Well, whenever this awesome inventor named Shampoo throws me a big fat random juicy idea in any e-mail, he just ends it with this simple disclaimer:
Everything that I have invented is just in thought and is not produced for lack of money. These inventions are property of myself and are to be patented, copyrighted and trademarked under my name: Shampoo.
So just remind everyone constantly that your idea was invented by Rival and should be patented and trademarked and copyrighted under your name: Rival. It's that easy.
I'm not conceited enough to think my idea is genius; I just assume that I'm not knowledgeable enough to see what I'm missing.
Dude, I would be ecstatic if people thought my ideas were worthy of discussion. A lot time my personal friends just respond with "meh" or less. Tells me I'd be torn apart to put it out online and never get anywhere coding it.
You're going to fail a lot of times. Just fail early and fail often. Don't worry about someone stealing your ideas because your ideas are really not that great. If you admit that now, everything gets a lot easier.
Funny that I actually gave up on an idea that revolved around this very concept for the exact same reason you are describing. When the Android SDK came out, I fired up the example and set to create a project that would allow the free exchange of ideas. Real original, right? It was simple, you authored ideas in 1,000 characters or less and saved them on your phone in your portfolio. Meanwhile they went back to the server and were databased, searchable and fed back out to other users. Users could view/tag/rate/add comments to/social network around ideas that others had made and add them to their collection of ideas. The best ideas would be rolled out to a web page or wiki with the original authors and contributing authors given credit. The idea being that you could read ideas on anything on your android phone or jot down ideas and store them server side when you're waiting for the bus. You could see all the ideas from a particular person, search based on tag, etc. Lots of things you could do with that.
So I pitched this idea to my friends as I started writing the server side service. Funny, they were afraid of the exact same thing you are. And yet another one of my projects barely in the larval stage died. Because of the fear of sharing ideas. You are not alone in your logic but you're not going to get very far if you don't shed that mentality. I guess your motivation may be money instead of just doing something interesting. If that's the case, I hope you are one smooth talking salesman because venture capital is harder to get these days.
This is a dangerous idea, because it will either cost Amazon money since they won't be able to maintain their business model on expired works...
You are extremely misguided in your analysis of this situation. To address your immediate concerns, the books have been scanned digitally. What's done is done. Amazon's Surge process is print on demand. So there's no loss of anything right now. Not one sale could be made and little cash would be lost as no books would be printed. Granted, these soft cover bindings aren't the nicest books, they're books. And you're also overlooking the fact that now libraries can have public domain books in physical copy on the cheap. Let's look at the FAQ:
Q. What is provided for in the agreement with BookSurge, part of the Amazon group of companies?
The University of Michigan will make thousands of books -- some rare and one-of-a-kind -- available on Amazon.com as reprints on demand. BookSurge will use the digital copies of the original works from the U-M Library collection to create a soft-cover reprint and mail it to customers.
Q. How long does the agreement run?
The initial agreement is for two years.
Q. Is this an exclusive agreement?
No. The agreement does not limit the U-M to offering reprints only on Amazon. In the coming year, the university will be extending the program and working with other potential printing and distribution partners.
Q. How will this work?
The public will be able to search for a title through the U-M Library or on Amazon.com. On the U-M Library Web site, for instance, there will be a "buy this book" link added that will allow users to order a reprint. Anyone with a link to the Internet and a credit card will be able to order reprints.
Q. When will these additional titles be available for purchase?
We expect to have the books available for reprint later this summer. We'll continue to add titles as books are digitized for the next several years.
Q. Where are the original books?
All of the titles offered for reprint are books or other publications that exist in the U-M Library collections. Some are very rare. Some are deteriorating badly and cannot safely be handled. All are being carefully preserved.
Q. Who will buy these reprints?
We think there will be wide interest in public access to these books. History enthusiasts, scholars, students, teachers and other libraries are among those we believe will make use of this new, low-cost reprint service.
Q. What will the reprints cost?
We estimate that costs will range from as little as $10 to about $45 for larger and longer books. Books will be mailed directly to customers.
Q. Who sets the price?
The U-M determines the list price of each book, which will be based on the length and size of the book. Amazon may discount that price, but may not charge more than the list price.
Q. Will the U-M make money on the reprints?
Yes, but that is not the primary goal. We want to make these books more available to the public and to scholars and this agreement accomplishes that. The books will be priced to cover the costs of production and a small profit. The university will use its proceeds to cover the cost of production and some infrastructure costs related to the digitization effort.
Q. Why would Google agree to sales on Amazon?
The university has an agreement with Google to do what it does best: Create digital copies of these books. Now the university has an agreement with a unit of Amazon to do what it does best: Sell books and other items very efficiently on the Internet. We think both are great partnerships and the companies
They can't sell reprints unless they are public domain. How many people who published works before 1929 are still alive?
Not all of these books are in the public domain. While I do not have a list of them, the article said only some of them are in the public domain. There are plenty of non-public domain books that are no longer in print and difficult if not impossible to get a hold of even if you have money to pay for them. That was why Google paid the Authors Guild and publishers $125 million (see the article I linked that is related to this story).
A couple of hundred years?!? I don't think you appreciate the scale we're talking here to the nearest solar systems. The fastest probes we've ever launched took like 9-10 years just to reach the edge of the solar system--just a few light *hours* away. The nearest solar systems are several light *years* away. So you're not looking at a few hundred years--more like tens of thousands of years. Not only that, but we also don't have the math or craft to hit anything with the kind of precision that far away, and no way to stop them once they get there even if you could make it.
You're right. And that was a stab in the dark on my part (it is by and large a joke post honestly). But when I said solar sail, I meant pretty big ones. Like this article mentions you might be able to net an acceleration of 1 millimeter per second per second acceleration from the sail. Maybe that's not reasonable but after nine years, you'd already be traveling a million kilometers per hour faster than when you left our system. With a solar sail, Voyager and other craft would have reached the end of our system much faster.
