As much as I hate Facebook (and merely strongly dislike Google) why is this an issue?
Why? Facebook collects and compiles detailed information about its members (starting with requiring users use their real name) but won't reveal even the most trivial information about itself... Total hypocrisy and double standards. Somehow FB's privacy is important but that of ordinary people is not.
Also, these companies are lobbying to increase the h1b quota so knowing the demographics of their workforce is relevant.
Sorry, this anti troll reform is beyond stupid. Does it have clear guidelines to determine which patent is trollish and which is valid? Since it does not, it immensely hurts holders of valid patents and therefore the entire patent system. Instead of punishing the patent holder, the USPTO should not issue patents that are troll-worthy.
Oh but when it comes to regular citizen being treated like suspects because of a few rotten apples then thats ok but forbid this would happen to big money holders.
Yes, because the common people are the serfs, whereas the big money holders are their masters/rulers. Therefore different rules apply.
That 70% doesn't go to the artists though. According to the page you linked:
Once Spotify has paid a rights owner the total royalties due for their accumulated streams, that label or publisher pays each artist according to that artistâ(TM)s contractual royalty rates. This will likely also take into account other factors including recoupment status, which is one reason that different artists in different deals might ultimately receive different royalties from their respective labels and publishers.
Independent artists can retain up to 100% of their royalty payouts from Spotify by using one of our aggregator partners (a small fee may apply). Click here for a list of these partners.
So artists in contract with labels get a much smaller chunk of the 70% and indie musicians have to sign up with some partner -- so not clear how much they really make (how much exactly is that small fee?)
According to another page, spotify pays $0.0007 per stream. I'm not sure if that's okay or too low a price.
In the internet age, distributors are dime a dozen. Spotify already undervalues music they stream, and the new google music service values music even less than spotify.
Say no to these leeches. How hard is it for musicians to hire web developers to create their own music streaming website?
When common employees lose jobs to automation and complain, they're Luddites. When people in power lose jobs due to automation, they just raise taxes. That's evil and retarded.
Please, Samsung copies Apple phones so slavishly... every tiny detail. The intellectual property laws are so weak protecting Apple. For eg: iphone 5c comes in bright colors white, blue, pink, green and 5s is gold. Guess what, Samsung now has gold, green, white, blue, pink phones with a slightly different texture (dots instead of flat color). Granted you can't protect colors, but my point is Samsung copies everything Apple does.
It would be a fscking joke if Samsung were to sue Apple for copying their stuff.
t's servers. The Cloud is made out of servers. They're making our remote computing out of servers.
Yes, but the cloud servers are (supposedly) much cheaper. Say you have to pay $50K admin salary to maintain 5 servers in your office. That's over $10K per server per year cost (excluding cost of hardware/software). Since the cloud companies use one admin for say, a hundred servers, their admin cost per server per year is only $500 -- much cheaper. They are going to charge you between $2,000 and $5,000 per server and it will still be cheaper than employing your own admin and owning your servers. Of course, greater the number of servers you use, the less cost-effective the cloud becomes compared to self-owned servers.
Even with these advantages, the cloud still causes a terrible loss of control and privacy of your data.
Well, the anti-Scientology material does not belong to the Scientologists. The copyright owners of such material are the critics of Scientology. So the removal request will be denied.
However, you should have the right to remove stuff from the internet that a) You own and b) Did not intend to publish (eg: internet search phrases)
Unions would still suck. Why should we be stuck in the industrial age with unions etc. when the age of the internet is already here?
A website, regulated by the govt, that allows employees to negotiate wages from various potential employers would be a better solution. The negotiation would be based on experience, performance, skill, programmer supply/demand etc.
There should also be consideration for passing company profits to employees if their work is above that required by a common employee. Apple has close to $1 trillion. Yet their employees are paid roughly the same as a no name company's average programmer. Is this fair? Are only business and marketing folks responsible for Apple's spectacular financial success?
