Not really. The Republicans are such goddamn bullies they forced their shit on us. The Democrats being spineless cowards allowed the Reps to push them around.
Hellooo? Health-care reform? Every poll said that Americans did not want it. The republicans forced that on us?
Exactly 1 republican in both house and senate, combined, voted for it.
You are presuming that UEFI settings can be altered post-bootstrap. I dont know if they can or they cannot, but I do know that its possible to prevent. It actually seems kinda trivial to throw a read-only flag that itself becomes read-only right before loading the boot sector.
..and because Google didnt get the patents, they still cant use them to defend themselves.
Here is why your reasoning isnt sound:
Google barely makes any phones at all. Hell, I'm not even certain that they still make phones. Google therefor does not need these patents that badly at all. Google wants other companies to make Android phones (which they are) and its up to those companies to worry about patents (which they should.)
Its the same with ARM for they don't make CPU's. ARM just designs CPU's and gets others to make them and incorporate them in products. Its up to those product makers to worry about patents, and in this particular case it looks like one of the patents supposedly infringed by Apple was already successful defended by VIA vs Intel, so its not like Apple had no way of knowing that they needed to license the technology. Everyone fucking knew.
Microsoft and Apple for certain are cross-licensing.
Microsoft and Nokia are also for certain cross-licensing.
Microsoft had a license deal Kodak although I do not know if its ongoing.
Google is also licensing Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync IP for the Google branded phones.
I wouldnt be surprised of Microsoft is licensing to everyone on the list that they arent in a lawsuit with at the moment, as well as licensing some IP to a few that they are suing (Motorola?)
See, it used to be that the companies cross-licensed, exchanged a little bit of money one way or the other, and everyone was happy. It was a rare day when someone filed suit, and half of those were counter-suits (ex: Microsoft's counter-suit against TomTom)
The problem is that a lot of these companies are new-to-the-game and dont have much IP, so what was once a "little bit of money" is now "a lot of money" because a cross-licensing deal is very one-sided (what can Foxconn offer anyone?) So these new-to-the-game companies say "fuck it" and start pumping out the products and wait for the lawsuit, because its better to be in-the-game with large cash-flow than it is to concede this rapidly growing market.
Remember that in a rapidly growing market, its common for businesses to run themselves heavily into debt trying to be one of the top 3 in the market when things settle down. They do this because the payoff is high when they succeed. It doesnt matter that they end up billions in debt because if they are one of the top 3 at the end, then they are a market leader and that debt gets paid and its all gravy after that.
If ARM was to make these chips, they would license the patents necessary, probably through cross-licensing.
ARM isnt making the infringing chips in question, tho.. Apple is making them and Apple didn't license the patents. Thats why Apple is in some serious trouble this time.
If Apple could hit back at VIA in order to minimize damages, things wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately for Apple, they dont. Even Intel couldn't defend themselves, and they have truckloads of relevant patents.
Your line of thinking is the same sort that thinks that Microsoft should be suing Google, the authors of Android, and not HTC/etc.. the manufacturers of Android products that supposedly infringe.
Its like suing Linus because a software shop wrote a program that runs on Linux/x86 that infringes on a patent.. its stupid. ARM doesnt manufacture anything that infringes.. hell, they dont manufacture anything at all.
1) You could not buy a pc without MS Windows preinstalled
Yes you could. It wasnt 100% of sellers.
2) MS Windows forced you to use MS IE (do you remember the joke? IE is good for downloading FF.)
Unless of course you had another browser burned onto a CD, or even floppy (Opera fit on a floppy back then.)
3) You could not uninstall IE.
There are lots of things that cant be uninstalled without issue. People that did force IE to be uninstalled found out that other programs relied on the markup rendering engine continuing to exist, a shared component of both Microsoft and 3rd party programs.
4) You paid all this.
Viewing advertising is also paying.
Don't use them, you can. This is not a monopoly leverage.
1998 called and it wants its Microsoft excuses back.
We all learned what "monopoly" means when the DOJ went after Microsoft.
It doesnt mean 100% market share. It doesnt mean that there are no alternatives. It means a dominance in one market so great that the company can pick who the winners and losers in another market will be.
