This one of several blogs I've seen make this claim the past two days, and I'm honestly still at a loss to explain their assumption. There is nothing in Jha's quote to indicate they are going after other Android makers. The blog linked from the summary says during its Q2 earnings conference call Motorola hinted that it is ready to join Android patent racket, and start demanding licensing fees for its IP from other Android manufacturers.
He based that claim on these comments:
With new entrants in the mobile space, resulting from the convergence of mobility, media, computing and the internet, our patent portfolio is increasingly important...Probably a little less well known is our strength in patent portfolio in non-essential patents, which are capabilities that are important to have in delivering competitive products in the marketplace...As we go forward, I think that the introduction of number of players with large revenues, which have come into the marketplace as a result of the convergence of the mobility, computing, internet and other segments, I think that that creates an opportunity for us to monetize and maximize the shareholder value in a number of different ways and we evaluate all of them all the time.
From that, the blogger now knows that Motorola plans to collect $60 per handset from HTC and Samsung. Or so he says. Now, he's made a new post, using a new quote from Jha to cement his position. He claims that this week Motorola’s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear – they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers. What did Jha say that so clearly showed Motorola's plans to sue their Android brethren?
I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.
That seems more likely (to me) to say that Motorola is not HTC and will not be paying Microsoft blackmail money. In fact, they may be able to extract their own pound of flesh from Microsoft and Apple. What in that passage gives any hint that Motorola will be pursuing other Android manufacturers? I'm at a loss.
The same is true for the exact area in which the GP is cheering for Marcellus Shale. In states like West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania small coal towns remained dirt poor while the coal industry extracted massive profits. Several studies have shown that areas with the highest coal mining activity remained poverty-stricken before, during, and after the mining. Yes, some people make decent wages during the actual mining (both directly and from related industry, as GP pointed out). However, the community as a whole does not see any real economic benefit and are left with a seriously degraded environment, health problems, etc. Cancer rates spike, drinking water is polluted, mountain tops are gone, and virtually all of the wealth flowed out of state.
But in fact "Conservative" now seems to be used to mean "someone who sells the intent of the Constitution to the highest bidder", and "Liberal" means someone who wants the Government not to interfere so much in people's private lives and their privacy - which I imagine the Founding Fathers would be in favor of.
Actually, it is much simpler and sadder than this - in the US these definitions are really used for social issues only. Both major political parties are wings of the multinational corporate government. The conservative and liberal tags no longer denote any difference of opinion on most real issues and both sides are going to prefer larger and stronger federal governments. These monikers simply give an idea on where a person might stand on something like abortion or gay marriage. To find differences of opinion on issues like state's rights, smaller governments, personal liberty, corporate rights and responsibilities, and such requires going outside the political mainstream quite a bit.
There's also the unsupportability of it. If we all switched to organic, most of us would die of starvation. It's a less effective agricultural technique. Organic food is a luxury item for rich westerners.
The whole concept of "organic" exists only because rich westerners decided to sell the future for cheaper food now. By destroying our topsoil and relying on petroleum-based fertilizers, we've created an unsustainable system. You're simply affirming what the GP said - saving an extra five or ten percent for food is more important than the poisons in the food you feed your family. Further, integrated "organic" systems are much more effective on normal farms.
And before you worry about starvation, the US wastes nearly 50% of food grown. Some loss will be unavoidable in any agricultural production system but nearly 15% of the waste was at the consumer end of the process. A big part of the remaining loss is an inherent cost of centralized and mechanized agriculture - waste that could be significantly reduced with more traditional farming practices and local consumption.
"I'm going to be framed!" Sow the seeds of reasonable doubt before the crime.
Indeed. I'm sure he had been stalking this maid for months, noting her cleaning scheduling and practicing his bathroom hiding routine. FFS, how does something like this get modding Insightful?
While the GP comes across poorly, the point is that his "sexual weakness" could be that he likes to have sex with attractive younger women. Such encounters can be dangerous for a married politician, but even more so for one visiting the United States with no diplomatic immunity only months after openly advocating for moving away from the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Also, don't forget his unpopular comments in last year's documentary "Inside Job".
You'll notice that I didn't say these particular laws are appropriate or effective - I commented on the principle itself. The poster above me took issue with the idea that you should be held responsible for actions of others, a concept that encourages businesses to circumvent local laws and culture (and destroy the local economy) by paying someone else to do things elsewhere that would not be acceptable locally.
Do you believe that a society which abhors slavery should have no problem with a local business outsourcing manufacturing to an area that uses slavery to do the work? Is it okay when this local business is now undercutting other businesses that pay local workers instead of foreign slave-masters? Is it a problem when other businesses are now forced to embrace slavery themselves or go out of business, either way eliminating the jobs for local workers?
