A Robot trawling the site and a news aggregator specifically reusing headlines, content and images from the site are two completely different things. Just because AFP doesnt disallow the googlebot from trawling doesnt mean they give up the copyright to the content.
I fail to see the distinction. If you crawl their website just for the search page, then when I type in search terms that hit on their site in the regular search box I'm going to get the title of their site as a blue link, and some of the text that was on the site for context information. That text is the exact same thing that they're enraged about Google displaying on the news site, is it not?
They're probably looking for a quick settlement, but I hope googlebot has a blacklist of site that aren't indexed at all. If you want to sue Google for indexing your site into a news aggregator, it is only sensible for Google to not index your site at all...who knows what you'll sue for next.
I think my GRE scores qualify me for Mensa...but I'm not inclined to join. To pay money to be part of a smart persons club that provides no real benefits other than status seems pretty dumb to me. Not quite as bad as sending money to a Nigerian prince, but not good either.
Think about this for a minute...a good score on the GRE which consists of basic reading comprehension and 9th grade algebra gets you into a special smart persons club?
I don't see how you can have a monopoly without a saleable product. Search engines are the ultimate non-monopoly because there is absolutely nothing stopping every google user from switching to Yahoo or MSN Search or any other search engine. There is very little that ties you to a search engine other than your satisfaction with the quality of the results. In that sense if you dislike this behavior then switch. There is nothing at all holding you back.
I actually find stories like this somewhat encouraging. I mean, this really has absolutely nothing to do with our rights online. Which probably means that there are few enough threats that the moderators are forced to post this crap.
There are about a half dozen issues we all know about...P2P, DRM, public computer filtering, DMCA, a few others that are uncommon like blocking VoIP traffic. They're problems no doubt, but at least a new one doesn't crop up every day. Just variations on the old ones....so much so that we run out of angles to discuss!
I really wish people would at least read the links...I've seen 10 posts just like yours, and all it does is distract any discussion away from the actual issue being raised. The apparent claim is that using credit card information to verify identity (ie, you tell eBay your address and give them a credit card number, then they run a CC authorization to see that your information was correct). It is at least specific, if inane. This doesn't even seem like a software patent, more like a business process patent.
This just replicates the original game? Are the graphics improved or anything? I've been planning to play this using DOSBox and a download from an abandonware site...what does the remake add, other than the ability for new story lines to be developed?
Not really relevent. If you delete the IE icon and use Firefox it is the same as deleting Safari and using firefox. One way or another, you're using a competing product. The problem is the bundling...
How many sellers of Apple computers are there? Exactly 1. If you buy a Mac, you will get a certain suite of software....anyone who makes a competing product is at a severe disadvantage because a product comes preinstalled. Right now that includes photo software, video software, music software, internet browsing software, and more.
iLife sounds cool so I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but people really let Apple do things Microsoft never could (or can't anymore, at least).
On that note, may I ask why Apple building those software products into their systems isn't evil an monopolistic? I mean, surely there are competitive products for Macs to do those things. What if Microsoft tomorrow announced that they would be bundling a suite of programs like iLife into Windows?
Why is this comment modded insightful? Are the italics supposed to be some wonderful interpretation of the constitution? For Amendments I, IX, and X he just rephrased the words without offering anything. For the fourth amendment he declared it "unequivocal." And yet, the fourth amendment is the weakest amendment there is....and there are many gun control laws. It quite obviously is not equivocal!
haha...the amazing thing is you'll often find two identical items with days left to go that were listed really close to one another so they show up consecutively in search results....and one will have a way higher bid than the other. eBay is an interesting market in that you often can find out what something is worth within a very narrow range if there are enough identical items listed. But then every once in a while you witness multiple idiots bidding against each other to pay substantially more for no reason whatsoever.
I think people greatly overestimate the capabilities of Apple. Apple is a lean and mean type company...they don't have zillions of engineers just sitting around duplicating other companies work in the event they might want to compete in two years.
All the Iran Contra guys like Poindexter were complicit the in the deaths of many many people. As unbelievable as this is, I find some of his past appointments to be much much worse.
TiVo comes prepackaged with a million subscribers, partnerships with cable and satellite providers, lots of patents and other IP, engineering expertise, brand name recognition, supply channels and marketing, etc.
Developing from scratch would take what, a year minimum? These boxes have to be solid. You can't just throw MythTV into a system and start shipping.