Its OK to be a monopoly as long as you dont start picking winners and losers in other markets. The moment you do, such as bundling Internet Explorer with another product, its an anti-trust issue.
Google is accused specifically of picking winners and losers in other markets.
Define "living wage" or shut the fuck up. I guarantee that once you do, everyone here will be able to shoot so many holes in your belief system that you will still end up shutting the fuck up.
The principle of estoppel by silence (the only estoppel that applies) requires that B&N would have had to be put at a disadvantage by signing the NDA. Non-discloser is normal in business negotiations, even when there isnt an agreement which enforces it, so its a stretch to believe that B&N would be put at a disadvantage by signing such an agreement.
And in context of this discussion what is your fucking point?
I still have to hold your hand? Really?
You are the same sort of fuck that says "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".. I know it.. you know it. The problem with your bullshit is that in this country, the poor got rich too.. BUT JEALOUS FUCKS LIKE YOU DIDNT NOTICE.
You need to leave this country and experience the whole fucking world, because you've got no fucking clue how rich $7/hour part-timer workers in Americans are.
To be quite explicit since you are fucking stupid and need your hand held on everything, thats over 600 million fucking people living on less than $1.25 per day, in India alone. Thats double the population of America that are far worse off than any American can possibly imagine, IN ONE FUCKING COUNTRY.
Fucking liberal idiots... you've got no fucking idea
You know, if you're going to throw out numbers, you should pick accurate ones.
Fair enough.
I don't have a good number for "average" anual income of the top 1.5% of Americans, but let us supose that is works out to be on the order of $10 million.
You just claimed that 3M people earn an average of $10M per year. Thats $30 trillion per year from an economy with a GNP of only $14 trillion per year.
Are you picking up what I am putting down?
You want to get numbers right? Lets start with yours. Until you can make estimations that pass even simple scrutiny, there is no point discussing this issue with you. Obviously your bias is so extreme that you have estimated that 3% of the United States population earns more than twice the entire economic output of the whole fucking country!
but I thought that only served a useful public purpose once, at IPO time.
The useful public purpose is that there is a business due to investment, that it thus employs people, and that it both offers services or products to others as well as uses the services and products of others.
Nearly all businesses start when someone borrows money, from a bank, for the purpose of starting it.
The problem with graduated capital gains taxes is that with capital gains you aren't taxing people, you are taxing profits on investment. Why is my dollar of investment more special than someone else's dollar of investment, so much that it should be taxed at a different rate?
If we graduate the capital gains tax the same way we do income tax, then rather rapidly only poor people will continue to invest.
I'm not saying that we should be taxing everyone down to some sort of commie level of suckiture. There is a middle ground between communism and oligarchy. We don't have to march in lock-step to one or the other.
The proposition here is to take $1.5T from the class of people with $1M or more of yearly income.
According to wikipedia, less than 1% of the population earns more than $350K. Lets suppose that 1 out of 200 people earn 1M per year or more.. now thats 1.5M people. In order to get $1.5T out of 1.5M people, you have to take an average of $1M per person.
The question is, are you outraged that they propose to take an additional years worth of income from this class above what they already take? If not, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The Republicans are such goddamn bullies they forced their shit on us. The Democrats being spineless cowards allowed the Reps to push them around.
Hellooo? Health-care reform? Every poll said that Americans did not want it. The republicans forced that on us?
Exactly 1 republican in both house and senate, combined, voted for it.
You are presuming that UEFI settings can be altered post-bootstrap. I dont know if they can or they cannot, but I do know that its possible to prevent. It actually seems kinda trivial to throw a read-only flag that itself becomes read-only right before loading the boot sector.
..and because Google didnt get the patents, they still cant use them to defend themselves.
Here is why your reasoning isnt sound:
Google barely makes any phones at all. Hell, I'm not even certain that they still make phones. Google therefor does not need these patents that badly at all. Google wants other companies to make Android phones (which they are) and its up to those companies to worry about patents (which they should.)
Its the same with ARM for they don't make CPU's. ARM just designs CPU's and gets others to make them and incorporate them in products. Its up to those product makers to worry about patents, and in this particular case it looks like one of the patents supposedly infringed by Apple was already successful defended by VIA vs Intel, so its not like Apple had no way of knowing that they needed to license the technology. Everyone fucking knew.