Of course I fully understand that software licensing is not the same as human slavery, yet the concept is the same - should local business be able to circumvent local laws by outsourcing particular portions of business to locales that do not have as stringent requirements?
This "principle" breaks one of the foundations of modern law - that you should be held responsible for you own actions, and not actions of others which you neither had controller over, nor knowledge of (which is one of the big reasons I hate the "felony murder" laws here in the US). The "principle" of which you speak isn't a good one, and I'm fine with being rabidly opposed to it. Just because it may be bad for Big Business, doesn't make it right, or even good for anyone else.
Unfortunately, this isn't so simple in a global economy involving numerous sovereign states of varying moral and ethical standards. Is it just for a local business to move its manufacturing jobs to some third-world nation where the work is performed by slave labor, so that they can undercut their local competitors who believe in paying a fair wage to local employees? Does "it was my contractor, not me" make all wrongs okay, particularly when the contractor is operating out of a locale untouchable by local officials?
I actually RTFA and there is no indication there of what was really asked. Headlines like this that offer no insight into the questions and the analysis of the answers should be taken with a grain of salt. The question may not have even used the words "cyber attack" or "Internet".
This quote from a VP at UNISYS should reveal the goal of the survey:
Our survey shows that the American public recognizes the danger of a cyber attack and wants the federal government to take an active role in extending the nation's cyber defense. It will be up to officials in all branches of the federal government to respond to this call to action in a way that is measured and well planned.
Here's another laugher from the results:
More than three-quarters (80%) of Americans regularly limit access to personal information posted to social media sites and make use of privacy settings
Does anyone here believe that one for one second?
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Maybe Google never formally said that, but here is how Wikipedia describes Android...
"Yeah, but Wikipedia's summary uses the word 'Java'" is an insightful argument? How Wikipedia describes Android has no bearing on this issue.
The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.
They built a clean-room implementation that uses Java bytecode created with your favorite Java IDE and compiler to produce their own unique Dalvik bytecode. They do not call it Java and they do not use Sun's JVM.
...but it is Java in every way that counts, except it has some differences that make Java the platform as a whole less standard.
No. Google capitalized on developers' familiarity with Java to avoid creating a new programming language and convincing people to learn it. The Java syntax is familiar and comfortable. However, Google is not calling these Java programs. A Dalvik app for Android is not going to run on a JVM. This is obvious to anyone developing for Android.
This irked Sun, and for good reason, but they got over it. Oracle is not over it. Sadly they decided to enforce this using patents, which is an abhorrent thing to do. But that they are irked by Google's actions - very understandable.
If you had bothered to follow this when it happened, read the history now, or even read the previous Slashdot stories recently, you would know how off-base your comments are. Negotiations between Sun and Google didn't go well, Sun's stock value plummeted, and Schwartz began shopping Sun soon after Android's debut. Oracle bought Sun with the intent of suing Google. Oracle took a calculated business risk by investing in a company with very little value in the hopes of cashing in on this lawsuit.
They decided to enforce this using patents because that is the only sliver of hope they have in this. Google was careful in how they approached this and worked around the threats laid out by Sun during their failed negotiations. Without the patents, Oracle has nothing. It remains to be seen if they have anything even with the patents.
The bits I think apply are the bits that Jesus taught, not other men. The religion (mine anyway) revolves around what Jesus taught, not the disciples. It's easy to be a Christian, but damned hard to follow Christ's teachings (and I don't always succeed).
Unfortunately, your religion still revolves around what other men taught. You just happen to give these bits more value because you believe the tradition that Jesus spoke them.
This rings false to me. It seems you're implying that the violence level of "any other religion" is well-defined, as in, every other religion is more or less as violent as each other.
There is no doubt that the GP's statement was false in its overgeneralization. Some religions are overtly non-violent, such as the various offshoots of the Christian Anabaptists (including the Amish). They certainly aren't mainstream Christians but with numbers in the one to two million range, they are a legitimate Christian sect.
I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists. Well, perhaps a Buddhist (or someone claiming to be one) who is militant about something else, but no-one who spreads Buddhism by force.
Then you should pay attention to some international news. Folks in Sri Lanka would disagree with your claims.
Unless you are in a company that actually develops software for their business and can put developers in R&D, software development is IT. It is no different than data networking, and telecom, and server support, and the help desk, etc. If you develop software primarily for internal deployment, you are part of IT.
You confuse the words "argument" and "evidence"; they are not synonymous.
