I am pretty sure games apply to teenagers a LOT more then Excel and basic functions do.
This isn't about teaching them how to do something. It is about getting them excited to want to do it.
Since the phone is locked down, even knowing how to program helps. You have to either jail break the phone, or ask Apple for permission to develop your own software.
The OPs argument is invalid. He claims he can hire an architect to build what he wants. Well you can hire a programmer to build what you want as well. It just costs more money.
No, not everyone needs to know how to program. Just like not everyone needs to know how a car's engine works, or how to fix it. Shoot I took several years of auto mechanics in high school. Rebuilt several engines. AND I am a computer programmer. Yet I doubt I could fix today's modern car.
In today's advanced society you don't need to teach everyone to do everything (it is sort of the definition of civilization that people are able to specialize)
My job as a programmer is to make it easy for people to use a computer so they don't have to also learn to be a programmer.
So this time the professor has lots of evidence that actual damage is being done. It will be interesting to see if the court changes their opinion based on this new evidence.
I'm failing to see the harm here. So small orchestra's can't play some music. So play some others. There are a lot of small groups across the country that can't do certain things because they can't afford the equipment. Are they being harmed? Perhaps the manufacturers should be sued to give these small groups the equipment?
It might be the problem is that there shouldn't be software patents.
It seems to me the problem is accepting pretty much any patent that is applied for. Especially in regards to the internet. A lot of these patents are for networks, or client/server architecture. It seems someone says "no one on the internet is doing this, so lets patent it" almost everyone forgets that not only did the internet exist before the World Wide Web but there was also a healthy BBS scene before WWW as well. Almost every patent I see that is being fought in court has prior art from 20-30 years ago.
I don't read legalese, I don't understand what these two patents are about.
One patent filed in 2006 seems to be about a way for a customer to specify what they want and get a "custom" designed "something" (The title of the application is customer-based-product design module) and talks about the user sending preferences to the vendor and receiving "preprogrammed interactions". In 2006??? Didn't we have a way for the user to order predefined "programmed interactions" well before 2006? Over a network?
The other was filed in 2003 and APPEARS to be a way to gather a survey from users of different devices (again something done prior to 2003)
I fail to see how either of these have to do with in app purchases. And I'm pretty sure both of these have prior art going back to the 80's at least.
I don't think that the patent concept is wrong. But when you give out a patent to anyone who applies for anything...
The spirit of the law has been violated; We ignored the foresight of the founding fathers. Now we suffer in our arrogance.
Yes you are right. The spirit of the law has been violated because of all the greedy people who don't want to pay for their entertainment (rationalizing their theft in a variety of ways)
Allowing "copies" of works to to exist to be transferred from the "publisher" to your screen doesn't break the spirit of the law.
Copyright exists for the benefit of the creator, whether that creator is an individual or a conglomerate, it doesn't matter.
And yes you can obey the law if you tried. But most people don't care, they want to listen to the latest music, watch the newest movie, or play the latest game. Without paying... And yet they claim the companies are greedy.
0.1% Literature, Science, Art, other stuff that is beneficial to mankind
Because obviously keeping in touch with friends, doing business, having an occasional laugh, and discussing issues with peers is NOT beneficial to mankind
> but I do happen to believe that burning the flag (other than to retire it) should not be okay. I wouldn't be okay with making it a serious offense either, but I'd be okay with it being maybe a tiny civil infraction--the flag represents something, a nation that is accepting of many points of view, a commitment to pluralism.
I think that burning the flag is a sign of disrespect. You are insulting the nation the flag represents. But the thing that is WORSE than burning the American Flag, is to make it illegal to burn the flag. The disgraces the flag far more than burning it could ever do.
The Flag represents freedom, it represents the American Nation. One of the tenants of that nation is the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression. By telling someone "you can say whatever you want, as long as you don't disrespect the flag" the tears down freedom of speech.
It's stuck with us because the voters these days are morons who are scared of foreigners with bombs, and are exactly the type of fools who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security. Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.
And yet recent history has shown us it isn't foreign bombers we need to worry about. They can't seem to blow up a car in time's square let alone their underpants. It is the domestic bombers we apparently have to worry about.
But thats ok, we'll suspend our liberties anways
I don't know where you live but I would bet that your country signed the Berne Convention (back in the 70s) thus making it illegal to share copyrighted files even with friends.
