Google didn't ask anyone when it collected WIFI data
Mistake != Malice.
nor does it ask for permission when people use google's search engine (or 90% of the other sites on internet that have google analytics)
By visiting a web site, you are handing over your IP address on a silver platter, and that IP address can be used to track your location. If you're that much of a paranoid psycho, use a proxy. Problem solved.
He was downloading IOS without a support contract. this is the same as downloading and installing windows without a licence.
Neither of which should carry a punishment of that magnitude.
Reading the Multiven website, it sounds as if they were also providing IOS updates to customers of their 3rd party warranty service.
Which is commercial copyright violation and sure as hell should carry a punishment of that magnitude. They were stealing Cisco IP and selling it. That's different from downloading a couple music files and listening to them in your car.
If you wanted a SQL server or mail server on that Windows XP, Microsoft would probably want to to upgrade to Windows 2003 and buy Exchange & MSSQL server licenses that would cost you a lot more than 275GBP.
Why would you use Exchange and MSSQL? You can get free open source mail and SQL servers for Windows. If you wanted to use Exchange and MSSQL ANYWAY, then your point is moot because that's what you would have to do ANYWAY.
Microsoft Windows XP:
Ubuntu 8.04 LTS:
Redhat Enterprise Linux 6:
Just a quick glance tells me that Windows XP has had the best value
....until you factor in the cost of support for 12 years.
That IS the cost of support. Oh you mean technical support IT helpdesk stuff? I submit that a company-wide Linux installation would cost more than Windows for end-user support because nobody knows how to use Linux and anything different than Windows is alien.
Just because it's made from Legos doesn't mean it has to be complicated. What it shows is that the builder likes making something more complex than it needs to be.
In the real world, in a real factory, fewer moving parts, smaller space requirements, and higher efficiency will win out over a monstrosity like this.
Just because it's made from random crap doesn't mean it has to be complicated. What it shows is that the builder likes making something more complex than it needs to be.
In the real world, in a real warehouse, fewer moving parts, smaller space requirements, and one man simply pushing Buster off the rocking chair by hand will win out over a monstrosity like this.
PS. ever think maybe he built it for FUN and not for EFFICIENCY? It is a color-sorting lego robot, you know. Not a landmine factory.
Seriously though, while I agree with some of the greenpeace message... I have very little respect for the organization and have a hard time taking anything they say seriously.
The problem with Greenpeace's message in the last decade, though, is that they are less about "Save the Planet" and more about "Kill the Corporations and Capitalist Pigs...... for the planet I guess!" I have yet to see anything but bitching come out of them. I don't recall anything they have done to actually innovate and help find new ways of saving the planet.
Weight is measured in kg, force in Newton. There is a difference between the two, you know.
No actually there's not. Weight is force. That's why you "weigh less" on the moon.
You're both wrong. You're wrong in saying there's no difference, and he's wrong in saying grams are a measure of weight. Grams are a measure of mass: the amount of matter an object contains. Weight is essentially a measure of the pull of gravity upon a particular object. Something that is 45kg weighs 99.21lbs on Earth. That same object weighs 16lb on the Moon, but it is still 45kg. We use weight as an easy way to measure mass, but your scale must be recalibrated for your monthly business trips to Venus.
What about the person/group/corporation that originally created the data? Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie? Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out? Well that machine cost them money, too. And what about the people who built that machine. That took years of R&D.
There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something. Sure, you're copying data rather than taking it, but that's why there's something called "licensing". It costs money to produce entertainment media and licensing is how you recoup your investment.
(Does this mean I agree with how the **AA are handling things? No. They're a bunch of assholes that need to be shot. But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money. And that doesn't make Kopimism or whateverthefuck any less stupid.)
If the shareholders agree that their interests go beyond making money and are willing to trade off, why shouldn't the BoD obey?
Good point. Call me when the majority of shares in a corporation votes that it is not in their interest to make money and I will buy you dinner and award you sexual favors.
That wasn't the point of my comment. My point is that most of the world has never heard of WebM and WebP, and most of the world is what matters, not Slashdot users. Go ask somebody on the street "What's a JPEG" and they will probably say a picture on your computer. Go ask somebody "What's WebP?" and they will probably say "what the fuck are you talking about?" GP's WebM/h264/WebP/JPEG analogy is irrelevant in this situation. That's all.
I don't think you noticed what I was specifically talking about. Particularly the GP saying "but do you really believe that Google wouldn't be able to lock their content down in an instant if their shareholders demanded it?" That's what I was referring to when I stated that shareholders cannot simply demand things. That would be a foolish thing to demand because it completely reverses Google's very-well-proven methods of making a lot of money.
You're absolutely right, though, when we shift from my context to the context of OP.
