Are you really morphing into a tabloid rag?
Hard as I try, I cannot see any IT angle on this.
time for you to get your coat me thinks El Reg.
10 posts • joined 23 Apr 2007
I would presume the reason for the latter route is if they sold the software, that would open up a huge can of worms in respect of rights to reverse engineer the code (why can't I - it's mine - I own it!).
License is (or should be) rights to use. And you should be able to sell on that right without any hindrance.
Just my ha'pennies worth. No Coat - it's warm enough.
Actually, that is probably the most lucid comment I have ever seen from him. Just read it a little slower and you'll see that what he says makes perfect sense - 2 people play switcheroo with their PAYG oysters mid-journey, thus covering the true start-end points of each person's journey.
If ever there was a graphical demonstration as to the sheer ridiculousness of the US patent system, this is it. I cannot see anything on this which, in any shape or form, is new and merits protection through a patent. Ludicrous - unless of course I've missed something stonkingly unique!
Firstly he has the money because he has set up a successful business (with all that implies) so good for him. Secondly the money he has spent is being ploughed back into the community. All in all, a rather good example of a free economy in action. His taste is questionable however, but that's up to him.
Just an aside - Thatcher did not say Society did not exist per se, she was saying, basically, that the word is merely a desciption of the end product of all us lot and how we behave, what we do, etc. As such it is not a body, an organisation, association or other but is actually lots of individuals. It was in response to specific question and so needs to be seen in context:
In answer to a question about what has caused a deterioration in the nation's moral standards, she answered:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
I doubt BA has made the cut, morelike the distributor who supplies all the airlines with in-flight entertainment. This is just a stupid story perpetrated in all probability by the Virgin-sponsored PR machine - the BBC reported it as well. In any case, cutting out the twit is better for the film as his appearance was completely ridiculous and snapped one out of 'filmspace'. It was the only stupid bit in the film so cutting it makes for better viewing.
Now if you could spend a second to think why you published the story, realise it was pointless and stop writing trite rubbish about BA. Or why don't you investigate why Virgin didnt publish it's own record on baggage losses or why Mr Branson looks like a bad advert for cosmetic surgery or why Virgin Media (aka NTL) is truly appalling?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019