Considering I pay hundreds of dollars a day to stay in a hotel room, I can see how a hospital with 24 hour nurse care, doctors on rotation, medical equipment, and other things a hotel doesn't have, can cost thousands of dollars a day.
Doesn't mean the costs can't be brought down, but, they are still expensive.
Why do we keep going down the path of group-think, and putting everyone into the same bowl and treating everyone the same.
Why not make it easier for people to be in charge of, and manage their own destiny?
I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. This isn't about "power to the union" it is about power in numbers. It is the same way a dam stops the water flowing in a river, where a tree can't.
It is difficult for one person to go to management and say no. By the same token, it is difficult for management to say no to ALL of their employees.
If you assume 100% markup, then the bookstore pays $50 for a new book, and sells it for $100. Profit = $50. Probably with a way to return purchased books to the publisher.
Based on your numbers, they'll buy the used book for $30, and sell it for $75-$80 with no way to recoup cost if they aren't purchased (although they probably sell to a wholesaler or something) Profit = $45-$50
Looks like New books are more lucrative for the bookstores. Based on your numbers anyways/
Well MOST students sell their books back and the end of the semester. MOST students buy their new books at the beginning of the semester. Those two time periods generally don't overlap.
What is that supposed to mean?
You hire and retain a 50 year old, presumably because that person has a lot of experience. Experience helps.
If you feel that hiring a 50 year old is a crap shoot, how do you feel hiring a 25 year old is?
Software developers and software users – which in our society, is most people – need software to be free of patents.
No one NEEDS software to be free of patents. That is like saying users need smart phones and cars and houses to be free of patents. And yet all of those things have had patents, and outside of the recent spat in the smart phone arena, patents seem to mostly work. Sure, sometimes designers have to design around, or license patents to built their device. But they manage. Maybe it takes them longer to come to market, and the original designer enjoys an edge (and thus can design more)
So why is software special? Why do developers and users NEED software to be free of patents? Mainly only because software patents are given too freely.
The fix isn't to make patents basically worthless (just nullify them then) But to fix the approval process. "You applied? Here you go" At least that seems like what the approval process is today.
I have to say that I really, really dislike Stallman. And that said, his suggestion is actually a very sensible approach:
How is it a sensible approach? Basically he is saying. "we won't rescind the patents. We'll just make them worthless."
If I come up with a concept that it is utterly new, and difficult, but it can run on a PC... Why shouldn't I be able to patent it? Why does the "generallness" of the platform matter?
Why does it matter if it runs on a general platform?
What your gasoline can power any car? Sorry can't patent it.
Someone can come up with a novel idea that works on a general platform. And that deserves to be patented.
In Stallman's argument, it applies if it can run on "generally used computing hardware" and not "special-purpose hardware."
I'm not against software patents. But I am against giving out software patents for ideas, and for which prior art exists.
In your case, pretty much anything where the software imitates hardware shouldn't be patented. BUT if someone came up with the software concept (without the hardware concept existing) then it might be patentable.
Stallman is right about one thing, it isn't about "hardware" vs "software" But rather about how novel it is, and how new it is. Part of the problem is a good chunk of the software patents could be conceived by anyone skilled in the art. The other part is a good chunk have prior art.
What would the point of software patents be if this made it so nobody could ever infringe on one?
His point is you can't infringe on one on a "generally used computing hardware" but you can on "special purpose hardware"
Won't this mean you'll stick a PC into the kiosk, instead of an embedded system? This means more people will use more expensive general purpose computers instead of a cheaper "special purpose" device.
It is just some hand waving and smoke and mirrors to basically say "software patents" shouldn't apply.
My issue with software patents, is that they seem to patent an idea. MOST aren't novel. MOST have prior art. MANY are "do X on a computer", "do X on a tablet", "do X on the internet."
Take the "swipe to unlock' patent. What was novel about it? There was already code to detect gestures. There was already code to wake the machine from sleep. So the only thing left really is the idea of "swipe to unlock." Ideas shouldn't be patentable. And there isn't really anything novel about the concept of "slide to unlock" Barns have had that feature for years.
explicitly limited and was explicitly not put in place to make companies rich but to encourage inventors and artists by letting them profit off of their work for a *limited* amount of time.
IF you make the inventor rich, then he is free to invent more. How does that go behind the power given by the constitution?
It seems to work a bit, movie companies with money make more movies. Movie companies without money tend not to make anything.
If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
It looks to me like Apple (the tech company) ended up settling for a bucket full of money. Which is how things like this end up.