I doubt it. The beauty of Steam/Steam Play is that there's nothing more than a flag in the account. Type in the key, or get a Mac (or PC), and just download the files you're authorized to. For PS3 they'd have to send out a disk (unless the PSN does 10GB+ downloadable games?), and BDs are still expensive to make, and they'd be shipped, so they wouldn't just eat the cost. I could see them doing some nominal fee ($10), but I don't really think there's the demand.
You missed the headline of the article: "Portal 2 Bringing Steam to the PS3". The PSN store is irrelevant as Valve can now do whatever the hell they want because it's their own store now.
Pretty damned obvious that the 'next big console' is the iPad, for better or worse.
Nah. Have you ever heard of a major developer releasing full-sized games for iOS without backroom cross-promotion deals? Also there's still the problem that your greasy fingers must be in the way of what you're seeing. I don't see the iPad (or any tablet device) catching on as a major player in the serious gaming market.
MS will continue to make consoles and never really make any money on it
False. They sell the console itself at a loss, yes. Where they make their money is licensing and Xbox Live. Developers must pay Microsoft for every copy of an Xbox 360 game that they press, and the end-user must pay Microsoft for every month of online play they want. The Wii is so flipping cheap that Nintendo is able to sell them for a reasonable price and still make an upfront profit on each unit.
FTA: "In this case Xbox 360 gamers are still left out in the cold so we're still waiting for a truly platform-agnostic online game."
And whose fault is that? I'm sure Valve would have put Xbox into the cross-platform mix if it were possible, but it's not. Xbox Live is a closed environment.
A very, very bad idea. Google has enough power over content as it is. I'd hate to see them gain even more. Google already controls the most popular search engine and the most popular video hosting site (at least in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.) Imagine if you could only find, say, music videos as youtube "rentals," or had to use a Google TV box for streaming internet radio. Sure, a lot of those technologies are open right now, and Google's motto is "do no evil," but do you really believe that Google wouldn't be able to lock their content down in an instant if their shareholders demanded it?
I agree with the basic premise of what you're trying to say: Monopolies are generally bad. But I do not agree with all you're saying.
Shareholders cannot simply demand things. Google's duty to its shareholders is to make money, plain and simple. Shareholders have absolutely no reason to demand anything specific of Google if Google is making money, and they would have no ground to stand on making such demands. Google's system is obviously working. They are making money by the metric fucktonne. Why would they drastically alter the way they do business by performing a complete 180-degree turn in their policies and the ideas they've so strongly based themselves upon?
Again, monopolies are generally bad, but Google doesn't have to buy all the major labels. All they need is one. If they buy ONE of the "big four" and start offering sane licensing agreements that the world has been searching for (for both the content distributors AND the content producers), and start allowing their music to embrace this new possibility of distribution called the "Internet" (it's this fancy thing that's been around for a couple decades that none of the record labels like to acknowledge the existence of) other labels will simply have to follow suit or they will very quickly become irrelevant.
End result: everyone except the RIAA and the top music execs win
You seem to be missing the biggest flaw in the entire plan: A corporation cannot simply "buy" another corporation without said corporation "approving" such a transaction, and it's the RIAA and top music execs that would have the biggest hand in the "buyee" side of the acquisition process. I don't think they would accept a transaction in which they do not "win".
I think the real problem is money. Despite the critical praise of Half Life, it doesn't sell nearly as well as the other stuff Valve has gotten their hands into.
Says who? I submit that the Half-Life series is their most successful franchise. Portal is a part of that franchise, by the way.
Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.
His comment wasn't about welding. It was about the many career aspirations and opportunities that could have opened up from learning to weld. The knowledge of welding itself has very little to do with it and any sort of unconventional skills could definitely take the place of "welding" in this instance. Learning how to weld today (unless he has a particular interest in welding, in which case he would probably have learned by now anyway) would be useless for somebody who is already ingrained in a particular career.
I used to buy an awful lot from Amazon, in fact it was the principal place I did all my shopping, but also stopped since their treatment of Wikileaks. For books I now buy here: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/. For electronics this is good: http://www.mymemory.co.uk/.
I also now find myself with more cash after I closed my Paypal for the same reason, I used to buy tons of junk from ebay.
Phillip.
..... AbeBooks is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon. You're like those people that "boycotted" BP by going to the Arco station across the street.
The real problem are the voters - how can they be so stupid? Much as I think the Democrats are venal, their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests is truly astonishing.
Hmm. That works, too. I guess both parties are the fucking same.
Slashdot Mirror
Google didn't ask anyone when it collected WIFI data
Mistake != Malice.
nor does it ask for permission when people use google's search engine (or 90% of the other sites on internet that have google analytics)
By visiting a web site, you are handing over your IP address on a silver platter, and that IP address can be used to track your location. If you're that much of a paranoid psycho, use a proxy. Problem solved.