Buying TiVo gives them a running start. They can always call it the Apple TiVo or the Mac TiVo if they want.
I need a new PVR. I don't want a TiVo since their death is predicted so often. Right now I have a ReplayTV...how are they doing? The frustrating thing is that the specs on the cable and DirecTV PVRs are better than TiVo and ReplayTV. I want two tuners...I want to record two shows at once. And the only boxes that allow this are tied to specific content providers.
Who gave the studios the option to let their DVD media break my hardware? of COURSE they're going to use that power if you make it an option.
The studios gave themselves the power. To play DVD media you need a CSS license, and the CSS license dictates how the player functions. And who is behind CSS? Three guesses.
The installation for Windows XP is so damn tricky that the common Windows user wouldn't have a hope in hell of completing it.
Is this a joke? You boot off the CD and then the most complicated thing you have to do from there is choose your timezone. You don't have to know anything to install Windows XP...
They aren't. However, AMD does have a line of x86 embedded processors known as Geode. For example, I see here a 400Mhz Geode consumes 1.1 watts of power. This is part of their more general x86 everywhere plan...with x86 chips as cheap as $1.
The terms you quoted said you must destroy anything in your possession or control when you transfer the game. Since the authentication key on your online account is not within your possession or control, it doesn't seem like you're obligated to do anything about it.
It sounds to me a bit like they picked a really bad primary key for a database! I'm also sure they can give this guy a new key. I once deleted the full version of windows at the direction of Microsoft tech support when I only had an upgrade to install with. Since it couldn't find an existing full version to verify against it wouldn't install. The tech just gave me a special key that unlocked it altogether and things went fine. So surely Blizzard can issue replacement keys if you get the right person on the horn.
Not only that, but I don't think Roblimo nailed him quite enough on the fact that, okay, no company can really back their software, but MS is the one making the claim, linux isn't. It's another instance of one of MS's promises not standing up to mean anything. It was Roblimo's basic point, but he let the MS guy confuse the issue there and wriggle off the hook.
I think his point was sound...you can't create an operating system and then promise it will be able to do something when you don't know what that something is. Microsoft has no idea what kind of crazy ass configuration you are going to come up with. They have no idea how two arbitrary pieces of software will interact. They can hardly certify in advance that things will all go to plan.
On the other hand, they have an excellent support organization available. They will get Windows to do anything it is capable of if you pay them enough money. Same with Red Hat support.
I don't blame them here at all. Unless you know an exact configuration of software, hardware, etc you can't make any promises. You just can't, and you never will be able to.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is completely different because in this case the information published was accurate. So in this case the theater is actually on fire.
As for the idea that being a member of the press offers no specific protections, you're right in the sense that acts other than publishing aren't protected. But posting on a website is obviously publishing, and "shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" would obviously offer some protection.
If you read it correctly, the page say quite clearly advertising in inevitable, unless someone can think of an alternative.
The page is confusing...the key is to notice that right after where it says it is inevitable it refers to being 6 months to one year out from 2001. Well, its not 2005 so obviously that didn't happen. Instead of including advertising, they laid off their paid editor and now have no plans to accept advertising money. The statement about needing advertising is included for historical information, it is no longer planned at all. And with google's help, doesn't sound like it will be for the indefinite future. The statement that is current is the first line in bold that says they do not plan to have advertising. Obviously plans change, but the intention seems to avoid advertising if at all possible.
If your paper does not belong to the highschool, then what is the principal doing reading it before it is posted?
Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.
That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.
Let me answer these one by one. 1) Because you'd be suspended otherwise. 2) You could, but you would be suspended. 3) Of course its a free speech issue, if you're being punished for exercising your free speech by the government it obviously isn't free!
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see the distinction. If you crawl their website just for the search page, then when I type in search terms that hit on their site in the regular search box I'm going to get the title of their site as a blue link, and some of the text that was on the site for context information. That text is the exact same thing that they're enraged about Google displaying on the news site, is it not?
They're probably looking for a quick settlement, but I hope googlebot has a blacklist of site that aren't indexed at all. If you want to sue Google for indexing your site into a news aggregator, it is only sensible for Google to not index your site at all...who knows what you'll sue for next.
Think about this for a minute...a good score on the GRE which consists of basic reading comprehension and 9th grade algebra gets you into a special smart persons club?
