This person also doesn't own the property, and he didn't inform all of the customers that he was photographing them. It doesn't matter if an area is publicly accessible. They could close the doors at any time and boot you out, hence the difference between a public street, and a privately owned business should be immediately obvious. You are there on the business owners sufferance. It is unmistakably private property.
Yes it mentions 'something'. It says he asked a few customers if he could take their pictures, although admittedly, he didn't ask all (per the article).
McDonald protested that he had gotten the permission of a security guard to take photos in the stores, that he had asked several customers for permission to take their photos (though certainly not all of them), and that taking photos of people in a public place is mostly allowed anyway.
The store, although publicly accessible is private property (privately owned business). The machines on which he installed the software are also privately owned (although publicly accessible). They certainly don't have a sign that says "Install whatever you like", and the article makes no mention that he asked permission to install such software. In short, he broke the law, and installed software which 'spies' on people without their consent.
You realize that Google's privacy policy doesn't mean shit when a persons profile is public for any length of time. All it takes is a scrape from an unscrupulous host to collect the data to sell to the highest bidder. this is a bad move for privacy and personal choice. I know/. loves all things Google, but this is just a bad idea and it's being done for strictly monetary results to Google's bottom line.
Scraping of social sites already happens with the data going to the highest bidder. It's happened on Facebook for those that didn't know how to hide their data. Google plans to remove the choice entirely.
Much easier to do with a large or majority market share, but the fact that Apple is releasing it's hardware at the same cost, or even less than the opening products from the competition definitely does not say 'monopoly'. It basically indicates a healthy, competitive market, although the other vendors have yet to step up to the plate with a good front runner.
The headlines are a bit misleading. Microsoft is offering "Patent protection" (ahem..racketeering) from it's patent portfolio for a $5 fee per device sold. In short, they are not profiting from Android itself, but rather a vague threat that the folks who sell Android 'may' be violating various patents held by Microsoft. In this case, some of these companies probably feel it would cost less @$5.00 than it would to go to court and potentially come out on the losing end. I suppose it is possible that MS present compelling evidence to force these folks into these agreements but I have to wonder.
This is an excellent example of a broken system when someone doesn't even have a good idea if they are legally free and clear or actually violating another's patents.
You do know you can easily prevent this in newer flavors of Windows by preventing the executable from running? Pre-creating directories is clunky at best, and not a good way to go in a larger environment IMO.
Just use a Software Restriction policy to prevent it. Easily managed, and easily updated in case the EXE folder, or EXE name changes.
I agree. I use a Mac and Apple already does something similar with a rule to highlight messages from Apple (they get a different background color so they stand out). I don't really see the harm in this and it's easily disabled (an a Mac anyway..Not sure about Google).
Anyone can send an offer with High Priority so I don't see how this is 'unfair' as far as that goes.
They used their market dominance to attempt to strong arm PC manufacturers into bundling only I.E. in the O.S. and threatened those that were considering bundling other alternative browsers.
after uncovering a web application on AT&T's website that returned an iPad user's e-mail address when it was sent specially written queries. After writing an automated script to repeatedly query the site, they downloaded the addresses, and then handed them over to Gawker.com
Exactly. That remains the crux of the question. If Apple does break into the HDTV market, then suppliers like Samsung could profit simply because they might be the ones to supply the components. Apple also has a tendency to open the standards they use for markets that they enter into at a late stage. Facetime is a good example. Video chat has a long established history so Apple opened the standard for facetime in the hopes of increasing adoption. Apple profits from hardware, not software, so that is a smart move on their part. I suspect if they did jump into this market, they would end up using a standard that others could adopt (Airplay for example), in the hopes of increasing adoption while making their own products more attractive.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. I've got to admit I was a bit shocked that the Apple TV 2 didn't even have storage, but after using one (for $99 bucks it was an easy decision) to enable Netflix on a TV upstairs, I find the streaming from any iTunes client makes it much more convenient than I had originally thought it would be. I just use a standard 3.1 Main profile 720 video as my primary encoding choice and I can stream HD video to any TV that has one. This whole media expansion just seems like a natural choice for Apple to make.
No, that's incorrect. Microsoft was considered anti-competetive because they used their market monopoly to try and force vendors to bundle I.E.
Simply being a monopoly is not illegal unless you abuse that monopoly.
But Microsoft being a de-facto monopoly on the desktop operating system market was the reason why bundling Internet Explorer was considered anti-competitive
Nothing to my knowledge. The very existence and popularity of Android is an excellent counter argument. It's thriving in the market. Apple is not anti-competitive that I can see.
