Sure, so then those of us that did not benefit from the schooling that the loans garnered will also have to pay for them. Thats such an awesome idea that I have come up with a similar idea.. I think I might mug you in the dark of night and take your cash and valuables.
If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.
Are you forgetting about the opposite of 'extended?' Android, being opensource, may also be 'limited' by the OEM.
The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify.
If you want a specific case clarified you can look at their lawsuit with Motorola where the patents that Microsoft claims are being violated by Motorola are now public information.
All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.
It seems like you are the one spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by pretending that such a lawsuit doesnt exist. There is actual certainty (ie, no doubt) about which patents Microsoft is claiming that Motorola is infringing. Its on the public record.
You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing.
Because both parties agreed to not discuss the specifics of the licensing deal, something that is pretty standard. They (Samsung, HTC, Apple,..etc..) stand to gain nothing by letting their competition (Samsung, HTC, Apple,...etc..) know what their own deal is, as their competition could then easily refuse to accept anything worse. Its the fog of war codified in a non-disclosure agreement that both sides of a negotiation typically insist upon (Barnes and Noble being the exception... but they have nothing to trade but money.. and not a lot of that as they are getting their ass handed to them by Amazon.)
P.S. Even Google licensed from Microsoft for Google-branded phones. Thats right, even Google is licensing from Microsoft.
The few actual Google products which run Android have licensed the IP. Did you think that the majority (all?) of those android devices on the market were Google products? Sorry.
oh and Microsoft, please sue amazon please, that might turn out to be fun.
Dear Dell623. We at Amazon regret to inform you that we are already licensing Microsofts IP, a fact that has obviously has been kept a secret when someone as well informed as yourself doesnt know about it.
this is pure extortion 'you violate our patents we can't tell you which ones'. Why don't you pay us a small percentage of your sales to make the problem go away?
When they sign the standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry, they find out which patents. Barnes and Noble has skillfully tricked some people that arent well informed into thinking that Microsoft refused to disclose the information, when in actuality it was B&N that refused to enter licensing talks.
Oh? Just what part makes you think I'm a Java programmer?
..probably the part where you dont seem to have a clue what sort of optimizations a modern C++ compiler can make, and what is required to get those optimizations...
For instance, modern C++ compilers will consider folding constants across function call boundaries (and thus either inlining or producing a new function in the process) with the right command line switches... this isnt just being able to inline, but to also actually be able to greatly optimize the called function based on the specific parameters used in practice.
Before you say that perhaps that function should be moved into the callers module, please restrict your retorts to those that would apply to heavy string work (an area where whole program optimization commonly gets big wins in practice due to the large number of string constants typically involved.) You arent going to copy all the string functions from the standard library into your source modules, are you?
and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.
I see a lot of you slashdotters make this claim and its flat-out wrong.
The law does not make the service provider host any content at all.
... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
..and by no reason you mean that Google doesnt have a large revenue stream associated with advertising RIAA music on a large percentage of its youtube video collection, and Google also isnt in the process of making a deal with the RIAA for direct music purchasing through Google...
Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.
What are you talking about, there is nothing it the story that says they are making as much profit as they can.
The story doesnt need to state this.
It is a given that they are trying to make as much profit as they can, for that is what they do. If this werent the case, then competition would have come along and wiped them out a long time ago. In fact, the businesses that are still around wiped out those that werent as good at making as much profit as they could. They have proven to be the best of the best at it in the particular markets they exist in.
A lot of AGW advocates also fall into the never-changing-climate idea as well, in fact thats exactly what they want.. to fix the temperature to a specific recent-past value by altering carbon emissions.
This wikipedia cruft suggests that getting temperature data out of tree rings isnt exactly a good science.
"While the thermometer records indicate a substantial warming trend, many tree rings do not display a corresponding change in their width. A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming.
The global economy is going to have to change shape if we are going to survive in any meaningful numbers.
What is special about the future that makes you believe that the 7 billion people the planet currently supports wont be supportable any more in the same manner in which we have supported them so far?
Do you honestly think that running out of the oil that we can pump from the ground will change anything meaningful? I've got news for you.. we can and do grow oil now.
Do you honestly think that losing a small fraction of land to sea level rise will change anything meaningful? I've got news for you.. there are huge swaths of unpopulated land on this planet (hell, even in this country.)
Predicting the future climate? You mean what climate models have been doing reliably for 10 years?
Part of the problem is that there are dozens of models, each predicting differing degrees of warming with various error bars that make even cooling a possibility (ie, they do not agree).. its thus quite easy to point to one and say "see! it predicted the current temperatures!" because pretty much all the likely future measurements were covered by at least one model.
Now please tell us WHICH model is showing skill over a significant time period, and then explain the the rest of the people that their models are crap...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, so then those of us that did not benefit from the schooling that the loans garnered will also have to pay for them. Thats such an awesome idea that I have come up with a similar idea.. I think I might mug you in the dark of night and take your cash and valuables.
If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.
Are you forgetting about the opposite of 'extended?' Android, being opensource, may also be 'limited' by the OEM.
The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify.
If you want a specific case clarified you can look at their lawsuit with Motorola where the patents that Microsoft claims are being violated by Motorola are now public information.
All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.
