for these bastards to come up against their own users, after the court screwed up the internet in favor of comcast. arguably, it didnt even take a day. which further signifies that they were laying in wait to attack their own users in this fashion. after all, they have nothing to fear for, since they are monopolizing entire swaths of entire states without giving any choice to anyone.
enjoy 'deregulation'. a world in which the insignificant user has to fend for himself/herself against the megacorporation.
But any good company will keep the same two or three strategic employees (through good compensation) to keep the framework focused. It's called management. Letting other 47 ever-changing guys run around unmanaged is akin to the inmates running the asylum.
"The Company" is those 50-100 people making the changes, and the 2 or 3 key people I mentioned above set priorities. How is this a bad thing? Again, no program could succeed letting all 47 other people make decisions...nothing would ever get done.
so everyone will depend on those 2-3 strategic employees. what if those strategic employees decide they want to have a career change ?
As opposed to random intern or new guy out of college? How is that bad? Besides, customers decide whether something needs upgrading or not, because they are the one paying for it.
because they decide to force people to upgrade despite they dont need it. ala vista, ala dx10.
I've learned that "nice to have" features and things like training never happen because nobody is willing to pay for them. Therefore, companies don't push updates that aren't necessary (i.e. nobody is paying for).
im leaving all other examples (disastrous bcentral closedown, innumerable frameworks that they ditched to bankruptcy of their collaborators and so on) aside, the mere fact that they decided to lock down perfecctly workable features of dx10 under xp to vista in order to force gamers to upgrade vista despite there was NO need to do it, tells enough.
I guess my mileage indeed varies, but this is my world view working for a 500 employee software company that has several product lines.
you are working for a software company therefore are seeing the software co. side. these are all problems that are prominent on client side.
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but 1-2 of the core group
that depends on the size and community of a project.
- priorities of the core group matter. if the core group thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until you sit down and fix it yourself. The make sure you roll those changes into every new patched version as it's released.
YET YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE CODE CHANGED IN-HOUSE WITH YOUR OWN MONEY. with proprietary software, you would be infringing. there is no way that you can fix a shortcoming of a proprietary app.
- the core group decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how the php group no longer supports the 3.x branch with new features anymore, or the PEAR group has under gone so many incompatible releases, and then stopped.
same as above. you can code your own modules, and do your own changes, even refuse any upgrades and still be as well off.
As someone who is currently working for the largest advertising/marketing company in North America, I can say your guess is incorrect about who uses what for extreme end 3d animation.
i thoroughly doubt that. not only that but also to expect an advertising/marketing company to be at the forefront of 3d animation and constitute a standard is far fetched. you probably havent seen a true 3d shop.
- noone but the core group knows why half the code is doing what it is doing. For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible,
you can still find your own expert, or hire your in house one, or train your in house one, or train yourself. you can never ever be at the mercy of a separate corporation that has its own priorities and wishes. noone will be able to dictate you any price. you wont be limited to certified vendors for anything.
For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk.
bullshit of the first order. first;
- please tell me who at microsoft got sued for innumerable security vulnerabilities, exploits and the billions in damages these cost to the people and businesses. who ? noone ? right.
For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk.
- with open source, you have the right and possibility to check the code for yourself. with proprietary, it would be ILLEGAL to do that. moreover, with open source, if what you are using is not an obscure software, chances are high that it has already been vetted by innumerable people around the world (crowdsourcing cant be beaten in that, due to the variety and difference of the people doing that), and is already being vetted continually.
that is why governments are forcing usage of linux in high security environments like army in germany and some other european countries. because, it is beyond stupid to rely on a software you cant look and vet, moreover beyond stupid to pay good money for a software that would mandate you to vet yourself despite the money you already paid. double the expense.
ie's 'protected mode' is an advantage ? what makes you think that firefox cant do that with plugins ? what makes you think that it wont be a feature in the next ff release ?
activex is another thing microsoft pushed onto people. what you are saying is it is good to use asp.net because you have to use iis in a corporate environment. despite iis being pushed into people by microsoft.
