On the other hand it takes patent trolls to prove how flawed the patent system is. By winning these insane lawsuits the question on whether the patent system is ready for reformation or not is raised.
Your statistics are irrelevant since it's not about how big the chance is, it's about the fact that it can happen. If there's the possibility that I'm the only person in the world that has an iPod which catches into flames I should damn well be warned about it. If you cannot guarantee it, that means 100%, you should provide proper warnings so that people don't leave it on the bed/sofa or close to the curtains or on the rug. If you buy the device knowing that it has a slight chance of catching fire, which you buy because as you yourself say it's a very small chance and of course you'd have it replaced if it would, you might not leave it close to anything flammable. If you do then it's your own problem, fair and square. The problem here is that Apple are trying to cover this just because it might hurt a few percentiles. On the other side Joe loses his house and basically his entire life due to their behavior. Now if you were Joe you'd be pretty fucking mad. Also keep in mind that "well you can't guarantee anything in that case" is complete bullshit. If I sell you a bottle of water I'm 100% sure that it won't catch fire. This goes from a simple bottle of water to many devices and appliances, but when it comes to experimental batteries then yes it has become more common. If Apple is ready to risk peoples properties to be "on top of the line" then they must be prepared to pay for the consequences as well.
Say what now? More lobbyists? It's not more, it's different lobbyists. The government has no room, physically, for more lobbyists. So don't kid yourself, nowadays when a lobbyist comes in, another lobbyist goes out.
Except your example is indirectly related to Apple. It's their supplier and thus it's the suppliers responsibility. This however is fully their shit. The fact that your iPod may catch fire and burn down your house is not something to keep quiet about, no matter to what extent the problem goes. How many times have you tossed your portable mediaplayer on the bed/sofa or on the sill close to the curtains, or even on the rug. In contrast to your example this is truly a serious problem, which is why it took half an eternity for this to be exposed and a week or so for the suicide to leak, with the official story. It could easilly been swept under the rug as just social pressure, wiping the 16 prototype iPods from the story. But Apple are fully aware of that in this case they act as customers, leaving them with little to no responsibility for the suicide. What's unfortunate though is that the parent is absolutely right. This will be downsized by the Apple zealots, whom I find, while very similar, even more pathetic than followers of scientology. On the plus side Apple zealots tend to own more Apple equipment, thus they should hold a much higher risk of having their home burnt down. Perhaps that will teach them how sick it is to love a business that don't employ you.
Don't be a jackass. Their market share has nothing to do with the article. I don't care about Opera but the story is still funny as hell and worth repeating. I just wish that kind of stuff happened to me at work.:(
Mostly I agree with your post. I'd probably change the word evil for something with more substance. Also google works for profit as well. Anyway whatever one might think I'd say there's little doubt about one part of your post:
But we are afraid of another anti-trust investigation.
Perhaps I'm paranoid, perhaps I'm a fanboy, perhaps I love spreading FUD, or perhaps I've never heard anything from Microsoft that ever even remotely sounded like this:
We heard a lot of feedback from a lot of different people and groups and decided to make the user choice of the default browser even more explicit
Something just doesn't sound right, and I doubt I'm the only one feeling that.
Well I'm merely providing means to fix the issue at hand. If you consider your government incompetent perhaps you should vote for another one and hope that they can spend the budget wiser. And if that doesn't work you might consider higher taxes the lesser of two evils. I mean it still beats getting shot in the face any day.
If you're a professional photographer (which you state that you are not) it is, in my opinion, quite important that you already know the CC licenses before you snap your camera around. To me it is as important as it is for you (as a computer programmer) to know what the GPL or the MPL are.
In your case however I understand the frustration about the procedure. However in wikipedias defence uploading pictures and placing them properly is well documented on the site itself. Of course you have to spend some time understanding the procedure, this applies to anything new you do in life. Perhaps it can be made easier, perhaps it's made a bit "difficult" to maintain a level of seriousness leaving goatse pictures off the site. Whatever it is I'm sure you'll be able to do it faster the second time around, much like anything in life.
Free, open content doesn't have restrictions on its uses. If it does, it isn't free and open.
By that definition you'll find that very little in this world is free and open. However there are many alternatives that simply try to adapt to reality and limit as little as possible while remaining as free and open as can be. Usually the idea of releasing something as free and open is to get exposure and to contribute. It is only fair that the person contributing requests that any content added should be passed on as such. Total freedom isn't an alternative because that would require a certain sense of responsibility that many people lack, to any extent stretching from "intellectual property" to physical property.
That is one way of doing it. Another way is to actually fund the police departments by raising taxes. Initially people will bitch and moan but spending a lifetime not getting shot in the face makes it well spent money for anyone.
