My daughter was part Kevin 07s laptop trial program a couple of years ago in a Victorian primary school. They gave every student in her year a netbook for $150 with everything on it. Win 7, Office etc. and they used them in just about every class.
It was a really, really good initiative.... until they broke.
The schools had enough seed money to pay a tech to come in and set them up initially, after that there was no more support. Teachers who were technically minded had to resolve network issues and hardware failures themselves - and handle the backlog of netbooks from kids of teachers who had no idea.
The netbooks were on the education networks, so they were locked down so tightly that parents who were technically minded, couldn't do anything to fix them. In the end kids had to share machines in class and broken netbooks didn't get fixed.
These could be wonderful programs, but the politicians (as usual) just don't give a shit once the ribbon has been cut and the photo op is gone. No tech support in the schools means no program - its pretty simple really.
My immediate reaction to the story title was that MS was actively going to prevent DVD playback unless you'd paid for Media Center. Good that thats NOT the case.
The $AU has been at parity with the $US or above for years now - but Australians are still paying massively over the top prices compared to their American counterparts.
While I understand that the AFL and Telstra have a lot invested in the outcome of this... I don't understand how they're the ones bringing the case against Optus.
Optus is recording the Channel 7 feed in its entirety on behalf of the user - there is no dispute about this.
Apart from making Telstra's product worthless, what does this case have to do with them? Its not Telstra's content that Optus is recording - its Channel 's Apart from making the AFL's deal with Telstra worthless, what does this case have to do with them? Again, its not the AFL's content that Optus is recording - its Channel 7's
So where is Channel 7 in all of this? Nowhere - they're getting their feed, including ads, distributed via the internet and, thus, reaching a wider audience - they'd be quite ok what that.
So how are the AFL and Telstra bringing a copyright case against Optus for content that isn't theirs?
How hard is it to say, "No, we never, ever access private messages or contact information for any reason"?
Really, really hard. Because as soon as any company does this, some back office dweeb from the company pipes up with "actually, thats not technically correct..." and now they're openly lying about it. PR and politicians alike never want to talk in absolutes because it can only ever come back and bite them...
The problem with this is The Wall Street Journal is now just another rag spewing the opinions of its owner, Rupert Murdoch.
And Rupert Murdoch's climate change skepticism and his willingness to push this agenda through his news empire through conservative fanboys and other stories is long documented. A simple google search on Rupert Murdoch climate change shows just how ridiculous it is to put your faith in any climate change story from a News Corp, News International or News Limited organisation - even if they're right.
In fact Rupert Murdoch's fanboys have done such an excellent job of muddying the waters and inciting mindless division that its almost impossible now to have a constructive debate on the topic. Which was always the intention IMO. Arguments sell newspapers.
yes... but you are also solely responsible for the content of your posts should you slander or defame someone else - its a have cake/eat cake kinda thing;-)
no. I'm saying whatever the original intent, the patent/copyright system is fundamentally broken when it comes to IT (tho not restricted to IT) whatever product protection the system provides is nothing compared to the damage that is wrought upon the entire industry, as a result.
Generate a list of the top 100 IT companies... and then get the number of lawsuits filed by each against each other. The list is enormous, and the rest of the industry pays the price.
and theres the first fucking problem with the entire IT industry. Patents shouldn't exist. Design patents, software patents.... they're all bs, and they're all used, in the main, for big companies to crush little companies - and its been this way since the days of yore... copyright can get fucked too...
to be honest, I don't have the energy any more to articulate this issue - the system is so blatantly broken, and has been that way for so long, that the fact that it still exists indicates the vested interests are too strong for the system to be changed in any meaningful way
Of course! And even better, the company you bought the machine from (without an OS) probably paid MS for an OEM license anyway, and MS are still gonna come after you:)
The whole industry is fucked up and has been for a very, very, long time. Given the number of countries and the number of players with a vested interest, the only way we'll see reform is from a total collapse of the patent and copyright systems like we're already seeing with music and movies.
I, for one, would LOVE to know how much money the top 50 IT companies in the world have SWAPPED over patent and copyright lawsuits in the last 20 years - I'm quite sure the figure would be mind blowing for mere mortals.
Is the "appstore" tag on this story referring to the Apple Appstore, or the Amazon Appstore... ?
There's an "apple" tag - so I pondered it for a bit, and for a moment, assumed it to be the "Apple Appstore".
But then this big old "amazon" tag came out of nowhere and muddied (by which i mean diluted (tm) the waters !
agreed. almost can't believe it myself - and I've worked for them.
I'm surprised that a) they went to the trouble of finding out what the GPL was, and b) actually did something positive about it.
When it comes to litigation, Telstra is like Microsoft and will quite happily keep something in the courts for as long as required, in order to maintain some sort of market advantage... this is quite a change !
