Uh, no. You can't interfere with their transmissions, but you CAN prevent them from using a device on your property. If someone is not on your property there is nothing you can do about it.
They are chasing down the devices in the venues. Why wouldn't that be legal? You can be restricted from doing all sorts of things in the venues (or any other private property) that are perfectly legal elsewhere.
I think the AC is taking offense at what appears to be a typo. You wrote "you think you are saying" (emphasis mine), when I guess you wanted to write "I think you are saying". If you actually meant "you think you are saying", then that is pretty rude.
The 'direct funding' is the key. If you want to have someone do impartial research, hire a third party to hire a researcher for you. That way, you don't know who the researcher is, and the researcher doesn't know who the customer is.
If companies want an honest opinion about their product (whether it is for PR or for competitive analysis), they should hire a third party. This third party should go and hire the research firm, with the research firm not knowing who the customer is, and the customer not knowing who the researcher is.
The companies using Oracle on Itanium are mostly large companies, and they are customers of Oracle (obviously). A number of those customers are probably already looking to move to a vendor that won't abandon them like Oracle tried to. The ones that aren't looking to change vendors now surely will be driven to change vendors if Oracle exhibits behavior like you suggest.
Oracle may have tried to quietly drop support for Itanium, and hoped that only the few Itanium customers would notice. HP did not let that happen. Now, the whole world knows that Oracle will happily abandon customers if a particular product is not profitable enough for them. Having the whole world also know that when you can't just abandon customers you treat them like ugly stepchildren is not good for business.
Just as importantly, Oracle's partners now know that what Oracle says is worthless.
Oracle had better clean this mess up right, or they are going to have a lot bigger problems than having to support an unprofitable product. I imagine their are some very happy salesmen at IBM and Microsoft right now.
The companies using Oracle on Itanium are not just HP's customers, they are also Oracle's customers. Oracle has competitors (IBM, Microsoft) who will happily come in and say 'remember how Oracle tried to force you to move to a new hardware architecture, and how crappy their product and support was when they got told they couldn't do that? We won't do that to you.'
MVS (now z/OS) does not "run thousands of linux images." In fact, it doesn't run even a single image of any type - it is not a VM hypervisor. The product that runs linux guests is z/VM.
I think that the AC just picked up a bunch of jargon (sysprog, LPAR, z196, VMS, etc) from an article on mainframes, threw them together, and got the clueless slashdot mods to mark him "insightful". Pretty pathetic.
Yes, clearly innovation has been completely killed. There are no new products being brought to market. There are no improvements to existing products. We still use computers exactly as we did in the 60s, with only the very largest of companies being able to afford them. Nobody has bought a cell phone in the last 20 years except to replace a broken one, because there has been no innovation making people want to get a new one (that is why we all still carry around 2 pound voice-only behemoths). You can still look at a car repair book from the 50s and perfectly understand what every component in your car is and does. The most popular way to communicate with people is still writing and mailing letters (or if you're really hi-tech, sending 'email'). The only way to buy something is by going to the store or ordering from the Sears Catalog by mail. The only way to listen to music is to wind up the Victrola or wait for the tubes to warm up on the old Atworth-Kent wireless. The most effective treatment for most illnesses is still leeches. And of course manufacturing anything still takes an army of labor.
Since you apparently can't be bothered to read back in the thread, here is the exact quote I was commenting on:
NBC video should be free. They were given a license to broadcast over the airwaves (which belong to the People) and should be sharing the NBC-Broadcast video for free over the air and the net. Else they should have their license revoked.
Now, the OTA broadcasts are, always have been, and always will be, free. So if that all this poster meant then was absolutely no reason to make this statement at all. So the only way to read that statement is that ALL of NBCs video, including the stuff not currently broadcast OTA must be broadcast OTA and also must be put on the internet for free. This is a stupid position, and attempts to regulate EVERYTHING NBC does just because they have a license to broadcast OTA.
None of that has anything to do with anything I said. I understand there are people who want things. I do not understand the position that just because someone wants something, that someone else should be REQUIRED by law to offer that thing for free.
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything I said. Here are the facts:
NBC is a TV network, not a broadcaster. They are not using OUR spectrum.