The sail would then, at a little bit before the half way marker, be flipped backwards so that the membrane would actually slow the ship down on its approach to Alpha Centauri. It would slow to a relative stop near the planet and (assuming everything survived) would use its thrusters for the only purpose they have -- plummeting it to the planet revolving around Alpha Centauri. Then you just need to wait another decade for the data to return to earth. Relatively quick, yes? Extra-solar expeditions need to be thought of in terms of generations not years so why don't we get started now?
I haven't worked all the math out but considering what solar sails might be able to do for us, you can't just compare this to existing craft and draw your metrics from that. Those craft only had initial boosts and will not accelerate.
Also, my diagram had a laser. You forgot to point out that that is unnecessary weight and power usage.
So I figure we build a few thousand probe droids with solar sails and sling shot them around the sun and send them aimed at planets of all nearest solar systems. I've got some basic plans drafted up. Couple hundred years from now the first will be hitting Alpha Centauri and although we may all be dead, the footage they send back will make for some bitchin opening movie scenes.
Whew, for a second there, everyone was scratching their heads wondering if Microsoft had something up their sleeve. Not so, apparently.
Personally I'm glad they can go back to making themselves obsolete and unneeded. We would forever be stuck with them if they slowly open sourced parts parts of their operating system like Adobe's doing with its Flash SDK. Really the situation is win-win in my mind: If Microsoft doesn't open source code and work with developers, the developers are just going to roll their own or go elsewhere. Conversely, if Microsoft open sources some of its stuff (like, truly opens it up with GPLv3) then we get to meet them halfway and maybe they'll be a valuable part of the community (supress laughter, it may happen yet). Granted, they've been very creative with things like the MsPL but people see through those ruses pretty quickly.
They're faking their embrace of open source now but open source is actually affecting them. This seems to be tacit acknowledgment that they need to support this on open source; no more "la la la I can't hear you!" It's a choice Microsoft can make soon now: relevance or extinction. Marketing can only keep them in the game for so long.
In November 2008, Apple sent a series of legal threats to the operator of BluWiki, alleging that these hobbyist discussions about interoperability...
Right because we wouldn't want hobbyists out there devoting their free time to making a hardware device more supported, interoperable, functional, etc. That would be horrible. It's funny how my operating system of choice was created from just that.
You know, I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here? Because if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase. Sure people might not be using my software that goes with the hardware but who cares? Sales of these devices can go nowhere but up. All I can think of relating this to is game consoles. Which--up until the PS3 & Yellow Dog Linux--they have been very wary of people using for alternative purposes for the sole reason that pricing schemes have long involved a loss on the console with massive profits raked in on licensing titles to the console. So you don't want your XBox360 turned into a Linux server never to play a game again or Microsoft just took a loss (not sure if they still take losses on that console, just an example).
So what's up, is Apple selling iPods at a loss with the expected return being iTunes Music Service sales? Or even the monetary value they assign to having iTunes and Quicktime on the consumer's computer?
If a hobbyist or start up company or anyone figures out a way to utilize iPod hardware in new ways, don't consumers have a right to purchase/use this? I don't recall signing a contract when I bought my iPod shuffle. And, as a consumer, I will state that the more functionality the better. This is why I hate that Apple bullies people out of using their iPods with different software and stops hardware makers from integrating with iTunes directly. It's borderline monopolistic in the same way IE was bundled with Windows.
... discussions about circumventing the company's music-playback software for iPods and iPhones...
After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented. But from Apple's latest letter:
As you know, Apple's objection about the "iTunesDB Pages" (as referenced in your complaint in this matter), sent to OdioWorks over seven months ago, centered on the publication of certain Apple code on those Pages. Since that time, Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone.
So I am to believe that there was a potential exploit in the Apple code that the wiki pages talked about exploiting and Apple has since removed/patched that code to be non-exploitable? I don't think Apple backed down, I think they just stopped discussion until they could render the exploit a non-issue.
How interesting you should pick this movie. In this movie, if I recall correctly, they had three endings. Because the Clue game has many combinations of endings so they tried to include that spirit in the movie. I personally enjoyed it.
Now let's look at other movies based on RPG games like Final Fantasy or Hitman. I must confess I've not seen or played the latter but let's face it, you have a definite ending in the game and you get a definite ending in the movie. Much more tangible to translate to the movie what makes the game so good -- plot (or what you have of it).
Now let's look at games that have no definite ending or story like Dungeons and Dragons. Ever see that movie? How painful. Why? Because it could not embody what makes the game so great: the unexpected. And once it's laid on celluloid, what's done is done. We're not going to watch Dungeons and Dragons and have the dungeon master lay different traps or experiences for the player every time we watch it. And, effectively, the movie cannot embody what I see as the greatest part of D&D. It can't even leave much to the imagination. It was doomed.
I see World of Warcraft following the same path as D&D. You're not going to get the great game mechanics, instances, battlegrounds, unique experience, etc. that you find in the game and package it into a movie. It's bound to disappoint because by definition, it must embody something that cannot contain what makes the game great. You might as well lift the plot from Dune, The Count of Monte Cristo or Lord of the Rings and dump it into the Warcraft universe. This movie has the odds stacked against it. Especially if I am expecting the World of Warcraft experience from it. How do you build an ending to a movie for a game that has no ending?
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things.
Speaking as someone who does this kind of research for a living, I can tell you that patentability is neither necessary nor desirable to spur research in the field.
Well maybe you should talk to the venture capital funds and the people who give you researchers money to do research that might result in nothing. Or do you work for free?
We're all quiet about drug patents when a company does something really beneficial for humanity and patents it. No one got upset with Cleveland Biomedical Labs for patenting those radiation fixing proteins--you'll notice their investors enjoyed a temporary 30% increase in stock worth that has since diminished. But when it comes to harvesting the money off said patents, they'll be monsters. Do we see this amount of research in other countries that don't honor patents? How are their researchers compensated? They feel good inside?