Having said that Telstra -
WHERE THE HELL IS FROYO FOR MY WILDFIRE !?!?!? YOU'VE BEEN PROMISING IT FOR MONTHS NOW!
Great to take a stand, but seriously, at what point does basic necessity override lofty ideals.
Your position assumes that you have another (more ethical) option that allows you to provide for your family.
I guarantee you, you can't look into your HUNGRY daughters eyes and tell her its an important lesson in right and wrong.
Anyone who CAN do this, is not fit to be a parent IMO
Hear hear to this... And not just pricing - this goes to the heart of retail in every country. Regional encoding of dvds, printer cartridges, mobile phone locking, tariffs...the list goes on. they're all about passing on the benefits of globalisation to the manufacturers and distributors - while deliberately making it difficult or impossible for the consumer to reap similar benefits.
Its about the gatekeepers. It always has been. It always will be.
Anytime someone can put a gate between you and your goal and charge you for the privilege of going through it, they will.
I understand that in many countries it is now illegal to distribute a device that circumvents a copy-protection mechanism, but where are the alleged victims here ? The article and the case seem to revolve around Nintendo, but they're just supplying the platform aren't they ?? They don't own the copyrights that are being infringed as, surely, they belong to the games manufacturers - who appear to be absent...
no... I'm a contributor. Thats my payment. I contribute.
Slashdot is built on contributions - nothing else - and those contributions come from slashdot readers all over the world, with submissions from online content sourced from all over the world. Thats the point.
Yeah.... Except there's nothing on the signage or on the menu that says "Chinese". The sign simply says HOT FOOD FROM AROUND THE WORLD*, and the restaurant is throwing a tanty any time someone asks for something that ISN'T Chinese. ie. go and look at the fine print where it clearly states "*HOT FOOD FROM AROUND THE WORLD is strictly limited to Chinese, and chinese only. No further discussion will be entered in to."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry to say, but this will turn to shit.
My daughter was part Kevin 07s laptop trial program a couple of years ago in a Victorian primary school.
They gave every student in her year a netbook for $150 with everything on it. Win 7, Office etc. and they used them in just about every class.
It was a really, really good initiative.... until they broke.
The schools had enough seed money to pay a tech to come in and set them up initially, after that there was no more support. Teachers who were technically minded had to resolve network issues and hardware failures themselves - and handle the backlog of netbooks from kids of teachers who had no idea.
The netbooks were on the education networks, so they were locked down so tightly that parents who were technically minded, couldn't do anything to fix them.
In the end kids had to share machines in class and broken netbooks didn't get fixed.
These could be wonderful programs, but the politicians (as usual) just don't give a shit once the ribbon has been cut and the photo op is gone.
No tech support in the schools means no program - its pretty simple really.
My immediate reaction to the story title was that MS was actively going to prevent DVD playback unless you'd paid for Media Center. Good that thats NOT the case.
By that logic we wouldn't need a price gouging inquiry in Australia.
The $AU has been at parity with the $US or above for years now - but Australians are still paying massively over the top prices compared to their American counterparts.
While I understand that the AFL and Telstra have a lot invested in the outcome of this... I don't understand how they're the ones bringing the case against Optus.
Optus is recording the Channel 7 feed in its entirety on behalf of the user - there is no dispute about this.
Apart from making Telstra's product worthless, what does this case have to do with them? Its not Telstra's content that Optus is recording - its Channel 's
Apart from making the AFL's deal with Telstra worthless, what does this case have to do with them? Again, its not the AFL's content that Optus is recording - its Channel 7's
So where is Channel 7 in all of this? Nowhere - they're getting their feed, including ads, distributed via the internet and, thus, reaching a wider audience - they'd be quite ok what that.
So how are the AFL and Telstra bringing a copyright case against Optus for content that isn't theirs?
How hard is it to say, "No, we never, ever access private messages or contact information for any reason"?
Really, really hard. Because as soon as any company does this, some back office dweeb from the company pipes up with "actually, thats not technically correct..." and now they're openly lying about it. PR and politicians alike never want to talk in absolutes because it can only ever come back and bite them...
The problem with this is The Wall Street Journal is now just another rag spewing the opinions of its owner, Rupert Murdoch.
And Rupert Murdoch's climate change skepticism and his willingness to push this agenda through his news empire through conservative fanboys and other stories is long documented. A simple google search on Rupert Murdoch climate change shows just how ridiculous it is to put your faith in any climate change story from a News Corp, News International or News Limited organisation - even if they're right.
