Hey, if you are happy being either restricted by a lame antenna or tied up to a greedy powerhungry cable company, more power to you. I want my smart TV with a-la-carta programming and on demand shows without restrictive itineraries, and I will gladly pay a bit extra for it (as long as the advantages pay for themselves in a 2 year span.)
Keep dreaming about a-la-carte. Content creators won't allow it.
The future is every fucking network having their own fucking store and their own fucking on demand service. The costs for this are so low that there's absolutely no reason to ride on the back of Apple, Google, Amazon, Netflix, or anyone else for your new content. All the "old" content (x-weeks after first air date) will of course be available on every fucking store.
Cable providers will simply bundle and resell subscriptions to these services (along with the live channel feeds) at a "discount" (compared to buying them individually, not compared to actual value for what you use), and link your Comcast/Charter/Cox account to your HBO GO/etc. accounts seamlessly.
And you sports fans will still have to deal with blackouts.
Have you ever heard an audiophile system for real? I have. You can hear a difference between that and your crap sony at home. if you can't, then you are missing out because I sure can hear a difference. It's like they are in the room with you. It's spooky.
No audiophile has ever passed a blind listening test comparing $$$ components and $ cables to $$$$$ components and $$$+ cables.
Go ahead and double click on your iso with your 1 button mouse.
Back in the dim and distant past when I last used windows ("XP" I think it was called?) I seem to recall a Double Click entailed clicking one button twice. Don't tell me they subsequently changed that to one click from each button!
Audiophiles are pretty much the dumbest group of people ever. No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker. No, these cables don't sound "warm".
Apple would BUY them at that point or just roll their own. Apple is sitting on a MOUNTAIN of cash.
A MOUNTAIN of cash that would be completely insufficient if they wanted to set up their own national wireless network. It's also insufficient if they wanted to buy out a bunch of regional kiddies and then eat the difference between what they charge customers and what AT&T/Verizon charge them to piggy back on their network.
Cash on hand / market cap is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to valuing a company.
Its an expensive phone. Are Apple forcing them to give it away? sounds more like "Carriers business model is destroying their profits"
That begs the question, would Apple be selling as many iPhones if the carriers were not subsidizing at all ? Would every customer in the US pay $500 or higher ?
You do not know what it means to "beg the question".
So what? Sheep are not conscious. Life does not equal consciousness.
No consciousness = no ability to suffer or to have emotions. They don't feel pain, their nervous system just processes the information that it is wounded the same way your laptop processes the fact that it's battery is empty or that it's keyboard has been amputated... I mean unplugged. They respond to wounds and injuries, but they don't interpret any of it as pain without consciousness. And no evidence shows sheep are conscious (unlike other animals).
There is exactly as much evidence to show that sheep, plants, and rocks are conscious as there is to show that humans are conscious.
Step 0: Cogito ergo sum Step 1: Define consciousness Step 2: Describe the physical construct and mechanisms which create consciousness Step 3: Identify consciousness in various things Step 4: Show that no other construct / phenomena could result in consciousness Step 5: Identify a lack of consciousness in various things
Being able to get away with something legally doesn't free you from social responsibility. So its more of "even if the laws of the land fall short, our social conscience can give us the will to use the tools of the market to fight back".
Except that doesn't happen, ever. Are you 14? Did your teacher just tell you about the "social contract" people agree to in order to participate in society?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.
As for freedom of speech, your freedom of speech does not include the right to force others not to say something.
First you'd have to define progress. I'd love to have a patent on lead-free solder, gasoline with corn in it, and wind farms just so I could prevent them from being used. They're worse than the alternatives and stopping them from being used is indeed progress.
Maybe someone wants to patent a new gun design and prevent people from using it. Maybe because it's not safe, maybe because it's too good at killing people, whatever. You don't get to decide what progress is, and neither does the patent office. The patent holder gets to decide if progress is best attained by the design/invention/doohickey being used or not.
No, they can't. Maybe legally they can do what they want, but we as a society can hold them to a high standard of ethical behavior in a number of legal ways. We can pass laws regulating them - prohibiting blatant censorship. We can start a campaign to damage their brand and their uptake of new students by casting light on their censorship and its implications. We can work to cut off the corporate and community partnerships they form to drive and maintain their business. A corporation misbehaving does not render us powerless or without the right to respond. We have power (even in situations where they have far far more), and we have the right to fight.
