You're incorrectly assuming that because *I* happened to call it an idea, it *must be* an idea. It doesn't matter what I call it... perhaps it's a device, an invention, or a method. Whatever the case, the USPTO thought it was worthy enough to grant a patent. If you disagree, you can always ask them to review the patent again.
We're effectively saying "We're willing to risk breaking the law until you wake up and provide a product that is reasonable." Eventually, they *will* bend to the consumer's will. We're just having to drag them there kicking and screaming, because they're children, and always want to have it their way.
Um, dude... I think you got it backwards. Re-read what you wrote and tell me again who wants to drag the other side so they can have it their way.
One: we can't hear a song that we want because the channels of exposure are closed to all recordings except for a small number that the record companies have paid enormous amounts of money to have played on the Clear Channel monopoly. P2P exists to allow the music community to share their discoveries with others in the community.
Oh god... not this argument again. Look, if common ownership of radio stations is forcing you to violate copyright laws, then that's really pathetic. If there's really such a demand from this community of music lovers as you claim, why hasn't someone gone out and started their own radio station and play the kinds of music which this supposed community would enjoy? I bet you could make a lot of money, and you'd be immersed in the music you love so much.
This is how the free market works. If the record industry worked this way, people would buy a lot more music.
Super. So why hasn't someone (perhaps yourself) setup their own recording company and convinced artists that this is the way to do it? I'm sure this new recording company could offer artists large advances so that they can fund development of music videos, pay for studio time, etc. And this recording company would also be able to get them on MTV easily enough as well. The free market works on supply and demand. You're claiming that there's a huge unfulfilled demand out there. So go and supply it. Or find someone else to supply it. The fact that it has not yet been supplied should tell you that perhaps it's not viable. But if you think it is, please prove me wrong.
Three: A large percentage of very dollar that you give to the RIAA for music recordings goes to put you in jail. Under their laws, their purchased legislators, and their penalties. It is not in anyone's better interest to give money to any entity that uses the money to destroy your life and freedom. Christ, you pay taxes, isn't that enough?
Supply and demand again. You claim to know how a free market works, so start up something different. Your music company will advocate free sharing of music, cheap downloads, but yet have high quality music. You'll be able to charge peanuts because you're not spending that large percentage. Don't you believe in a free market? GO AND FILL THIS LARGE DEMAND YOU CLAIM!
Four: The RIAA companies have repeatedly and systematicly shown that they will cheat and defraud the artists that make the music. If you give money to the record companies, you are hurting the music community because the fair and proper compensation that you believe that you are giving to the musicians is not, has never, and will not in the future get to the artists under the present music industry system. And every purchase that you make perpetuates that system.
Yeah, everybody knows that the RIAA holds a gun to the artists head to make them sign the recording and distribution contract in exchange for large sums of money, right?
This is pathetic already. You, who advocate a free market, show absolutely no comprehension of how it works. In a free market, if things are really that bad, someone will come in and supply something better. Then the artists, who are continually being raped and screwed over by the RIAA will flock to your new company. And teenagers everywhere who are tired of being *forced* to pirate music will gladly come and fork over money for your new and improved method of music distribution. One where people can freely share the music they so enjoy and reward the artists handsomely.
Puh-fucking-lease! You don't believe in a free market at all. You, sir, believe in a free lunch.
What about those of us (with taste) who hear a song we want *only* when traded on the Internet by people we know to have similar (good) taste? And it's out of print? The crap the RIAA labels push on the radio and "music television", and everywhere else, lacks not only distribution convenience, but also quality. That's a problem, which people are solving handily by sharing.
Of course, you're the exception to the rule. It's *everybody else* who goes out and shares the top 40's hits that is the problem. Trading music with your like-minded friends who enjoy the sounds of the roaring twenties is perfectly good. Perhaps if you could convince the other 99.95% of people out there that they should stop what THEY do, then perhaps the RIAA might not look so unfavorably on it.
The Apple patent was filed in December 1999. The abstract is fairly clear as to how it differs (emphasis mine):
Methods and systems for providing graphical user interfaces are described. overlaid, Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. <b>Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window</b>.
The lawyer who lead the class action lawsuit may be a really good lawyer, but I don't think his time is worth over $3000 per hour.
