want someone to do my taxes.
I am saying this after 10+ years of end-user, and even tier two, and internal tech support - meaning I only talk to other oh so aptly titled 'techs.' I'm a coder at heart so I love learning everything I can, but these MIS types come in two varieties: those who care why the things they say fix things, and those who care what time it is, and how close they are to going home for their next six-pack and Letterman night. I'd say that the second type is the more common lately, which is why they are so easily offshored to someone with no more english speaking skills than the telephone you call them on. Anyway I'm getting off in a tangent. Users will not learn a command prompt even though it would vastly improve their lives. They've seen enough hacker movies to know that they just don't like black screens with white text and funny looking squiggle characters in the prompt. They think that typing "make install" amounts to hacking, and they really don't want to get caught in Sandra Bullock's version of 'the Net,' so they'd like to stick to 'real' applications that come in a box with 'real' shrink wrap and pretty jewel cases on the CD's or DVDs, or downloaded from officially expensive websites, with nice splash screens that tell them in uncertain terms how far alon g their install is.
It's a fact -- that's the way they like it. I'd imagine the same can be said of folks who drive a car like it's a kitchen appliance. "Oil change? What? My car runs just fine, and the oil light isn't even on right now."
Well, I'm not so sure I buy that whole round plastic thing :) But I think your intentions are good.
I see plenty of people go online and click that little icon that says 'you must install this and ten other spyware executables, for which you cannot sue or, and you'll get spam, click ok to to play OUR version of solitaire which has prettier seashells on the cards.' Or you know, snood, which expires, and forces my mom and sister (not computer types) to learn how to uninstall it, and download a new copy every time it does. I think what people really want is a more clever use of smiley faces, now if you labeled your Plastic Discs with pretty colored smiley faces, with even more cleverly painted tongues hanging out of their squiggly mouths, you'd be able to have them run it on whatever operating system you like. They'd just learn it for the smileys. (Used to work for second graders too, way back when they'd get a scratch n sniff smiley sticker for passing what we used to call Spelling Tests. That's of course before they were illegal in the US - no I'm not even kidding about that.)
Right on, General Welfare doesn't mean 'the welfare system'. You have to watch out with those kinds of things, or you might encourage people not to work by misinterpreting the constitution, or even worse, give the someone a rallying cry. Although, whoever called 'the welfare system' 'welfare' obviously knew what they were doing when that provision is sitting there in the constitution, asking for you to get them confused... right? hehe.
No, I'm saying that making available working software implementing the concept in question illustrates that the person applying for the patent can't claim to be the originator of the idea, unless they can somehow imply that the person who first revealed the information somehow acquired it from them. If someone else has it first, then you aren't the first to have it. I would fail to see how you can argue with that.
Well, that's actually a good point. I like the 'burn the money' idea. Nice! I don't want you to think I'm a total jackass, and while I do lean conservative, I'd say that in a lot of ways I'm more of a centrist. I don't hate unions as such, I just don't like when they cross the lines and endanger industries. I'm not a 'big company' guy at all costs either, I just think that it's ok to benefit personally from your investments in time and/or human resources. It's also ok to encourage others to learn how to do the same. Telling people that they shouldn't try to start their own business because it's not likely they'd succeed is a silly idea, like saying 'don't vote for him, he won't win anyway.' I don't expect everyone to start their own business, and certainly not to build their own factories, but it's all gotta start somewhere. So, if that mom and pop (nice) business happens to become very successful (walmart) I don't think that the mere aspect of success is enough to make them 'evil'. Though I would agree it's often easier, and more common for successful people and corporations to let 'evil-ness' toward others run the show in the name of money alone, I don't think it's a pre-requisite. Free enterprise must still exist, and I believe must be encouraged, after all, it's what provides the tax money for the rest of the things people like to complain about. And where would we be as a society if we couldn't complain about the government?
I'd also mention that I agree with your mention of healthcare. In my opinion, maybe not quite so humble as yours (but I'm trying!), I think that the government its a little lax on the enforcement of anti-competitive practices. If, for example, there were more entities purchasing healthcare from more providers, then the prices would go down. I think that somewhere in there is the fact that people sue from time to time when things are really not the fault of the doctors etc. I don't necessarily think that there should be a cap on damages, but there has to be some more measure of what is frivolous and not... and since there is not much black letter on the subject, perhaps there needs to be. I don't want to sound like I'm purporting to have all the answers, because I certainly don't. I just think that it requires a little pause before demands are made of the hands that feed us. You are correct not to excuse them from their humane responsibilities, and certainly you're right that it's not so black and white. And getting back to the topic of the page I do think that it's good that there is the opportunity for regulation on polluting in this way, but I don't necessarily think that the EPA or any NGO should necessarily be the ones to do it. I also don't think that people working in the factories should be voting on how much pollution they're allowed to emit either, which only slightly parallels my original post on the subject.
So then, where do you propose we get these corporations to pay the unions salaries and pensions?