Add to that the fact that android came out of nowhere and now dominates the market. I the market was anti-competetive, I don't think we'd be seein the maker as it is today. It seems to be working fine.
A monopoly isn't a requirement for an anti-competitive lawsuit, and neither is a monopoly. You must have abused the market in such a way to force others to compete at a disadvantage.
Microsoft did so by trying to force PC vendors to bundle IE.
I wonder how cost effective it is to have an infrastructure built around water recovery when private industry as well as older U.S. shuttles are already working with land based landings. The whole concept just seems dated.
"There's a very good chance that pump prices will continue down, because there is an oversupply of gasoline at a time when our demand is weakening from unemployment conditions," as well as reports of a possible output hike from Saudi Arabia, said publisher Trilby Lundberg. The crude oil price is below $100 per barrel, she said. The closing price on June 10 was $99.29. But Lundberg said she believes that even without increased output from Saudi Arabia, "we will still see lower prices at the pump, because supply is high and demand is weak.... There's a very good chance it will continue falling."
Even necessities like fuel bow down to supply and demand.
While I agree with some of your post regarding cost of living, I have to disagree with your statement about consumers never setting price. In a free market, demand will set the price once a product is past it's initial release. Once you get past the early stages where production is low and costs are high, the consumer demand sets the price. That doesn't mean someone can walk into a store and demand a set price, but if consumers aren't buying a product, they are forced to either cater to a richer audience if that's an option, or they make it cheaper, innovate to add features to make it seem more of a value, or fail against the competition and possibly go out of business entirely unless they lower their prices.
That model does weaken on consumables that are a necessity for most, like fuel. In those instances, the effect is blunted, but even fuel, if driven too high, will effect sales. It is directly measurable to demand. If the price is too high, people travel less, and demand drops, along with the price. If a local grocery store's price is too high, they will either become a high end store, or if there is too much competition, they will be forced to lower prices. If there is a war in the middle east, people become concerned that supplies will be interrupted and prices skyrocket.
Don't confuse a lack of ability to haggle with market demand on a larger scale. If a new energy source was discovered tomorrow that made gasoline optional or opened up competition in the fuel market, the price of gas would plummet.
I'm guessing from your questions you've never used these features.
To search in google you just click the word to copy it to the clipboard, and paste in the 'Google' search field. To open in a new tab, just hold your finger on a link and it will give you that option to open it in a new page (or use the existing page if you like). To change to a different tab, just tap the new tab button and either create a new page, or just swipe to the web page you want.
Working with your pics, deleting, and printing is also easy. They are stored just like your regular photos and can be printed, emailed, MMS'd, deleted, etc. iCloud will make it even easier, removing the need to do anything but take the picture and sync it to any iOS device.
Again, these ultra-portables do some things better than traditional table top devices, and some things require more work. It all just depends on your usage and needs, but they are certainly capable of handling the same tasks.
I didn't say it was better, (although switching tasks is arguably easier on a iOS device).
For example, sending a link is as simple as holding your finger on the link. You will get a prompt to copy the link, which is easily pasted into an email with a double tap. If you need content from a web page, again just hold your finger on the content and you will be prompted to copy it with adjustable margins to control how much of the page you want to copy. It's not overly difficult in any sense of the word.
Same with messaging. A quick double-tap to switch from your VNC software to an IM session.
Even when you have a non-full screen app, your focus is always going to be on one or the other, as would your input if you were typing or doing some other task.
The only benefit a desktop screen has is real estate and the non-full screen nature of a desktop apps (something not possible at the moment on phones/tablets). I didn't say tablets are better, I said they are comparable. The parent ask for anything that you could do on a tablet that couldn't be done on a netbook. I gave him one. They both have their strengths depending on your use case, but to dismiss one simply because it's 'different' isn't a valid reason, given the tasks you outlined are easily done on both platforms.
I certainly wouldn't use a tablet for 'work', but they are perfectly usable for browsing, email, calendar management, purchases, etc.
Transcoding generally makes a video softer. It doesn't introduce conventional 'noise'. Your probably thinking of macroblocking and that would only happen if you ran it on too low of a bitrate. Properly encoded, there is very little loss.
Those are all trivial, and I've done them all on a tablet (except for the Alt-Tab, which is easier on a tablet since it only requires a single finger).