I'm all for patent reform and believe many medical patents are out of control, I'm just interested in how you see this model working if you are one of the researchers that needs compensation.
They merely patented something that a "common knowledge" thing in drugs.
I didn't realize it was "common knowledge." Now all you need to do is link to prior art in an e-mail to the Mayo Clinic's lawyers and everything will be resolved.
It's how urine drug screening has worked for 20 years, it's how tons of drug effectiveness tests work (mostly drug screenings).
I somehow think this is more complicated than that but I guess that's what I get from reading the article:
At issue in Prometheus are tests that measure levels of metabolites produced by the body after a person takes thiopurine drugs, which are typically used to treat Crohn's disease and other inflammatory bowel conditions. Knowing those levels helps doctors assess how well a patient is responding to thiopurine treatment. The drug dosage may be modified depending on whether the metabolite levels are too high or low.
Prometheus claims it alone is legally allowed to perform the tests that measure those metabolites. The company is the exclusive licensee of two patents--6,355,623 and 6,680,302--that it says cover the testing.
So urine screening has worked by testing metabolite levels as a patient responds to thiopurine treatment? See, it might make sense to us now but nobody knew it before the patent. If you can show that it was commonplace to check metabolite levels during thiopurine treatment and adjust dosage based on that, then these patents should be revoked. If not, the patents are unfortunately valid. Now, if this knowledge was gained from the patents then the patents are a good thing because they result in more accurate drug dosages and better treatment.
If you take away that revenue from Prometheus, what motive do they or other labs have to continue this kind of research?
Naturally, Prometheus Labs sees this whole story differently, arguing that the Mayo Clinic will profit from treating patients with knowledge patented by them.
I think I recall a part in the book Jurassic Park where the man behind the dinosaur research explains why he used Cray computers to read dinosaur DNA and not cure AIDS. Simply put, he could charge whatever he wanted for entrance to a dinosaur park but would probably be lauded as a money hungry monster to charge that same amount to treat AIDS patients. Being that millions of AIDS patients would not be able to afford it.
So we're all going to jump on Prometheus Labs and talk about the scenario in which the Mayo Clinic informs a patient they may have disease X and that they have the ability to test for it, they just can't unless the patient pays $200 to Prometheus Labs or some such surcharge.
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things. So, while I'd argue in favor of the Mayo Clinic, I have to admit that I'd rather have the ability to test myself for a disease for $X than to not be able to test for it no matter what the cost.
I guess it's the classic argument for patents. I'd be interested in hearing Prometheus Labs' pricing scheme. A modest one time fee per hospital? A once per use fee? Covered by insurance? What motive do they have to pour over this data and draw these correlations statistically without a monetary incentive of some sort to keep them going/make money?
Your e-mail address indicates you hold a position at UPenn. While I understand you trying to facilitate their collaboration by providing the right tools, shouldn't they be developing/discovering these tools themselves? I mean at U of MN, we each Unix accounts where we could create directories and set permissions on them. I would create a directory under the directory for that class and grant permissions to my partner and then we would both work on that directory through telnet/ssh/sftp/whatever and keep communicating. Most of the time, we would sit side by side in the lab brainstorming and talking about the project.
I suggest this because it's... well, probably more important to my career as a developer than learning Java.
If collaborating while writing code isn't natural to them, you should be pushing it. I'm not sure what server resources you have at your disposal. What if they have a lot of files? What if you need different permissions for each pair? I would say set up a SVN server but for each pair? And there goes complexity although I found TortoiseSVN to be very simple. It's great experience for them to work with a source control system though.
So what you should do is write a guide (or better yet, have an grad student write a guide) telling them how to share directories between each other and only each other.
If these are going to be one file projects (likely) and you don't care if everyone can see/modify everyone else's project (unlikely) why not make a Wiki with ground rules? Just put your code up on you and your partner's page and the whole history is right there.
Your other option is to go to a higher level course or your department and ask for a solution. You're in a computer science department and you're looking for a particular solution that isn't out there. Everything is too complex: cvs, git, svn, etc. So write up some basic requirements and give it to a class of grad students or someone looking for a research program. I'm thinking like a dumbed down interface to git is all that is needed to be developed. You know, like some really simple java application that points to your local directory and then server and then updates, commits or a few other basic commands? And open source it when you're done coding it:)
Um. Okay, let's dissect this. Microsoft has released device drivers under the GPLv2 which states:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Emphasis mine. I would find it more than hilarious to see the reaction on the faces at the EFF if Microsoft tried to sue someone who modifies/redistributes/forks this GPLv2 licensed code. By Microsoft releasing this under the GPL, Microsoft has basically announced there are no patents or copyrights on this code--otherwise they would not have been able to license it under the GPL. If so, Microsoft would have no one to sue but themselves before they demand people stop using the code.
I'm still not convinced on your argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm as cautious as the next guy. But isn't the GPL pretty rigorous (even v2) at protecting us from our fears?
I heard reasonable arguments about that being true for the Ms-PL but I thought the GPL (v2 and v3) were supposed to be embraceable and extensible but nearly non-extinguishable... once the code is out there, just fork it. Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL? I'd be shocked that no one's tried it yet if it's possible.
I thought the same thing. Check out 1852 copyright law where it was not only fines but also jail time. We may have been smarter about enforcing it but the penalty was still life stunting. You violating copyright shouldn't be the end of your financial life or freedom. A fine, certainly but the magnitudes that have always been in place are ridiculous. It just speaks to me that with little if any methods for enforcing it, the US DoJ has settled for a penalty so harsh you are scared into observing the law. And as you look across the years, it seems to have been that way for quite sometime.