im still fighting with microsoft's ie8 deciding to regard as an independent 'block' level element, and anything that is related to form (like input) as additional block level elements that should be treated only in regard to that form, and disregard any other block level elements applied. moreover tag acts as if it was a closing tag for any other block level element open at that time (table, or div).
i have been fighting to make it compatible with ie8, and only ie8, while it works on all browsers including even ie6.
one shitty piece of proprietary software, has killed an entire day, because some idiot in their staff thought it was a good idea to do it like that.
microsoft will give you binary compatibility for a decade ?
you mean they 'gave' you backwards compatibility. not any more. and probably they wont give it out any more either.
moreover, if your issue is more or less a common one, (and sometimes even if its an uncommon one) someone in an open source community will issue a mod/patch for it to make it backwards compatible.
your posts equates proprietary software with 'better than the competition', and free software with 'inferior'.
no such delusion exists.
im going to assume that you havent formulated your argument wrong, and you dont have misconceptions, and give a proper answer :
because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 50 ever-changing group of developers in a closed company that can change its priorities at any given point :
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but those 50-100
- priorities of the company matter. if company thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until company decides otherwise.
- the company decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how microsoft tries to push stuff in windows oses, like the lock-down dx10 to vista trick, despite xp was well capable of running its home-user relevant components. the ones that couldnt, were related to people who were doing extreme end 3d animation, and those people dont use windows to do that, they use purpose built servers.
- if the company decides to write off the framework, everybody gets fucked. even though i am a small size developer, i had a few clients who were fucked up by microsoft deciding something wasnt worth it, like the bcentral ecommerce service. they just came up one day and announced their clients that their stores were going to be deleted in a month, and they should take care of themselves. bcentral was incompatible with everything else, and you had to manually import your inventory to any other ecommerce platform. my client had to recreate an inventory of 2000 products, with their options, prices, and images manually.
- noone but the company knows whats in that proprietary software. you cant go in and vet it. its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.
man. the list is endless and i dont have time to list many more.
if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, and STILL ask 'why proprietary software is bad', and ask everyone to justify themselves when they say so, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.
please tell me why we have to explain 'proprietary is bad' each and every time. i just provided an explanation despite all this havent i ?
i just want to know : why do we have to tell that it is bad each time we talk about it. it IS bad. noone knows whats in it bar 50-100 developers in a corporation. 50-100 developers who may get reassigned to other projects or cease working there at any given point. noone fix it but these people. noone can better it but these people.
see, because such 100 or so people were incompetent as to make ie8 treat tag as a block always (even if you tell it not to), i had to take away an entire formatting structure out of a website form and had to separate buttons with   ; . i didnt want to give absolute positions like morons, and nothing else availed. imagine. this is SO much 'bad form' in html that i cant even start to explain. yet, i had to do this in order to make ie8 properly align mere 3 buttons in 3 different forms.
it is strategically foolish to trust in proprietary software.
That's a bit of a naive depiction. Technology doesn't just "progress". It takes frequently-expensive R&D and investment. Investors aren't going to spend that money if they can't get a return. Back before patents, the answer was to keep everything as a trade secret. That stifles innovation because every company has to duplicate everyone else's research, over and over and over again. The patent system encourages public disclosure of innovations that wouldn't happen otherwise.
not naive at all. technology 'just' progresses, in an environment which allows free flow and exchange of ideas without requiring people to pay for them. most of the technological breakthroughs of late 19th and early 20th century were done with zero investment, and everyday items. just going through the early life of thomas alva edison will make it clear that for innovation to happen, one doesnt even need education, leave aside investment. early lives of tesla, faraday, and many other inventors and scientists are similar examples.
a lot of companies started from dirt by inventors themselves putting their effort forth, without having investors, or insignificant investment. especially most of the early machine shop factories and locomotive companies in the mid to late 18th century, and lives of some of the prominent pioneers of railroad technology are good examples for that.
back before patents, noone was keeping anything a 'trade secret', unless they were already established, big companies that were trying to do what the patent system does for them - withhold and feudalize information.