I believe OP's point was that had Mr. Fisher just pirated the films to begin with, instead of purchasing them legally, his metadata never would have been stamped on the content, and thus he could have shared to his heart's content, and most likely would have gotten away scott-free.
Yep, but then the person that originally uploaded them would be sitting in court instead of Mr Fisher. And then we'd be making this argument about Mr Elderberry. ad infinitum.
To those of you who think purchasing Flava Works's "works" is a good idea, let this be a less to you and torrent their content. What if your computer get stolen and the thief takes your porn collection and posts it to bittorrent sites? What if you get a virus and your porn files leak? What if you share a Flava Works file accidentally? I realize that that's a little hard to do with bittorrent, but you get the idea.
Perhaps if that was the case, then you can go to court and tell your side of the story.
Much like if you legally purchase a gun that is stolen, and then used to commit a murder.
The take away shouldn't be "well I'll just steal all my porn then." It should be "I won't give away my porn to lots of other people."
And MAYBE if you are accused of something, defend yourself?
I hear over and over that the fine is "absurd," "too large", "cruel and unusual." Why? Is it because a million dollars is a lot of money? Yes it is, and that is why the company is sueing. Could the company have made a 150K per movie? it is difficult to say. BUT Porn is big business 2.5 to 4 Billion a year. 1.5 million is a tiny fraction of that. It is conceivable that he cost the company a lot of that.
But is it absurd or too large? The argument is he can't pay it pack in his lifetime. Lets assume a bank robber steals a million dollars from the bank. Then gives it all away. Would it be cruel to ask him to pay it back?
Perhaps it is, and that would be a valid means of appeal. Of course, considering how he didn't defend himself the first time, do you think he'll appeal?
Slashdot Mirror
or when a company decides to not follow the law. Strength in numbers is still valid.
There are other professionals that will work on your behalf when the company decides not to follow the laws.
That's the main reason developers don't need a union. Unions are for supporting interchangeable employees. Devlopers have very specific skill sets.
I'm not a big fan of unions, but wouldn't you say that professional athletes have a VERY specific skill set?
The need for one is quite apparent.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this, and explain why it is quite apparent.
Considering I pay hundreds of dollars a day to stay in a hotel room, I can see how a hospital with 24 hour nurse care, doctors on rotation, medical equipment, and other things a hotel doesn't have, can cost thousands of dollars a day.
Doesn't mean the costs can't be brought down, but, they are still expensive.
Why do we keep going down the path of group-think, and putting everyone into the same bowl and treating everyone the same.
Why not make it easier for people to be in charge of, and manage their own destiny?
I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. This isn't about "power to the union" it is about power in numbers. It is the same way a dam stops the water flowing in a river, where a tree can't.
It is difficult for one person to go to management and say no. By the same token, it is difficult for management to say no to ALL of their employees.
If you assume 100% markup, then the bookstore pays $50 for a new book, and sells it for $100. Profit = $50. Probably with a way to return purchased books to the publisher.
Based on your numbers, they'll buy the used book for $30, and sell it for $75-$80 with no way to recoup cost if they aren't purchased (although they probably sell to a wholesaler or something) Profit = $45-$50
Looks like New books are more lucrative for the bookstores. Based on your numbers anyways/
Well MOST students sell their books back and the end of the semester. MOST students buy their new books at the beginning of the semester. Those two time periods generally don't overlap.
Even at reduced wages it's a crap shoot.
What is that supposed to mean?
You hire and retain a 50 year old, presumably because that person has a lot of experience. Experience helps.
If you feel that hiring a 50 year old is a crap shoot, how do you feel hiring a 25 year old is?
Coding is hard. That is why there is so much bad code. Of course coding is easier for some people than others, but that doesn't mean it isn't hard.
As for me at 48, sitting in front of the computer all day just pains me - literally.
Then don't. Stand there, many people find a standing desk works better for them.
It also pains me intellectually and emotionally - it's boring.
Oh, wait, I thought you were a programmer (cause you know, the topic was about programmers)
Software developers and software users – which in our society, is most people – need software to be free of patents.
No one NEEDS software to be free of patents. That is like saying users need smart phones and cars and houses to be free of patents. And yet all of those things have had patents, and outside of the recent spat in the smart phone arena, patents seem to mostly work. Sure, sometimes designers have to design around, or license patents to built their device. But they manage. Maybe it takes them longer to come to market, and the original designer enjoys an edge (and thus can design more)
So why is software special? Why do developers and users NEED software to be free of patents? Mainly only because software patents are given too freely.