No, the smart programmer does the work of 3 average ones but gets paid only 10 to 30% more. Hail commu/capitalism. The 30% will further shrink when unions enter the picture -- expect a very flat pay scale.
The law doesn't make bicycles safer than before. But it does make biking more optimized by reducing the energy a bike rider expends crossing an intersection. The old law required the bike to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and it requires more energy to get up to speed from a complete stop than a rolling stop.
GP does have a point -- CEO sets the direction of his employees without which there's no company in few days/months.
Witness the difference when Bill Gates was replaced by Ballmer. The former was highly competent in computers whereas the latter was a bean counter and marketeer. Ballmer was unable to effectively direct MS into new territories of computing because of his lack of expertise. The same thing happened when Scully took over Jobs at Apple.
You think they didn't have sugar, fatty foods and exercising decades ago? However, only a small percentage of people in the 70s and 80s were overweight. In today's age, if you aren't fat, there's still a chance your face seems swollen. Barring some health conscious people, actors, models and athletes, almost everyone seem swollen/fat somewhere. Therefore, I think the modern processed foods sold in stores and restaurants is the culprit. These foods might contain chemicals (perhaps some preservative) that fatten people as a side effect.
Tax-funded research should be in the public domain.
Well, the patent actually states this:
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
This invention was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ECD-8907068. The United States Government has certain rights in this invention.
Regardless, the public isn't getting any of that money.
Based upon her analysis of all the facts, Ms. Lawton determined that the proper value of the CMU invention was $.50 per chip.
Must have been one blockbuster of an invention to deserve 25% of the chip's profits. The invention was probably less than 5% of the chip's functionality, perhaps less. Even with penalties & lawsuit costs applied, how is it fair to eat a large chunk of the product's profit?
It is quite possible that the 50% would be distributed directly to the professor and the students would receive no compensation by default.
Yeah, right. The professor was probably marginally involved in the invention -- he/she probably only improved/refined the original idea. The "creator" proceeds should be divided equally unless you who know who did how much work.
AkA it makes all public interfaces private. It is not just a Java specific ruling, it has implications across all coding environments.
So create your library with its own original interfaces instead of cloning some proprietary software's interfaces. That's what Google should have done.
Aside from that, does anyone know why Oracle did not sue Google for cloning the Java Language (its syntax and grammar BNF)? Is a language not copyrightable?
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Facebook collects and compiles detailed information about its members (starting with requiring users use their real name) but won't reveal even the most trivial information about itself... Total hypocrisy and double standards. Somehow FB's privacy is important but that of ordinary people is not.
Also, these companies are lobbying to increase the h1b quota so knowing the demographics of their workforce is relevant.
Sorry, this anti troll reform is beyond stupid. Does it have clear guidelines to determine which patent is trollish and which is valid? Since it does not, it immensely hurts holders of valid patents and therefore the entire patent system. Instead of punishing the patent holder, the USPTO should not issue patents that are troll-worthy.
Yes, because the common people are the serfs, whereas the big money holders are their masters/rulers. Therefore different rules apply.
That 70% doesn't go to the artists though. According to the page you linked:
So artists in contract with labels get a much smaller chunk of the 70% and indie musicians have to sign up with some partner -- so not clear how much they really make (how much exactly is that small fee?)
According to another page, spotify pays $0.0007 per stream. I'm not sure if that's okay or too low a price.
In the internet age, distributors are dime a dozen. Spotify already undervalues music they stream, and the new google music service values music even less than spotify.
Say no to these leeches. How hard is it for musicians to hire web developers to create their own music streaming website?
All or some of them. Aren't there laws to deal with this type of situation?
When common employees lose jobs to automation and complain, they're Luddites. When people in power lose jobs due to automation, they just raise taxes. That's evil and retarded.
That's exactly what I hear non-programmers say about this profession.
Please, Samsung copies Apple phones so slavishly... every tiny detail. The intellectual property laws are so weak protecting Apple. For eg: iphone 5c comes in bright colors white, blue, pink, green and 5s is gold. Guess what, Samsung now has gold, green, white, blue, pink phones with a slightly different texture (dots instead of flat color). Granted you can't protect colors, but my point is Samsung copies everything Apple does.