all throughout scientific revolution until late 20th century, and through early industrial revolution towards mid 19th century (until patent systems got going for good), the mood and culture in scientific and invention world was one of sharing and trading freely. i dont need to give any examples from scientists, for even the less informed in this area should know about the correspondences, exchanges, cooperation and seminars in between prominent scientific figures. for inventors, early aviators are a good example, the infinite amount of back-and-forth going, staying for a while together to build various craft, then going to their own places to build up on the ideas, trading aircraft, solving each others' problems and so on has been a de facto culture among them, including many names like wrights, langley, bleriot, lilienthal.
no sir.
as a history hobbiyst and admirer of the lives of numerous geniuses, i can outright and easily say that the 'patents spur innovation' is a bullshit that has been invented by asset holders (and mainly big asset holders, monopolists) in order to legitimize intellectual feudalism in modern age since 1800s. patents took prominence during mid late 19th century. and if you have enough knowledge about scientific history, you would know that these decades are the precise decades at which the momentum of the discoveries and innovation slowed down, and less geniuses started to appear. it coincides with patent craze and 'intellectual property'.
There are many products which can be made by a secret process, such that inspection or reverse engineering of the product doesn't reveal the secret process. Pharmaceuticals, for one.
this is irrelevant to what i had said. i mentioned that, even if we just allow profit rights to an item, it wouldnt do anyone good, since they wouldnt be let to use it for any purpose, due to they would be damaging the 'right holders'' rights.
Why do you think people should be able to get the fruits of someone else's hard work for free, if that someone else doesn't want to share?
the simple answer would be progress of mankind towards a better future, in the light of the history i typed above, especially when comparing what was life back then in 1750, and what it is like now. had we had the early momentum going by not implementing intellectual feudalism, the futuristic sci fi of living
they came there by huge manufacturing industries in between 1750-1950.
also, they were heavily exploiting the global markets in a one way fashion, through colonies, or priviledged deals or by just overpowering the fledgling markets through their output.
in some countries like turkey, they were even supporting governments that would create laws to curb railroad building for road building to create demand and sell ford cars exclusively through locally manufacturing plants.
end of colonialism, and recovery of the war thorn markets, and small markets standing up with their own production killed western economies starting 1950.
if the photographer is not paid for the use of the photo in that book, its a problem in between the photographer and the book publisher. not google or any other third party.
i would like to call the idiot who modded the above flamebait to come and fix the tag block level interpretation issue in ie8. their rendering engine is screwing up, and since it is proprietary, it cant be fixed by community. so we have to wait microsoft to get its ass up and fix their incompetence themselves in some far away point in future.
adding a proprietary directx to the mix will just increase these kind of hellholes, due to adding another dimension to watch out for. and since its proprietary, someone somewhere wont be able to produce a fix and publish it to relieve everyone.
so, the fool that modded the above flamebait, please, come and fix this rendering failure today.
for their shitty ie8 treats tag as a block level element. which means, you cant format or distribute long, populated forms properly with the use of divs, tables or any other form of structured output tag. adding "display : inline;" to a separate style declaration into the form tag doesnt fix it either. so, if you have any nested structure coexisting with the form, the tag acts like a or a
in regard to that structure in ie8. no other browser has this issue, not even ie6 has this issue.
this is a current hell, that i am in precisely at this second in time, and i have to fix their incompetence for my client.
so my advice to them is ; fix your browser before doing any 'acceleration'.
in a book that has been published you cant put time restrictions or usage restrictions per book. a book once published exists forever. you cant limit the photos to 1 year or etc.
in addition, with that kind of logic, i would be infringing upon photo rights if i, god forbid, loan the book to my grandmother or show the pics to my daughter.
he is doing so much evil and filth that he not only plagues america, but infects overseas.
so, god, gods, whatever (he/she/they) holds the power of life and death for this locale of the galaxy, please kill that fucking man and get us rid of him.
so, what if china, indonesia, and other southeast asia countries ramp up prices of their consumer goods in response to this digital 'rights' enforcement crap the west is trying to push down the throat of entire world ?
these countries can increase prices of their goods a lot, and still can make it impossible for west to reengage in manufacturing due to low price range.
result will be increased cost of living, a lot of problems and unrest in the west.
and if west imposes tariffs and taxes, east will do so as well. calculating that the eastern countries have more than 3 billion of world's population, the ~1.5 billion market the west constitutes cant compete with that. western economies would slowly come crashing down.
the west in this post signifies us, uk, canada, unfortunately. these are the pioneers of all this shit.
sure it does. technology is something that progresses steadily. anything that hampers its development for any period or duration, would hamper it in any other form. therefore, even if you limit patents to 1 year durations, this will still limit the development of technology to 1 year terms.