Let's face, the people holding the copyrights are the people with the money. The same now as it was then. They will push the government to extend extend extend that copyright term and to prosecute heavily offenders. That's reality because it's largely out of the public's mind what benefit public domain affords them and even artists who make derivative works or embellishments on existing works. You want to rewrite Lord of the Rings with zombies for the enemy? Tough, you'll have to go further back in time. I'm shocked 'orc' is allowed in dictionaries let alone other works of fiction.
After reading some of those excerpts, I agree that it was handled better in those days. I wonder though, was the degradation of understanding on the side of the copyright law or on the side of the technology that enshrouds copyright law. I think judges and jurors understand the law quite well, it's the technology that implicates people that has increased in complexity and allowed lawyers to play with to exacerbate the situation. Music, Movies, works of art are all a very complex business today thanks to wonderful new technology. I think this is a better explanation.
Another explanation might be the failure of practicing fully communal societies like the U.S.S.R. Back then it could have been construed as possible for art to flourish with everything in the public domain. After watching the few movies that came out of communist countries, I think it definitely inhibits the production of quality art. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for either extreme. I'm just saying that there's a happy medium and we're gravitating away from that.
Well, I'm glad to see someone's correlating a drop in sales with the recession. If the history of the MPAA/RIAA is any indication, the game industry will claim OMG Piratez! and ask congress to pass whatever bill they want to make it punishable by death to pirate a game.
There's more information on Medical News today if anyone wants a more medical take on this and a less... Israeli interpretation (I don't know about you but I'm not too hung up on what nationality the researchers are and am more so interested in the technical details). Their 2008 annual report sheds a lot of insight on this as well. Although this information has been public knowledge since the beginning of the year, it should be interesting to watch their stock fluctuate throughout today.
Backups of DVDs and CDs are not illegal, what gave you that idea?
Wish you were correct. But you need only look at the short history of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy or Real's RealDVD whereby both ended in lawsuits where the movie studios won. Why is this? Our good friend, the DMCA.
Like I said, it's not prosecuted (when you do it in your home) but try to release commercial software that decrypts DVDs or even copies without decrypting a disc. Instant lawsuit. I'll bet if the MPAA/RIAA had a way to detect when this occurs without invading your privacy completely, we'd see a hell of a lot more lawsuits issued via the DMCA.
While it is a longer span for pressed DVDs, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA know that the media we purchase songs and movies on has a limited lifespan that may very well be shorter than the consumer's remaining years. And it kind of upsets me that creating backups for your own personal use of DVDs or CDs is illegal (although not typically prosecuted unless copyright infringement ensues). Personally, I rip all my CDs and some DVDs upon purchase and simply never use the disc again. It goes into storage and I create digital backups and hard copy backups of the discs. It's a bit pricier and not as instant as other ways of purchasing media but it ensures I'll always have it. When I purchased the latest Cloud Cult album, I bought the CDs and was able to download unencrypted MP3s immediately after purchase. When I purchased the vinyl record of She & Him, I was e-mailed a voucher to download the MP3s. I wish the big distributors would follow what the little guys are doing and offer you the whole package up front. Saves me a lot of work.
From the sound of it the NPG paid someone (either on staff or professional) to take these pictures. Then an American Wikipedian scraped them off their site and uploaded them to Wikipedia.
Ok, so let me illustrate for you the two extremes.
Situation A: My boss told me to photograph every single painting but he didn't give me any resources to do it. My son just got a digicam from his Twixx Sugar Blast cereal and I figured I would take that to work and snap some 640x480 pictures of these things and put them on the site. I don't really care and it's just going to take a day of work--oh well, no solitaire for me today!
Situation B: Okay, we hired this professional photographer to come in and take photos of these things. It's costing us a ton of bank but this guy's got 20 different lenses and these huge digital SLR cameras that... some of these are custom made. He's going to need us to shut down areas and pull all the curtains for a day in each room so that he can set up lighting and get the perfect reflection of the oil on these. He's also going to be taking shots of these things from several hundred angles each and then pour over them at night to select the best picture for digital online display. And each of these images is 3GB so we'll need to have some network area storage for him.
Now, legally both situations should be treated the same way, right? But if you had just dropped $50,000 of taxpayer money on situation B, you might consider what is in your possession to be a valid derivative piece of art based on how much effort and care went into these "reproductions" or "copies" or "facsimiles" or what ever word you might think best appropriate for them. The fact of the matter is that with the proper wording, you can make reproduction of something sound like the reproduction itself is a piece of art, time and care. Just as a symphony written 300 years ago requires artists to reproduce it today and that reproduction of it is copyrighted, these photos are probably also copyrighted. I'd also side with the museum.
What we need is a UK Wikipedian to go down to the NPG and snap some photos and put them on Wikimedia under a CC license so this can all be dropped. I know in DC the Smithsonians sometimes don't allow flash photography when it could damage the work but I think that's only on special items and items that have been lent to the museum from a private/personal collection. So respect them and avoid those pictures. Any art teachers out there in the UK that want to offer their kids extra credit for some point and shoot photography and correctly labeling/wikipedia-ing the photos?
I just ordered it and am downloading the install file now (893 MB). All three games are $5 (and the site says for this weekend only) when purchased as one. Normally they are $10 each. And the site accepts Paypal if you're afraid of handing out credit card information to yet another site.
Dirt cheap compared to most games even on Steam so I'll definitely see how well it runs on my Ubuntu box.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything that I have invented is just in thought and is not produced for lack of money. These inventions are property of myself and are to be patented, copyrighted and trademarked under my name: Shampoo.
So just remind everyone constantly that your idea was invented by Rival and should be patented and trademarked and copyrighted under your name: Rival. It's that easy.
I'm not conceited enough to think my idea is genius; I just assume that I'm not knowledgeable enough to see what I'm missing.
