The simple model to use for comparison is IE. Microsoft let the product languish once they snuffed out Netscape and seemingly let it rot until a viable competitor in the form of Firefox emerged. Since 2004, IE has lost between 20-30% market share depending on the source that you use.
Despite this, IE still holds a market share in the 65-75% range, and there is still no talk about either de-integrating IE or making it open source. I honestly think that if MS ever takes one of their core products and decides to go full open-source on it, they're essentially giving up on it. It just seems like the mentality they'd take.
They contacted me after I posted a resume on Monster about potentially filling a position. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I called them back twice, I couldn't get a hold of someone.
Three weeks later, they re-contacted me. Again, I called twice but no response.
Two weeks later, they made a third attempt. I proceeded to make a threat against reporting their harassing phone calls with their local authorities and to sue them under the spam-fax law for the e-mails if they continued to try to contact me. Surprisingly, they responded very quickly to that.
First, anybody know of any patently identical incidents where this happened? If so, it debunks the folloing point.
I'm not taking their side, but the way I read this, the explination "our servers did it" indicates that they had things configured in such a way that they never made the connection between the two incidents. They tapped Rev. 3 to seed false torrents. Separately, they set up DoS attacks on servers hosting lots of torrents, but never made the connection as to what happens when their seeding loophole gets closed up.
Everyone on here acts like these guys are sitting in leather executive tall-back chairs with twisting their handlebar mustaches and wringing their hands menacingly while conjuring up new ways to unleash chaos on all things internet. I completely disagree with what they're doing, but a glaring lack of foresight resulting from stupidity is not the same thing as digital terrorism. I hope that Rev. 3 busts their balls and they end up in a solid set of legal crosshairs, but I find it a stretch to think that these kind of mistakes are premeditated. I understand "our servers did it" very well.
Wow, it looks like it took only about 100 posters to realize the difference between Gates saying that Windows 95 was Microsoft's best OS versus Windows 95 being the best thing for his company. The immediate parent to this thread has it dead on. Poo on you dopes who thought Gates was saying that the best OS MS released was 95.
When the mainstream press talks about the Wii fit in this light, I can't help but think about the revolution that was made by the same mainstream media when gamers started talking about their weight-loss and cardiovascular improvements after feeding their life-savings into their local arcade's Dance Dance Revolution machine. The difference in my eyes though, is that Wii Fit is not going to make you look like you're in the midst of an epileptic seisure, thus probably isn't as effective.
While I agree with the general precedent that this case is trying to set, I find the case that is attempting to set the precedent is a bit disheartening. Paraphrased FTA, A woman in 2006 wrecked a Golf. The front seat collapsed and crushed her child's skull, killing the child. Her lawyer filed the suit in the 5th district near Marshall, and Volkswagen attempted to have it moved to the district closer to Dallas, since that's where both the plaintiff and defendant reside, as well as the majority of witnesses. In other words, this particular case has nothing to do with patent trolls.
The idea where the plaintiff has the option to choose their venue within the state kind of baffles me in particular. I mean, the whole idea for a lawsuit is that a plaintiff has to prove that a defendant did something wrong. Why is it that the legal system allows a plaintiff to create an advantage such as court choice? Ideally, all judges should view court cases equally, so in my eyes the venue choice should be based on convenience, not preference. Am I missing something?
Sort of; Dell was just as guilty about abusing their customers as HP was; I worked in a call center "supporting" quite a number of different Dell accounts. By "supporting", I mean telling the customer that they would need to call back tomorrow because their call was after hours when in reality I had no technical documentation or test mules to support any of their machines, and the only people who actually knew how to fix them were the three people handling the account on the morning shift, who had worked the account since inception. These were business users who often called for support regarding scan guns, label printers, and register drawers, and had every right to recieve customer service that I couldn't provide.
This was while Dell was at their apex.
Some kind of standard is a step in the right direction, but a standard where AMD is the judge, jury, and executioner is not it. There has to be a group-logic behind this; where major hardware developers get together with game developers and decide on a series of graphical, audio and performance standards, then have an independent third party that will enforce and certify it.
Sadly, this will never happen. This would mean that you would need to get Intel, AMD/ATI, nVidia, Creative Labs, Microsoft, EA, Take-Two, etc etc and so on ad naseum to actually universally agree on something; the chances of that happening roughly equate to a snowball's chance in hell.
Even if they somehow, through the intervention of (insert holy diety here) managed to actually agree on a standard, that just means they have to do it again next year.
If PC gaming ever hopes to recover mainstream popularity, not only would they have to come up with a universal standard, but with the cost of PC upgrade hardware, that standard has to last more than a year. A casual gamer has no desire whatsoever to shell out $500 every year to bring their PC up to gaming standards.
I don't know why this was modded as funny. A more appropriate term would be 'gospel'. I gave up on Digg a long time ago for that exact reason, and they seem to have no interest whatsoever in resolving their own issues.
I love things like this. One way or another, Rep. Couch will be learning a very valuable lesson about being stupid (not ignorant mind you, because the idea of this law is patently stupid) on the internets.
Slashdot Mirror
You nailed it. I mean, absolutely, positively nailed it. Android is the best OS.
The simple model to use for comparison is IE. Microsoft let the product languish once they snuffed out Netscape and seemingly let it rot until a viable competitor in the form of Firefox emerged. Since 2004, IE has lost between 20-30% market share depending on the source that you use.