So your "No, they can't." should really be "Yes, they can, but I don't like it."?
You're just retarded and wrong. Vendors DO foot the bull for refunds of unused Windows licenses.
The whole point of Windows refund is to not fund Microsoft's world conquest.
Every once in a while you get a story about some nerd who makes a video of themselves saying NO to the Windows EULA, restarting the computer, and then wiping the drive and installing Linux, just so they can get $30 back from the OEM after making a stink about it.
Oh, I see. More Microsoft astroturfers.
Listen, asshole. I don't care too much about my money. Whatever money I have, I use to buy things I like, and I have enough for that. I care about Microsoft's money. To be precise, about Microsoft not getting any from me. If you don't understand this, go kill some old lady or something -- it's not like you have any kind of ethic.
Haha, wow. Usually the trolls will continue to argue for days after they've been proven incorrect, but you were quick to resort to the absurd.
This is not about monopoly abuse. I mean if Microsoft is demanding that vendors do not offer refunds to consumers as the Vendor has written into their contracts then maybe that is monopoly abuse. Or if microsoft is threatening sactions against those vendors that do honour the refunds... then yes it is monopoly abuse.
Are you INSANE??? Of course, vendors don't have to foot the bill for refunds. Microsoft produces Windows, so refunds have to happen at Microsoft expense, just like with any other product. Microsoft does not allow vendors or consumers to return its product for refund, and does not allow vendors to re-stock returned Windows licenses for use on other products (what any other vendor of any other product would do) so it's entirely Microsoft's doing.
You're just retarded and wrong. Vendors DO foot the bull for refunds of unused Windows licenses. Every once in a while you get a story about some nerd who makes a video of themselves saying NO to the Windows EULA, restarting the computer, and then wiping the drive and installing Linux, just so they can get $30 back from the OEM after making a stink about it.
The Windows license is issued by the OEM, not by Microsoft. It comes with the computer. You can't take the unused license to MS and ask for a refund, just like you can't take the optical drive to whoever actually made it and asked for a refund. If you buy a Lexus you can't take the speakers back to BOSE and say "Gimme a refund, I don't want them.".
The fact that MS won't allow the OEM to reuse the license (or won't refund them the money) is irrelevant - the OEMs agreed to that in their license agreements at the same time they agreed to handle any refund requests from consumers.
It is illegal to conspire with someone else to assist him in a crime. And amuse of monopoly is a crime. This means, yes, Lenovo can be forced to sell computers without Windows if Windows bundling is a part of monopoly abuse.
Selling an OS with a computer is not an abuse of monopoly.
Telling a computer OEM that they'll have to pay the bloated retail price for licenses if they ever offer a competitor's OS in their systems may be an abuse of monopoly. Even if this is what happened (it isn't, you're thinking about 2 decades ago), no one would be able to force Lenovo to sell computers with operating systems they did not want to sell or support, nor would Lenovo be seen as aiding Microsoft in a crime - they'd be seen as a victim because Microsoft controls the licensing costs of the OS. The most "punishment" they'd get is being forced to hand out refunds to customers who could show they didn't want or use the Windows license. And guess what - this is exactly what happened!
If your little fairy tale were true, we'd have every major OEM selling all of their boxes with a bunch of different OS options. But we don't. At best you'll find the odd system in the low-end lineup that comes without a Windows license (comes with FreeDOS), or comes with Ubuntu installed.
No one is Forcing Lenovo to sell configurations they don't want to. The court is just holding them to the conract they entered into with MS with regards to refund requests from customers who don't agree to the Windows license / EULA.
If OEMs really wanted to avoid the issue, they could have their order page / retail outlets present people with the license at checkout, and then ship the systems with that part of the OOBE skipped / pre-answered.
Ad yet my X25M, which came at a steep price, is still performing well 1.5 years later while several others I know have gone through several competing drives in the same period. Anecdotal, I know, but when I decided on a drive, the only one without the kind of failure stories my colleagues went through was the Intel drive.
Sometimes you do get what you pay for.
I went for the Crucial M4 (2x256GB in RAID 0) instead of the Vertex 3 because I just didn't want to deal with the bullshit. No idea why Intel went with a SandForce controller, though. They have a good reputation with their SSDs - why risk it?
You're correct. I work in this industry. UG fiber is several times more expensive per mile than Aerial fiber. It's somewhat less vulnerable to cuts, but much more difficult to locate and repair those cuts when they happen (especially rat chews or horizontal boring damage) so it's a bit of a wash really.