I'm aware you probably haven't taken a class in property law. They're not at all the same things.
the property law, which descends from middle ages feudal ownership laws (mainly french, later british), which in turn descends from a mesh of late roman empire property ownership AND communal germanic ownership concept. no, i havent had a full course on modern property law. however i am a history hobbyist, and in numerous sessions i have combed the progress and evolution of not only properties but also civil laws through roman to modern times.
even that is irrelevant. practice matters. once you give right to profit over something to solely one person or group, other groups will not be able to find many uses for that item. it wouldnt do anyone good to employ any kind of contraption as a hobby in their garage on weekends.
leave even that aside, the parties which hold profit rights will repeatedly try to take people who use the items for nonprofit, even personal purposes, in order to force them to pay, as we see from the recent events.
downline ; ip, patents are no different than feudalism. they are akin to giving property rights over a river or a bridge to a local lord, and they are detrimental.
Slashdot Mirror
shoot themselves in the foot while entire swaths of america feeds off their hands for internet. as if they have a choice to choose any other provider.
for these bastards to come up against their own users, after the court screwed up the internet in favor of comcast. arguably, it didnt even take a day. which further signifies that they were laying in wait to attack their own users in this fashion. after all, they have nothing to fear for, since they are monopolizing entire swaths of entire states without giving any choice to anyone.
enjoy 'deregulation'. a world in which the insignificant user has to fend for himself/herself against the megacorporation.
But any good company will keep the same two or three strategic employees (through good compensation) to keep the framework focused. It's called management. Letting other 47 ever-changing guys run around unmanaged is akin to the inmates running the asylum.
"The Company" is those 50-100 people making the changes, and the 2 or 3 key people I mentioned above set priorities. How is this a bad thing? Again, no program could succeed letting all 47 other people make decisions...nothing would ever get done.
so everyone will depend on those 2-3 strategic employees. what if those strategic employees decide they want to have a career change ?
As opposed to random intern or new guy out of college? How is that bad? Besides, customers decide whether something needs upgrading or not, because they are the one paying for it.
because they decide to force people to upgrade despite they dont need it. ala vista, ala dx10.
I've learned that "nice to have" features and things like training never happen because nobody is willing to pay for them. Therefore, companies don't push updates that aren't necessary (i.e. nobody is paying for).
im leaving all other examples (disastrous bcentral closedown, innumerable frameworks that they ditched to bankruptcy of their collaborators and so on) aside, the mere fact that they decided to lock down perfecctly workable features of dx10 under xp to vista in order to force gamers to upgrade vista despite there was NO need to do it, tells enough.
I guess my mileage indeed varies, but this is my world view working for a 500 employee software company that has several product lines.
you are working for a software company therefore are seeing the software co. side. these are all problems that are prominent on client side.
morons who were arguing it was better to let companies 'regulate themselves' ?
now the people will be 'hunted down, throttled/charged' for the service they have ALREADY PAID FOR, in full.
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but 1-2 of the core group
that depends on the size and community of a project.
- priorities of the core group matter. if the core group thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until you sit down and fix it yourself. The make sure you roll those changes into every new patched version as it's released.
YET YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE CODE CHANGED IN-HOUSE WITH YOUR OWN MONEY. with proprietary software, you would be infringing. there is no way that you can fix a shortcoming of a proprietary app.
- the core group decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how the php group no longer supports the 3.x branch with new features anymore, or the PEAR group has under gone so many incompatible releases, and then stopped.
same as above. you can code your own modules, and do your own changes, even refuse any upgrades and still be as well off.