What isn't listed is how that hourly rate is broken down. Does that include the lawyer appearing in court and sitting in a chair for most of the time? Or does that fee include a research staff of 10 paralegals who research relevant case law? If it's *just* his fee, then I similarly have a difficult time seeing how that is worth the cost. However, one lawyer highly experienced with class action and anti-trust cases would be worth a bunch of lawyers who have limited experience.
Re:Is that "next" or NeXT"?
on
NextFest
·
· Score: 1
Well, the NeXT system is still a nice system, even by today's standards. Great UI, display PostScript, unix-based OS, etc. Just beef up the hardware to modern standards and IMNSHO, it's *still* nicer than Gnome or KDE today.
Google does not index anything in your signature. If you really want to get some links to your site, put them in the actual comment body, even as a "fake sig", like this:
P.S. We also don't understand why quantum mechanics rules apply at very small scales, but very different rules apply at larger scales. (A photon can seem to go through two slits at once, but you won't get a baseball to do that trick, or even a really tiny speck of dust.)
Show me a baseball that moves in a probabilistic wave, and I'll get it to do that trick.
Man, you ever try to keep up with a tachyon? I swear those things go at least 10,000,000 miles a minute- must be the drugs. They are like "Speed" on crack.
Man, you ever go to the beach in summer and see a fat guy wearing bikini brief swim shorts? I swear, it's like crack on "Speedo".
Thank you... you saved me the trouble of pulling out my Feynman QED book and quoting the relevant sections. Book link is profit whore free, and a very good (if rather technical) read.
Slashdot Mirror
"Can I see your passport please?" [scans passport]
"Everything checks out, oh... sir, YES SIR! Welcome SIR! Enjoy your stay, General Protection-Fault, SIR!"
You're incorrectly assuming that because *I* happened to call it an idea, it *must be* an idea. It doesn't matter what I call it... perhaps it's a device, an invention, or a method. Whatever the case, the USPTO thought it was worthy enough to grant a patent. If you disagree, you can always ask them to review the patent again.
We're effectively saying "We're willing to risk breaking the law until you wake up and provide a product that is reasonable."
Eventually, they *will* bend to the consumer's will. We're just having to drag them there kicking and screaming, because they're children, and always want to have it their way.
Um, dude... I think you got it backwards. Re-read what you wrote and tell me again who wants to drag the other side so they can have it their way.
One: we can't hear a song that we want because the channels of exposure are closed to all recordings except for a small number that the record companies have paid enormous amounts of money to have played on the Clear Channel monopoly. P2P exists to allow the music community to share their discoveries with others in the community.
Oh god... not this argument again. Look, if common ownership of radio stations is forcing you to violate copyright laws, then that's really pathetic. If there's really such a demand from this community of music lovers as you claim, why hasn't someone gone out and started their own radio station and play the kinds of music which this supposed community would enjoy? I bet you could make a lot of money, and you'd be immersed in the music you love so much.
This is how the free market works. If the record industry worked this way, people would buy a lot more music.
Super. So why hasn't someone (perhaps yourself) setup their own recording company and convinced artists that this is the way to do it? I'm sure this new recording company could offer artists large advances so that they can fund development of music videos, pay for studio time, etc. And this recording company would also be able to get them on MTV easily enough as well. The free market works on supply and demand. You're claiming that there's a huge unfulfilled demand out there. So go and supply it. Or find someone else to supply it. The fact that it has not yet been supplied should tell you that perhaps it's not viable. But if you think it is, please prove me wrong.
Three: A large percentage of very dollar that you give to the RIAA for music recordings goes to put you in jail. Under their laws, their purchased legislators, and their penalties. It is not in anyone's better interest to give money to any entity that uses the money to destroy your life and freedom. Christ, you pay taxes, isn't that enough?
Supply and demand again. You claim to know how a free market works, so start up something different. Your music company will advocate free sharing of music, cheap downloads, but yet have high quality music. You'll be able to charge peanuts because you're not spending that large percentage. Don't you believe in a free market? GO AND FILL THIS LARGE DEMAND YOU CLAIM!
Four: The RIAA companies have repeatedly and systematicly shown that they will cheat and defraud the artists that make the music. If you give money to the record companies, you are hurting the music community because the fair and proper compensation that you believe that you are giving to the musicians is not, has never, and will not in the future get to the artists under the present music industry system. And every purchase that you make perpetuates that system.