He was downloading IOS without a support contract. this is the same as downloading and installing windows without a licence.
Neither of which should carry a punishment of that magnitude.
Reading the Multiven website, it sounds as if they were also providing IOS updates to customers of their 3rd party warranty service.
Which is commercial copyright violation and sure as hell should carry a punishment of that magnitude. They were stealing Cisco IP and selling it. That's different from downloading a couple music files and listening to them in your car.
If you wanted a SQL server or mail server on that Windows XP, Microsoft would probably want to to upgrade to Windows 2003 and buy Exchange & MSSQL server licenses that would cost you a lot more than 275GBP.
Why would you use Exchange and MSSQL? You can get free open source mail and SQL servers for Windows. If you wanted to use Exchange and MSSQL ANYWAY, then your point is moot because that's what you would have to do ANYWAY.
Microsoft Windows XP: Ubuntu 8.04 LTS: Redhat Enterprise Linux 6:
Just a quick glance tells me that Windows XP has had the best value
....until you factor in the cost of support for 12 years.
That IS the cost of support. Oh you mean technical support IT helpdesk stuff? I submit that a company-wide Linux installation would cost more than Windows for end-user support because nobody knows how to use Linux and anything different than Windows is alien.
Just because it's made from Legos doesn't mean it has to be complicated. What it shows is that the builder likes making something more complex than it needs to be. In the real world, in a real factory, fewer moving parts, smaller space requirements, and higher efficiency will win out over a monstrosity like this.
YouTube - MythBusters Rube Goldberg Machine
Just because it's made from random crap doesn't mean it has to be complicated. What it shows is that the builder likes making something more complex than it needs to be. In the real world, in a real warehouse, fewer moving parts, smaller space requirements, and one man simply pushing Buster off the rocking chair by hand will win out over a monstrosity like this.
PS. ever think maybe he built it for FUN and not for EFFICIENCY? It is a color-sorting lego robot, you know. Not a landmine factory.
Greenpeace.. biased.. who'd have seen that one ;)
Seriously though, while I agree with some of the greenpeace message... I have very little respect for the organization and have a hard time taking anything they say seriously.
The problem with Greenpeace's message in the last decade, though, is that they are less about "Save the Planet" and more about "Kill the Corporations and Capitalist Pigs...... for the planet I guess!" I have yet to see anything but bitching come out of them. I don't recall anything they have done to actually innovate and help find new ways of saving the planet.
Weight is measured in kg, force in Newton. There is a difference between the two, you know.
No actually there's not. Weight is force. That's why you "weigh less" on the moon.
You're both wrong. You're wrong in saying there's no difference, and he's wrong in saying grams are a measure of weight. Grams are a measure of mass: the amount of matter an object contains. Weight is essentially a measure of the pull of gravity upon a particular object. Something that is 45kg weighs 99.21lbs on Earth. That same object weighs 16lb on the Moon, but it is still 45kg. We use weight as an easy way to measure mass, but your scale must be recalibrated for your monthly business trips to Venus.
What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?
Then don't watch it. The movie studios don't make money from you watching their movie, they make money from you BUYING their movie.
copying data deprives no one of anything
What about the person/group/corporation that originally created the data? Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie? Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out? Well that machine cost them money, too. And what about the people who built that machine. That took years of R&D.
There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something. Sure, you're copying data rather than taking it, but that's why there's something called "licensing". It costs money to produce entertainment media and licensing is how you recoup your investment.
(Does this mean I agree with how the **AA are handling things? No. They're a bunch of assholes that need to be shot. But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money. And that doesn't make Kopimism or whateverthefuck any less stupid.)
Or perhaps
Step 1 ) Remove sensitive information
If the shareholders agree that their interests go beyond making money and are willing to trade off, why shouldn't the BoD obey?
Good point. Call me when the majority of shares in a corporation votes that it is not in their interest to make money and I will buy you dinner and award you sexual favors.
Your ignorance is your own problem.
That wasn't the point of my comment. My point is that most of the world has never heard of WebM and WebP, and most of the world is what matters, not Slashdot users. Go ask somebody on the street "What's a JPEG" and they will probably say a picture on your computer. Go ask somebody "What's WebP?" and they will probably say "what the fuck are you talking about?" GP's WebM/h264/WebP/JPEG analogy is irrelevant in this situation. That's all.
I don't think you noticed what I was specifically talking about. Particularly the GP saying "but do you really believe that Google wouldn't be able to lock their content down in an instant if their shareholders demanded it?" That's what I was referring to when I stated that shareholders cannot simply demand things. That would be a foolish thing to demand because it completely reverses Google's very-well-proven methods of making a lot of money.
You're absolutely right, though, when we shift from my context to the context of OP.