Dude, I would be ecstatic if people thought my ideas were worthy of discussion. A lot time my personal friends just respond with "meh" or less. Tells me I'd be torn apart to put it out online and never get anywhere coding it.
You're going to fail a lot of times. Just fail early and fail often. Don't worry about someone stealing your ideas because your ideas are really not that great. If you admit that now, everything gets a lot easier.
Funny that I actually gave up on an idea that revolved around this very concept for the exact same reason you are describing. When the Android SDK came out, I fired up the example and set to create a project that would allow the free exchange of ideas. Real original, right? It was simple, you authored ideas in 1,000 characters or less and saved them on your phone in your portfolio. Meanwhile they went back to the server and were databased, searchable and fed back out to other users. Users could view/tag/rate/add comments to/social network around ideas that others had made and add them to their collection of ideas. The best ideas would be rolled out to a web page or wiki with the original authors and contributing authors given credit. The idea being that you could read ideas on anything on your android phone or jot down ideas and store them server side when you're waiting for the bus. You could see all the ideas from a particular person, search based on tag, etc. Lots of things you could do with that.
So I pitched this idea to my friends as I started writing the server side service. Funny, they were afraid of the exact same thing you are. And yet another one of my projects barely in the larval stage died. Because of the fear of sharing ideas. You are not alone in your logic but you're not going to get very far if you don't shed that mentality. I guess your motivation may be money instead of just doing something interesting. If that's the case, I hope you are one smooth talking salesman because venture capital is harder to get these days.
This is a dangerous idea, because it will either cost Amazon money since they won't be able to maintain their business model on expired works ...
You are extremely misguided in your analysis of this situation. To address your immediate concerns, the books have been scanned digitally. What's done is done. Amazon's Surge process is print on demand. So there's no loss of anything right now. Not one sale could be made and little cash would be lost as no books would be printed. Granted, these soft cover bindings aren't the nicest books, they're books. And you're also overlooking the fact that now libraries can have public domain books in physical copy on the cheap. Let's look at the FAQ:
Q. What is provided for in the agreement with BookSurge, part of the Amazon group of companies?
The University of Michigan will make thousands of books -- some rare and one-of-a-kind -- available on Amazon.com as reprints on demand. BookSurge will use the digital copies of the original works from the U-M Library collection to create a soft-cover reprint and mail it to customers.
Q. How long does the agreement run?
The initial agreement is for two years.
Q. Is this an exclusive agreement?
No. The agreement does not limit the U-M to offering reprints only on Amazon. In the coming year, the university will be extending the program and working with other potential printing and distribution partners.
Q. How will this work?
The public will be able to search for a title through the U-M Library or on Amazon.com. On the U-M Library Web site, for instance, there will be a "buy this book" link added that will allow users to order a reprint. Anyone with a link to the Internet and a credit card will be able to order reprints.
Q. When will these additional titles be available for purchase?
We expect to have the books available for reprint later this summer. We'll continue to add titles as books are digitized for the next several years.
Q. Where are the original books?
All of the titles offered for reprint are books or other publications that exist in the U-M Library collections. Some are very rare. Some are deteriorating badly and cannot safely be handled. All are being carefully preserved.
Q. Who will buy these reprints?
We think there will be wide interest in public access to these books. History enthusiasts, scholars, students, teachers and other libraries are among those we believe will make use of this new, low-cost reprint service.
Q. What will the reprints cost?
We estimate that costs will range from as little as $10 to about $45 for larger and longer books. Books will be mailed directly to customers.
Q. Who sets the price?
The U-M determines the list price of each book, which will be based on the length and size of the book. Amazon may discount that price, but may not charge more than the list price.
Q. Will the U-M make money on the reprints?
Yes, but that is not the primary goal. We want to make these books more available to the public and to scholars and this agreement accomplishes that. The books will be priced to cover the costs of production and a small profit. The university will use its proceeds to cover the cost of production and some infrastructure costs related to the digitization effort.
Q. Why would Google agree to sales on Amazon?
The university has an agreement with Google to do what it does best: Create digital copies of these books. Now the university has an agreement with a unit of Amazon to do what it does best: Sell books and other items very efficiently on the Internet. We think both are great partnerships and the companies
They can't sell reprints unless they are public domain. How many people who published works before 1929 are still alive?
Not all of these books are in the public domain. While I do not have a list of them, the article said only some of them are in the public domain. There are plenty of non-public domain books that are no longer in print and difficult if not impossible to get a hold of even if you have money to pay for them. That was why Google paid the Authors Guild and publishers $125 million (see the article I linked that is related to this story).
A couple of hundred years?!? I don't think you appreciate the scale we're talking here to the nearest solar systems. The fastest probes we've ever launched took like 9-10 years just to reach the edge of the solar system--just a few light *hours* away. The nearest solar systems are several light *years* away. So you're not looking at a few hundred years--more like tens of thousands of years. Not only that, but we also don't have the math or craft to hit anything with the kind of precision that far away, and no way to stop them once they get there even if you could make it.
You're right. And that was a stab in the dark on my part (it is by and large a joke post honestly). But when I said solar sail, I meant pretty big ones. Like this article mentions you might be able to net an acceleration of 1 millimeter per second per second acceleration from the sail. Maybe that's not reasonable but after nine years, you'd already be traveling a million kilometers per hour faster than when you left our system. With a solar sail, Voyager and other craft would have reached the end of our system much faster.
The sail would then, at a little bit before the half way marker, be flipped backwards so that the membrane would actually slow the ship down on its approach to Alpha Centauri. It would slow to a relative stop near the planet and (assuming everything survived) would use its thrusters for the only purpose they have -- plummeting it to the planet revolving around Alpha Centauri. Then you just need to wait another decade for the data to return to earth. Relatively quick, yes? Extra-solar expeditions need to be thought of in terms of generations not years so why don't we get started now?