The fix isn't to make patents basically worthless (just nullify them then) But to fix the approval process. "You applied? Here you go" At least that seems like what the approval process is today.
I have to say that I really, really dislike Stallman. And that said, his suggestion is actually a very sensible approach:
How is it a sensible approach? Basically he is saying. "we won't rescind the patents. We'll just make them worthless."
If I come up with a concept that it is utterly new, and difficult, but it can run on a PC... Why shouldn't I be able to patent it? Why does the "generallness" of the platform matter?
Why does it matter if it runs on a general platform?
What your gasoline can power any car? Sorry can't patent it.
Someone can come up with a novel idea that works on a general platform. And that deserves to be patented.
In Stallman's argument, it applies if it can run on "generally used computing hardware" and not "special-purpose hardware."
I'm not against software patents. But I am against giving out software patents for ideas, and for which prior art exists.
In your case, pretty much anything where the software imitates hardware shouldn't be patented. BUT if someone came up with the software concept (without the hardware concept existing) then it might be patentable.
Stallman is right about one thing, it isn't about "hardware" vs "software" But rather about how novel it is, and how new it is. Part of the problem is a good chunk of the software patents could be conceived by anyone skilled in the art. The other part is a good chunk have prior art.
What would the point of software patents be if this made it so nobody could ever infringe on one?
His point is you can't infringe on one on a "generally used computing hardware" but you can on "special purpose hardware"
Won't this mean you'll stick a PC into the kiosk, instead of an embedded system? This means more people will use more expensive general purpose computers instead of a cheaper "special purpose" device.
It is just some hand waving and smoke and mirrors to basically say "software patents" shouldn't apply.
My issue with software patents, is that they seem to patent an idea. MOST aren't novel. MOST have prior art. MANY are "do X on a computer", "do X on a tablet", "do X on the internet."
Take the "swipe to unlock' patent. What was novel about it? There was already code to detect gestures. There was already code to wake the machine from sleep. So the only thing left really is the idea of "swipe to unlock." Ideas shouldn't be patentable. And there isn't really anything novel about the concept of "slide to unlock" Barns have had that feature for years.
explicitly limited and was explicitly not put in place to make companies rich but to encourage inventors and artists by letting them profit off of their work for a *limited* amount of time.
IF you make the inventor rich, then he is free to invent more. How does that go behind the power given by the constitution?
It seems to work a bit, movie companies with money make more movies. Movie companies without money tend not to make anything.
yes I know iMac came first but outside of networking geeks Mac is an Apple word,
I think McDonald's might take offense at the suggestion.
That would be fine as a defensive position. But if your offensive position is "we didn't research before we sued..."
If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
It looks to me like Apple (the tech company) ended up settling for a bucket full of money. Which is how things like this end up.
I believe OP's point was that had Mr. Fisher just pirated the films to begin with, instead of purchasing them legally, his metadata never would have been stamped on the content, and thus he could have shared to his heart's content, and most likely would have gotten away scott-free.
Yep, but then the person that originally uploaded them would be sitting in court instead of Mr Fisher. And then we'd be making this argument about Mr Elderberry. ad infinitum.
To those of you who think purchasing Flava Works's "works" is a good idea, let this be a less to you and torrent their content. What if your computer get stolen and the thief takes your porn collection and posts it to bittorrent sites? What if you get a virus and your porn files leak? What if you share a Flava Works file accidentally? I realize that that's a little hard to do with bittorrent, but you get the idea.
Perhaps if that was the case, then you can go to court and tell your side of the story.
Much like if you legally purchase a gun that is stolen, and then used to commit a murder.
The take away shouldn't be "well I'll just steal all my porn then." It should be "I won't give away my porn to lots of other people."
And MAYBE if you are accused of something, defend yourself?
I hear over and over that the fine is "absurd," "too large", "cruel and unusual." Why? Is it because a million dollars is a lot of money? Yes it is, and that is why the company is sueing. Could the company have made a 150K per movie? it is difficult to say. BUT Porn is big business 2.5 to 4 Billion a year. 1.5 million is a tiny fraction of that. It is conceivable that he cost the company a lot of that.
But is it absurd or too large? The argument is he can't pay it pack in his lifetime. Lets assume a bank robber steals a million dollars from the bank. Then gives it all away. Would it be cruel to ask him to pay it back?
Perhaps it is, and that would be a valid means of appeal. Of course, considering how he didn't defend himself the first time, do you think he'll appeal?
We already have several crime fighting agencies to protect the country. We don't need the DHS nor their TSA.
I'm guessing someone is trying to set a world record with the largest walnut waffle