I'm amazed at the number of people who claim the guy is greedy. Whether you are a contractor or a full time employee you can ask for a raise (whether its monetary or in the form of equity) and any time. Feel like they are asking you to do more work? Feel like you are doing more work than others? Then ask.
They don't have to give it to you, they may laugh at you. They may also consider it. But you have to also figure out what will you do if they say no? Are you willing to continue to work there?
Personally talk to the company, explain why you feel like you deserve a piece of the pie.
And if other people feel you are greedy, then fine. They can work for peanuts.
Just because you are receiving equity doesn't mean you aren't a contractor.
Depending on his jurisdiction, he may not be a contractor, but an employee, and both him and his boss are looking at substantial tax penalties and fines.
I RTFS but apparently I read between different lines than you did.
While you might be right and the IRS might believe his is an employee, there is no evidence in the summary that this is the case.
Just because he works for a startup AND works hard, doesn't mean he isn't a contractor.
My High School had a computer programming class since the high school opened in 1968. At that time they used to take punch cards down to the mainframe at the school district. By the time I was a freshman in 1982 we had a pdp-11 to use. In 8th grade my eventual high school teacher taught an afterschool program in my junior high on Apples and Trs80s
So you think this item is good enough to benefit ALL the people, yet you don't think it is good enough to pay the creator of this item for his time and trouble of creating it?
Second, requiring a company to collect taxes in a state in which it has no physical presence could be construed as taxation without representation, an issue which historically speaking is unpopular in the USA - I think we fought a big war over it at one time...
The person purchasing the item is the one paying the tax for the state they live in... How is that taxation without representation?
lackluster and uninspiring? Really? Just yesterday I was reading an article about how Unbuntu was wanting to achieve the same lackluster goals MS has already reached, 200 million desktops.
Pretty much everyone on the planet has heard of, and used Windows and Office. The same can't be said for almost any other product (except for maybe CocaCola) While it might not be new and visionary (and not everyone can or does want to do that) it is pretty cool to know that your work has affected a boat load of people.
I thought if it was OBVIOUS then you couldn't sue, but if it wasn't obvious that it was satire, there could be problems.
And yet TFA seems to imply that people actually confused the "satire" with the actual company, and actually revoked their membership with the company!
These seems like a perfectly legal thing to sue over. The Summary claims "use of the mark is not commercial" yet it sure seems commercial to me when your fraud and libel causes a monetary lose to someone else.
There's no way the banks would allow Sony to have access to CC accounts without being regularly audited, never heard of any problems there.
Really? Perhaps the banks don't know that Sony has access to CC accounts.
AFAIK banks don't go around auditing their customers to see if they are complaint with storing CC accounts (and yes actually I am a bank customer. I wrote the code that sends the CC off to the bank. And no, we don't store the CC anywhere on our system. But the bank doesn't know that)
Instead you have an enormous ribbon with less than half the features available to you, taking up more space.
And it is nice to have most commands only two clicks away, it was much nicer when they were only a single click away like they were in previous versions.
The ribbon is essentially a step backwards to a sticky menu.
Someone I know is a drug runner. We were talking about some random stupid procedure somewhere (it might have been TSA I don't remember) I was telling him how I give them as hard of a time as possible. He told me that I can do that because I have nothing to fear as I am squeaky clean. Meanwhile he doesn't want to be noticed. Even when he isn't running. So he stays as quiet as possible, and tries to fly under the radar.
The guy complaining the most is most likely not a criminal, he is just being pissed off because he is being treated like one.
I RTFA and Google and Microsoft claim the patent is invalid because there is prior art. Although they also apparently claim their users aren't infringing on the patent.
BUT what is the prior art?
I also RTFP and I'm not exactly sure what it is for. I THINK it is supposed to do something similar to what Google does when you do a search and it returns places nearby. That is you want to know all of the restaurants in your neighborhood.
It appears the patent is saying you can give every item a geotag, and then do a search based on geo for all items with a geotag near the geo. I think.
I'm not sure what prior art existed before 1996. BUT this wasn't a novel issue. I worked for a company that discussed stuff like this in 1993. Maybe not directly related to the internet. But just throwing "internet" in the patent should not make it a patent.
According to boxofficemojo 20 of the top 25 grossing films of all time are sequels. I wonder why Hollywood loves sequels so much... Maybe it is because the public loves them as well?
Slashdot Mirror
I am pretty sure games apply to teenagers a LOT more then Excel and basic functions do.
