I've got one of those Virgin/Pulse MP3/FM jobs with 256M; it holds roughly 4 hours of music, uses ordinary batteries, and serves double-duty as a USB drive. Every few days I change out some of the music so I don't get bored listening to the same (randomized) stuff.
The interface is use-it-blindfolded simple once it's set up (which takes all of a minute and a half). 4 inches long by 3/4 inch thick and 1-1/2 inches wide and weighs maybe a couple of ounces, so I can tuck it in any convenient pocket. Bought it discounted for $100.
Why in the world would I want to tie myself into proprietary Apple stuff?
like the judge said that Amazon's specific applications of 1-click (non-material goods, etc) is the key to their patent. Now we need a series of cases that define just where that 'line' is between infringement, and non-infringement.
In the mean time, I'm going to fill out my patent app for 0-click, then 3-click, then 4-click, then...
Good point about the educational system. Where's the science segment on Sesame Street? They wouldn't have to cover quadratic equations or anything like that, but at least including the subject would be a good start.
I have long been a purchaser of Kodak film and products; but that has come to an end. The Kodak lawsuit agains Sun Microsystems claiming that the Java programming language violates Kodak patents has convinced me that Kodak is no longer able or willing to function as a photography company. Rather, it appears that Kodak is now planning on ensuring its future as a corporation through the legal system, versus product creation and innovation. I am a computer user/programmer, and I use the Java language. At the earliest opportunity, I will be selling my film-based camera equipment, and purchasing a digital camera to ensure that I have no need for Kodak services or products.
I'm sorry, is somebody forcing them to spend
all this time, money, and effort?
No. But then again, the rest of us would be in a pretty sorry state if they stopped.
Also, I could spend a bunch of time, money, and effort producing something, but does that make me entitled to have people pay me for it?
Well, yeah.
By the way, it's quite possible for material goods to be produced without any "intellectual property" involved. It results in something economists call "perfect competition" (specifically, conditions #3 and 4), which doesn't sounds like a problem to me!
Pity we live in the real world, where "perfect competition" is only an ideal, not the way things work.
Yes, there is a difference between getting upset and something being illegal - and if it HAD been illegal, wouldn't you have been tempted to prosecute?
It is the very capitalization that you speak of that was being pirated. The companies involved spent considerable time, money, and effort to bring their products (the physical manifestation of the original ideas) to market. Why should they have to take a loss because someone else wants the goods for free?
You claim that there is a difference between physical property and intellectual property - but without the IP (ideas), there IS no physical property: the video you watch at home is the end result of someone's thoughts - their intellect. Someone THOUGHT UP the idea for the movie; someone else THOUGHT UP how to make it; someone else THOUGHT UP how to pay for it, and so on.
You may wish me in front of a firing squad for 'stupidity'; for my part, I pity you for your woeful ignorance.
Alternatively, those that DO produce original works will be less reluctant to expend the time, effort, and money to do so - thus resulting in fewer products of less innovation. Who's going to be inclined to write a book when they'll only sell a couple hundred copies before it is digitized and spread around the world? Who's going to take the time to develop the next big software app if they know it's going to be pirated within hours of being released?
What kind of variety in entertainment, productivity, and so on will we have if the producers are subject to the arbitrary whims of the grant-givers?
The very notion of giving someone a 'grant' to produce something is speculative: how to decide who to fund, and to what degree? Why fund someone at all if the grantor isn't going to get anything back from it (a presumption of limited available funds)?
If you could solve these problems, wouldn't YOU want to be rewarded for it?
That's why IP needs the special protections it gets: precisely because it is so easy to duplicate and disseminate in the digital age.
Yes, intellectual property IS going the way of the carrier pigeon and dodo - but there's no purpose to hurrying the process along until and unless 'we' can come up with something that protects the rights of those creative few.
Ever had anyone 'steal' an idea from you and get credit for it? Get upset, did you? That was Intellectual Property theft. If it's not okay for someone to do it to you, why is it right for you to do it to someone else?
How is it eroding your civil rights for someone that has spent a lot of time and effort and money developing something to expect to be rewarded for their effort?
How willing would you be to work for free? That's essentially what you're suggesting when you say that the IP rights of a 'few' be ignored for the benefit of others.
If someone chooses to forfeit their IP rights - or sign them over to a company that pays their salary - then that's their choice; summarily ignoring those rights just because it's inconvenient or expensive for others shouldn't be an option.
IP stands for INTELLECTUAL property; which shouldn't be treated any differently than physical property: if it isn't okay for me to use your car (the product of your labor) without your permission and compensation, why should it be okay for me to use the product of your mind without paying you for it?
Slashdot Mirror
From Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for wi-max. (0.25 seconds)
Even as this story is being read, MS is jacking the price of software up another $100 to recoup the losses they anticipate from this.
I think the cat was more pissed about being in zero gravity than being tossed around.
Doom3 here I come!
but will it run Longhorn?
he may lose his Cherry - say, in prison?
I've got one of those Virgin/Pulse MP3/FM jobs with 256M; it holds roughly 4 hours of music, uses ordinary batteries, and serves double-duty as a USB drive. Every few days I change out some of the music so I don't get bored listening to the same (randomized) stuff.