NBC is sending SOME of it's Olympic coverage to it's broadcast affiliates. This is broadcast over the air, for free, just like every other TV broadcast.
NBC owns OTHER, non-broadcast TV channels (CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, etc). These do not use our precious spectrum. They are not free, they are paid for, in part, by cable subscribers.
NBC is putting SOME of it's Olympic coverage on these other non-free channels.
NBC is putting its free, OTA broadcast on the internet, for free.
NBC is putting its non-OTA broadcast on the internet for free IF you are a cable subscriber and are already paying for those alternate channels.
cpu6502 is putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because NBC affiliates have broadcast licenses everything NBC does must be free.
I never said anything about OTA broadcasts not being free
I would like to know in what world does having a license to do something in one area mean that everything you do (even stuff not in that area) must be free?
You went on a rant about copying, etc, which has not been brought up anywhere.
Hahaha! That is a good one! The only people stupid enough to go to the expense of operating a TV station and producing content under such a system are religious and political whackos. And the only people who would go to the trouble of putting up an antenna to receive such drivel are people in the same category. And it is far easier and cheaper to just use the internet for that.
OK, so you just killed free OTA TV. Please explain how that serves the public interest in the slightest.
If there was ever such a stupid rule, the networks would just switch to directly providing cable companies and satellite TVs with their signal, and eliminate their affiliate stations altogether. The cable and sat companies would love it (no more 'cutting the cord'). The only ones hurt are the people who can't afford cable or sat, and the affiliate stations themselves.
Because the broadcasters are not NBC, they are independent companies affiliated with NBC (for the most part). They don't have the right to broadcast the other stuff.
The other gigantic flaw in your proposal is that NBC does not broadcast, and is not under control of the FCC. NBC affiliated stations have FCC licenses to broadcast. Only 10 of the 200 affiliates are owned by NBC. Those affiliates are not producing content (except for local news, etc) or streaming NBC content.
Second, I hate to think what kind of twisted logic you used that leads to the conclusion "if you have a license to use part of the spectrum, everything you do (including that not using any of the spectrum) must be free".
Third, "NBC" does not have a license to broadcast over the airwaves, their affiliated stations do (yes, in some markets the affiliates may be owned by NBC).
Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.
Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?
Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.
We are talking about design patents. The only thing that matters in a design patent is how something looks. There is no patent for 'rounded corners' or even 'flat rectangle with rounded corners'. That picture frame looks NOTHING like the patent (D554809) describes.
Ways in which it is different:
The front is not flat (the 'metal' frame is clearly raised off the glass) The back is not flat (the description says the frame is 2.55cm thick, clearly the glass edges are not) The edges of the back are not curved There are no power or data connectors on the edges (they must be in the back) An iPad does not stand up by itself
I did not say anything as stupid as patents didn't exist 20 years ago - they have existed for hundreds of years. However, anything patented more than 20 years ago would not have patent protection any longer, as patents only last 20 years. So if the inventor of the cello patented the shape, 20 years later all of the other makers of cellos (and those other instruments) could have copied it, legally. So the OPs position that "he shudders to think what the modern musical instrument market would look like" is completely stupid - it would look exactly like it does today.
Your statement about "countless builders.. virtually the same even in the absence of patents" is really stupid. Patents aren't used to make sure everyone makes the SAME thing, they are used to ensure people make DIFFERENT things.
OK, so ARM is the architecture on today's (and tomorrow's) tablets and phones. And how many of them are running Windows? Microsoft does not get to dictate what all ARM manufacturers do, only the ones that preload Windows 8 (which currently is 0% of the market). If you want to avoid the evil Microsoft's edicts, buy a device that doesn't have Windows on it (like an Apple or Andriod device). After all, Apple and Google clearly would never support something as evil as secure boot, would they?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. You can't interfere with their transmissions, but you CAN prevent them from using a device on your property. If someone is not on your property there is nothing you can do about it.
They are chasing down the devices in the venues. Why wouldn't that be legal? You can be restricted from doing all sorts of things in the venues (or any other private property) that are perfectly legal elsewhere.
