Don't Ford, Honda and Toyota reinvent their own wheels instead of borrowing designs from each other? Copying ends where private intellectual property begins.
Yet everything that is creative and valuable is protected by the government. Because otherwise, only the lazy/incompetent idea stealers would benefit... kinda like you work for a company, but your work's salary is paid someone else, not you.
I'm laying the blame at Microsoft's door. They also decided that the Enter key should submit a form as apparently tabbing to the submit button and *then* pressing Enter was really hard for the retards in the focus group.
But thanks to this feature, I don't have to press any webpage buttons when I search using google or bing. I just type the search expression in the textbox and hit the Enter key -- quick and efficient.
While 102(b) does not deny protection to the expression of those functional ideas, when there are very few ways to express that idea, when the expression is inseparable from the idea, then the idea and expression are said to merge, and the denial of protection to the idea applies to the expression as well.
With source code implementing an API, the idea expressed is that API. When there is only one way to express that idea, then the expression itself is denied protection.
You make it sound as if Google had no choice but to copy the APIs, coz there's no other way. But the reality is, there are multiple ways to express the same ideas. For example, Java itself has two different APIs just for file access: the regular one is in the java.io.* package and the other API for files is called NIO. Clearly, there are multiple ways to express file and other APIs and Google could easily create their own API for file access.
But the reason they chose to copy Sun/Oracle's API could be because they wanted something that programmers were already familiar with and to free-ride on the success of the Java language + API. Creating their own API would be risky, expensive, time-consuming, and prone to failure as it has not been tested.
A spot reserved to write the date is not a creative work, it is merely something that is required for any cheque to be usable.
A spot for dates on cheques can be creative work and can only be protected by a utility patent, not something as weak as copyrights. This is about copyright infringement, or exact copying of somebody's original work without payment/licensing./. is full of pirates who hate creative people and just want to steal their work without paying a dime.
Wouldn't explaining how an API works fall under fair use? You're not copy-pasting the API for use in your software product, and therefore not unfairly competing or stealing from the API vendor.
But the courts should decide if books explaining how APIs work are violating the copyright of the API vendor.
Technically, these languages are called hardware description languages (HDLs), mister turd brain. But they have a similar model to compiled software programming languages where you write the source code and feed it to a compiler which then figures out what digital logic elements are needed and how to connect them. So, very similar to compiling your C program (verilog code) into machine code *.exe (net list: consisting of primitive digital logic like AND, OR, XOR gates and flip-flops and how they're connected).
Wrong, analog hardware may not have source code, but digital hardware like microcontrollers and CPUs are written in hardware programming languages like Verilog (syntax similar to C) and VHDL (syntax similar to Ada).
Better yet, the car should give audio+visual feedback that the car is in summon mode. If the car had shown on the tablet touchscreen that the car is in summon mode, this accident would not have happened.
Actually, it's tires, brakes and roads. We know roads deteriorate within 5 to 7 years of use -- most of the road surface is no longer smooth and has to be repaved. So where did the road material go, other than emissions? Roads are manufactured from raw materials that are byproducts of petroleum processing. My guess is tires and brakepads are a tiny portion ( 10%) of these emissions.
This is also a case of stupid OS design. It's not the 1970s anymore and having a file delete operation (rm) without undo means the OS is designed (or un-designed) by retards. Making a lame excuse about offline backups is just a diversion away from the real problem: lack of a file delete undo operation.
Exactly, any decent terrorist/crook will use strong encryption software he obtained from elsewhere. So, despite all the backdoors installed by corporations in their products/servies, the govt. still won't be able to read his files or his communications. The only thing this bill will accomplish is giving backdoors to govt to spy on law-abiding people.
"Let's play"s and trailers and screenshots as well as reading opinions came out inconclusive. With no demos available, it was the only way to make sure my money wasn't wasted. Turned out 2 of 3 games were actually shit, so it was a good choice.
You could not evaluate the game by watching it on twitch.tv before buying/pirating?
In reality, it's much more complicated. To build a cell phone today, you have to license about 12,000 patents (or use third party parts from people who have them licensed).
Well, the cell phone is complicated device... it's practically a shrunk version of your laptop/PC so its many software/hardware components have been individually patented.
At the same time. James Watt's patents hindered any real progress, because engines with several coupled cylinders to make better usage of the boiler pressure could not be built as they all were found to be in violation.