Plus I'm sure Google wants people to SEE the wiring go up. I wonder if the people doing the work are wearing a "Google" branded jacket or helmet.
Can you please point out that part in the proposal? As far as I can see, the proposal only specifies the website to Notification Service part, not the part where those notifications are delivered to the user.
Are you joking? Website -> middle man server -> client devices.
The middle man exists so they can track statistics, let end users easily manage permissions and devices, and so they can store notification history and push to all devices regardless of when they're reachable.
Each client device must have an open communcation channel to receive the push notification from the middle man server.
Or are you suggesting that the proposal is for a service where a website can issue notifications to a server that ends up NOT delivering them to the intended end user?
The fucking proposal is centered around websites sending messages to the middle man because Mozilla needs their input. The proposal doesn't talk about how the middle man delivers the notifications to the end user because the fucking websites don't give a shit how Mozilla hands off the message as long as it gets handed off. Do you follow the dump truck to make sure your trash is being collected properly? If your city sends you a questionnaire about possible changes to the trash pickup schedule, do you bitch at them for not discussing the shift changes for Trashman Joe and Trashman Fred? Do you expect to have input on which of them gets to take the old Wednesday route?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's today's slashdot quote.
>There is hardly a thing in the world that some man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper.
What about AIDS?
Hey, if you are happy being either restricted by a lame antenna or tied up to a greedy powerhungry cable company, more power to you. I want my smart TV with a-la-carta programming and on demand shows without restrictive itineraries, and I will gladly pay a bit extra for it (as long as the advantages pay for themselves in a 2 year span.)
Keep dreaming about a-la-carte. Content creators won't allow it.
The future is every fucking network having their own fucking store and their own fucking on demand service. The costs for this are so low that there's absolutely no reason to ride on the back of Apple, Google, Amazon, Netflix, or anyone else for your new content. All the "old" content (x-weeks after first air date) will of course be available on every fucking store.
Cable providers will simply bundle and resell subscriptions to these services (along with the live channel feeds) at a "discount" (compared to buying them individually, not compared to actual value for what you use), and link your Comcast/Charter/Cox account to your HBO GO/etc. accounts seamlessly.
And you sports fans will still have to deal with blackouts.
Have you ever heard an audiophile system for real? I have. You can hear a difference between that and your crap sony at home. if you can't, then you are missing out because I sure can hear a difference. It's like they are in the room with you. It's spooky.
No audiophile has ever passed a blind listening test comparing $$$ components and $ cables to $$$$$ components and $$$+ cables.
Go ahead and double click on your iso with your 1 button mouse.
Back in the dim and distant past when I last used windows ("XP" I think it was called?) I seem to recall a Double Click entailed clicking one button twice. Don't tell me they subsequently changed that to one click from each button!
That's a dual click.
Audiophiles are pretty much the dumbest group of people ever.
No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.
No, these cables don't sound "warm".
ahh, but could one not argue that at one point, however short, existed two copies?
So RAID 1 is illegal.
So you assume everything business does always make business sense? are you daft, or just ignorant?
When they're posting assloads of profits, then yes.
Apple would BUY them at that point or just roll their own. Apple is sitting on a MOUNTAIN of cash.
A MOUNTAIN of cash that would be completely insufficient if they wanted to set up their own national wireless network.
It's also insufficient if they wanted to buy out a bunch of regional kiddies and then eat the difference between what they charge customers and what AT&T/Verizon charge them to piggy back on their network.
Cash on hand / market cap is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to valuing a company.
Its an expensive phone. Are Apple forcing them to give it away? sounds more like "Carriers business model is destroying their profits"
That begs the question, would Apple be selling as many iPhones if the carriers were not subsidizing at all ? Would every customer in the US pay $500 or higher ?
You do not know what it means to "beg the question".
Physicists working on the In the case of the Compact Muon Solenoid experiment, have been able to look at another possible kind of Higgs decay,
Clearly, this was originally
In the case of the Compact Muon Solenoid experiment, physicists have been able to look at another possible kind of Higgs decay,
and someone sloppily tried to change it to
Physicists working on the Compact Muon Solenoid experiment have been able to look at another possible kind of Higgs decay,
but failed.
Just fucking CTRL+C, CTRL+V - no one believes you're writing up your own summary anyway. Just plagiarise in full.