I haven't worked all the math out but considering what solar sails might be able to do for us, you can't just compare this to existing craft and draw your metrics from that. Those craft only had initial boosts and will not accelerate.
Also, my diagram had a laser. You forgot to point out that that is unnecessary weight and power usage.
I thought this was discovered and establish in 2005 by Mitsuo Hiramatsu, a scientist at the Central Research Laboratory at Hamamatsu Photonics. The only new information I recognize is that it varies by time of day, not that people emit visible light. Did this new study find anything else out additionally or just make pretty pictures that show it?
So I figure we build a few thousand probe droids with solar sails and sling shot them around the sun and send them aimed at planets of all nearest solar systems. I've got some basic plans drafted up. Couple hundred years from now the first will be hitting Alpha Centauri and although we may all be dead, the footage they send back will make for some bitchin opening movie scenes.
Whew, for a second there, everyone was scratching their heads wondering if Microsoft had something up their sleeve. Not so, apparently.
Personally I'm glad they can go back to making themselves obsolete and unneeded. We would forever be stuck with them if they slowly open sourced parts parts of their operating system like Adobe's doing with its Flash SDK. Really the situation is win-win in my mind: If Microsoft doesn't open source code and work with developers, the developers are just going to roll their own or go elsewhere. Conversely, if Microsoft open sources some of its stuff (like, truly opens it up with GPLv3) then we get to meet them halfway and maybe they'll be a valuable part of the community (supress laughter, it may happen yet). Granted, they've been very creative with things like the MsPL but people see through those ruses pretty quickly.
They're faking their embrace of open source now but open source is actually affecting them. This seems to be tacit acknowledgment that they need to support this on open source; no more "la la la I can't hear you!" It's a choice Microsoft can make soon now: relevance or extinction. Marketing can only keep them in the game for so long.
In November 2008, Apple sent a series of legal threats to the operator of BluWiki, alleging that these hobbyist discussions about interoperability ...
Right because we wouldn't want hobbyists out there devoting their free time to making a hardware device more supported, interoperable, functional, etc. That would be horrible. It's funny how my operating system of choice was created from just that.
You know, I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here? Because if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase. Sure people might not be using my software that goes with the hardware but who cares? Sales of these devices can go nowhere but up. All I can think of relating this to is game consoles. Which--up until the PS3 & Yellow Dog Linux--they have been very wary of people using for alternative purposes for the sole reason that pricing schemes have long involved a loss on the console with massive profits raked in on licensing titles to the console. So you don't want your XBox360 turned into a Linux server never to play a game again or Microsoft just took a loss (not sure if they still take losses on that console, just an example).
So what's up, is Apple selling iPods at a loss with the expected return being iTunes Music Service sales? Or even the monetary value they assign to having iTunes and Quicktime on the consumer's computer?
If a hobbyist or start up company or anyone figures out a way to utilize iPod hardware in new ways, don't consumers have a right to purchase/use this? I don't recall signing a contract when I bought my iPod shuffle. And, as a consumer, I will state that the more functionality the better. This is why I hate that Apple bullies people out of using their iPods with different software and stops hardware makers from integrating with iTunes directly. It's borderline monopolistic in the same way IE was bundled with Windows.
... discussions about circumventing the company's music-playback software for iPods and iPhones ...
After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented. But from Apple's latest letter:
As you know, Apple's objection about the "iTunesDB Pages" (as referenced in your complaint in this matter), sent to OdioWorks over seven months ago, centered on the publication of certain Apple code on those Pages. Since that time, Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone.
So I am to believe that there was a potential exploit in the Apple code that the wiki pages talked about exploiting and Apple has since removed/patched that code to be non-exploitable? I don't think Apple backed down, I think they just stopped discussion until they could render the exploit a non-issue.
Clue!
How interesting you should pick this movie. In this movie, if I recall correctly, they had three endings. Because the Clue game has many combinations of endings so they tried to include that spirit in the movie. I personally enjoyed it.
Now let's look at other movies based on RPG games like Final Fantasy or Hitman. I must confess I've not seen or played the latter but let's face it, you have a definite ending in the game and you get a definite ending in the movie. Much more tangible to translate to the movie what makes the game so good -- plot (or what you have of it).
Now let's look at games that have no definite ending or story like Dungeons and Dragons. Ever see that movie? How painful. Why? Because it could not embody what makes the game so great: the unexpected. And once it's laid on celluloid, what's done is done. We're not going to watch Dungeons and Dragons and have the dungeon master lay different traps or experiences for the player every time we watch it. And, effectively, the movie cannot embody what I see as the greatest part of D&D. It can't even leave much to the imagination. It was doomed.
I see World of Warcraft following the same path as D&D. You're not going to get the great game mechanics, instances, battlegrounds, unique experience, etc. that you find in the game and package it into a movie. It's bound to disappoint because by definition, it must embody something that cannot contain what makes the game great. You might as well lift the plot from Dune, The Count of Monte Cristo or Lord of the Rings and dump it into the Warcraft universe. This movie has the odds stacked against it. Especially if I am expecting the World of Warcraft experience from it. How do you build an ending to a movie for a game that has no ending?
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things.
Speaking as someone who does this kind of research for a living, I can tell you that patentability is neither necessary nor desirable to spur research in the field.
Well maybe you should talk to the venture capital funds and the people who give you researchers money to do research that might result in nothing. Or do you work for free?
We're all quiet about drug patents when a company does something really beneficial for humanity and patents it. No one got upset with Cleveland Biomedical Labs for patenting those radiation fixing proteins--you'll notice their investors enjoyed a temporary 30% increase in stock worth that has since diminished. But when it comes to harvesting the money off said patents, they'll be monsters. Do we see this amount of research in other countries that don't honor patents? How are their researchers compensated? They feel good inside?
I'm all for patent reform and believe many medical patents are out of control, I'm just interested in how you see this model working if you are one of the researchers that needs compensation.