I think the AC is taking offense at what appears to be a typo. You wrote "you think you are saying" (emphasis mine), when I guess you wanted to write "I think you are saying". If you actually meant "you think you are saying", then that is pretty rude.
The 'direct funding' is the key. If you want to have someone do impartial research, hire a third party to hire a researcher for you. That way, you don't know who the researcher is, and the researcher doesn't know who the customer is.
If companies want an honest opinion about their product (whether it is for PR or for competitive analysis), they should hire a third party. This third party should go and hire the research firm, with the research firm not knowing who the customer is, and the customer not knowing who the researcher is.
The companies using Oracle on Itanium are mostly large companies, and they are customers of Oracle (obviously). A number of those customers are probably already looking to move to a vendor that won't abandon them like Oracle tried to. The ones that aren't looking to change vendors now surely will be driven to change vendors if Oracle exhibits behavior like you suggest.
Oracle may have tried to quietly drop support for Itanium, and hoped that only the few Itanium customers would notice. HP did not let that happen. Now, the whole world knows that Oracle will happily abandon customers if a particular product is not profitable enough for them. Having the whole world also know that when you can't just abandon customers you treat them like ugly stepchildren is not good for business.
Just as importantly, Oracle's partners now know that what Oracle says is worthless.
Oracle had better clean this mess up right, or they are going to have a lot bigger problems than having to support an unprofitable product. I imagine their are some very happy salesmen at IBM and Microsoft right now.
The companies using Oracle on Itanium are not just HP's customers, they are also Oracle's customers. Oracle has competitors (IBM, Microsoft) who will happily come in and say 'remember how Oracle tried to force you to move to a new hardware architecture, and how crappy their product and support was when they got told they couldn't do that? We won't do that to you.'
MVS (now z/OS) does not "run thousands of linux images." In fact, it doesn't run even a single image of any type - it is not a VM hypervisor. The product that runs linux guests is z/VM.
I think that the AC just picked up a bunch of jargon (sysprog, LPAR, z196, VMS, etc) from an article on mainframes, threw them together, and got the clueless slashdot mods to mark him "insightful". Pretty pathetic.
Yes, clearly innovation has been completely killed. There are no new products being brought to market. There are no improvements to existing products. We still use computers exactly as we did in the 60s, with only the very largest of companies being able to afford them. Nobody has bought a cell phone in the last 20 years except to replace a broken one, because there has been no innovation making people want to get a new one (that is why we all still carry around 2 pound voice-only behemoths). You can still look at a car repair book from the 50s and perfectly understand what every component in your car is and does. The most popular way to communicate with people is still writing and mailing letters (or if you're really hi-tech, sending 'email'). The only way to buy something is by going to the store or ordering from the Sears Catalog by mail. The only way to listen to music is to wind up the Victrola or wait for the tubes to warm up on the old Atworth-Kent wireless. The most effective treatment for most illnesses is still leeches. And of course manufacturing anything still takes an army of labor.
Damn patents have completely killed innovation.
Since you apparently can't be bothered to read back in the thread, here is the exact quote I was commenting on:
NBC video should be free. They were given a license to broadcast over the airwaves (which belong to the People) and should be sharing the NBC-Broadcast video for free over the air and the net. Else they should have their license revoked.
Now, the OTA broadcasts are, always have been, and always will be, free. So if that all this poster meant then was absolutely no reason to make this statement at all. So the only way to read that statement is that ALL of NBCs video, including the stuff not currently broadcast OTA must be broadcast OTA and also must be put on the internet for free. This is a stupid position, and attempts to regulate EVERYTHING NBC does just because they have a license to broadcast OTA.
None of that has anything to do with anything I said. I understand there are people who want things. I do not understand the position that just because someone wants something, that someone else should be REQUIRED by law to offer that thing for free.
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything I said. Here are the facts:
NBC is a TV network, not a broadcaster. They are not using OUR spectrum.
NBC is sending SOME of it's Olympic coverage to it's broadcast affiliates. This is broadcast over the air, for free, just like every other TV broadcast.
NBC owns OTHER, non-broadcast TV channels (CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, etc). These do not use our precious spectrum. They are not free, they are paid for, in part, by cable subscribers.