What did the PfP program do that was so bad to mp3.com? Honestly curious.
Popular shit got money, everyone else cried.
It didn't ruin anything, it worked exactly as functioned.
So what? Sheep are not conscious. Life does not equal consciousness.
No consciousness = no ability to suffer or to have emotions. They don't feel pain, their nervous system just processes the information that it is wounded the same way your laptop processes the fact that it's battery is empty or that it's keyboard has been amputated... I mean unplugged.
They respond to wounds and injuries, but they don't interpret any of it as pain without consciousness. And no evidence shows sheep are conscious (unlike other animals).
There is exactly as much evidence to show that sheep, plants, and rocks are conscious as there is to show that humans are conscious.
Step 0: Cogito ergo sum
Step 1: Define consciousness
Step 2: Describe the physical construct and mechanisms which create consciousness
Step 3: Identify consciousness in various things
Step 4: Show that no other construct / phenomena could result in consciousness
Step 5: Identify a lack of consciousness in various things
We're on step 1.
Being able to get away with something legally doesn't free you from social responsibility. So its more of "even if the laws of the land fall short, our social conscience can give us the will to use the tools of the market to fight back".
Except that doesn't happen, ever.
Are you 14? Did your teacher just tell you about the "social contract" people agree to in order to participate in society?
So then.
On First Amendment grounds....
Copyright is illegal.
Yes it is. The jailing portion, anyway.
The paying $$BIG MONEY$$ penalties portion is valid, though.
Let me fix that for you:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.
As for freedom of speech, your freedom of speech does not include the right to force others not to say something.
First you'd have to define progress.
I'd love to have a patent on lead-free solder, gasoline with corn in it, and wind farms just so I could prevent them from being used. They're worse than the alternatives and stopping them from being used is indeed progress.
Maybe someone wants to patent a new gun design and prevent people from using it. Maybe because it's not safe, maybe because it's too good at killing people, whatever. You don't get to decide what progress is, and neither does the patent office. The patent holder gets to decide if progress is best attained by the design/invention/doohickey being used or not.
No, they can't. Maybe legally they can do what they want, but we as a society can hold them to a high standard of ethical behavior in a number of legal ways. We can pass laws regulating them - prohibiting blatant censorship. We can start a campaign to damage their brand and their uptake of new students by casting light on their censorship and its implications. We can work to cut off the corporate and community partnerships they form to drive and maintain their business. A corporation misbehaving does not render us powerless or without the right to respond. We have power (even in situations where they have far far more), and we have the right to fight.
So your "No, they can't." should really be "Yes, they can, but I don't like it."?
You're just retarded and wrong.
Vendors DO foot the bull for refunds of unused Windows licenses.
The whole point of Windows refund is to not fund Microsoft's world conquest.
Every once in a while you get a story about some nerd who makes a video of themselves saying NO to the Windows EULA, restarting the computer, and then wiping the drive and installing Linux, just so they can get $30 back from the OEM after making a stink about it.
Oh, I see. More Microsoft astroturfers.
Listen, asshole. I don't care too much about my money. Whatever money I have, I use to buy things I like, and I have enough for that. I care about Microsoft's money. To be precise, about Microsoft not getting any from me. If you don't understand this, go kill some old lady or something -- it's not like you have any kind of ethic.
Haha, wow. Usually the trolls will continue to argue for days after they've been proven incorrect, but you were quick to resort to the absurd.
This is not about monopoly abuse. I mean if Microsoft is demanding that vendors do not offer refunds to consumers as the Vendor has written into their contracts then maybe that is monopoly abuse. Or if microsoft is threatening sactions against those vendors that do honour the refunds... then yes it is monopoly abuse.
Are you INSANE??? Of course, vendors don't have to foot the bill for refunds. Microsoft produces Windows, so refunds have to happen at Microsoft expense, just like with any other product. Microsoft does not allow vendors or consumers to return its product for refund, and does not allow vendors to re-stock returned Windows licenses for use on other products (what any other vendor of any other product would do) so it's entirely Microsoft's doing.
You're just retarded and wrong.
Vendors DO foot the bull for refunds of unused Windows licenses.
Every once in a while you get a story about some nerd who makes a video of themselves saying NO to the Windows EULA, restarting the computer, and then wiping the drive and installing Linux, just so they can get $30 back from the OEM after making a stink about it.