Without the original Watt patent, these "coupled cylinders" invention would not have even existed. So either the new invention's owners should license the original patent or wait for it to expire. After all, patents are all about monopoly. And a 17 or 20 years monopoly is just an inconsequential blip in the grand scheme of technology and progress. Eventually, the steam engine area will have reached its innovation peak, and there will be few, if any, inventions in that area, so what's wrong with waiting 17 years for your 17 year monopoly.
And that's why I said "often zero" in my original post. In the some rare, exceptional cases, multiple inventors come up with same invention, but usually, it's only one individual/group that comes up with the invention.
To avoid a discrimination lawsuit, they (or another company) should create a male-only (just like we have male-only and female-only restrooms) ridesharing service. At that point, there would be no unfair discrimination and would be helpful to people who like traveling with their own gender.
The world doesn't owe you protection because, "I thought of it first!"
Sure it does, because in most cases, the number of people who think of it second is often zero. That is, only the original inventor will come up with the invention. Of course, the commies that rule this site will assert that the creation does not belong to the creator, rather it belongs to the masses.
To put it simply this law has nothing to do with protecting women from perverts and everything to do with punishing transgendered people for being transgendered.
Right now, the people with the male organs should use male bathrooms and female organs should use female bathrooms. What's is this punishing to transgendered people?
In the future, you could install two additional bathroom types -- the first for males who have a female identity and a second type of bathroom for females with male identity.
When you work for a taxi company who charges you a percentage of your fares for the right to drive the cab, that rate is typically one-third of your overall gross fare income, according to "Forbes." If you bring in $200 in fares during your shift, one-third is about $66. That means you have $134 left, part of which you use to pay for your gas, if required by your company
But can you explain why the consumer should pay more than 5% of the fare for the simple service of: "I'm at location X, find a nearby taxi willing to go to location Y?" 20% booking commission is outrageous.
There won't be if idiots like you keep supporting crony capitalism and keep creating legal hurdles for companies to jump through.
Speaking of hurdles, isn't this story about Uber setting up financial hurdles to prevent other internet taxi companies from entering the market and bankrupting the existing ones? Hypocritical much, mister crony? It's only bad if others do it, not your favorite company.
Actually, most taxi companies do none of these things. The taxis are owned by the drivers...
You are right, a foreigner who can't speak English, and has no money has the capability to buy a used car, repaint it in the taxi colors, obtain a medallion and operate it using taxi company only for booking. Yeah, right.
Taxi companies have to pay to purchase, service and garage their taxis whereas Uber pays exactly $0 for the above expensive costs, instead it leeches them from the driver. Given the above, since the driver is doing the bulk of the investing of resources, he should get more than the 70%.
We can hope there are dozens of internet-taxi booking services like Uber, making their service a commodity. Then we would have to pay only a token service charge around 5% of the fare (instead of 20%-30%) to the internet-taxi company.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the HTTP protocol is in the public domain, just like letters in the English alphabet.
Don't Ford, Honda and Toyota reinvent their own wheels instead of borrowing designs from each other? Copying ends where private intellectual property begins.
Yet everything that is creative and valuable is protected by the government. Because otherwise, only the lazy/incompetent idea stealers would benefit... kinda like you work for a company, but your work's salary is paid someone else, not you.
And? Do you have problem designing your own APIs instead of starting design with a competitors' APIs and modifying it? The world is full of copycats.
But thanks to this feature, I don't have to press any webpage buttons when I search using google or bing. I just type the search expression in the textbox and hit the Enter key -- quick and efficient.
You make it sound as if Google had no choice but to copy the APIs, coz there's no other way. But the reality is, there are multiple ways to express the same ideas. For example, Java itself has two different APIs just for file access: the regular one is in the java.io.* package and the other API for files is called NIO. Clearly, there are multiple ways to express file and other APIs and Google could easily create their own API for file access.
But the reason they chose to copy Sun/Oracle's API could be because they wanted something that programmers were already familiar with and to free-ride on the success of the Java language + API. Creating their own API would be risky, expensive, time-consuming, and prone to failure as it has not been tested.
A spot reserved to write the date is not a creative work, it is merely something that is required for any cheque to be usable.
A spot for dates on cheques can be creative work and can only be protected by a utility patent, not something as weak as copyrights. This is about copyright infringement, or exact copying of somebody's original work without payment/licensing. /. is full of pirates who hate creative people and just want to steal their work without paying a dime.