I doubt it. The beauty of Steam/Steam Play is that there's nothing more than a flag in the account. Type in the key, or get a Mac (or PC), and just download the files you're authorized to. For PS3 they'd have to send out a disk (unless the PSN does 10GB+ downloadable games?), and BDs are still expensive to make, and they'd be shipped, so they wouldn't just eat the cost. I could see them doing some nominal fee ($10), but I don't really think there's the demand.
You missed the headline of the article: "Portal 2 Bringing Steam to the PS3". The PSN store is irrelevant as Valve can now do whatever the hell they want because it's their own store now.
Pretty damned obvious that the 'next big console' is the iPad, for better or worse.
Nah. Have you ever heard of a major developer releasing full-sized games for iOS without backroom cross-promotion deals? Also there's still the problem that your greasy fingers must be in the way of what you're seeing. I don't see the iPad (or any tablet device) catching on as a major player in the serious gaming market.
MS will continue to make consoles and never really make any money on it
False. They sell the console itself at a loss, yes. Where they make their money is licensing and Xbox Live. Developers must pay Microsoft for every copy of an Xbox 360 game that they press, and the end-user must pay Microsoft for every month of online play they want. The Wii is so flipping cheap that Nintendo is able to sell them for a reasonable price and still make an upfront profit on each unit.
FTA: "In this case Xbox 360 gamers are still left out in the cold so we're still waiting for a truly platform-agnostic online game."
And whose fault is that? I'm sure Valve would have put Xbox into the cross-platform mix if it were possible, but it's not. Xbox Live is a closed environment.
No one seriously complains that WebM being free hurts the market for 4C's h264 patent portfolio. Or that WebP hurts the JPEG patent holders.
That might be because I've never heard of those.
A very, very bad idea. Google has enough power over content as it is. I'd hate to see them gain even more. Google already controls the most popular search engine and the most popular video hosting site (at least in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.) Imagine if you could only find, say, music videos as youtube "rentals," or had to use a Google TV box for streaming internet radio. Sure, a lot of those technologies are open right now, and Google's motto is "do no evil," but do you really believe that Google wouldn't be able to lock their content down in an instant if their shareholders demanded it?
I agree with the basic premise of what you're trying to say: Monopolies are generally bad. But I do not agree with all you're saying.
Shareholders cannot simply demand things. Google's duty to its shareholders is to make money, plain and simple. Shareholders have absolutely no reason to demand anything specific of Google if Google is making money, and they would have no ground to stand on making such demands. Google's system is obviously working. They are making money by the metric fucktonne. Why would they drastically alter the way they do business by performing a complete 180-degree turn in their policies and the ideas they've so strongly based themselves upon?
Again, monopolies are generally bad, but Google doesn't have to buy all the major labels. All they need is one. If they buy ONE of the "big four" and start offering sane licensing agreements that the world has been searching for (for both the content distributors AND the content producers), and start allowing their music to embrace this new possibility of distribution called the "Internet" (it's this fancy thing that's been around for a couple decades that none of the record labels like to acknowledge the existence of) other labels will simply have to follow suit or they will very quickly become irrelevant.
End result: everyone except the RIAA and the top music execs win
You seem to be missing the biggest flaw in the entire plan: A corporation cannot simply "buy" another corporation without said corporation "approving" such a transaction, and it's the RIAA and top music execs that would have the biggest hand in the "buyee" side of the acquisition process. I don't think they would accept a transaction in which they do not "win".
PS why did I use so many "quotation marks"?
I think the real problem is money. Despite the critical praise of Half Life, it doesn't sell nearly as well as the other stuff Valve has gotten their hands into.
Says who? I submit that the Half-Life series is their most successful franchise. Portal is a part of that franchise, by the way.
Nuff said. Perhaps playing the game on the PS3 or 360 would be a better thing
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.
His comment wasn't about welding. It was about the many career aspirations and opportunities that could have opened up from learning to weld. The knowledge of welding itself has very little to do with it and any sort of unconventional skills could definitely take the place of "welding" in this instance. Learning how to weld today (unless he has a particular interest in welding, in which case he would probably have learned by now anyway) would be useless for somebody who is already ingrained in a particular career.
I used to buy an awful lot from Amazon, in fact it was the principal place I did all my shopping, but also stopped since their treatment of Wikileaks. For books I now buy here: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/. For electronics this is good: http://www.mymemory.co.uk/.
I also now find myself with more cash after I closed my Paypal for the same reason, I used to buy tons of junk from ebay.
Phillip.
..... AbeBooks is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon. You're like those people that "boycotted" BP by going to the Arco station across the street.
The real problem are the voters - how can they be so stupid? Much as I think the Democrats are venal, their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests is truly astonishing.
Hmm. That works, too. I guess both parties are the fucking same.