Despite this, IE still holds a market share in the 65-75% range, and there is still no talk about either de-integrating IE or making it open source. I honestly think that if MS ever takes one of their core products and decides to go full open-source on it, they're essentially giving up on it. It just seems like the mentality they'd take.
In addition, comparing the IE toolbar to Firebug is like comparing the luxury qualities of a Kia Rio to an M3. They're not even in the same league.
You have any idea how much Marky Mark loves being called Marky Mark?
They contacted me after I posted a resume on Monster about potentially filling a position. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I called them back twice, I couldn't get a hold of someone.
Three weeks later, they re-contacted me. Again, I called twice but no response.
Two weeks later, they made a third attempt. I proceeded to make a threat against reporting their harassing phone calls with their local authorities and to sue them under the spam-fax law for the e-mails if they continued to try to contact me. Surprisingly, they responded very quickly to that.
Hans is about to have the world experience more chaos.
300 Species? That's madness!
Madness? THIS! IS! BANANAS!
First, anybody know of any patently identical incidents where this happened? If so, it debunks the folloing point.
I'm not taking their side, but the way I read this, the explination "our servers did it" indicates that they had things configured in such a way that they never made the connection between the two incidents. They tapped Rev. 3 to seed false torrents. Separately, they set up DoS attacks on servers hosting lots of torrents, but never made the connection as to what happens when their seeding loophole gets closed up.
Everyone on here acts like these guys are sitting in leather executive tall-back chairs with twisting their handlebar mustaches and wringing their hands menacingly while conjuring up new ways to unleash chaos on all things internet. I completely disagree with what they're doing, but a glaring lack of foresight resulting from stupidity is not the same thing as digital terrorism. I hope that Rev. 3 busts their balls and they end up in a solid set of legal crosshairs, but I find it a stretch to think that these kind of mistakes are premeditated. I understand "our servers did it" very well.
Wow, it looks like it took only about 100 posters to realize the difference between Gates saying that Windows 95 was Microsoft's best OS versus Windows 95 being the best thing for his company. The immediate parent to this thread has it dead on. Poo on you dopes who thought Gates was saying that the best OS MS released was 95.
When the mainstream press talks about the Wii fit in this light, I can't help but think about the revolution that was made by the same mainstream media when gamers started talking about their weight-loss and cardiovascular improvements after feeding their life-savings into their local arcade's Dance Dance Revolution machine. The difference in my eyes though, is that Wii Fit is not going to make you look like you're in the midst of an epileptic seisure, thus probably isn't as effective.
While I agree with the general precedent that this case is trying to set, I find the case that is attempting to set the precedent is a bit disheartening. Paraphrased FTA, A woman in 2006 wrecked a Golf. The front seat collapsed and crushed her child's skull, killing the child. Her lawyer filed the suit in the 5th district near Marshall, and Volkswagen attempted to have it moved to the district closer to Dallas, since that's where both the plaintiff and defendant reside, as well as the majority of witnesses. In other words, this particular case has nothing to do with patent trolls.
The idea where the plaintiff has the option to choose their venue within the state kind of baffles me in particular. I mean, the whole idea for a lawsuit is that a plaintiff has to prove that a defendant did something wrong. Why is it that the legal system allows a plaintiff to create an advantage such as court choice? Ideally, all judges should view court cases equally, so in my eyes the venue choice should be based on convenience, not preference. Am I missing something?
Sort of; Dell was just as guilty about abusing their customers as HP was; I worked in a call center "supporting" quite a number of different Dell accounts. By "supporting", I mean telling the customer that they would need to call back tomorrow because their call was after hours when in reality I had no technical documentation or test mules to support any of their machines, and the only people who actually knew how to fix them were the three people handling the account on the morning shift, who had worked the account since inception. These were business users who often called for support regarding scan guns, label printers, and register drawers, and had every right to recieve customer service that I couldn't provide. This was while Dell was at their apex.
Some kind of standard is a step in the right direction, but a standard where AMD is the judge, jury, and executioner is not it. There has to be a group-logic behind this; where major hardware developers get together with game developers and decide on a series of graphical, audio and performance standards, then have an independent third party that will enforce and certify it.
Sadly, this will never happen. This would mean that you would need to get Intel, AMD/ATI, nVidia, Creative Labs, Microsoft, EA, Take-Two, etc etc and so on ad naseum to actually universally agree on something; the chances of that happening roughly equate to a snowball's chance in hell.
Even if they somehow, through the intervention of (insert holy diety here) managed to actually agree on a standard, that just means they have to do it again next year.
If PC gaming ever hopes to recover mainstream popularity, not only would they have to come up with a universal standard, but with the cost of PC upgrade hardware, that standard has to last more than a year. A casual gamer has no desire whatsoever to shell out $500 every year to bring their PC up to gaming standards.Gary Dourdan might be looking for a new job pretty soon.
I don't know why this was modded as funny. A more appropriate term would be 'gospel'. I gave up on Digg a long time ago for that exact reason, and they seem to have no interest whatsoever in resolving their own issues.
I love things like this. One way or another, Rep. Couch will be learning a very valuable lesson about being stupid (not ignorant mind you, because the idea of this law is patently stupid) on the internets.