What about backwards engineering a software product and implementing the same (patented) algorithms via different language? Still a copyright violation, or no?
I wouldn't think so. Copyright is supposed to protect a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Now, is it a patent violation? For now, I think so. Although patents are supposed to protect an implementation of an algorithm, the courts seem to think the algorithm itself is patent-worty.
But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm taking the sane interpretation!
Say I invent the proverbial "better mousetrap" - I build my new invention, and now my house is 100% mouse-free. But without a patent system, I'm not interested or able in selling my better mousetrap to the general public: after all, my design is pretty simple, and the general public could easily build their own just by looking at one of mine.
I think there's a fallacy buried in here. You are implicitly assuming that one and only one person is capable of that particular "a-ha!" moment. The reality is that while the billions of humans on the whole may not have come up with your particular idea at the exact same moment as you did, the chances are very high that someone else will +/- a few years. Or in the software world, within a few months. When it's time to railroad, people railroad.
Bringing it back to software, sit a hundred good developers in front of a dev environment, and ask them to solve a problem, you will get 90% of them developing any solution at all, and there will be three or four different solutions. That means that on average, 25 or 30 people will have come up with the same idea.
I doubt it. Causing a BSOD is the last thing a malware writer would want to do. That would be like a human virus with a one-day 100% fatality cycle. How would it propagate?
Looks like cost cutting, including layoffs, may be on the way. But the company says it won't change its overal direction. The CEO Hector Ruiz is quoted as saying, 'We are not going to change our strategy because of one lousy quarter.'
1. Get rid of people.
2. The beatings will increase until morale improves.
3. ???
4. Profit!
I've got some real serious problems with capitalism. I don't have a solution, but I recognize feces when I smell it.
I'm kinda hoping that this dependency is mooted by the Singularity in about 40 years. It's a gamble I'm willing to take. And if it doesn't work out, there's always cats.
Every week I see a story about how such-and-such a CEO went in front of such-and-such a commission and spewed lies. When do our guys get to in front of commissions?
Speaking of the potential for error, here's something funky. Einstein's equations are real-number equations. That is, they describe computations performed using infinite-precision numbers. But any operation involving infinite-precision numbers must involve infinite operations from an information-theoretic point of view -- think bits, the number of, required to represent an infinite-precision number, and now think of the computations required to process such numbers. Since the universe obviously hasn't graunched to a halt trying to perform the first endless computation, we come to two conclusions:
1. The universe operates on finite-precision numbers.
2. Any real-valued formula does not describe the "true" universe.
3. Pi, e, and all those fun infinite-precision transcendental numbers don't actually exist in a "true" sense.
And so, the research shows, employees tend to see the jerk, the narcissist, and yes, even the asshole, as boss material.
I think this should have said: "Bosses tend to see the jerk employee, the narcissist employee, and yes, even the asshole employee, as boss material." The thing is, [rank-and-file] employees don't promote bosses. Bosses promote bosses. So really, you have a self-perpetuating system here.
And if I'm going to print off 1 million copies of a book or magazine, I'm going to use an industrial quality printing press.
I think one of the assumptions of the DIY-printing world is that you would never have to print off industrial quantities of anything. You upload a book, and someone who wants it prints it, just once. Of course, I have no idea how a home user could purchase a machine that does it all, from printing the text block to binding and casing. While I admit I don't have the solution, I also think that a solution is possible.
With Parallels, you still need to buy a Microsoft OS and any Windows software you need. So Microsoft still collects their money. The only thing is that now instead of buying a Mac and then buying a Windows box, I only have to buy a Mac. Software costs are still the same.
So Parallels ADDS sales to Apple, but neither adds nor removes sales from Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wouldn't want a betrayed immune system.
Kthxbai,
--Rob
Well, someone had to blow some air into this meme!
--Rob
In Korea, only... oh, the heck with it. Zune is teh sux0rz.
--Rob
I wouldn't think so. Copyright is supposed to protect a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Now, is it a patent violation? For now, I think so. Although patents are supposed to protect an implementation of an algorithm, the courts seem to think the algorithm itself is patent-worty.
But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm taking the sane interpretation!
--Rob
Like nuclear fusion!
Sorry.