Wouldn't explaining how an API works fall under fair use? You're not copy-pasting the API for use in your software product, and therefore not unfairly competing or stealing from the API vendor.
But the courts should decide if books explaining how APIs work are violating the copyright of the API vendor.
Technically, these languages are called hardware description languages (HDLs), mister turd brain. But they have a similar model to compiled software programming languages where you write the source code and feed it to a compiler which then figures out what digital logic elements are needed and how to connect them. So, very similar to compiling your C program (verilog code) into machine code *.exe (net list: consisting of primitive digital logic like AND, OR, XOR gates and flip-flops and how they're connected).
Hardware doesn't have source code.
Wrong, analog hardware may not have source code, but digital hardware like microcontrollers and CPUs are written in hardware programming languages like Verilog (syntax similar to C) and VHDL (syntax similar to Ada).
Better yet, the car should give audio+visual feedback that the car is in summon mode. If the car had shown on the tablet touchscreen that the car is in summon mode, this accident would not have happened.
Actually, it's tires, brakes and roads. We know roads deteriorate within 5 to 7 years of use -- most of the road surface is no longer smooth and has to be repaved. So where did the road material go, other than emissions? Roads are manufactured from raw materials that are byproducts of petroleum processing. My guess is tires and brakepads are a tiny portion ( 10%) of these emissions.
This is also a case of stupid OS design. It's not the 1970s anymore and having a file delete operation (rm) without undo means the OS is designed (or un-designed) by retards. Making a lame excuse about offline backups is just a diversion away from the real problem: lack of a file delete undo operation.
Exactly, any decent terrorist/crook will use strong encryption software he obtained from elsewhere. So, despite all the backdoors installed by corporations in their products/servies, the govt. still won't be able to read his files or his communications. The only thing this bill will accomplish is giving backdoors to govt to spy on law-abiding people.
You could not evaluate the game by watching it on twitch.tv before buying/pirating?
Well, the cell phone is complicated device... it's practically a shrunk version of your laptop/PC so its many software/hardware components have been individually patented.
Without the original Watt patent, these "coupled cylinders" invention would not have even existed. So either the new invention's owners should license the original patent or wait for it to expire. After all, patents are all about monopoly. And a 17 or 20 years monopoly is just an inconsequential blip in the grand scheme of technology and progress. Eventually, the steam engine area will have reached its innovation peak, and there will be few, if any, inventions in that area, so what's wrong with waiting 17 years for your 17 year monopoly.
And that's why I said "often zero" in my original post. In the some rare, exceptional cases, multiple inventors come up with same invention, but usually, it's only one individual/group that comes up with the invention.
To avoid a discrimination lawsuit, they (or another company) should create a male-only (just like we have male-only and female-only restrooms) ridesharing service. At that point, there would be no unfair discrimination and would be helpful to people who like traveling with their own gender.
Sure it does, because in most cases, the number of people who think of it second is often zero. That is, only the original inventor will come up with the invention. Of course, the commies that rule this site will assert that the creation does not belong to the creator, rather it belongs to the masses.
Right now, the people with the male organs should use male bathrooms and female organs should use female bathrooms. What's is this punishing to transgendered people?
In the future, you could install two additional bathroom types -- the first for males who have a female identity and a second type of bathroom for females with male identity.
That is a rarity... most taxis are rented.
http://work.chron.com/much-far...
But can you explain why the consumer should pay more than 5% of the fare for the simple service of: "I'm at location X, find a nearby taxi willing to go to location Y?" 20% booking commission is outrageous.
Speaking of hurdles, isn't this story about Uber setting up financial hurdles to prevent other internet taxi companies from entering the market and bankrupting the existing ones? Hypocritical much, mister crony? It's only bad if others do it, not your favorite company.
You are right, a foreigner who can't speak English, and has no money has the capability to buy a used car, repaint it in the taxi colors, obtain a medallion and operate it using taxi company only for booking. Yeah, right.
Taxi companies have to pay to purchase, service and garage their taxis whereas Uber pays exactly $0 for the above expensive costs, instead it leeches them from the driver. Given the above, since the driver is doing the bulk of the investing of resources, he should get more than the 70%.
We can hope there are dozens of internet-taxi booking services like Uber, making their service a commodity. Then we would have to pay only a token service charge around 5% of the fare (instead of 20%-30%) to the internet-taxi company.