You make it sounds as if the netbook is some vastly different machine. The only difference is the input and OS, where the input requires a flat surface to use, and the OS, which is more desktop centric. That doesn't mean the touch OS's like iOS and Android are somehow limited, they are just different.
You do realize you can encode the same movies for iPad, using handbrake using the 3.1 Main Profile, and play them in the default media player? In the end, if the media player plays the media, the differences become rather minor and cosmetic on most fronts.
Slashdot Mirror
This person also doesn't own the property, and he didn't inform all of the customers that he was photographing them. It doesn't matter if an area is publicly accessible. They could close the doors at any time and boot you out, hence the difference between a public street, and a privately owned business should be immediately obvious. You are there on the business owners sufferance. It is unmistakably private property.
Yes it mentions 'something'. It says he asked a few customers if he could take their pictures, although admittedly, he didn't ask all (per the article).
The store, although publicly accessible is private property (privately owned business). The machines on which he installed the software are also privately owned (although publicly accessible). They certainly don't have a sign that says "Install whatever you like", and the article makes no mention that he asked permission to install such software. In short, he broke the law, and installed software which 'spies' on people without their consent.
You realize that Google's privacy policy doesn't mean shit when a persons profile is public for any length of time. All it takes is a scrape from an unscrupulous host to collect the data to sell to the highest bidder. this is a bad move for privacy and personal choice. I know /. loves all things Google, but this is just a bad idea and it's being done for strictly monetary results to Google's bottom line.
Scraping of social sites already happens with the data going to the highest bidder. It's happened on Facebook for those that didn't know how to hide their data. Google plans to remove the choice entirely.
Much easier to do with a large or majority market share, but the fact that Apple is releasing it's hardware at the same cost, or even less than the opening products from the competition definitely does not say 'monopoly'. It basically indicates a healthy, competitive market, although the other vendors have yet to step up to the plate with a good front runner.
You do know that it does support a bluetooth headset right?
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4111
The headlines are a bit misleading. Microsoft is offering "Patent protection" (ahem..racketeering) from it's patent portfolio for a $5 fee per device sold. In short, they are not profiting from Android itself, but rather a vague threat that the folks who sell Android 'may' be violating various patents held by Microsoft. In this case, some of these companies probably feel it would cost less @$5.00 than it would to go to court and potentially come out on the losing end. I suppose it is possible that MS present compelling evidence to force these folks into these agreements but I have to wonder.
This is an excellent example of a broken system when someone doesn't even have a good idea if they are legally free and clear or actually violating another's patents.
I don't think DRM means what you think it means...
You do know you can easily prevent this in newer flavors of Windows by preventing the executable from running? Pre-creating directories is clunky at best, and not a good way to go in a larger environment IMO.
Just use a Software Restriction policy to prevent it. Easily managed, and easily updated in case the EXE folder, or EXE name changes.
I agree. I use a Mac and Apple already does something similar with a rule to highlight messages from Apple (they get a different background color so they stand out). I don't really see the harm in this and it's easily disabled (an a Mac anyway..Not sure about Google).
Anyone can send an offer with High Priority so I don't see how this is 'unfair' as far as that goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
They used their market dominance to attempt to strong arm PC manufacturers into bundling only I.E. in the O.S. and threatened those that were considering bundling other alternative browsers.
The very definition of anti-competetive.
They were hardly just laying around.
Exactly. That remains the crux of the question. If Apple does break into the HDTV market, then suppliers like Samsung could profit simply because they might be the ones to supply the components. Apple also has a tendency to open the standards they use for markets that they enter into at a late stage. Facetime is a good example. Video chat has a long established history so Apple opened the standard for facetime in the hopes of increasing adoption. Apple profits from hardware, not software, so that is a smart move on their part. I suspect if they did jump into this market, they would end up using a standard that others could adopt (Airplay for example), in the hopes of increasing adoption while making their own products more attractive.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. I've got to admit I was a bit shocked that the Apple TV 2 didn't even have storage, but after using one (for $99 bucks it was an easy decision) to enable Netflix on a TV upstairs, I find the streaming from any iTunes client makes it much more convenient than I had originally thought it would be. I just use a standard 3.1 Main profile 720 video as my primary encoding choice and I can stream HD video to any TV that has one. This whole media expansion just seems like a natural choice for Apple to make.
No, that's incorrect. Microsoft was considered anti-competetive because they used their market monopoly to try and force vendors to bundle I.E.
Simply being a monopoly is not illegal unless you abuse that monopoly.