However a combination of both strategies is the third hidden option.
And to think I was looking for a 4000x3000 raw bitmap photo of Halle Berry on Wikipedia. Good thing I now know better.
Seriously though, what's wrong with the diversity that the net has to offer? I use wikipedia.org to get some shallow information about anything that crosses my mind, and I use images.google.com to browse for images. So wikipedia is not the source for everything, big deal, I have the rest of the internet at my disposal at any time. So thank you wikipedia, thank you google, and fuck you NY Times.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend anyone. It was a harmless joke and I apologize if you were offended. I'll even make up for it. The next international women's day I'll make sure to tell 50 random women that they're excellent drivers. Just to help end these terrible myths once and for all.
No I can understand the WiFi problem. It's a rather new concept for most people and they haven't really been taught the consequences. But Benz invented the modern automobile in 1885. You'd think (or rather I'd think) that people should have learned by now.
But this is not about any belongings. This is about rather important belongings, such as your car or your house. When you leave either unsupervised you make sure they're locked. In my experience people aren't even aware of it when they do it, it's more like a reflex to reach for your keys and lock the door when you leave the house or the car. Perhaps it's a mentality thing, I don't know. But I'm still surprised that such common sense isn't for granted. I mean I'm not talking about isolated cases, of course any person can forget. However if you issue a campaign it can't be about a few isolated cases.
...and leaving notes warning people of the dangers involved with leaving their vehicles unsecured.
What? People don't know this in Australia? I mean if it came to become a campaign the problem must have been of significant magnitude. I'm not trying to flamebait here but back to my question: people don't know this in Australia?
There are no damages in those cases. The whoever holds the copyright to the GPLed code loses no money and suffers no real harm from having their code used. No damage at all. So, any damage claims are by default ridiculous.
I don't understand. If you're looking for some general rule that defines damage payment I can't provide you with one. And you're not making any sense with your examples. In this case the only damage done was loss of income. There was no mental nor physical damage, only economical, so in my opinion it's quite easy to define a reasonable sum as we use money in our time to repay any damage done. Don't assume that this is some golden general rule that can be applied on any case. I never claimed such and you're simply making false assumptions.
Why is her sentence ridiculous? Let's look at what she was found to have done: she knowingly and willfully violated the copyrights of others. She could have settled. She could have paid the original fine. But, no, she didn't. She just dug her hole deeper. It does not matter that you think she did nothing wrong, because you obviously a hypocrite and have no ethics. What does matter is that she was found guilty and her fine, according to the law, could have been TWICE that.
You are truly fucking blind if you consider that a fair sentence. I'm not blaming the courts, so your bullshit argument that she could have been fined twice the amount doesn't change anything. The law is flawed, and was initially even pushed by corporate lobbyists. Also I never said she didn't do anything wrong, these are your bullshit words. During this dialogue you've made up a lot of nonsense claiming that these are my words. I'm ending this since you're not arguing anymore, you're simply lying and it's getting fucking tiresome.
What? Where did I make such a claim? I said that $1.9 million is a ridiculous sentence for her crime. How can you possibly misunderstand this? If a software provider gets caught stealing code, e.g. GPL code, they should be fined for the exact sum of copies of this software sold multiplied by the price charged per copy. This is completely fair and logical. The restaurant scenario I can't help you with. It's not in my interest nor profession. And the fact that I'm not an oracle doesn't disprove anything I say.
It was an example and as history tells us (such as the implementation of jpeg/gif) we already know things like this can be abused. What you're missing is that people essentially don't want their web pages to look shitty. They just didn't know it back then.
Sure, you're supposed to check the hardware support for yourself, but this doesn't apply on Windows because everything has drivers unless it's really old.
Really? Last time I checked Windows didn't support ARM. Everything doesn't "just work" in Windows neither. I admit that there's plenty more supported hardware in Windows and that these also tend to "just work", however this doesn't include all. But this is such a stupid argument anyway. Average Joe has no idea about what he should buy even if he's using Windows. What does he do? He asks the salesperson. What does the salesperson do? Well he's probably eager to get a sale and either googles or looks at the box of whatever piece of hardware Joe wants to buy. Many hardware devices that support Linux are nowadays equipped with the Tux logo as well, so I don't buy the "average Joe" excuse.
And please, don't sink to that level, using words/abbreviations such as "fanboy" or "FUD" when I clearly make a valid point.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand it takes patent trolls to prove how flawed the patent system is. By winning these insane lawsuits the question on whether the patent system is ready for reformation or not is raised.