Yeah, everybody knows that the RIAA holds a gun to the artists head to make them sign the recording and distribution contract in exchange for large sums of money, right?
This is pathetic already. You, who advocate a free market, show absolutely no comprehension of how it works. In a free market, if things are really that bad, someone will come in and supply something better. Then the artists, who are continually being raped and screwed over by the RIAA will flock to your new company. And teenagers everywhere who are tired of being *forced* to pirate music will gladly come and fork over money for your new and improved method of music distribution. One where people can freely share the music they so enjoy and reward the artists handsomely.
Puh-fucking-lease! You don't believe in a free market at all. You, sir, believe in a free lunch.
What about those of us (with taste) who hear a song we want *only* when traded on the Internet by people we know to have similar (good) taste? And it's out of print? The crap the RIAA labels push on the radio and "music television", and everywhere else, lacks not only distribution convenience, but also quality. That's a problem, which people are solving handily by sharing.
Of course, you're the exception to the rule. It's *everybody else* who goes out and shares the top 40's hits that is the problem. Trading music with your like-minded friends who enjoy the sounds of the roaring twenties is perfectly good. Perhaps if you could convince the other 99.95% of people out there that they should stop what THEY do, then perhaps the RIAA might not look so unfavorably on it.
Put down the tinfoil hat, sir. Now, step slowly... away... from... the computer.
This isn't just regular transparency. I know people don't read the freaking article, but this is it in a nutshell:
*** WINDOW GETS MORE AND MORE TRANSLUCENT AS IT'S USED LESS ***
It's the time dependency which is the invention they're patenting here.
The lawyer who lead the class action lawsuit may be a really good lawyer, but I don't think his time is worth over $3000 per hour.
What isn't listed is how that hourly rate is broken down. Does that include the lawyer appearing in court and sitting in a chair for most of the time? Or does that fee include a research staff of 10 paralegals who research relevant case law? If it's *just* his fee, then I similarly have a difficult time seeing how that is worth the cost. However, one lawyer highly experienced with class action and anti-trust cases would be worth a bunch of lawyers who have limited experience.
Anybody got a mirror? :)
Well, it's about as ready for production use as Duke Nukem: Forever... so by that standard... :)
As long as it doesn't try and do the ironing... I don't want razor-sharp edges on my shirts!
Wasn't that shown to be a hoax, much like the supposed see-through skirts in Japan?
Well, the NeXT system is still a nice system, even by today's standards. Great UI, display PostScript, unix-based OS, etc. Just beef up the hardware to modern standards and IMNSHO, it's *still* nicer than Gnome or KDE today.
As for vaporware, how about Hurd?
That's because your website is in your URL (below your username), not your sig. Look for "post humously" which is in my sig:
google search
Only shows up when people comment on it, despite some highly modded posts. Check out the google cache for an article... no signatures get indexed.
The article covers this already. Dig hole, embed reflector/sensor...
Google does not index anything in your signature. If you really want to get some links to your site, put them in the actual comment body, even as a "fake sig", like this:
--
nigritude ultramarine
5mm? 70mph? What if I'm driving in a quarter inch of water at 115kph?
That depends on how many Newtons your car weighs.
Microsoft's Digital Rifle Management?
P.S. We also don't understand why quantum mechanics rules apply at very small scales, but very different rules apply at larger scales. (A photon can seem to go through two slits at once, but you won't get a baseball to do that trick, or even a really tiny speck of dust.)
Show me a baseball that moves in a probabilistic wave, and I'll get it to do that trick.
Hey honey, come back to my place and we can make paralell universes together.
And she replies, "Sorry dude, your laser pointer is too small."
Ewe halve hit the nail awn the head. Eye fined those books hard two reed. Of coarse, halving sum won too cheque you're spelling own lee goes sew far.
Man, you ever try to keep up with a tachyon? I swear those things go at least 10,000,000 miles a minute- must be the drugs. They are like "Speed" on crack.
Man, you ever go to the beach in summer and see a fat guy wearing bikini brief swim shorts? I swear, it's like crack on "Speedo".
Thank you... you saved me the trouble of pulling out my Feynman QED book and quoting the relevant sections. Book link is profit whore free, and a very good (if rather technical) read.
Thunder sports 4,096 Itanium 2 processors in 1,024 nodes, some big iron by any standard.
If the government gets a hold of that, we're going to need some big tinfoil...