Nothing to my knowledge. The very existence and popularity of Android is an excellent counter argument. It's thriving in the market. Apple is not anti-competitive that I can see.
Add to that the fact that android came out of nowhere and now dominates the market. I the market was anti-competetive, I don't think we'd be seein the maker as it is today. It seems to be working fine.
A monopoly isn't a requirement for an anti-competitive lawsuit, and neither is a monopoly. You must have abused the market in such a way to force others to compete at a disadvantage.
Microsoft did so by trying to force PC vendors to bundle IE.
I wonder how cost effective it is to have an infrastructure built around water recovery when private industry as well as older U.S. shuttles are already working with land based landings. The whole concept just seems dated.
Current events would seem to disagree with you:
Ref: Gas prices headed downward, survey finds
Even necessities like fuel bow down to supply and demand.
While I agree with some of your post regarding cost of living, I have to disagree with your statement about consumers never setting price. In a free market, demand will set the price once a product is past it's initial release. Once you get past the early stages where production is low and costs are high, the consumer demand sets the price. That doesn't mean someone can walk into a store and demand a set price, but if consumers aren't buying a product, they are forced to either cater to a richer audience if that's an option, or they make it cheaper, innovate to add features to make it seem more of a value, or fail against the competition and possibly go out of business entirely unless they lower their prices.
That model does weaken on consumables that are a necessity for most, like fuel. In those instances, the effect is blunted, but even fuel, if driven too high, will effect sales. It is directly measurable to demand. If the price is too high, people travel less, and demand drops, along with the price. If a local grocery store's price is too high, they will either become a high end store, or if there is too much competition, they will be forced to lower prices. If there is a war in the middle east, people become concerned that supplies will be interrupted and prices skyrocket.
Don't confuse a lack of ability to haggle with market demand on a larger scale. If a new energy source was discovered tomorrow that made gasoline optional or opened up competition in the fuel market, the price of gas would plummet.
I'm guessing from your questions you've never used these features.
To search in google you just click the word to copy it to the clipboard, and paste in the 'Google' search field. To open in a new tab, just hold your finger on a link and it will give you that option to open it in a new page (or use the existing page if you like). To change to a different tab, just tap the new tab button and either create a new page, or just swipe to the web page you want.
Working with your pics, deleting, and printing is also easy. They are stored just like your regular photos and can be printed, emailed, MMS'd, deleted, etc. iCloud will make it even easier, removing the need to do anything but take the picture and sync it to any iOS device.
Again, these ultra-portables do some things better than traditional table top devices, and some things require more work. It all just depends on your usage and needs, but they are certainly capable of handling the same tasks.
I didn't say it was better, (although switching tasks is arguably easier on a iOS device).
For example, sending a link is as simple as holding your finger on the link. You will get a prompt to copy the link, which is easily pasted into an email with a double tap. If you need content from a web page, again just hold your finger on the content and you will be prompted to copy it with adjustable margins to control how much of the page you want to copy. It's not overly difficult in any sense of the word.
Same with messaging. A quick double-tap to switch from your VNC software to an IM session.
Even when you have a non-full screen app, your focus is always going to be on one or the other, as would your input if you were typing or doing some other task.
The only benefit a desktop screen has is real estate and the non-full screen nature of a desktop apps (something not possible at the moment on phones/tablets). I didn't say tablets are better, I said they are comparable. The parent ask for anything that you could do on a tablet that couldn't be done on a netbook. I gave him one. They both have their strengths depending on your use case, but to dismiss one simply because it's 'different' isn't a valid reason, given the tasks you outlined are easily done on both platforms.
I certainly wouldn't use a tablet for 'work', but they are perfectly usable for browsing, email, calendar management, purchases, etc.
Transcoding generally makes a video softer. It doesn't introduce conventional 'noise'. Your probably thinking of macroblocking and that would only happen if you ran it on too low of a bitrate. Properly encoded, there is very little loss.
Those are all trivial, and I've done them all on a tablet (except for the Alt-Tab, which is easier on a tablet since it only requires a single finger).
You make it sounds as if the netbook is some vastly different machine. The only difference is the input and OS, where the input requires a flat surface to use, and the OS, which is more desktop centric. That doesn't mean the touch OS's like iOS and Android are somehow limited, they are just different.
You do realize you can encode the same movies for iPad, using handbrake using the 3.1 Main Profile, and play them in the default media player? In the end, if the media player plays the media, the differences become rather minor and cosmetic on most fronts.
Try using a netbook to type a message while standing up on a train/subway.