--Rob
I think there's a fallacy buried in here. You are implicitly assuming that one and only one person is capable of that particular "a-ha!" moment. The reality is that while the billions of humans on the whole may not have come up with your particular idea at the exact same moment as you did, the chances are very high that someone else will +/- a few years. Or in the software world, within a few months. When it's time to railroad, people railroad.
Bringing it back to software, sit a hundred good developers in front of a dev environment, and ask them to solve a problem, you will get 90% of them developing any solution at all, and there will be three or four different solutions. That means that on average, 25 or 30 people will have come up with the same idea.
--Rob
I doubt it. Causing a BSOD is the last thing a malware writer would want to do. That would be like a human virus with a one-day 100% fatality cycle. How would it propagate?
--Rob
1. Get rid of people.
2. The beatings will increase until morale improves.
3. ???
4. Profit!
I've got some real serious problems with capitalism. I don't have a solution, but I recognize feces when I smell it.
--Rob
Here's all I have to say on the subject:
Let's watch the monkey dance.
...Anti-intellectualism.
...Anti-intellectualism.
Make fun of the South of France.
And that's why Boston will not be throwing anyone out.
(Thanks, Ze, for the words)
--Rob
I'm kinda hoping that this dependency is mooted by the Singularity in about 40 years. It's a gamble I'm willing to take. And if it doesn't work out, there's always cats.
--Rob
Your last name is Binks, isn't it.
--Rob
Best collective noun ever. I propose that it be added to the appropriate page in Wikipedia.
--Rob
"whether a message was sent by an ally or an impostor..."
...or a cat.
--Rob
Every week I see a story about how such-and-such a CEO went in front of such-and-such a commission and spewed lies. When do our guys get to in front of commissions?
--Rob
Speaking of the potential for error, here's something funky. Einstein's equations are real-number equations. That is, they describe computations performed using infinite-precision numbers. But any operation involving infinite-precision numbers must involve infinite operations from an information-theoretic point of view -- think bits, the number of, required to represent an infinite-precision number, and now think of the computations required to process such numbers. Since the universe obviously hasn't graunched to a halt trying to perform the first endless computation, we come to two conclusions:
1. The universe operates on finite-precision numbers.
2. Any real-valued formula does not describe the "true" universe.
3. Pi, e, and all those fun infinite-precision transcendental numbers don't actually exist in a "true" sense.
Has you head a splode?
--Rob
Cory Doctorow seems to be doing all right with that model.
--Rob
"So Watt?"
--Rob
I think this should have said: "Bosses tend to see the jerk employee, the narcissist employee, and yes, even the asshole employee, as boss material." The thing is, [rank-and-file] employees don't promote bosses. Bosses promote bosses. So really, you have a self-perpetuating system here.
--Rob
Informative gives you karma. Funny doesn't. :/
--Rob
I think one of the assumptions of the DIY-printing world is that you would never have to print off industrial quantities of anything. You upload a book, and someone who wants it prints it, just once. Of course, I have no idea how a home user could purchase a machine that does it all, from printing the text block to binding and casing. While I admit I don't have the solution, I also think that a solution is possible.
--Rob
Brings new meaning to the phrase, "Let's go clubbing!"
--Rob
...or "TIMEBLA"...
--Rob
With Parallels, you still need to buy a Microsoft OS and any Windows software you need. So Microsoft still collects their money. The only thing is that now instead of buying a Mac and then buying a Windows box, I only have to buy a Mac. Software costs are still the same.
So Parallels ADDS sales to Apple, but neither adds nor removes sales from Microsoft.
That being said, Parallels is shweet! :)
--Rob
Look out, here they come! Valhalla, I'm coming!
--Rob
Giggly Gnu
Happy Hamster
Icy Ichthyosaur
Jumping Jehosaphat
Killer Klown (from outer space)
Lame Liger
Manly Man (Mugabe Memorial edition)
Numb Nut
Oppresive Opposum
Permissive Penguin
Quaaludinous Quail
Raw-throated Rhinovirus
Submissive Sasquatch
Tasty Tuna on Rye with Lettuce and Tomato, Soda, and Side of Fries
Unpredicable Unexpected Cotton Rat (really, look it up)
Valorous Vampire Bat
Wet Weasel
Xenu's Xliii
Yawny Yeti
Zootropic Zygophyllacea Scale