As someone who is currently working for the largest advertising/marketing company in North America, I can say your guess is incorrect about who uses what for extreme end 3d animation.
i thoroughly doubt that. not only that but also to expect an advertising/marketing company to be at the forefront of 3d animation and constitute a standard is far fetched. you probably havent seen a true 3d shop.
- noone but the core group knows why half the code is doing what it is doing. For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible,
you can still find your own expert, or hire your in house one, or train your in house one, or train yourself. you can never ever be at the mercy of a separate corporation that has its own priorities and wishes. noone will be able to dictate you any price. you wont be limited to certified vendors for anything.
For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk.
bullshit of the first order. first ;
- please tell me who at microsoft got sued for innumerable security vulnerabilities, exploits and the billions in damages these cost to the people and businesses. who ? noone ? right.
For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk.
- with open source, you have the right and possibility to check the code for yourself. with proprietary, it would be ILLEGAL to do that. moreover, with open source, if what you are using is not an obscure software, chances are high that it has already been vetted by innumerable people around the world (crowdsourcing cant be beaten in that, due to the variety and difference of the people doing that), and is already being vetted continually.
that is why governments are forcing usage of linux in high security environments like army in germany and some other european countries. because, it is beyond stupid to rely on a software you cant look and vet, moreover beyond stupid to pay good money for a software that would mandate you to vet yourself despite the money you already paid. double the expense.
you should really change your field of work.
ie's 'protected mode' is an advantage ? what makes you think that firefox cant do that with plugins ? what makes you think that it wont be a feature in the next ff release ?
activex is another thing microsoft pushed onto people. what you are saying is it is good to use asp.net because you have to use iis in a corporate environment. despite iis being pushed into people by microsoft.
proprietary, is strategically bad.
well, the way he put his sentences is anything but that.
im still fighting with microsoft's ie8 deciding to regard as an independent 'block' level element, and anything that is related to form (like input) as additional block level elements that should be treated only in regard to that form, and disregard any other block level elements applied. moreover tag acts as if it was a closing tag for any other block level element open at that time (table, or div).
i have been fighting to make it compatible with ie8, and only ie8, while it works on all browsers including even ie6.
one shitty piece of proprietary software, has killed an entire day, because some idiot in their staff thought it was a good idea to do it like that.
to me, that's what proprietary software is.
microsoft will give you binary compatibility for a decade ?
you mean they 'gave' you backwards compatibility. not any more. and probably they wont give it out any more either.
moreover, if your issue is more or less a common one, (and sometimes even if its an uncommon one) someone in an open source community will issue a mod/patch for it to make it backwards compatible.
you misread my post. you should go back and read it again.
'where do you want to go today', and modifying it to infected, and how.
your posts equates proprietary software with 'better than the competition', and free software with 'inferior'.
no such delusion exists.
im going to assume that you havent formulated your argument wrong, and you dont have misconceptions, and give a proper answer :
because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 50 ever-changing group of developers in a closed company that can change its priorities at any given point :
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but those 50-100
- priorities of the company matter. if company thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until company decides otherwise.
- the company decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how microsoft tries to push stuff in windows oses, like the lock-down dx10 to vista trick, despite xp was well capable of running its home-user relevant components. the ones that couldnt, were related to people who were doing extreme end 3d animation, and those people dont use windows to do that, they use purpose built servers.
- if the company decides to write off the framework, everybody gets fucked. even though i am a small size developer, i had a few clients who were fucked up by microsoft deciding something wasnt worth it, like the bcentral ecommerce service. they just came up one day and announced their clients that their stores were going to be deleted in a month, and they should take care of themselves. bcentral was incompatible with everything else, and you had to manually import your inventory to any other ecommerce platform. my client had to recreate an inventory of 2000 products, with their options, prices, and images manually.
- noone but the company knows whats in that proprietary software. you cant go in and vet it. its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.
man. the list is endless and i dont have time to list many more.
if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, and STILL ask 'why proprietary software is bad', and ask everyone to justify themselves when they say so, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.