This graph is inaccurate wrt licensing.
Microsoft and Apple for certain are cross-licensing.
Microsoft and Nokia are also for certain cross-licensing.
Microsoft had a license deal Kodak although I do not know if its ongoing.
Google is also licensing Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync IP for the Google branded phones.
I wouldnt be surprised of Microsoft is licensing to everyone on the list that they arent in a lawsuit with at the moment, as well as licensing some IP to a few that they are suing (Motorola?)
See, it used to be that the companies cross-licensed, exchanged a little bit of money one way or the other, and everyone was happy. It was a rare day when someone filed suit, and half of those were counter-suits (ex: Microsoft's counter-suit against TomTom)
The problem is that a lot of these companies are new-to-the-game and dont have much IP, so what was once a "little bit of money" is now "a lot of money" because a cross-licensing deal is very one-sided (what can Foxconn offer anyone?) So these new-to-the-game companies say "fuck it" and start pumping out the products and wait for the lawsuit, because its better to be in-the-game with large cash-flow than it is to concede this rapidly growing market.
Remember that in a rapidly growing market, its common for businesses to run themselves heavily into debt trying to be one of the top 3 in the market when things settle down. They do this because the payoff is high when they succeed. It doesnt matter that they end up billions in debt because if they are one of the top 3 at the end, then they are a market leader and that debt gets paid and its all gravy after that.
If ARM was to make these chips, they would license the patents necessary, probably through cross-licensing.
ARM isnt making the infringing chips in question, tho.. Apple is making them and Apple didn't license the patents. Thats why Apple is in some serious trouble this time.
If Apple could hit back at VIA in order to minimize damages, things wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately for Apple, they dont. Even Intel couldn't defend themselves, and they have truckloads of relevant patents.
Your line of thinking is the same sort that thinks that Microsoft should be suing Google, the authors of Android, and not HTC/etc .. the manufacturers of Android products that supposedly infringe.
Its like suing Linus because a software shop wrote a program that runs on Linux/x86 that infringes on a patent.. its stupid. ARM doesnt manufacture anything that infringes.. hell, they dont manufacture anything at all.
DirectDraw has been depreciated for over a decade, but still works fine in Win7.
That's because MS appear to have removed their adverts.
Google advertises on Bing, contrary to the claims of the poster who somehow made an "insightful" post about how Google wasn't advertising on Bing.
What point are you trying to make?
FACT: Slashdot is full of people that will believe anything anti-microsoft even when its easy to demonstrate that the claims are 100% false.
1) You could not buy a pc without MS Windows preinstalled
Yes you could. It wasnt 100% of sellers.
2) MS Windows forced you to use MS IE (do you remember the joke? IE is good for downloading FF.)
Unless of course you had another browser burned onto a CD, or even floppy (Opera fit on a floppy back then.)
3) You could not uninstall IE.
There are lots of things that cant be uninstalled without issue. People that did force IE to be uninstalled found out that other programs relied on the markup rendering engine continuing to exist, a shared component of both Microsoft and 3rd party programs.
4) You paid all this.
Viewing advertising is also paying.
Don't use them, you can. This is not a monopoly leverage.
1998 called and it wants its Microsoft excuses back.
We all learned what "monopoly" means when the DOJ went after Microsoft.
It doesnt mean 100% market share. It doesnt mean that there are no alternatives. It means a dominance in one market so great that the company can pick who the winners and losers in another market will be.
Its OK to be a monopoly as long as you dont start picking winners and losers in other markets. The moment you do, such as bundling Internet Explorer with another product, its an anti-trust issue.
Google is accused specifically of picking winners and losers in other markets.
1998 called and it wants its pro-Microsoft arguments back.
"I havent used Macintosh's extensively, but when I have, it seemed like a reasonable alternative"
I don't see Bing advertising Google nor Microsoft advertising Linux.
Search for "Linux" on Bing and if your eyes are open then you will see the advertisements on the right hand side for Linux stuff.
The key thing is to have your eyes open. If they are still shut, you wont see them.
Search for "Google" on Bing and if your eyes are open then you will see the advertisement on the right hand side for google.com
The key thing is to have your eyes open. If they are still shut, you wont see them.