They merely patented something that a "common knowledge" thing in drugs.
I didn't realize it was "common knowledge." Now all you need to do is link to prior art in an e-mail to the Mayo Clinic's lawyers and everything will be resolved.
It's how urine drug screening has worked for 20 years, it's how tons of drug effectiveness tests work (mostly drug screenings).
I somehow think this is more complicated than that but I guess that's what I get from reading the article:
At issue in Prometheus are tests that measure levels of metabolites produced by the body after a person takes thiopurine drugs, which are typically used to treat Crohn's disease and other inflammatory bowel conditions. Knowing those levels helps doctors assess how well a patient is responding to thiopurine treatment. The drug dosage may be modified depending on whether the metabolite levels are too high or low.
Prometheus claims it alone is legally allowed to perform the tests that measure those metabolites. The company is the exclusive licensee of two patents--6,355,623 and 6,680,302--that it says cover the testing.
So urine screening has worked by testing metabolite levels as a patient responds to thiopurine treatment? See, it might make sense to us now but nobody knew it before the patent. If you can show that it was commonplace to check metabolite levels during thiopurine treatment and adjust dosage based on that, then these patents should be revoked. If not, the patents are unfortunately valid. Now, if this knowledge was gained from the patents then the patents are a good thing because they result in more accurate drug dosages and better treatment.
If you take away that revenue from Prometheus, what motive do they or other labs have to continue this kind of research?
Naturally, Prometheus Labs sees this whole story differently, arguing that the Mayo Clinic will profit from treating patients with knowledge patented by them.
I think I recall a part in the book Jurassic Park where the man behind the dinosaur research explains why he used Cray computers to read dinosaur DNA and not cure AIDS. Simply put, he could charge whatever he wanted for entrance to a dinosaur park but would probably be lauded as a money hungry monster to charge that same amount to treat AIDS patients. Being that millions of AIDS patients would not be able to afford it.
So we're all going to jump on Prometheus Labs and talk about the scenario in which the Mayo Clinic informs a patient they may have disease X and that they have the ability to test for it, they just can't unless the patient pays $200 to Prometheus Labs or some such surcharge.
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things. So, while I'd argue in favor of the Mayo Clinic, I have to admit that I'd rather have the ability to test myself for a disease for $X than to not be able to test for it no matter what the cost.
I guess it's the classic argument for patents. I'd be interested in hearing Prometheus Labs' pricing scheme. A modest one time fee per hospital? A once per use fee? Covered by insurance? What motive do they have to pour over this data and draw these correlations statistically without a monetary incentive of some sort to keep them going/make money?
Your e-mail address indicates you hold a position at UPenn. While I understand you trying to facilitate their collaboration by providing the right tools, shouldn't they be developing/discovering these tools themselves? I mean at U of MN, we each Unix accounts where we could create directories and set permissions on them. I would create a directory under the directory for that class and grant permissions to my partner and then we would both work on that directory through telnet/ssh/sftp/whatever and keep communicating. Most of the time, we would sit side by side in the lab brainstorming and talking about the project.
... well, probably more important to my career as a developer than learning Java.
:)
I suggest this because it's
If collaborating while writing code isn't natural to them, you should be pushing it. I'm not sure what server resources you have at your disposal. What if they have a lot of files? What if you need different permissions for each pair? I would say set up a SVN server but for each pair? And there goes complexity although I found TortoiseSVN to be very simple. It's great experience for them to work with a source control system though.
So what you should do is write a guide (or better yet, have an grad student write a guide) telling them how to share directories between each other and only each other.
If these are going to be one file projects (likely) and you don't care if everyone can see/modify everyone else's project (unlikely) why not make a Wiki with ground rules? Just put your code up on you and your partner's page and the whole history is right there.
Your other option is to go to a higher level course or your department and ask for a solution. You're in a computer science department and you're looking for a particular solution that isn't out there. Everything is too complex: cvs, git, svn, etc. So write up some basic requirements and give it to a class of grad students or someone looking for a research program. I'm thinking like a dumbed down interface to git is all that is needed to be developed. You know, like some really simple java application that points to your local directory and then server and then updates, commits or a few other basic commands? And open source it when you're done coding it
Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL?
They can sue for infringement of software patents.
Um. Okay, let's dissect this. Microsoft has released device drivers under the GPLv2 which states:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Emphasis mine. I would find it more than hilarious to see the reaction on the faces at the EFF if Microsoft tried to sue someone who modifies/redistributes/forks this GPLv2 licensed code. By Microsoft releasing this under the GPL, Microsoft has basically announced there are no patents or copyrights on this code--otherwise they would not have been able to license it under the GPL. If so, Microsoft would have no one to sue but themselves before they demand people stop using the code.
I'm still not convinced on your argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm as cautious as the next guy. But isn't the GPL pretty rigorous (even v2) at protecting us from our fears?
Don't forget Microsoft's strategy: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
I heard reasonable arguments about that being true for the Ms-PL but I thought the GPL (v2 and v3) were supposed to be embraceable and extensible but nearly non-extinguishable ... once the code is out there, just fork it. Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL? I'd be shocked that no one's tried it yet if it's possible.
I thought the same thing. Check out 1852 copyright law where it was not only fines but also jail time. We may have been smarter about enforcing it but the penalty was still life stunting. You violating copyright shouldn't be the end of your financial life or freedom. A fine, certainly but the magnitudes that have always been in place are ridiculous. It just speaks to me that with little if any methods for enforcing it, the US DoJ has settled for a penalty so harsh you are scared into observing the law. And as you look across the years, it seems to have been that way for quite sometime.
Let's face, the people holding the copyrights are the people with the money. The same now as it was then. They will push the government to extend extend extend that copyright term and to prosecute heavily offenders. That's reality because it's largely out of the public's mind what benefit public domain affords them and even artists who make derivative works or embellishments on existing works. You want to rewrite Lord of the Rings with zombies for the enemy? Tough, you'll have to go further back in time. I'm shocked 'orc' is allowed in dictionaries let alone other works of fiction.