Your statistics are irrelevant since it's not about how big the chance is, it's about the fact that it can happen. If there's the possibility that I'm the only person in the world that has an iPod which catches into flames I should damn well be warned about it. If you cannot guarantee it, that means 100%, you should provide proper warnings so that people don't leave it on the bed/sofa or close to the curtains or on the rug. If you buy the device knowing that it has a slight chance of catching fire, which you buy because as you yourself say it's a very small chance and of course you'd have it replaced if it would, you might not leave it close to anything flammable. If you do then it's your own problem, fair and square. The problem here is that Apple are trying to cover this just because it might hurt a few percentiles. On the other side Joe loses his house and basically his entire life due to their behavior. Now if you were Joe you'd be pretty fucking mad. Also keep in mind that "well you can't guarantee anything in that case" is complete bullshit. If I sell you a bottle of water I'm 100% sure that it won't catch fire. This goes from a simple bottle of water to many devices and appliances, but when it comes to experimental batteries then yes it has become more common. If Apple is ready to risk peoples properties to be "on top of the line" then they must be prepared to pay for the consequences as well.
Well Sherlock that is obvious. What's silly is the choice of words.
Haha just what I thought. What the hell is a vacuum leak!? I mean how can the absence of matter leak?
Say what now? More lobbyists? It's not more, it's different lobbyists. The government has no room, physically, for more lobbyists. So don't kid yourself, nowadays when a lobbyist comes in, another lobbyist goes out.
Exactly. So, someone who doesn't have a grasp on the terminology wants to educate folks who don't have a grasp on it either.
And this kids -- we call journalism.
Except your example is indirectly related to Apple. It's their supplier and thus it's the suppliers responsibility. This however is fully their shit. The fact that your iPod may catch fire and burn down your house is not something to keep quiet about, no matter to what extent the problem goes. How many times have you tossed your portable mediaplayer on the bed/sofa or on the sill close to the curtains, or even on the rug. In contrast to your example this is truly a serious problem, which is why it took half an eternity for this to be exposed and a week or so for the suicide to leak, with the official story. It could easilly been swept under the rug as just social pressure, wiping the 16 prototype iPods from the story. But Apple are fully aware of that in this case they act as customers, leaving them with little to no responsibility for the suicide. What's unfortunate though is that the parent is absolutely right. This will be downsized by the Apple zealots, whom I find, while very similar, even more pathetic than followers of scientology. On the plus side Apple zealots tend to own more Apple equipment, thus they should hold a much higher risk of having their home burnt down. Perhaps that will teach them how sick it is to love a business that don't employ you.
Don't be a jackass. Their market share has nothing to do with the article. I don't care about Opera but the story is still funny as hell and worth repeating. I just wish that kind of stuff happened to me at work. :(
But we are afraid of another anti-trust investigation.
Perhaps I'm paranoid, perhaps I'm a fanboy, perhaps I love spreading FUD, or perhaps I've never heard anything from Microsoft that ever even remotely sounded like this:
We heard a lot of feedback from a lot of different people and groups and decided to make the user choice of the default browser even more explicit
Something just doesn't sound right, and I doubt I'm the only one feeling that.
Well I'm merely providing means to fix the issue at hand. If you consider your government incompetent perhaps you should vote for another one and hope that they can spend the budget wiser. And if that doesn't work you might consider higher taxes the lesser of two evils. I mean it still beats getting shot in the face any day.
If you're a professional photographer (which you state that you are not) it is, in my opinion, quite important that you already know the CC licenses before you snap your camera around. To me it is as important as it is for you (as a computer programmer) to know what the GPL or the MPL are.
In your case however I understand the frustration about the procedure. However in wikipedias defence uploading pictures and placing them properly is well documented on the site itself. Of course you have to spend some time understanding the procedure, this applies to anything new you do in life. Perhaps it can be made easier, perhaps it's made a bit "difficult" to maintain a level of seriousness leaving goatse pictures off the site. Whatever it is I'm sure you'll be able to do it faster the second time around, much like anything in life.
Pictures don't count as research. They're merely illustrations.
Free, open content doesn't have restrictions on its uses. If it does, it isn't free and open.
By that definition you'll find that very little in this world is free and open. However there are many alternatives that simply try to adapt to reality and limit as little as possible while remaining as free and open as can be. Usually the idea of releasing something as free and open is to get exposure and to contribute. It is only fair that the person contributing requests that any content added should be passed on as such. Total freedom isn't an alternative because that would require a certain sense of responsibility that many people lack, to any extent stretching from "intellectual property" to physical property.