Granted. You're right it's difficult to start a factory. I suppose that was a bad example, and I'm just a little upset about the fact that people seem to think they are entitled to work in one place or another. People don't realize that businesses hire people because they have a need that an employee fills. They don't hire people because the people need jobs. People should be free to express their opinions on how to improve the working environment as well as ways to improve productivity, but ultimately, if people are given the right to choose every aspect of their work life by a majority vote, then where is the incentive for business owners (who have overcome much adversity, as it is indeed difficult to start businesses -- yet still possible) to hire people to work for them? A business who sets their hours based on popular vote would end up with employees coming it at 8:30, leaving at 4:30 and taking 2 hour lunches, and that's not good for competing with companies in foreign markets, or maybe even against the the businesses in the same field down the street or across state lines. In the end, decisions about what happens in a company have to be driven by the money, or else the people working there, being pissed off about what they don't like, won't have a company to work for at all. If you're ever in Pittsburgh, take a ride by the empty steel mills, and you can see what I mean... There is still a lot of steel manufactured in the world, just not there because the employees demanded too much. The airline industry there almost suffered a similar fate, but the employees eventually conceded in the face of a bankrupt US Air, and now, the company is profitable again, and able to continue paying for pensions and whatnot. It's just a fact of life. You can't have everything you want in your workplace, if you still want to have a workplace.
Oh right, you're right. It's impossible for anyone to start a business. Nobody can do that. What a ridiculous idea. I can't believe I suggested that it were possible.
I'd agree the owners are to blame, but damnit, people who work for someon in business should not get a say in it. They are paid by the company because there is stuff for them to do, not because it wants to give them a job. If you don't like your job in the factory, quit, but you DON'T get a say in it. You can complain that it's unsafe, you can get them to fix that, but you cannot say what should and shouldn't be done in general, that's why they PAY you, to do what you're TOLD. Start your own factory and hire people if you want to make the rules. Follow the laws, yes the owners have to do that, provide fair and safe conditions for workers, sure, that's important too, and to make sure that nobody dies, of course, but make the workplace an all out democracy? Hell no. It's nobody's 'right' to work anywhere. And certainly it's not up to the workers to create a workplace they 'like'.
Well, if the reason you have to have a paper trail is to prevent programming errors from having an effect, then ok, I can see that. But if it's to 'guaruntee that they aren't hacked' then that's ridiculous. If i'm clever enough to hack one memory location, then I'm sure i'm clever enough to hack two. if you don't know where I'm going with this, then, perhaps you need a paper trail to tell you that that's really coffee you're buying at starbucks and not just what someone told you is coffee... they might be lying, and we need a paper trail to verify!
You mean like this? From February of 2005? This is describing the 'predecessor' called CSharpWrapper that eventually became Ajax.Net Pro http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/archive/2005/02/15 /373072.aspx
I'd also like to point out that I'm commenting on this as if it were an Application not a granted patent. I don't think that they can buy the farm on this compiliation procedure in general, but they might have a particular way of doing it that they will get the grant for.. I'm not a patent attorney so I don't know what sort of legal angle they're actually going for here.. If they're trying to say they invented the ajax from high level language compiler, then they'll likely lose that one, or it will be overturned if it does become granted. If they are going for one particular way of doing it, then they might get what they want, and may actually deserve it. Lighten up folks.
Wasn't AjaxPro.net released before the original patent was filed? Even if it wasn't RELEASED before that it was likely in some tangible form somewhere before that date... I think that it wasn't likely the first one either, but just as an example, there is probably a ton of prior art.
The compelling and forthcoming reason will be that they will end-of-life XP and 2003 with a year or two. If the employees who are still hooked on office and visual studio want to be able to continue to function, they will be forced to upgrade. Also, those bulk discounts they get on Dell and HP computers will be bundling in vista, and the cost of 'downgrading' each installation will eventually become a factor for those who want to stay with XP. It'll be slow, but it'll happen. I personally think that linux, open office, and various other development platforms apart visual studio would more than suffice the needs of the masses, but they aren't inclined to think so, because for one, they dont' already use them, and they are already cheaper etc. The only way that vista will lose out in the end is if the adoption of the linux (superior, granted) systems is more universal. This includes your parents, and grandparents dialing up from their vacation homes, as well as educational institutions whose 'computer skills' classes are focused entirely on office. The puzzling fact that Macs are on every media display of computers versus the overwhelming the lack of mac adoption serves as an example of the power of the status quo marketing agreements to influence the way people buy computing software, namely their operating systems.
Hah, ok. I still am not convinced it's a failure, just a bumpy road. I wouldn't be very upset if it does turn out to be a failure, but there is this sneaky little lock in device called an enterprise agreement people have with microsoft, and then also bulk busniess contracts with dell etc, and one way or another those products will end up in all of those shops eventually. I hope it does fail, serves them right for not coming out with a new product for over 6 years, but I just don't think it ultimately will.
Well it's an slow starter out of the gate. I haven't seen anyone say that it's a failure other than die hard linux folks. BUT most of what I do read is that you should not run out and buy it and DON'T upgrade an XP installation, but wait till you get it pre-installed on your next computer, because dealing with the hardware necessary, and lack of drivers etc, is more than your joe user wants to handle. I have one machine with vista on it, and it is clearly marked as working with vista, and sometimes the 'working' part isn't so clear... So, like I said, in 2 years we won't be talking about the failure of vista, but we might be talking about how it's finally getting to be the starndard. Remember XPSP2? everyone was saying for months that they were 'never going to sp2 because it broke too many things! and it made the sky start to fall if you sneezed or unplugged your computer during installation.' Ok, so I made that last bit up.
I saw the headlines on the news sites, and I thought... surely slashdot will pick this one up... this is certainly news that matters! This could get interesting... I mean, sure it starts with donuts... but in the future I imagine pokey office space looking endorser testimony about how they can't get going in the morning without their spiked tofu... "Man this 'jolt(tm) yogurt' really keeps me awake!"
I'm pretty sure crackers don't have to sign a license agreement before taking up the craft and joining the union.
You're taking me out of context. I'm not looking for excuses, I just think most of this is an exaggeration. Not all of it