In fact Rupert Murdoch's fanboys have done such an excellent job of muddying the waters and inciting mindless division that its almost impossible now to have a constructive debate on the topic. Which was always the intention IMO. Arguments sell newspapers.
yes... but you are also solely responsible for the content of your posts should you slander or defame someone else - its a have cake/eat cake kinda thing ;-)
Who knows, maybe the BC is fake but accurate.
like the moon landing ?
no. I'm saying whatever the original intent, the patent/copyright system is fundamentally broken when it comes to IT (tho not restricted to IT)
whatever product protection the system provides is nothing compared to the damage that is wrought upon the entire industry, as a result.
Generate a list of the top 100 IT companies... and then get the number of lawsuits filed by each against each other.
The list is enormous, and the rest of the industry pays the price.
and theres the first fucking problem with the entire IT industry. Patents shouldn't exist. Design patents, software patents.... they're all bs, and they're all used, in the main, for big companies to crush little companies - and its been this way since the days of yore... copyright can get fucked too...
to be honest, I don't have the energy any more to articulate this issue - the system is so blatantly broken, and has been that way for so long, that the fact that it still exists indicates the vested interests are too strong for the system to be changed in any meaningful way
If you don't want to deal with Google, there's a simple solution for you - and Rupert Murdoch. Make them go away!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard
Of course - there are ramifications with doing this, but thats what you're chasing, isn't it ??
Really !? Because I see it more akin to taking back the neighborhood by standing up to your local crime boss who killed the puppy to make a point...
Of course! And even better, the company you bought the machine from (without an OS) probably paid MS for an OEM license anyway, and MS are still gonna come after you :)
The whole industry is fucked up and has been for a very, very, long time. Given the number of countries and the number of players with a vested interest, the only way we'll see reform is from a total collapse of the patent and copyright systems like we're already seeing with music and movies.
I, for one, would LOVE to know how much money the top 50 IT companies in the world have SWAPPED over patent and copyright lawsuits in the last 20 years - I'm quite sure the figure would be mind blowing for mere mortals.
Is the "appstore" tag on this story referring to the Apple Appstore, or the Amazon Appstore... ?
There's an "apple" tag - so I pondered it for a bit, and for a moment, assumed it to be the "Apple Appstore".
But then this big old "amazon" tag came out of nowhere and muddied (by which i mean diluted (tm) the waters !
So now I'm confused.... which is it ?
ahhh.... no..
Group 3.1) those who might cheat, but don't - are not cheaters....
and group 3.2) those who might cheat, and do. are DEFINITELY cheaters.
Stop trying to give people outs... you either respect the person you're with enough not to treat them like shit, or you don't.
agreed. almost can't believe it myself - and I've worked for them. I'm surprised that a) they went to the trouble of finding out what the GPL was, and b) actually did something positive about it.
When it comes to litigation, Telstra is like Microsoft and will quite happily keep something in the courts for as long as required, in order to maintain some sort of market advantage... this is quite a change !
Having said that Telstra -
WHERE THE HELL IS FROYO FOR MY WILDFIRE !?!?!? YOU'VE BEEN PROMISING IT FOR MONTHS NOW!
Great to take a stand, but seriously, at what point does basic necessity override lofty ideals. Your position assumes that you have another (more ethical) option that allows you to provide for your family. I guarantee you, you can't look into your HUNGRY daughters eyes and tell her its an important lesson in right and wrong. Anyone who CAN do this, is not fit to be a parent IMO
Hear hear to this... And not just pricing - this goes to the heart of retail in every country. Regional encoding of dvds, printer cartridges, mobile phone locking, tariffs...the list goes on. they're all about passing on the benefits of globalisation to the manufacturers and distributors - while deliberately making it difficult or impossible for the consumer to reap similar benefits.
Its about the gatekeepers. It always has been. It always will be. Anytime someone can put a gate between you and your goal and charge you for the privilege of going through it, they will.
heheh... saw this... even the bumber stickers sucked!
...evolution is dead. At least for us.
I understand that in many countries it is now illegal to distribute a device that circumvents a copy-protection mechanism, but where are the alleged victims here ? The article and the case seem to revolve around Nintendo, but they're just supplying the platform aren't they ?? They don't own the copyrights that are being infringed as, surely, they belong to the games manufacturers - who appear to be absent...
no... I'm a contributor. Thats my payment. I contribute.
Slashdot is built on contributions - nothing else - and those contributions come from slashdot readers all over the world, with submissions from online content sourced from all over the world. Thats the point.
Yeah.... Except there's nothing on the signage or on the menu that says "Chinese". The sign simply says HOT FOOD FROM AROUND THE WORLD*, and the restaurant is throwing a tanty any time someone asks for something that ISN'T Chinese. ie. go and look at the fine print where it clearly states "*HOT FOOD FROM AROUND THE WORLD is strictly limited to Chinese, and chinese only. No further discussion will be entered in to."