This isn't about teaching them how to do something. It is about getting them excited to want to do it.
Apple does, by locking the device down.
Since the phone is locked down, even knowing how to program helps. You have to either jail break the phone, or ask Apple for permission to develop your own software.
The OPs argument is invalid. He claims he can hire an architect to build what he wants. Well you can hire a programmer to build what you want as well. It just costs more money.
No, not everyone needs to know how to program. Just like not everyone needs to know how a car's engine works, or how to fix it. Shoot I took several years of auto mechanics in high school. Rebuilt several engines. AND I am a computer programmer. Yet I doubt I could fix today's modern car.
In today's advanced society you don't need to teach everyone to do everything (it is sort of the definition of civilization that people are able to specialize)
My job as a programmer is to make it easy for people to use a computer so they don't have to also learn to be a programmer.
So this time the professor has lots of evidence that actual damage is being done. It will be interesting to see if the court changes their opinion based on this new evidence.
I'm failing to see the harm here. So small orchestra's can't play some music. So play some others. There are a lot of small groups across the country that can't do certain things because they can't afford the equipment. Are they being harmed? Perhaps the manufacturers should be sued to give these small groups the equipment?
Its funny, from the trailer I was thinking how realistic everything BUT the naked women looked.
It might be the problem is that there shouldn't be software patents. It seems to me the problem is accepting pretty much any patent that is applied for. Especially in regards to the internet. A lot of these patents are for networks, or client/server architecture. It seems someone says "no one on the internet is doing this, so lets patent it" almost everyone forgets that not only did the internet exist before the World Wide Web but there was also a healthy BBS scene before WWW as well. Almost every patent I see that is being fought in court has prior art from 20-30 years ago.
I don't read legalese, I don't understand what these two patents are about. One patent filed in 2006 seems to be about a way for a customer to specify what they want and get a "custom" designed "something" (The title of the application is customer-based-product design module) and talks about the user sending preferences to the vendor and receiving "preprogrammed interactions". In 2006??? Didn't we have a way for the user to order predefined "programmed interactions" well before 2006? Over a network? The other was filed in 2003 and APPEARS to be a way to gather a survey from users of different devices (again something done prior to 2003) I fail to see how either of these have to do with in app purchases. And I'm pretty sure both of these have prior art going back to the 80's at least. I don't think that the patent concept is wrong. But when you give out a patent to anyone who applies for anything...
The spirit of the law has been violated; We ignored the foresight of the founding fathers. Now we suffer in our arrogance.
Yes you are right. The spirit of the law has been violated because of all the greedy people who don't want to pay for their entertainment (rationalizing their theft in a variety of ways) Allowing "copies" of works to to exist to be transferred from the "publisher" to your screen doesn't break the spirit of the law. Copyright exists for the benefit of the creator, whether that creator is an individual or a conglomerate, it doesn't matter. And yes you can obey the law if you tried. But most people don't care, they want to listen to the latest music, watch the newest movie, or play the latest game. Without paying... And yet they claim the companies are greedy.
0.1% Literature, Science, Art, other stuff that is beneficial to mankind
Because obviously keeping in touch with friends, doing business, having an occasional laugh, and discussing issues with peers is NOT beneficial to mankind
> but I do happen to believe that burning the flag (other than to retire it) should not be okay. I wouldn't be okay with making it a serious offense either, but I'd be okay with it being maybe a tiny civil infraction--the flag represents something, a nation that is accepting of many points of view, a commitment to pluralism.
I think that burning the flag is a sign of disrespect. You are insulting the nation the flag represents. But the thing that is WORSE than burning the American Flag, is to make it illegal to burn the flag. The disgraces the flag far more than burning it could ever do. The Flag represents freedom, it represents the American Nation. One of the tenants of that nation is the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression. By telling someone "you can say whatever you want, as long as you don't disrespect the flag" the tears down freedom of speech.
It's stuck with us because the voters these days are morons who are scared of foreigners with bombs, and are exactly the type of fools who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security. Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.
And yet recent history has shown us it isn't foreign bombers we need to worry about. They can't seem to blow up a car in time's square let alone their underpants. It is the domestic bombers we apparently have to worry about. But thats ok, we'll suspend our liberties anways
I don't know where you live but I would bet that your country signed the Berne Convention (back in the 70s) thus making it illegal to share copyrighted files even with friends.