The interface is use-it-blindfolded simple once it's set up (which takes all of a minute and a half). 4 inches long by 3/4 inch thick and 1-1/2 inches wide and weighs maybe a couple of ounces, so I can tuck it in any convenient pocket. Bought it discounted for $100.
Why in the world would I want to tie myself into proprietary Apple stuff?
like the judge said that Amazon's specific applications of 1-click (non-material goods, etc) is the key to their patent. Now we need a series of cases that define just where that 'line' is between infringement, and non-infringement.
In the mean time, I'm going to fill out my patent app for 0-click, then 3-click, then 4-click, then...
until it starts bitching at people if they buy their usual foods, instead of government-approved healthy stuff?
Good point about the educational system. Where's the science segment on Sesame Street? They wouldn't have to cover quadratic equations or anything like that, but at least including the subject would be a good start.
what are the, er, "payload" options?
Knives made of: plexiglass, fiberglass, aluminum, or ceramics.
Binary (2-part) explosives (petroleum jelly and something from Anarchist's Cookbook)
ceramic single-shot firearms.
Need I go on?
What we need to fight crimes like hijackings are fewer laws disarming reputable citizens. I just got back an English Comp paper saying the same thing.
what you think about this one.
http://www.senate.gov
then click on your state.
that oversized dildo-looking Twiki from the Buck Rogers tv series?
Now maybe the sites will load faster... Er... Wait a minute...
Are you kidding me?
Most people can't think in two dimensions (how many morons do YOU cuss on the road?), and you want to toss in a third?
I say screw the _flying_ cars; how about automated cars & traffic control systems.
My comment to Kodak:
I have long been a purchaser of Kodak film and products; but that has come to an end. The Kodak lawsuit agains Sun Microsystems claiming that the Java programming language violates Kodak patents has convinced me that Kodak is no longer able or willing to function as a photography company. Rather, it appears that Kodak is now planning on ensuring its future as a corporation through the legal system, versus product creation and innovation.
I am a computer user/programmer, and I use the Java language. At the earliest opportunity, I will be selling my film-based camera equipment, and purchasing a digital camera to ensure that I have no need for Kodak services or products.
is as a 'spam magnet'. If an online form demands an email address, hotmail it is. I check once a week or so, mark everything as junk, and I'm done :-)
before one of the humanoid robots tries to squish it?
according to CNN
I'm sorry, is somebody forcing them to spend all this time, money, and effort?
No. But then again, the rest of us would be in a pretty sorry state if they stopped.
Also, I could spend a bunch of time, money, and effort producing something, but does that make me entitled to have people pay me for it?
Well, yeah.
By the way, it's quite possible for material goods to be produced without any "intellectual property" involved. It results in something economists call "perfect competition" (specifically, conditions #3 and 4), which doesn't sounds like a problem to me!
Pity we live in the real world, where "perfect competition" is only an ideal, not the way things work.
Yes, there is a difference between getting upset and something being illegal - and if it HAD been illegal, wouldn't you have been tempted to prosecute?
It is the very capitalization that you speak of that was being pirated. The companies involved spent considerable time, money, and effort to bring their products (the physical manifestation of the original ideas) to market. Why should they have to take a loss because someone else wants the goods for free?
You claim that there is a difference between physical property and intellectual property - but without the IP (ideas), there IS no physical property: the video you watch at home is the end result of someone's thoughts - their intellect. Someone THOUGHT UP the idea for the movie; someone else THOUGHT UP how to make it; someone else THOUGHT UP how to pay for it, and so on.
You may wish me in front of a firing squad for 'stupidity'; for my part, I pity you for your woeful ignorance.
Alternatively, those that DO produce original works will be less reluctant to expend the time, effort, and money to do so - thus resulting in fewer products of less innovation. Who's going to be inclined to write a book when they'll only sell a couple hundred copies before it is digitized and spread around the world? Who's going to take the time to develop the next big software app if they know it's going to be pirated within hours of being released?
What kind of variety in entertainment, productivity, and so on will we have if the producers are subject to the arbitrary whims of the grant-givers?
The very notion of giving someone a 'grant' to produce something is speculative: how to decide who to fund, and to what degree? Why fund someone at all if the grantor isn't going to get anything back from it (a presumption of limited available funds)?
If you could solve these problems, wouldn't YOU want to be rewarded for it?
That's why IP needs the special protections it gets: precisely because it is so easy to duplicate and disseminate in the digital age.
Yes, intellectual property IS going the way of the carrier pigeon and dodo - but there's no purpose to hurrying the process along until and unless 'we' can come up with something that protects the rights of those creative few.
Ever had anyone 'steal' an idea from you and get credit for it? Get upset, did you? That was Intellectual Property theft. If it's not okay for someone to do it to you, why is it right for you to do it to someone else?
How is it eroding your civil rights for someone that has spent a lot of time and effort and money developing something to expect to be rewarded for their effort?
How willing would you be to work for free? That's essentially what you're suggesting when you say that the IP rights of a 'few' be ignored for the benefit of others.
If someone chooses to forfeit their IP rights - or sign them over to a company that pays their salary - then that's their choice; summarily ignoring those rights just because it's inconvenient or expensive for others shouldn't be an option.
IP stands for INTELLECTUAL property; which shouldn't be treated any differently than physical property: if it isn't okay for me to use your car (the product of your labor) without your permission and compensation, why should it be okay for me to use the product of your mind without paying you for it?