I believe you should understand the meanings of these words before making such mindless statements. I also note that you didn't bother to respond to any of the actual content in the parent post.
I think you are missing the point of the phrase...The no atheist in the foxhole refers not to bravery or willingness to fight for something you believe it, but rather the reaction people have when their fate is taken out of their own hands in awful, grim situations. It's not about wanting heaven, it's about hoping to live.
Actually, the point is that those who claim not to believe in God will immediately change their mind when the shit hits the fan. George Clooney's Everett in O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a perfect example - he spends the entire movie mocking the religious only to break down in prayer when faced with his own demise near the end of the film. Depending on your own views, the phrase jabs at the lack of sincerity in atheists or demonstrates that religion is but a salve for trying times.
The onus should be on the prosecutor, not to just provide evidence, but also proof that YOU committed the actual act. If he can't do the latter then you should presumed innocent and freed.
When possession itself is a crime, it is easy to prove that the crime was committed.
Strange, this indicates that verizon got in trouble for this exact practice back in 2007 and was supposed to stop.
"Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless says it has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses."
They agreed to stop terminating people for failing to follow the secret rules. Now they just bill you outrageous amounts based upon the fine print.
Second until you've tried looking for a job, you have no clue. You're just guessing.
Of course each market is different, but as an IT manager currently looking for a developer/analyst I can say that today's market in our region is much more favorable to prospective hires than it has been for 10 years or more. I've had two people accept offers, only to renege after getting sizable counter offers from the current employer. Even a very green programmer with no significant experience on projects or working in a team environment can pull down $10,000 more salary than five years ago.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with self-signed certificates but if you don't want to confuse users then you can get an SSL certificate for about £50 per year, hardly a huge outlay for a business.
We went this route with the OWA site for our employees. We made sure our browser (IE 6 at the time) supported it seamlessly. When IE 7 came out, we found that Microsoft dropped this CA from their built-in list. Then we started getting more Windows Mobile smart phones in the company and realized that Opera Mobile also doesn't play nice with these guys. At this point, a self-signed would be no worse and it would have been cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
This one of several blogs I've seen make this claim the past two days, and I'm honestly still at a loss to explain their assumption. There is nothing in Jha's quote to indicate they are going after other Android makers. The blog linked from the summary says during its Q2 earnings conference call Motorola hinted that it is ready to join Android patent racket, and start demanding licensing fees for its IP from other Android manufacturers.
He based that claim on these comments:
With new entrants in the mobile space, resulting from the convergence of mobility, media, computing and the internet, our patent portfolio is increasingly important...Probably a little less well known is our strength in patent portfolio in non-essential patents, which are capabilities that are important to have in delivering competitive products in the marketplace...As we go forward, I think that the introduction of number of players with large revenues, which have come into the marketplace as a result of the convergence of the mobility, computing, internet and other segments, I think that that creates an opportunity for us to monetize and maximize the shareholder value in a number of different ways and we evaluate all of them all the time.
From that, the blogger now knows that Motorola plans to collect $60 per handset from HTC and Samsung. Or so he says. Now, he's made a new post, using a new quote from Jha to cement his position. He claims that this week Motorola’s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear – they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers. What did Jha say that so clearly showed Motorola's plans to sue their Android brethren?
I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.
That seems more likely (to me) to say that Motorola is not HTC and will not be paying Microsoft blackmail money. In fact, they may be able to extract their own pound of flesh from Microsoft and Apple. What in that passage gives any hint that Motorola will be pursuing other Android manufacturers? I'm at a loss.
The same is true for the exact area in which the GP is cheering for Marcellus Shale. In states like West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania small coal towns remained dirt poor while the coal industry extracted massive profits. Several studies have shown that areas with the highest coal mining activity remained poverty-stricken before, during, and after the mining. Yes, some people make decent wages during the actual mining (both directly and from related industry, as GP pointed out). However, the community as a whole does not see any real economic benefit and are left with a seriously degraded environment, health problems, etc. Cancer rates spike, drinking water is polluted, mountain tops are gone, and virtually all of the wealth flowed out of state.
But in fact "Conservative" now seems to be used to mean "someone who sells the intent of the Constitution to the highest bidder", and "Liberal" means someone who wants the Government not to interfere so much in people's private lives and their privacy - which I imagine the Founding Fathers would be in favor of.
Actually, it is much simpler and sadder than this - in the US these definitions are really used for social issues only. Both major political parties are wings of the multinational corporate government. The conservative and liberal tags no longer denote any difference of opinion on most real issues and both sides are going to prefer larger and stronger federal governments. These monikers simply give an idea on where a person might stand on something like abortion or gay marriage. To find differences of opinion on issues like state's rights, smaller governments, personal liberty, corporate rights and responsibilities, and such requires going outside the political mainstream quite a bit.