"How would you like to get infected today ?"
please the zealot who mods down everything that is against proprietary software regardless of merit of the post, come forward.
please tell me why we have to explain 'proprietary is bad' each and every time. i just provided an explanation despite all this havent i ?
i just want to know : why do we have to tell that it is bad each time we talk about it. it IS bad. noone knows whats in it bar 50-100 developers in a corporation. 50-100 developers who may get reassigned to other projects or cease working there at any given point. noone fix it but these people. noone can better it but these people.
see, because such 100 or so people were incompetent as to make ie8 treat tag as a block always (even if you tell it not to), i had to take away an entire formatting structure out of a website form and had to separate buttons with   ; . i didnt want to give absolute positions like morons, and nothing else availed. imagine. this is SO much 'bad form' in html that i cant even start to explain. yet, i had to do this in order to make ie8 properly align mere 3 buttons in 3 different forms.
it is strategically foolish to trust in proprietary software.
That's a bit of a naive depiction. Technology doesn't just "progress". It takes frequently-expensive R&D and investment. Investors aren't going to spend that money if they can't get a return. Back before patents, the answer was to keep everything as a trade secret. That stifles innovation because every company has to duplicate everyone else's research, over and over and over again. The patent system encourages public disclosure of innovations that wouldn't happen otherwise.
not naive at all. technology 'just' progresses, in an environment which allows free flow and exchange of ideas without requiring people to pay for them. most of the technological breakthroughs of late 19th and early 20th century were done with zero investment, and everyday items. just going through the early life of thomas alva edison will make it clear that for innovation to happen, one doesnt even need education, leave aside investment. early lives of tesla, faraday, and many other inventors and scientists are similar examples.
a lot of companies started from dirt by inventors themselves putting their effort forth, without having investors, or insignificant investment. especially most of the early machine shop factories and locomotive companies in the mid to late 18th century, and lives of some of the prominent pioneers of railroad technology are good examples for that.
back before patents, noone was keeping anything a 'trade secret', unless they were already established, big companies that were trying to do what the patent system does for them - withhold and feudalize information.
all throughout scientific revolution until late 20th century, and through early industrial revolution towards mid 19th century (until patent systems got going for good), the mood and culture in scientific and invention world was one of sharing and trading freely. i dont need to give any examples from scientists, for even the less informed in this area should know about the correspondences, exchanges, cooperation and seminars in between prominent scientific figures. for inventors, early aviators are a good example, the infinite amount of back-and-forth going, staying for a while together to build various craft, then going to their own places to build up on the ideas, trading aircraft, solving each others' problems and so on has been a de facto culture among them, including many names like wrights, langley, bleriot, lilienthal.
no sir.
as a history hobbiyst and admirer of the lives of numerous geniuses, i can outright and easily say that the 'patents spur innovation' is a bullshit that has been invented by asset holders (and mainly big asset holders, monopolists) in order to legitimize intellectual feudalism in modern age since 1800s. patents took prominence during mid late 19th century. and if you have enough knowledge about scientific history, you would know that these decades are the precise decades at which the momentum of the discoveries and innovation slowed down, and less geniuses started to appear. it coincides with patent craze and 'intellectual property'.
There are many products which can be made by a secret process, such that inspection or reverse engineering of the product doesn't reveal the secret process. Pharmaceuticals, for one.
this is irrelevant to what i had said. i mentioned that, even if we just allow profit rights to an item, it wouldnt do anyone good, since they wouldnt be let to use it for any purpose, due to they would be damaging the 'right holders'' rights.
