Except you didn't. Google's entire revenue stream is based on tracking users and using that data to sell ads. To act like they won't use Google+ to further that is laughably naive. The only way Google could "address that" is to.kill off their own revenue stream.
But Amazon isn't the one who owes the sales tax, it's the consumers. If this guy feels the state is being cheated from tax money he should write them a check for what he owes them. He shouldn't need Amazon to do it for him.
The MPAA and RIAA already do go after the mob in places like Russia, Hong Kong, etc that are the people behind the majority of the bootleg movie, music and software trade in Asia/Eurasia. They've done so for years now.
I don't understand the difference between those scenarios.
What is that hard to understand? Facts themselves are not copyrightable but the work that presents those facts is copyrightable. Hence why you can copy all the names and numbers from a phone book but you can't copy the pages exactly and pass that off as your own because that is an expression of the facts which can be copyrighted.
Yes, you are definitely not a lawyer since you, as with most Slashtards, misunderstand what you are talking about. Yes, the facts themselves can not be copyrighted but the expression on those facts can be copyrighted. Which is why I can take the info from the phone book and publish them myself but I can't take someone else's phonebook, copy all the pages and then republish it as my own work because that expression of those facts are copyrighted.
You mean like the substantial legal costs they are incurring defending and countersuing Apple through various international courts? Oh right, let's ignore all that and pretend that they are just falling over being bullied by Microsoft.
Im glad that a company like B & N has balls where as HTC and samsung c not.
Yeah, Samsung or HTC clearly have no balls for patent fights. That's why they also just let Apple steamroll them too. Oh wait, they didn't. The fact that they aren't fighting these patents from Microsoft (along with the others licensing them) is a good indication that they are viewed as valid patents despite the wet dreams of Slashtards to the contrary.
Amazon shouldn't create a lock-down version of Android tablet.
Because you say so?
They need to have strong collaboration with Google to ensure that the future android OS will be compatible with whatever tablet they release.
You do realize that Amazon is trying to compete against Google with this right? That's why they have their own app store and many of their own replacement apps for the standard Android apps.
It's fine if they include all their services on the tablet by default but it would be a bad idea to create a lock-down version of Android.
Do you have any actual reasons other than because you don't want them to do so?
You combine that with Android app-store, I think you would definitely have a real good competitor for iPad
They have their own Android app store which is the whole point of them having their own forked version of Android. They want people buying their apps through them so they get the cut rather than Google.
Well, for one thing, they're the head of the coalition of handset manufs that have a leading market share now (Open Handset Alliance).
Great. But what video chipsets or SoCs does Google make? Oh right, none. So even if they wanted to push something with WebM it would be years out from now before it'd make it into a mobile device.
The people who run tons of software that is x86 only and has no comparable ARM version? People who do work for which ARM is supremely under-powered even with a quad-core version? Even a low end i5 can blow away the fastest ARM processors. This quad-core version will close the gap some, but it will still be far noticeable less performant.
Slashdot Mirror
Also,LILO doesn't support UEFI.
2008 says hello.
Except you didn't. Google's entire revenue stream is based on tracking users and using that data to sell ads. To act like they won't use Google+ to further that is laughably naive. The only way Google could "address that" is to.kill off their own revenue stream.
Yeah cause google is all about not tracking you and your Web usage. I mean it's not like that is the basis of their revenue stream. Oh wait, it is.
Except that the law is that he owes a use tax. Its his own fault for not paying it if Amazon isn't collecting the tax.
If that's what they said then they are right. Sales tax is a consumption tax owed by the consumer.
But Amazon isn't the one who owes the sales tax, it's the consumers. If this guy feels the state is being cheated from tax money he should write them a check for what he owes them. He shouldn't need Amazon to do it for him.
You? Why aren't you sending into the state the sales tax you owe without needing Amazon to collect it for you?
The MPAA and RIAA already do go after the mob in places like Russia, Hong Kong, etc that are the people behind the majority of the bootleg movie, music and software trade in Asia/Eurasia. They've done so for years now.
*facepalm* The person you responded to made the post wrong intentionally and you fell for it like an idiot.
Are you really that dumb?
You did consent. You just didn't read the agreement you made with Borders fully if you think you didn't.
How much longer will the zombie corpse of Napster be flogged? Just let the damn thing die already.
That's not fair. Tony is a Napster subscriber, too.
I don't understand the difference between those scenarios.
What is that hard to understand? Facts themselves are not copyrightable but the work that presents those facts is copyrightable. Hence why you can copy all the names and numbers from a phone book but you can't copy the pages exactly and pass that off as your own because that is an expression of the facts which can be copyrighted.
That's not true in many countries other than the US
Yes, and we were talking about the US hence why the title of this thread is "Not copyrightable in the US" (emphasis added).
Yes, you are definitely not a lawyer since you, as with most Slashtards, misunderstand what you are talking about. Yes, the facts themselves can not be copyrighted but the expression on those facts can be copyrighted. Which is why I can take the info from the phone book and publish them myself but I can't take someone else's phonebook, copy all the pages and then republish it as my own work because that expression of those facts are copyrighted.
*facepalm. 300,000,000/7,000,000,000 = .0428 or about 4.3%. 23% of 7 billion is about 2.2 billion, idiot.
You mean like the substantial legal costs they are incurring defending and countersuing Apple through various international courts? Oh right, let's ignore all that and pretend that they are just falling over being bullied by Microsoft.
Im glad that a company like B & N has balls where as HTC and samsung c not.
Yeah, Samsung or HTC clearly have no balls for patent fights. That's why they also just let Apple steamroll them too. Oh wait, they didn't. The fact that they aren't fighting these patents from Microsoft (along with the others licensing them) is a good indication that they are viewed as valid patents despite the wet dreams of Slashtards to the contrary.
And yet it will do nothing to bring back users especially since Mozilla is turning FF into a poorly-done clone of Chrome.
Investors aren't stupid when it comes to money and they'll simply adjust their plans for the IPO.
Then how do you explain the Dot Bomb bubble?
Amazon shouldn't create a lock-down version of Android tablet.
Because you say so?
They need to have strong collaboration with Google to ensure that the future android OS will be compatible with whatever tablet they release.
You do realize that Amazon is trying to compete against Google with this right? That's why they have their own app store and many of their own replacement apps for the standard Android apps.
It's fine if they include all their services on the tablet by default but it would be a bad idea to create a lock-down version of Android.
Do you have any actual reasons other than because you don't want them to do so?
You combine that with Android app-store, I think you would definitely have a real good competitor for iPad
They have their own Android app store which is the whole point of them having their own forked version of Android. They want people buying their apps through them so they get the cut rather than Google.
Well, for one thing, they're the head of the coalition of handset manufs that have a leading market share now (Open Handset Alliance).
Great. But what video chipsets or SoCs does Google make? Oh right, none. So even if they wanted to push something with WebM it would be years out from now before it'd make it into a mobile device.
The people who run tons of software that is x86 only and has no comparable ARM version? People who do work for which ARM is supremely under-powered even with a quad-core version? Even a low end i5 can blow away the fastest ARM processors. This quad-core version will close the gap some, but it will still be far noticeable less performant.
It's quite easy to figure out "why" they added that. They will probably being use the quad-core A9s in a future iPad.