NBC is putting SOME of it's Olympic coverage on these other non-free channels.
NBC is putting its free, OTA broadcast on the internet, for free.
NBC is putting its non-OTA broadcast on the internet for free IF you are a cable subscriber and are already paying for those alternate channels.
cpu6502 is putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because NBC affiliates have broadcast licenses everything NBC does must be free.
I never said anything about OTA broadcasts not being free
I would like to know in what world does having a license to do something in one area mean that everything you do (even stuff not in that area) must be free?
You went on a rant about copying, etc, which has not been brought up anywhere.
Not keeping up with the income-from-online-advertising discussion I see.
Hahaha! That is a good one! The only people stupid enough to go to the expense of operating a TV station and producing content under such a system are religious and political whackos. And the only people who would go to the trouble of putting up an antenna to receive such drivel are people in the same category. And it is far easier and cheaper to just use the internet for that.
OK, so you just killed free OTA TV. Please explain how that serves the public interest in the slightest.
If there was ever such a stupid rule, the networks would just switch to directly providing cable companies and satellite TVs with their signal, and eliminate their affiliate stations altogether. The cable and sat companies would love it (no more 'cutting the cord'). The only ones hurt are the people who can't afford cable or sat, and the affiliate stations themselves.
Because the broadcasters are not NBC, they are independent companies affiliated with NBC (for the most part). They don't have the right to broadcast the other stuff.
The other gigantic flaw in your proposal is that NBC does not broadcast, and is not under control of the FCC. NBC affiliated stations have FCC licenses to broadcast. Only 10 of the 200 affiliates are owned by NBC. Those affiliates are not producing content (except for local news, etc) or streaming NBC content.
Antitrust actions occur AFTER a company has been found guilty of antitrust violations. NBC has no monopoly, and no antitrust convictions.
What authority do you think the FCC has to do any of this?
First, the OTA stuff is, of course, free.
Second, I hate to think what kind of twisted logic you used that leads to the conclusion "if you have a license to use part of the spectrum, everything you do (including that not using any of the spectrum) must be free".
Third, "NBC" does not have a license to broadcast over the airwaves, their affiliated stations do (yes, in some markets the affiliates may be owned by NBC).
Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.
Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?
Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.
We are talking about design patents. The only thing that matters in a design patent is how something looks. There is no patent for 'rounded corners' or even 'flat rectangle with rounded corners'. That picture frame looks NOTHING like the patent (D554809) describes.
Ways in which it is different:
The front is not flat (the 'metal' frame is clearly raised off the glass)
The back is not flat (the description says the frame is 2.55cm thick, clearly the glass edges are not)
The edges of the back are not curved
There are no power or data connectors on the edges (they must be in the back)
An iPad does not stand up by itself
Of course, none of those things you cited are 'electronic devices', which are what the patent claims.
I did not say anything as stupid as patents didn't exist 20 years ago - they have existed for hundreds of years. However, anything patented more than 20 years ago would not have patent protection any longer, as patents only last 20 years. So if the inventor of the cello patented the shape, 20 years later all of the other makers of cellos (and those other instruments) could have copied it, legally. So the OPs position that "he shudders to think what the modern musical instrument market would look like" is completely stupid - it would look exactly like it does today.
Your statement about "countless builders .. virtually the same even in the absence of patents" is really stupid. Patents aren't used to make sure everyone makes the SAME thing, they are used to ensure people make DIFFERENT things.
Yeah, because clearly those instruments were all invented within the last 20 years, or even within 20 years of each other.
If you want to run OpenBSD on ARM, do it on a device that didn't come preloaded with Windows (ie virtually all of the devices out there today).
OK, so ARM is the architecture on today's (and tomorrow's) tablets and phones. And how many of them are running Windows? Microsoft does not get to dictate what all ARM manufacturers do, only the ones that preload Windows 8 (which currently is 0% of the market). If you want to avoid the evil Microsoft's edicts, buy a device that doesn't have Windows on it (like an Apple or Andriod device). After all, Apple and Google clearly would never support something as evil as secure boot, would they?