And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to.
Wow, you didn't even read further than my first sentence. There has to be some award for this.
Wow, I'm old. I never really stopped and thought about just how horrid modern class rooms have become, I certainly never pictured some twit droning on from a canned Power Point.
On the upside you'll be properly prepared for any number of meetings.
Wow, you are old. You didn't have books when you went to school? I can tell you that a teacher reading from a book is even worse. The problem is not books nor powerpoint, the problem is teachers or professors that couldn't care less.
I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!
They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to. Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players." Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians? Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations? And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much. Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players."
I patent patenting for profit!
This research seems kinda shaky.
That's not funny.
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
I find your code of ethics fascinating.
I find ethics fascinating.
so I'll give greater weight to my prejudices.
You say that as if scientists don't have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. I've never met a human that didn't.
All people make assumptions. Smart people are willing to give those up.
The part about free will is ignoring the fact that neurons are "fine" enough to be affected by such things as the Uncertainty Principle. This introduces some fundamental randomness in the system, which in turn means human actions are not necessarily purely deterministic.
Don't mix random and undeterminable. The observer is not the centre of the universe, so don't put yourself in that position. Even if you're able or unable to observe certain actions and reactions they are not bound to your observing. The fact that you are even able to observe is the product of a reaction, so the action has already taken place. Thus fate may very well still exist.
how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.
The subject in TFS is bad. It should have read "Malware downloads child..." instead. The possibility has always been there, it just hadn't happened yet, as far as I know. This gives new angles to tackle from the prosecutors side.
You are a lovely man.
Please, don't flatter yourself. Don't for one second think that anything you do by your "ethics" is justified more than what I do by mine. We have something called law, and these are the rules which we've woven together based on the common interests of all. You're just trying to push your (rather childish idealist) view onto others without any argument, so you use the ridiculous "ethics" card. That's another word for "duuh I don't know what to say but it doesn't like 'feel' right", if you're dumb, and if you're smart then it's merely a method of rhetorics. But guess what, unless you can show me how I can benefit from something I will never buy it. And if you're so shortsighted to not understand what I mean with benefit or profit, that if it also benefits those I care about it then benefits me, or that if it holds any future potential benefit (e.g. public healthcare), then I have no interest in further wasting my time. You can go preach somewhere else.
Oh and yes I am egoistic, all biological creatures are, but some are also more hipocritical than others -- and the latter I try my best not to be. Not for you or anybody else, but for myself as basing anything on a lie will produce an unwanted outcome.
I can see it's time for bed, because I'm spelling like an eight-year-old.
It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....
Google is the larger player with the largest user base around so, in your "sold out view", it should be OK to hurt the small player so the mass market can get something for free right?
Who's ethics? Mine or yours? Because mine doesn't agree. Whenever someone uses the words "ethics" or "morals" you know he's about to sell you his point of view of the matter. Do you not understand that ethics and morals are highly individual and to even assume that the opposite party shares yours is insanely egocentric. Let me tell you when it is OK to "hurt the small player" or the "big player" or any "player", for me: when I profit from it -- period. That's the way any profitable company play and that's the way any smart consumer plays. Nobody in their right mind goes into business because it's "nice", people go into business to make profit. And the consumer, aka the demandee -- which is on the other side of the tug of war of that which we call trade -- can only benefit from more suppliers. But seriously, you want to keep drawing the shorter straw because it helps you sleep at night, go ahead -- I can tell you I won't, no matter how many times you invoke your "ethics" or "morals" speach.
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon.
Eh? It talks about them in some depth. It notes that RI's patents are pending so it can't sue until they issue, but it can amend them to strengthen a potential action. It has some discussion of their copyrights, as well.
You're right, I didn't read the preamble. Still it was one sentence. You'd think there would be at least something pointing to what pending patents in specific. I don't understand how the article can be so long with so little actual substance.
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon. I don't care if Reframe is a small struggling company, as a consumer I want as many companies tearing eachother apart at the same time -- providing me with better services and lower prices. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that hinders development, and no the product might be very similar but it is not an exact copy, and even if it was I would never side with the people whom I do business with -- as that would be completely idiotic. I'm not even going to bother with the car analogies as you all know how silly this type of reasoning would be if it was applied there. What's next? Are we going to point fingers at Mozilla for not inventing the concept of the browser?
Unfortunately, anybody savvy enough to know about and install Google Frame isn't running IE anyway...
Google wave will change that. When people start migrating from Facebook (already a privacy scare for many, not to mention the "help" the media is giving), and even email, to wave -- Google will slap up some nice "propositions", such as "Oops! You're not running the Google frame. Click here to see how you can improve your wave experience!", or better yet "Oops! You're not using Google Chrome!
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
