Fraud? What fraud? This has played out to be a corrected mistake. Calling it fraud is an interesting bit of hyperbole that makes me wonder how clearly you thought about it.
And for that matter, what in my post expressed an opinion one way or the other?
How do you separate the implementation from the technology in this case? Are you talking about the actual set-up, which any competent electrician could easily complete, or are you talking about the software for the device? I would personally place the software (which would be responsible for the clumsy, complex, hard to manage part) in the technology basket, which is to say I don't think the technology is actually there yet.
You certainly read a lot into my comment. Yes, obviously, I'm an idiot. So are you. So is everybody else. The fun part is all the nerds at Slashdot who think they aren't.
You're correct. Just because you still have to come up with the idea and a way of implementing it is no reason to enjoy the legal protection granted. After all, other people might want it for free, and their greed trumps the greed of the inventor.
No, it's all the fault of the corporations. The shadow groups controlling our schools and drug supplies conspire to keep people too stupid to handle more than pushing picture buttons on a McDonald's register so they can have a large group of dissatisfied people who can't afford to spend any money and therefore cannot support the corporations. It's brilliant.
This is what happens when you found a movement based on the idea that other people's intellectual property is yours to take as you wish. Welcome to the roost, chickens. Make yourself at home.
It certainly is an open question, unless you know a way to go back 2000 years and observe him. Writings and assertions are no evidence of existence, unless you're also prepared to accept the existence of the pantheon of Greek gods, for example. There may well be what you (and others) consider to be a preponderance of evidence, but without an unbroken chain of observation, it is ultimately an opinion with no positive proof.
No, by that logic, if you have no historical record of a person, then you can't assert that person's existence is a fact. Sorry you didn't understand that, but I didn't think it was that difficult to understand.
Calling them "MicroSquish" makes you sound a lot worse than it makes Microsoft sound. Try for a little more flow in your derogatory names. Just appending some random word doesn't really work.
Slashdot Mirror
Fraud? What fraud? This has played out to be a corrected mistake. Calling it fraud is an interesting bit of hyperbole that makes me wonder how clearly you thought about it.
And for that matter, what in my post expressed an opinion one way or the other?
Don't expect consistency from people. It's not realistic.
Ah, the goodwill of geeks. That's gotta be worth about... nothing at all, right?
Frankly, screw your family. Your property values and aesthetic sense aren't my problems in the least.
...and the fox turned as he walked away, muttering "damn grapes were probably sour anyway."
How do you separate the implementation from the technology in this case? Are you talking about the actual set-up, which any competent electrician could easily complete, or are you talking about the software for the device? I would personally place the software (which would be responsible for the clumsy, complex, hard to manage part) in the technology basket, which is to say I don't think the technology is actually there yet.
Interesting points, but since the prediction came true, it's sort of misleading to say he was wrong.
Can you explain the difference for those of us who aren't experts in four thousand year old texts?
Ok, I'll call you the winner since you have the most plausible explanation. I didn't prepare a prize or anything, so don't get too excited.
Why is this in YRO? I guess you could make some weird case for my right to have the BBC pick on Scientology...
You certainly read a lot into my comment. Yes, obviously, I'm an idiot. So are you. So is everybody else. The fun part is all the nerds at Slashdot who think they aren't.
You're correct. Just because you still have to come up with the idea and a way of implementing it is no reason to enjoy the legal protection granted. After all, other people might want it for free, and their greed trumps the greed of the inventor.
No, it's all the fault of the corporations. The shadow groups controlling our schools and drug supplies conspire to keep people too stupid to handle more than pushing picture buttons on a McDonald's register so they can have a large group of dissatisfied people who can't afford to spend any money and therefore cannot support the corporations. It's brilliant.
Both, actually. I'm just commenting on the situation, not expressing any opinions about who is right.
This is what happens when you found a movement based on the idea that other people's intellectual property is yours to take as you wish. Welcome to the roost, chickens. Make yourself at home.
It certainly is an open question, unless you know a way to go back 2000 years and observe him. Writings and assertions are no evidence of existence, unless you're also prepared to accept the existence of the pantheon of Greek gods, for example. There may well be what you (and others) consider to be a preponderance of evidence, but without an unbroken chain of observation, it is ultimately an opinion with no positive proof.
You've displayed an interesting pattern with your posts in this thread: you accept whatever fits your worldview, and you reject anything that doesn't.
Exactly how does it hurt you? Or are you just the kind of person who likes to whine whenever someone else makes money?
It's not "your" pay. The days of being entitled to a job with constantly increasing salary due to time of service are long gone.
None of those facts really change the point - it's a stupid thing to do.
Or for that matter, to notice that a smile doesn't reach the eyes.
No, by that logic, if you have no historical record of a person, then you can't assert that person's existence is a fact. Sorry you didn't understand that, but I didn't think it was that difficult to understand.
It's a fact? You have a photo of him? Maybe a copy of his birth certificate?
Welcome to Slashdot, where the boundaries of reality are subject to the necessities of making exaggerated points about fairly meaningless topics.
Hell, for that matter, welcome to the internet. Here is your guidebook: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Calling them "MicroSquish" makes you sound a lot worse than it makes Microsoft sound. Try for a little more flow in your derogatory names. Just appending some random word doesn't really work.