Why do you think people should be able to get the fruits of someone else's hard work for free, if that someone else doesn't want to share?
the simple answer would be progress of mankind towards a better future, in the light of the history i typed above, especially when comparing what was life back then in 1750, and what it is like now. had we had the early momentum going by not implementing intellectual feudalism, the futuristic sci fi of living
they came there by huge manufacturing industries in between 1750-1950.
also, they were heavily exploiting the global markets in a one way fashion, through colonies, or priviledged deals or by just overpowering the fledgling markets through their output.
in some countries like turkey, they were even supporting governments that would create laws to curb railroad building for road building to create demand and sell ford cars exclusively through locally manufacturing plants.
end of colonialism, and recovery of the war thorn markets, and small markets standing up with their own production killed western economies starting 1950.
if the photographer is not paid for the use of the photo in that book, its a problem in between the photographer and the book publisher. not google or any other third party.
i would like to call the idiot who modded the above flamebait to come and fix the tag block level interpretation issue in ie8. their rendering engine is screwing up, and since it is proprietary, it cant be fixed by community. so we have to wait microsoft to get its ass up and fix their incompetence themselves in some far away point in future.
adding a proprietary directx to the mix will just increase these kind of hellholes, due to adding another dimension to watch out for. and since its proprietary, someone somewhere wont be able to produce a fix and publish it to relieve everyone.
so, the fool that modded the above flamebait, please, come and fix this rendering failure today.
for their shitty ie8 treats tag as a block level element. which means, you cant format or distribute long, populated forms properly with the use of divs, tables or any other form of structured output tag. adding "display : inline;" to a separate style declaration into the form tag doesnt fix it either. so, if you have any nested structure coexisting with the form, the tag acts like a or a
in regard to that structure in ie8. no other browser has this issue, not even ie6 has this issue.
this is a current hell, that i am in precisely at this second in time, and i have to fix their incompetence for my client.
so my advice to them is ; fix your browser before doing any 'acceleration'.
in a book that has been published you cant put time restrictions or usage restrictions per book. a book once published exists forever. you cant limit the photos to 1 year or etc.
in addition, with that kind of logic, i would be infringing upon photo rights if i, god forbid, loan the book to my grandmother or show the pics to my daughter.
he is doing so much evil and filth that he not only plagues america, but infects overseas.
so, god, gods, whatever (he/she/they) holds the power of life and death for this locale of the galaxy, please kill that fucking man and get us rid of him.
Beyond stupid though.
so, what if china, indonesia, and other southeast asia countries ramp up prices of their consumer goods in response to this digital 'rights' enforcement crap the west is trying to push down the throat of entire world ?
these countries can increase prices of their goods a lot, and still can make it impossible for west to reengage in manufacturing due to low price range.
result will be increased cost of living, a lot of problems and unrest in the west.
and if west imposes tariffs and taxes, east will do so as well. calculating that the eastern countries have more than 3 billion of world's population, the ~1.5 billion market the west constitutes cant compete with that. western economies would slowly come crashing down.
the west in this post signifies us, uk, canada, unfortunately. these are the pioneers of all this shit.
you give rights to a writer to use your photos in his/her book and get paid.
google makes previews of books. the previews contain your images.
you go sue google, DESPITE you have already been paid.
basically, you want to be paid double. in lieu of all the honest people who work, and get salaries only once a month for what they do, not twice.
the court should charge those photographers for wasting public money for time courts lose for dealing with that case, and some additional punitives.
That doesn't follow logically at all.
sure it does. technology is something that progresses steadily. anything that hampers its development for any period or duration, would hamper it in any other form. therefore, even if you limit patents to 1 year durations, this will still limit the development of technology to 1 year terms.
I'm aware you probably haven't taken a class in property law. They're not at all the same things.
the property law, which descends from middle ages feudal ownership laws (mainly french, later british), which in turn descends from a mesh of late roman empire property ownership AND communal germanic ownership concept. no, i havent had a full course on modern property law. however i am a history hobbyist, and in numerous sessions i have combed the progress and evolution of not only properties but also civil laws through roman to modern times.
even that is irrelevant. practice matters. once you give right to profit over something to solely one person or group, other groups will not be able to find many uses for that item. it wouldnt do anyone good to employ any kind of contraption as a hobby in their garage on weekends.
leave even that aside, the parties which hold profit rights will repeatedly try to take people who use the items for nonprofit, even personal purposes, in order to force them to pay, as we see from the recent events.
downline ; ip, patents are no different than feudalism. they are akin to giving property rights over a river or a bridge to a local lord, and they are detrimental.