Wake me up when you have something intelligent to say.
I suppose calling me a troll is easier than responding to my post.
I just don't buy organic because it's a marketing gimmick aimed at ignorant masses.
While the "organic" label approved by the US government certainly is a marketing thing, that doesn't change the underlying facts.
The added price and environmental impact just exacerbate the situation.
What are you even trying to say? Do you believe that an agricultural system that is less harmful to the environment is bad?
There's also the unsupportability of it. If we all switched to organic, most of us would die of starvation. It's a less effective agricultural technique. Organic food is a luxury item for rich westerners.
The whole concept of "organic" exists only because rich westerners decided to sell the future for cheaper food now. By destroying our topsoil and relying on petroleum-based fertilizers, we've created an unsustainable system. You're simply affirming what the GP said - saving an extra five or ten percent for food is more important than the poisons in the food you feed your family. Further, integrated "organic" systems are much more effective on normal farms.
And before you worry about starvation, the US wastes nearly 50% of food grown. Some loss will be unavoidable in any agricultural production system but nearly 15% of the waste was at the consumer end of the process. A big part of the remaining loss is an inherent cost of centralized and mechanized agriculture - waste that could be significantly reduced with more traditional farming practices and local consumption.
"I'm going to be framed!" Sow the seeds of reasonable doubt before the crime.
Indeed. I'm sure he had been stalking this maid for months, noting her cleaning scheduling and practicing his bathroom hiding routine. FFS, how does something like this get modding Insightful?
While the GP comes across poorly, the point is that his "sexual weakness" could be that he likes to have sex with attractive younger women. Such encounters can be dangerous for a married politician, but even more so for one visiting the United States with no diplomatic immunity only months after openly advocating for moving away from the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Also, don't forget his unpopular comments in last year's documentary "Inside Job".
You'll notice that I didn't say these particular laws are appropriate or effective - I commented on the principle itself. The poster above me took issue with the idea that you should be held responsible for actions of others, a concept that encourages businesses to circumvent local laws and culture (and destroy the local economy) by paying someone else to do things elsewhere that would not be acceptable locally.
Do you believe that a society which abhors slavery should have no problem with a local business outsourcing manufacturing to an area that uses slavery to do the work? Is it okay when this local business is now undercutting other businesses that pay local workers instead of foreign slave-masters? Is it a problem when other businesses are now forced to embrace slavery themselves or go out of business, either way eliminating the jobs for local workers?
Of course I fully understand that software licensing is not the same as human slavery, yet the concept is the same - should local business be able to circumvent local laws by outsourcing particular portions of business to locales that do not have as stringent requirements?
This "principle" breaks one of the foundations of modern law - that you should be held responsible for you own actions, and not actions of others which you neither had controller over, nor knowledge of (which is one of the big reasons I hate the "felony murder" laws here in the US). The "principle" of which you speak isn't a good one, and I'm fine with being rabidly opposed to it. Just because it may be bad for Big Business, doesn't make it right, or even good for anyone else.
Unfortunately, this isn't so simple in a global economy involving numerous sovereign states of varying moral and ethical standards. Is it just for a local business to move its manufacturing jobs to some third-world nation where the work is performed by slave labor, so that they can undercut their local competitors who believe in paying a fair wage to local employees? Does "it was my contractor, not me" make all wrongs okay, particularly when the contractor is operating out of a locale untouchable by local officials?
I wish had mod points for this. This thread is so full of anti-social narcissists that I get ill reading it.
Our survey shows that the American public recognizes the danger of a cyber attack and wants the federal government to take an active role in extending the nation's cyber defense. It will be up to officials in all branches of the federal government to respond to this call to action in a way that is measured and well planned.
Here's another laugher from the results:
More than three-quarters (80%) of Americans regularly limit access to personal information posted to social media sites and make use of privacy settings
Does anyone here believe that one for one second?
Maybe Google never formally said that, but here is how Wikipedia describes Android...
"Yeah, but Wikipedia's summary uses the word 'Java'" is an insightful argument? How Wikipedia describes Android has no bearing on this issue.
The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.
They built a clean-room implementation that uses Java bytecode created with your favorite Java IDE and compiler to produce their own unique Dalvik bytecode. They do not call it Java and they do not use Sun's JVM.
...but it is Java in every way that counts, except it has some differences that make Java the platform as a whole less standard.