It would be a fscking joke if Samsung were to sue Apple for copying their stuff.
Yes, but the cloud servers are (supposedly) much cheaper. Say you have to pay $50K admin salary to maintain 5 servers in your office. That's over $10K per server per year cost (excluding cost of hardware/software). Since the cloud companies use one admin for say, a hundred servers, their admin cost per server per year is only $500 -- much cheaper. They are going to charge you between $2,000 and $5,000 per server and it will still be cheaper than employing your own admin and owning your servers. Of course, greater the number of servers you use, the less cost-effective the cloud becomes compared to self-owned servers.
Even with these advantages, the cloud still causes a terrible loss of control and privacy of your data.
Well, the anti-Scientology material does not belong to the Scientologists. The copyright owners of such material are the critics of Scientology. So the removal request will be denied.
However, you should have the right to remove stuff from the internet that
a) You own
and
b) Did not intend to publish (eg: internet search phrases)
Or Oklahoma could cut/reduce costs and services until it recovers financially instead of placing an even bigger burden on its citizens.
Won't a kill switch make the 2nd amendment useless?
Unions would still suck. Why should we be stuck in the industrial age with unions etc. when the age of the internet is already here?
A website, regulated by the govt, that allows employees to negotiate wages from various potential employers would be a better solution. The negotiation would be based on experience, performance, skill, programmer supply/demand etc.
There should also be consideration for passing company profits to employees if their work is above that required by a common employee. Apple has close to $1 trillion. Yet their employees are paid roughly the same as a no name company's average programmer. Is this fair? Are only business and marketing folks responsible for Apple's spectacular financial success?
No, the smart programmer does the work of 3 average ones but gets paid only 10 to 30% more. Hail commu/capitalism. The 30% will further shrink when unions enter the picture -- expect a very flat pay scale.
Your so-called solution does break more things than it fixes. Who wants a second unreasonable boss?
Unions means the smart programmer and the average programmer get almost the same salary. Do you want that?
The law doesn't make bicycles safer than before. But it does make biking more optimized by reducing the energy a bike rider expends crossing an intersection. The old law required the bike to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and it requires more energy to get up to speed from a complete stop than a rolling stop.
If you want safer biking, build protected bike lanes in your city.
GP does have a point -- CEO sets the direction of his employees without which there's no company in few days/months.
Witness the difference when Bill Gates was replaced by Ballmer. The former was highly competent in computers whereas the latter was a bean counter and marketeer. Ballmer was unable to effectively direct MS into new territories of computing because of his lack of expertise. The same thing happened when Scully took over Jobs at Apple.
You think they didn't have sugar, fatty foods and exercising decades ago? However, only a small percentage of people in the 70s and 80s were overweight. In today's age, if you aren't fat, there's still a chance your face seems swollen. Barring some health conscious people, actors, models and athletes, almost everyone seem swollen/fat somewhere. Therefore, I think the modern processed foods sold in stores and restaurants is the culprit. These foods might contain chemicals (perhaps some preservative) that fatten people as a side effect.
Well, the patent actually states this:
Regardless, the public isn't getting any of that money.
Must have been one blockbuster of an invention to deserve 25% of the chip's profits. The invention was probably less than 5% of the chip's functionality, perhaps less. Even with penalties & lawsuit costs applied, how is it fair to eat a large chunk of the product's profit?
Yeah, right. The professor was probably marginally involved in the invention -- he/she probably only improved/refined the original idea. The "creator" proceeds should be divided equally unless you who know who did how much work.
Yes, $1.5B is quite big. Did Marvell make that much profit selling just the infringing chip? How exactly are damages calculated?
So create your library with its own original interfaces instead of cloning some proprietary software's interfaces. That's what Google should have done.
Aside from that, does anyone know why Oracle did not sue Google for cloning the Java Language (its syntax and grammar BNF)? Is a language not copyrightable?