Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Rebuttal, Satellite, Patents
RTFPrint An Anonymous Coward writes: "As I'm sure is true of many others among the Slashdot faithful, I was ecstatic to see the culmination of this story earlier in the week. It seemed that Comcast's leadership had experienced a sudden and uncharacteristic attack of common sense. As a former @Home subscriber being moved to Comcast's network, I'd balked at the new terms of service Comcast required (particularly the part about giving Comcast permission to track my browsing). So, if Comcast swears that it won't track users' browsing anymore, why does it still ask for permission to? Exhibit 1: Comcast's "Subscriber Agreement". May I direct your attention to section 5, entitled "Collection, Use and Disclosure Of Information On Subscriber Use", in which Comcast requests that you give permission for them to track (and sell) information about your browsing habits. I particularly like the part about how collecting information on users' browsing is "necessary to provide the Service". Note also that this exact "Subscriber Agreement" is required for ex-@Home users to move to Comcast's network. How fortunate that I just last week got notified about the avaiability of DSL in my area...."
It's not as simple as averaging "W" and "Y." marktwain writes: "Gene Steinberg probably has the most sensible rebuttal on his website http://www.macnightowl.com/ to Robert Cringely's recent article which Slashdot linked to, commented about, and which deserves a rebuttal. The whole idea of porting OS X is not only inane but is an idea which was flogged to death a year ago. And if Cringely's article wasn't bad enough, Slashdot kicked off with the equally inane "but Apples are so expensive" garbage. In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other."
Getting the most of sky-high satellite costs. Jason Nunnelly sent in a note that he's updated his information on connecting a home network to the Net using satellite, a feat that can be difficult and expensive. Of course, when all your options are difficult and expensive, it might look like a pretty good idea. Read this information if you want to know how to save money on the connection and the hardware required, and some sobering words about technical support. (Check those hourly rates, too.)
Novel idea: require patents to have one. Cecil Bumfluff writes: "An update to a recent /. story regarding European proposals for software patents. It seems that unlike the US system, the vendor must prove they have made a "technical contribution to the state of the art". This seems a lot tougher than current US patent law. Check out the story at The Register"
Judge Dredd, or Judge Milquetoast? spellcheckur writes: "Remember the ACME Rent-a-car and GPS fiasco? The Boston Globe is reporting that ACME has been ordered to cease the practice and refund the money. One of the interesting conclusions in the article, they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging. Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
"Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
.37 * 365 = $135. Going up $200 is a bit much maybe but not as much as you made it seem.
In other words its still the same over here. And the reason is simple
THE US HAS TOO MANY LAWYERS
Which means they have an approach of grant and challenge (i.e. in the courts, long and expensive process for everyone involved, normally leads to might is right), rather than the European challenge and grant, which means academics and other interested parties can challenge it before its given. The later gives patents that are rarely over-turned and rarely granted, the former, lots of over-turns of lots of patents.
ITS THE LAWYERS MAKING MONEY HERE
Having Lawyer driven processes is bad... hell even Dan Quayle spotted that one on 8/13/91!
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I can't believe we're still discussing this at all. Apple is never going to port OS X to Intel, it just doesn't fit with their business model. Apple is a hardware company. They make their money selling a good package of reliable, solid hardware and powerful software. Mac OS X sells for about $100 and Apple is happy with its returns, they are not interested in selling it for $279 per license to suck the money out of the consumer. They don't even use software keys on it! Can we please let this issue die?
that sort of reminds me of this:
In late 1999, Apple CEO Steve Jobs telephoned Stephens(Adaptec CEO). "I want the source code for your CD burner on my desk today, or you'll never do business with Apple again," Jobs said.
Jobs seemingly (and boldly) wanted to examine the source code for possible inclusion in Apple's forthcoming OS, but Stephens, unwilling to give up proprietary information, politely explained that Adaptec would be happy to work out a licensing plan instead. So Stephens said, "With a healthy share of the Macintosh CD software market already and not a whole lot of business done directly with Apple these days, doesn't it seem...."
Click. Jobs hung up. Stephens was baffled.
From PC Magazine
Jobs makes me laugh. That takes some big rocks.