That is one way of doing it. Another way is to actually fund the police departments by raising taxes. Initially people will bitch and moan but spending a lifetime not getting shot in the face makes it well spent money for anyone.
However a combination of both strategies is the third hidden option.
And to think I was looking for a 4000x3000 raw bitmap photo of Halle Berry on Wikipedia. Good thing I now know better.
Seriously though, what's wrong with the diversity that the net has to offer? I use wikipedia.org to get some shallow information about anything that crosses my mind, and I use images.google.com to browse for images. So wikipedia is not the source for everything, big deal, I have the rest of the internet at my disposal at any time. So thank you wikipedia, thank you google, and fuck you NY Times.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend anyone. It was a harmless joke and I apologize if you were offended. I'll even make up for it. The next international women's day I'll make sure to tell 50 random women that they're excellent drivers. Just to help end these terrible myths once and for all.
I mean, in real life things never fall where I intend/expect them to fall as I throw them.
Are you female by any chance?
No I can understand the WiFi problem. It's a rather new concept for most people and they haven't really been taught the consequences. But Benz invented the modern automobile in 1885. You'd think (or rather I'd think) that people should have learned by now.
Agreed, but obviously this is not one of them.
But this is not about any belongings. This is about rather important belongings, such as your car or your house. When you leave either unsupervised you make sure they're locked. In my experience people aren't even aware of it when they do it, it's more like a reflex to reach for your keys and lock the door when you leave the house or the car. Perhaps it's a mentality thing, I don't know. But I'm still surprised that such common sense isn't for granted. I mean I'm not talking about isolated cases, of course any person can forget. However if you issue a campaign it can't be about a few isolated cases.
...and leaving notes warning people of the dangers involved with leaving their vehicles unsecured.
What? People don't know this in Australia? I mean if it came to become a campaign the problem must have been of significant magnitude. I'm not trying to flamebait here but back to my question: people don't know this in Australia?
There are no damages in those cases. The whoever holds the copyright to the GPLed code loses no money and suffers no real harm from having their code used. No damage at all. So, any damage claims are by default ridiculous.
I don't understand. If you're looking for some general rule that defines damage payment I can't provide you with one. And you're not making any sense with your examples. In this case the only damage done was loss of income. There was no mental nor physical damage, only economical, so in my opinion it's quite easy to define a reasonable sum as we use money in our time to repay any damage done. Don't assume that this is some golden general rule that can be applied on any case. I never claimed such and you're simply making false assumptions.
Why is her sentence ridiculous? Let's look at what she was found to have done: she knowingly and willfully violated the copyrights of others. She could have settled. She could have paid the original fine. But, no, she didn't. She just dug her hole deeper. It does not matter that you think she did nothing wrong, because you obviously a hypocrite and have no ethics. What does matter is that she was found guilty and her fine, according to the law, could have been TWICE that.
You are truly fucking blind if you consider that a fair sentence. I'm not blaming the courts, so your bullshit argument that she could have been fined twice the amount doesn't change anything. The law is flawed, and was initially even pushed by corporate lobbyists. Also I never said she didn't do anything wrong, these are your bullshit words. During this dialogue you've made up a lot of nonsense claiming that these are my words. I'm ending this since you're not arguing anymore, you're simply lying and it's getting fucking tiresome.
What? Where did I make such a claim? I said that $1.9 million is a ridiculous sentence for her crime. How can you possibly misunderstand this? If a software provider gets caught stealing code, e.g. GPL code, they should be fined for the exact sum of copies of this software sold multiplied by the price charged per copy. This is completely fair and logical. The restaurant scenario I can't help you with. It's not in my interest nor profession. And the fact that I'm not an oracle doesn't disprove anything I say.
It was an example and as history tells us (such as the implementation of jpeg/gif) we already know things like this can be abused. What you're missing is that people essentially don't want their web pages to look shitty. They just didn't know it back then.
Sure, you're supposed to check the hardware support for yourself, but this doesn't apply on Windows because everything has drivers unless it's really old.
Really? Last time I checked Windows didn't support ARM. Everything doesn't "just work" in Windows neither. I admit that there's plenty more supported hardware in Windows and that these also tend to "just work", however this doesn't include all. But this is such a stupid argument anyway. Average Joe has no idea about what he should buy even if he's using Windows. What does he do? He asks the salesperson. What does the salesperson do? Well he's probably eager to get a sale and either googles or looks at the box of whatever piece of hardware Joe wants to buy. Many hardware devices that support Linux are nowadays equipped with the Tux logo as well, so I don't buy the "average Joe" excuse.
And please, don't sink to that level, using words/abbreviations such as "fanboy" or "FUD" when I clearly make a valid point.