It seems like you are the one spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by pretending that such a lawsuit doesnt exist. There is actual certainty (ie, no doubt) about which patents Microsoft is claiming that Motorola is infringing. Its on the public record.
Why enter "a standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry", over something publicly available as are patents?
Did you expect the non-disclosure agreement to be whitelisting or blacklisting topics? Seriously?
You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing.
Because both parties agreed to not discuss the specifics of the licensing deal, something that is pretty standard. They (Samsung, HTC, Apple, ..etc..) stand to gain nothing by letting their competition (Samsung, HTC, Apple, ...etc..) know what their own deal is, as their competition could then easily refuse to accept anything worse. Its the fog of war codified in a non-disclosure agreement that both sides of a negotiation typically insist upon (Barnes and Noble being the exception... but they have nothing to trade but money.. and not a lot of that as they are getting their ass handed to them by Amazon.)
P.S. Even Google licensed from Microsoft for Google-branded phones. Thats right, even Google is licensing from Microsoft.
Google stands up for its products by licensing the IP they need.
The few actual Google products which run Android have licensed the IP. Did you think that the majority (all?) of those android devices on the market were Google products? Sorry.
oh and Microsoft, please sue amazon please, that might turn out to be fun.
Dear Dell623. We at Amazon regret to inform you that we are already licensing Microsofts IP, a fact that has obviously has been kept a secret when someone as well informed as yourself doesnt know about it.
this is pure extortion 'you violate our patents we can't tell you which ones'. Why don't you pay us a small percentage of your sales to make the problem go away?
When they sign the standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry, they find out which patents. Barnes and Noble has skillfully tricked some people that arent well informed into thinking that Microsoft refused to disclose the information, when in actuality it was B&N that refused to enter licensing talks.
Oh? Just what part makes you think I'm a Java programmer?
For instance, modern C++ compilers will consider folding constants across function call boundaries (and thus either inlining or producing a new function in the process) with the right command line switches... this isnt just being able to inline, but to also actually be able to greatly optimize the called function based on the specific parameters used in practice.
Before you say that perhaps that function should be moved into the callers module, please restrict your retorts to those that would apply to heavy string work (an area where whole program optimization commonly gets big wins in practice due to the large number of string constants typically involved.) You arent going to copy all the string functions from the standard library into your source modules, are you?
and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.
I see a lot of you slashdotters make this claim and its flat-out wrong.
The law does not make the service provider host any content at all.
... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.
You use C and assembly when you need to interface with hardware
Which language feature is it that enables C to interface with hardware? Were you thinking of pointers? Seriously?
I think you are under the growing misconception that C is "close to the hardware."
Fix NoScript then... since its obviously broken.
What are you talking about, there is nothing it the story that says they are making as much profit as they can.
The story doesnt need to state this.
It is a given that they are trying to make as much profit as they can, for that is what they do. If this werent the case, then competition would have come along and wiped them out a long time ago. In fact, the businesses that are still around wiped out those that werent as good at making as much profit as they could. They have proven to be the best of the best at it in the particular markets they exist in.
You take care of your computer, while Luckyo doesnt even know what that actually means.
Define "mostly agree" Mr FUDclaimer and then I can show you how you are either wrong or playing fast-and-loose with definitions.
"There are people so addicted to exaggeration that they can't tell the truth without lying." -- Josh Billings
Why do you believe that your pull is more accurate than these studies?
OK. I've picked a blog based on your criteria. In fact, its the most prominent of blogs in the community.
Now, please point to where he is saying what you are claiming he is saying.
A lot of AGW advocates also fall into the never-changing-climate idea as well, in fact thats exactly what they want.. to fix the temperature to a specific recent-past value by altering carbon emissions.
..heaven forbid someone repeats a study in order to verify it.
Are you saying that there isnt a peer reviewed study that suggests that there hasnt been warming since 2000?
(psst.. such studies came out of the CRU data, the victims of "climategate")
The disagreeing data sets are part of the problem.
This wikipedia cruft suggests that getting temperature data out of tree rings isnt exactly a good science.
"While the thermometer records indicate a substantial warming trend, many tree rings do not display a corresponding change in their width. A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming.
No, only for ignoring the overwhelming body of work that indicates that the current trend is antropogenic
Citation. You'll find this one hard.
The global economy is going to have to change shape if we are going to survive in any meaningful numbers.
What is special about the future that makes you believe that the 7 billion people the planet currently supports wont be supportable any more in the same manner in which we have supported them so far?
Do you honestly think that running out of the oil that we can pump from the ground will change anything meaningful? I've got news for you.. we can and do grow oil now.
Do you honestly think that losing a small fraction of land to sea level rise will change anything meaningful? I've got news for you.. there are huge swaths of unpopulated land on this planet (hell, even in this country.)
So what is it?
Predicting the future climate? You mean what climate models have been doing reliably for 10 years?
Part of the problem is that there are dozens of models, each predicting differing degrees of warming with various error bars that make even cooling a possibility (ie, they do not agree) .. its thus quite easy to point to one and say "see! it predicted the current temperatures!" because pretty much all the likely future measurements were covered by at least one model.
Now please tell us WHICH model is showing skill over a significant time period, and then explain the the rest of the people that their models are crap...
Each and every year a new more powerful super-computer is constructed to run climate models. If the models are so good, why is that?
How much of your money are you putting on it?
My guess is exactly $0.