No. Google capitalized on developers' familiarity with Java to avoid creating a new programming language and convincing people to learn it. The Java syntax is familiar and comfortable. However, Google is not calling these Java programs. A Dalvik app for Android is not going to run on a JVM. This is obvious to anyone developing for Android.
This irked Sun, and for good reason, but they got over it. Oracle is not over it. Sadly they decided to enforce this using patents, which is an abhorrent thing to do. But that they are irked by Google's actions - very understandable.
If you had bothered to follow this when it happened, read the history now, or even read the previous Slashdot stories recently, you would know how off-base your comments are. Negotiations between Sun and Google didn't go well, Sun's stock value plummeted, and Schwartz began shopping Sun soon after Android's debut. Oracle bought Sun with the intent of suing Google. Oracle took a calculated business risk by investing in a company with very little value in the hopes of cashing in on this lawsuit.
They decided to enforce this using patents because that is the only sliver of hope they have in this. Google was careful in how they approached this and worked around the threats laid out by Sun during their failed negotiations. Without the patents, Oracle has nothing. It remains to be seen if they have anything even with the patents.
Christianity is more of a philosophical movement, than a religion like Judaism.
I think you meant "was". Good luck finding (what we generally accept as) Jesus' message in today's Christians.
The bits I think apply are the bits that Jesus taught, not other men. The religion (mine anyway) revolves around what Jesus taught, not the disciples. It's easy to be a Christian, but damned hard to follow Christ's teachings (and I don't always succeed).
Unfortunately, your religion still revolves around what other men taught. You just happen to give these bits more value because you believe the tradition that Jesus spoke them.
This rings false to me. It seems you're implying that the violence level of "any other religion" is well-defined, as in, every other religion is more or less as violent as each other.
There is no doubt that the GP's statement was false in its overgeneralization. Some religions are overtly non-violent, such as the various offshoots of the Christian Anabaptists (including the Amish). They certainly aren't mainstream Christians but with numbers in the one to two million range, they are a legitimate Christian sect.
I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists. Well, perhaps a Buddhist (or someone claiming to be one) who is militant about something else, but no-one who spreads Buddhism by force.
Then you should pay attention to some international news. Folks in Sri Lanka would disagree with your claims.
Unless you are in a company that actually develops software for their business and can put developers in R&D, software development is IT. It is no different than data networking, and telecom, and server support, and the help desk, etc. If you develop software primarily for internal deployment, you are part of IT.
You confuse the words "argument" and "evidence"; they are not synonymous.
I believe you should understand the meanings of these words before making such mindless statements. I also note that you didn't bother to respond to any of the actual content in the parent post.
I think you are missing the point of the phrase...The no atheist in the foxhole refers not to bravery or willingness to fight for something you believe it, but rather the reaction people have when their fate is taken out of their own hands in awful, grim situations. It's not about wanting heaven, it's about hoping to live.
Actually, the point is that those who claim not to believe in God will immediately change their mind when the shit hits the fan. George Clooney's Everett in O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a perfect example - he spends the entire movie mocking the religious only to break down in prayer when faced with his own demise near the end of the film. Depending on your own views, the phrase jabs at the lack of sincerity in atheists or demonstrates that religion is but a salve for trying times.
The onus should be on the prosecutor, not to just provide evidence, but also proof that YOU committed the actual act. If he can't do the latter then you should presumed innocent and freed.
When possession itself is a crime, it is easy to prove that the crime was committed.
Strange, this indicates that verizon got in trouble for this exact practice back in 2007 and was supposed to stop.
"Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless says it has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses." They agreed to stop terminating people for failing to follow the secret rules. Now they just bill you outrageous amounts based upon the fine print.
Second until you've tried looking for a job, you have no clue. You're just guessing.
Of course each market is different, but as an IT manager currently looking for a developer/analyst I can say that today's market in our region is much more favorable to prospective hires than it has been for 10 years or more. I've had two people accept offers, only to renege after getting sizable counter offers from the current employer. Even a very green programmer with no significant experience on projects or working in a team environment can pull down $10,000 more salary than five years ago.
Yeah, I think I meant Salad Shooter(tm) there. We'll just ignore what salad-tossing pens might be a metaphor for...
I believe you're looking for Chris Rock.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with self-signed certificates but if you don't want to confuse users then you can get an SSL certificate for about £50 per year, hardly a huge outlay for a business.
We went this route with the OWA site for our employees. We made sure our browser (IE 6 at the time) supported it seamlessly. When IE 7 came out, we found that Microsoft dropped this CA from their built-in list. Then we started getting more Windows Mobile smart phones in the company and realized that Opera Mobile also doesn't play nice with these guys. At this point, a self-signed would be no worse and it would have been cheaper.