The Windows license is issued by the OEM, not by Microsoft. It comes with the computer.
You can't take the unused license to MS and ask for a refund, just like you can't take the optical drive to whoever actually made it and asked for a refund.
If you buy a Lexus you can't take the speakers back to BOSE and say "Gimme a refund, I don't want them.".
The fact that MS won't allow the OEM to reuse the license (or won't refund them the money) is irrelevant - the OEMs agreed to that in their license agreements at the same time they agreed to handle any refund requests from consumers.
You're just 100% wrong on this.
It is illegal to conspire with someone else to assist him in a crime. And amuse of monopoly is a crime.
This means, yes, Lenovo can be forced to sell computers without Windows if Windows bundling is a part of monopoly abuse.
Selling an OS with a computer is not an abuse of monopoly.
Telling a computer OEM that they'll have to pay the bloated retail price for licenses if they ever offer a competitor's OS in their systems may be an abuse of monopoly.
Even if this is what happened (it isn't, you're thinking about 2 decades ago), no one would be able to force Lenovo to sell computers with operating systems they did not want to sell or support, nor would Lenovo be seen as aiding Microsoft in a crime - they'd be seen as a victim because Microsoft controls the licensing costs of the OS. The most "punishment" they'd get is being forced to hand out refunds to customers who could show they didn't want or use the Windows license. And guess what - this is exactly what happened!
If your little fairy tale were true, we'd have every major OEM selling all of their boxes with a bunch of different OS options.
But we don't. At best you'll find the odd system in the low-end lineup that comes without a Windows license (comes with FreeDOS), or comes with Ubuntu installed.
No one is Forcing Lenovo to sell configurations they don't want to.
The court is just holding them to the conract they entered into with MS with regards to refund requests from customers who don't agree to the Windows license / EULA.
If OEMs really wanted to avoid the issue, they could have their order page / retail outlets present people with the license at checkout, and then ship the systems with that part of the OOBE skipped / pre-answered.
Ad yet my X25M, which came at a steep price, is still performing well 1.5 years later while several others I know have gone through several competing drives in the same period. Anecdotal, I know, but when I decided on a drive, the only one without the kind of failure stories my colleagues went through was the Intel drive.
Sometimes you do get what you pay for.
I went for the Crucial M4 (2x256GB in RAID 0) instead of the Vertex 3 because I just didn't want to deal with the bullshit.
No idea why Intel went with a SandForce controller, though. They have a good reputation with their SSDs - why risk it?
You don't work up there unless you have to, and then you have to turn off the power or use long "hot sticks".
Kinda like fucking a whore in the front hole.
Really though, I'm still a bit confused
Hey baby, I hear the blues a-callin',
Tossed salad and scrambled eggs
Oh My
Mercy
And maybe I seem a bit confused,
Yeah maybe, but I got you pegged!
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!
But I don't know what to do with those tossed salads and scrambled eggs.
They're callin' again.
You're correct. I work in this industry.
UG fiber is several times more expensive per mile than Aerial fiber. It's somewhat less vulnerable to cuts, but much more difficult to locate and repair those cuts when they happen (especially rat chews or horizontal boring damage) so it's a bit of a wash really.
Plus I'm sure Google wants people to SEE the wiring go up. I wonder if the people doing the work are wearing a "Google" branded jacket or helmet.
Can you please point out that part in the proposal? As far as I can see, the proposal only specifies the website to Notification Service part, not the part where those notifications are delivered to the user.
Are you joking?
Website -> middle man server -> client devices.
The middle man exists so they can track statistics, let end users easily manage permissions and devices, and so they can store notification history and push to all devices regardless of when they're reachable.
Each client device must have an open communcation channel to receive the push notification from the middle man server.
Or are you suggesting that the proposal is for a service where a website can issue notifications to a server that ends up NOT delivering them to the intended end user?
The fucking proposal is centered around websites sending messages to the middle man because Mozilla needs their input.
The proposal doesn't talk about how the middle man delivers the notifications to the end user because the fucking websites don't give a shit how Mozilla hands off the message as long as it gets handed off.
Do you follow the dump truck to make sure your trash is being collected properly? If your city sends you a questionnaire about possible changes to the trash pickup schedule, do you bitch at them for not discussing the shift changes for Trashman Joe and Trashman Fred? Do you expect to have input on which of them gets to take the old Wednesday route?