The choice is yours. You can either open your eyes, or remain a jackass ignorant fucknut.
Government Internet would not be like TV, and there wouldn't be an FCC. Different eras,. different intent.
Are you new to this planet?
Define "living wage" or shut the fuck up. I guarantee that once you do, everyone here will be able to shoot so many holes in your belief system that you will still end up shutting the fuck up.
this is about PC's and PC makers have traditionally not given a royal fuck what you install once bought their PC.
So I guess thats a Windows CD they shipped you? Oh wait.. they don't.. they ship you a "recovery partition", and on that partition is shovelware...
The evidence seems to contradict your claims.
The principle of estoppel by silence (the only estoppel that applies) requires that B&N would have had to be put at a disadvantage by signing the NDA. Non-discloser is normal in business negotiations, even when there isnt an agreement which enforces it, so its a stretch to believe that B&N would be put at a disadvantage by signing such an agreement.
Casio had $1.4 billion (US$) in cash reserves in April 2011 and garners over $4 billion per year in revenue.
Get out much?
And in context of this discussion what is your fucking point?
I still have to hold your hand? Really?
.. I know it.. you know it. The problem with your bullshit is that in this country, the poor got rich too.. BUT JEALOUS FUCKS LIKE YOU DIDNT NOTICE.
You are the same sort of fuck that says "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"
I don't look at a guy who has a cable internet and a cellphone as a paragon of wealth, anymore than if he has shoes, pants, or a 10 year old beater.
This is fucking poor, asshole
You need to leave this country and experience the whole fucking world, because you've got no fucking clue how rich $7/hour part-timer workers in Americans are.
To be quite explicit since you are fucking stupid and need your hand held on everything, thats over 600 million fucking people living on less than $1.25 per day, in India alone. Thats double the population of America that are far worse off than any American can possibly imagine, IN ONE FUCKING COUNTRY.
Fucking liberal idiots... you've got no fucking idea
These people are "employed" but make so little money they can't afford to contribute to the running of government.
They can contribute. The government decided to buy their votes instead of having them contribute.
These are people with cable television, cellphones, and so on. Lots of discretionary spending. Now shut YOUR maw.
You know, if you're going to throw out numbers, you should pick accurate ones.
Fair enough.
I don't have a good number for "average" anual income of the top 1.5% of Americans, but let us supose that is works out to be on the order of $10 million.
You just claimed that 3M people earn an average of $10M per year. Thats $30 trillion per year from an economy with a GNP of only $14 trillion per year.
Are you picking up what I am putting down?
You want to get numbers right? Lets start with yours. Until you can make estimations that pass even simple scrutiny, there is no point discussing this issue with you. Obviously your bias is so extreme that you have estimated that 3% of the United States population earns more than twice the entire economic output of the whole fucking country!
SIMPLY FUCKING AMAZING.
Correct me if I'm wrong here
OK.
but I thought that only served a useful public purpose once, at IPO time.
The useful public purpose is that there is a business due to investment, that it thus employs people, and that it both offers services or products to others as well as uses the services and products of others.
Nearly all businesses start when someone borrows money, from a bank, for the purpose of starting it.
The guy working at walmart pays no federal income taxes. Many people that work at walmart actually get back more than they pay in.
Didn't you know that before you decided to open your maw?
The problem with graduated capital gains taxes is that with capital gains you aren't taxing people, you are taxing profits on investment. Why is my dollar of investment more special than someone else's dollar of investment, so much that it should be taxed at a different rate?
If we graduate the capital gains tax the same way we do income tax, then rather rapidly only poor people will continue to invest.
Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?
I'm not saying that we should be taxing everyone down to some sort of commie level of suckiture. There is a middle ground between communism and oligarchy. We don't have to march in lock-step to one or the other.
The proposition here is to take $1.5T from the class of people with $1M or more of yearly income.
According to wikipedia, less than 1% of the population earns more than $350K. Lets suppose that 1 out of 200 people earn 1M per year or more.. now thats 1.5M people. In order to get $1.5T out of 1.5M people, you have to take an average of $1M per person.
The question is, are you outraged that they propose to take an additional years worth of income from this class above what they already take? If not, why not?