After reading some of those excerpts, I agree that it was handled better in those days. I wonder though, was the degradation of understanding on the side of the copyright law or on the side of the technology that enshrouds copyright law. I think judges and jurors understand the law quite well, it's the technology that implicates people that has increased in complexity and allowed lawyers to play with to exacerbate the situation. Music, Movies, works of art are all a very complex business today thanks to wonderful new technology. I think this is a better explanation.
Another explanation might be the failure of practicing fully communal societies like the U.S.S.R. Back then it could have been construed as possible for art to flourish with everything in the public domain. After watching the few movies that came out of communist countries, I think it definitely inhibits the production of quality art. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for either extreme. I'm just saying that there's a happy medium and we're gravitating away from that.
Build Your Own Annoyingly Segmented 10 Page Article!
How to Run Out of Practical DIY Ideas!
Host Your Own Ads for Under $1000!
Turn 50% of Your Site into Flash Ads in One Day!
How to Fake Content!
Embedding Popup Ads the Automated Way!
Going from Pioneer to Slowly Losing Relevance in 10 Easy Steps!
Earn Pennies a Day By Inconveniencing Your users!
R.I.P. Tom's Hardware.
Well, I'm glad to see someone's correlating a drop in sales with the recession. If the history of the MPAA/RIAA is any indication, the game industry will claim OMG Piratez! and ask congress to pass whatever bill they want to make it punishable by death to pirate a game.
There's more information on Medical News today if anyone wants a more medical take on this and a less ... Israeli interpretation (I don't know about you but I'm not too hung up on what nationality the researchers are and am more so interested in the technical details). Their 2008 annual report sheds a lot of insight on this as well. Although this information has been public knowledge since the beginning of the year, it should be interesting to watch their stock fluctuate throughout today.
Backups of DVDs and CDs are not illegal, what gave you that idea?
Wish you were correct. But you need only look at the short history of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy or Real's RealDVD whereby both ended in lawsuits where the movie studios won. Why is this? Our good friend, the DMCA.
Like I said, it's not prosecuted (when you do it in your home) but try to release commercial software that decrypts DVDs or even copies without decrypting a disc. Instant lawsuit. I'll bet if the MPAA/RIAA had a way to detect when this occurs without invading your privacy completely, we'd see a hell of a lot more lawsuits issued via the DMCA.
(Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.)
For those of you really concerned about optical media in your possession, check out NIST's "Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs - A Guide for Librarians and Archivists" [1.24 MB PDF warning]. That guide is extremely thorough.
While it is a longer span for pressed DVDs, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA know that the media we purchase songs and movies on has a limited lifespan that may very well be shorter than the consumer's remaining years. And it kind of upsets me that creating backups for your own personal use of DVDs or CDs is illegal (although not typically prosecuted unless copyright infringement ensues). Personally, I rip all my CDs and some DVDs upon purchase and simply never use the disc again. It goes into storage and I create digital backups and hard copy backups of the discs. It's a bit pricier and not as instant as other ways of purchasing media but it ensures I'll always have it. When I purchased the latest Cloud Cult album, I bought the CDs and was able to download unencrypted MP3s immediately after purchase. When I purchased the vinyl record of She & Him, I was e-mailed a voucher to download the MP3s. I wish the big distributors would follow what the little guys are doing and offer you the whole package up front. Saves me a lot of work.
If he created his own photos, he could post them.
From the sound of it the NPG paid someone (either on staff or professional) to take these pictures. Then an American Wikipedian scraped them off their site and uploaded them to Wikipedia.
... some of these are custom made. He's going to need us to shut down areas and pull all the curtains for a day in each room so that he can set up lighting and get the perfect reflection of the oil on these. He's also going to be taking shots of these things from several hundred angles each and then pour over them at night to select the best picture for digital online display. And each of these images is 3GB so we'll need to have some network area storage for him.
Ok, so let me illustrate for you the two extremes.
Situation A: My boss told me to photograph every single painting but he didn't give me any resources to do it. My son just got a digicam from his Twixx Sugar Blast cereal and I figured I would take that to work and snap some 640x480 pictures of these things and put them on the site. I don't really care and it's just going to take a day of work--oh well, no solitaire for me today!
Situation B: Okay, we hired this professional photographer to come in and take photos of these things. It's costing us a ton of bank but this guy's got 20 different lenses and these huge digital SLR cameras that
Now, legally both situations should be treated the same way, right? But if you had just dropped $50,000 of taxpayer money on situation B, you might consider what is in your possession to be a valid derivative piece of art based on how much effort and care went into these "reproductions" or "copies" or "facsimiles" or what ever word you might think best appropriate for them. The fact of the matter is that with the proper wording, you can make reproduction of something sound like the reproduction itself is a piece of art, time and care. Just as a symphony written 300 years ago requires artists to reproduce it today and that reproduction of it is copyrighted, these photos are probably also copyrighted. I'd also side with the museum.
What we need is a UK Wikipedian to go down to the NPG and snap some photos and put them on Wikimedia under a CC license so this can all be dropped. I know in DC the Smithsonians sometimes don't allow flash photography when it could damage the work but I think that's only on special items and items that have been lent to the museum from a private/personal collection. So respect them and avoid those pictures. Any art teachers out there in the UK that want to offer their kids extra credit for some point and shoot photography and correctly labeling/wikipedia-ing the photos?
I just ordered it and am downloading the install file now (893 MB). All three games are $5 (and the site says for this weekend only) when purchased as one. Normally they are $10 each. And the site accepts Paypal if you're afraid of handing out credit card information to yet another site.
Dirt cheap compared to most games even on Steam so I'll definitely see how well it runs on my Ubuntu box.