I'm amazed at the number of people who claim the guy is greedy. Whether you are a contractor or a full time employee you can ask for a raise (whether its monetary or in the form of equity) and any time. Feel like they are asking you to do more work? Feel like you are doing more work than others? Then ask. They don't have to give it to you, they may laugh at you. They may also consider it. But you have to also figure out what will you do if they say no? Are you willing to continue to work there? Personally talk to the company, explain why you feel like you deserve a piece of the pie. And if other people feel you are greedy, then fine. They can work for peanuts. Just because you are receiving equity doesn't mean you aren't a contractor.
Depending on his jurisdiction, he may not be a contractor, but an employee, and both him and his boss are looking at substantial tax penalties and fines.
I RTFS but apparently I read between different lines than you did. While you might be right and the IRS might believe his is an employee, there is no evidence in the summary that this is the case. Just because he works for a startup AND works hard, doesn't mean he isn't a contractor.
My High School had a computer programming class since the high school opened in 1968. At that time they used to take punch cards down to the mainframe at the school district. By the time I was a freshman in 1982 we had a pdp-11 to use. In 8th grade my eventual high school teacher taught an afterschool program in my junior high on Apples and Trs80s
So you think this item is good enough to benefit ALL the people, yet you don't think it is good enough to pay the creator of this item for his time and trouble of creating it?
Second, requiring a company to collect taxes in a state in which it has no physical presence could be construed as taxation without representation, an issue which historically speaking is unpopular in the USA - I think we fought a big war over it at one time...
The person purchasing the item is the one paying the tax for the state they live in... How is that taxation without representation?
The company can afford to give free car washes. But they can't afford to provide their employees with the tools to get their job done?
I RTFA and I didn't find out.
lackluster and uninspiring? Really? Just yesterday I was reading an article about how Unbuntu was wanting to achieve the same lackluster goals MS has already reached, 200 million desktops. Pretty much everyone on the planet has heard of, and used Windows and Office. The same can't be said for almost any other product (except for maybe CocaCola) While it might not be new and visionary (and not everyone can or does want to do that) it is pretty cool to know that your work has affected a boat load of people.
I thought if it was OBVIOUS then you couldn't sue, but if it wasn't obvious that it was satire, there could be problems. And yet TFA seems to imply that people actually confused the "satire" with the actual company, and actually revoked their membership with the company! These seems like a perfectly legal thing to sue over. The Summary claims "use of the mark is not commercial" yet it sure seems commercial to me when your fraud and libel causes a monetary lose to someone else.
There's no way the banks would allow Sony to have access to CC accounts without being regularly audited, never heard of any problems there.
Really? Perhaps the banks don't know that Sony has access to CC accounts. AFAIK banks don't go around auditing their customers to see if they are complaint with storing CC accounts (and yes actually I am a bank customer. I wrote the code that sends the CC off to the bank. And no, we don't store the CC anywhere on our system. But the bank doesn't know that)
Instead you have an enormous ribbon with less than half the features available to you, taking up more space. And it is nice to have most commands only two clicks away, it was much nicer when they were only a single click away like they were in previous versions. The ribbon is essentially a step backwards to a sticky menu.
Someone I know is a drug runner. We were talking about some random stupid procedure somewhere (it might have been TSA I don't remember) I was telling him how I give them as hard of a time as possible. He told me that I can do that because I have nothing to fear as I am squeaky clean. Meanwhile he doesn't want to be noticed. Even when he isn't running. So he stays as quiet as possible, and tries to fly under the radar. The guy complaining the most is most likely not a criminal, he is just being pissed off because he is being treated like one.
I RTFA and Google and Microsoft claim the patent is invalid because there is prior art. Although they also apparently claim their users aren't infringing on the patent. BUT what is the prior art? I also RTFP and I'm not exactly sure what it is for. I THINK it is supposed to do something similar to what Google does when you do a search and it returns places nearby. That is you want to know all of the restaurants in your neighborhood. It appears the patent is saying you can give every item a geotag, and then do a search based on geo for all items with a geotag near the geo. I think. I'm not sure what prior art existed before 1996. BUT this wasn't a novel issue. I worked for a company that discussed stuff like this in 1993. Maybe not directly related to the internet. But just throwing "internet" in the patent should not make it a patent.
According to boxofficemojo 20 of the top 25 grossing films of all time are sequels. I wonder why Hollywood loves sequels so much... Maybe it is because the public loves them as well?