I don't see how you can have a monopoly without a saleable product. Search engines are the ultimate non-monopoly because there is absolutely nothing stopping every google user from switching to Yahoo or MSN Search or any other search engine. There is very little that ties you to a search engine other than your satisfaction with the quality of the results. In that sense if you dislike this behavior then switch. There is nothing at all holding you back.
There are about a half dozen issues we all know about...P2P, DRM, public computer filtering, DMCA, a few others that are uncommon like blocking VoIP traffic. They're problems no doubt, but at least a new one doesn't crop up every day. Just variations on the old ones....so much so that we run out of angles to discuss!
I really wish people would at least read the links...I've seen 10 posts just like yours, and all it does is distract any discussion away from the actual issue being raised. The apparent claim is that using credit card information to verify identity (ie, you tell eBay your address and give them a credit card number, then they run a CC authorization to see that your information was correct). It is at least specific, if inane. This doesn't even seem like a software patent, more like a business process patent.
This just replicates the original game? Are the graphics improved or anything? I've been planning to play this using DOSBox and a download from an abandonware site...what does the remake add, other than the ability for new story lines to be developed?
Not really relevent. If you delete the IE icon and use Firefox it is the same as deleting Safari and using firefox. One way or another, you're using a competing product. The problem is the bundling...
iLife sounds cool so I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but people really let Apple do things Microsoft never could (or can't anymore, at least).
On that note, may I ask why Apple building those software products into their systems isn't evil an monopolistic? I mean, surely there are competitive products for Macs to do those things. What if Microsoft tomorrow announced that they would be bundling a suite of programs like iLife into Windows?
Why is this comment modded insightful? Are the italics supposed to be some wonderful interpretation of the constitution? For Amendments I, IX, and X he just rephrased the words without offering anything. For the fourth amendment he declared it "unequivocal." And yet, the fourth amendment is the weakest amendment there is....and there are many gun control laws. It quite obviously is not equivocal!
haha...the amazing thing is you'll often find two identical items with days left to go that were listed really close to one another so they show up consecutively in search results....and one will have a way higher bid than the other. eBay is an interesting market in that you often can find out what something is worth within a very narrow range if there are enough identical items listed. But then every once in a while you witness multiple idiots bidding against each other to pay substantially more for no reason whatsoever.
I think people greatly overestimate the capabilities of Apple. Apple is a lean and mean type company...they don't have zillions of engineers just sitting around duplicating other companies work in the event they might want to compete in two years.
All the Iran Contra guys like Poindexter were complicit the in the deaths of many many people. As unbelievable as this is, I find some of his past appointments to be much much worse.
Developing from scratch would take what, a year minimum? These boxes have to be solid. You can't just throw MythTV into a system and start shipping.
Buying TiVo gives them a running start. They can always call it the Apple TiVo or the Mac TiVo if they want.
I need a new PVR. I don't want a TiVo since their death is predicted so often. Right now I have a ReplayTV...how are they doing? The frustrating thing is that the specs on the cable and DirecTV PVRs are better than TiVo and ReplayTV. I want two tuners...I want to record two shows at once. And the only boxes that allow this are tied to specific content providers.
The studios gave themselves the power. To play DVD media you need a CSS license, and the CSS license dictates how the player functions. And who is behind CSS? Three guesses.
Is this a joke? You boot off the CD and then the most complicated thing you have to do from there is choose your timezone. You don't have to know anything to install Windows XP...
They aren't. However, AMD does have a line of x86 embedded processors known as Geode. For example, I see here a 400Mhz Geode consumes 1.1 watts of power. This is part of their more general x86 everywhere plan...with x86 chips as cheap as $1.
It sounds to me a bit like they picked a really bad primary key for a database! I'm also sure they can give this guy a new key. I once deleted the full version of windows at the direction of Microsoft tech support when I only had an upgrade to install with. Since it couldn't find an existing full version to verify against it wouldn't install. The tech just gave me a special key that unlocked it altogether and things went fine. So surely Blizzard can issue replacement keys if you get the right person on the horn.
I think his point was sound...you can't create an operating system and then promise it will be able to do something when you don't know what that something is. Microsoft has no idea what kind of crazy ass configuration you are going to come up with. They have no idea how two arbitrary pieces of software will interact. They can hardly certify in advance that things will all go to plan.
On the other hand, they have an excellent support organization available. They will get Windows to do anything it is capable of if you pay them enough money. Same with Red Hat support.
I don't blame them here at all. Unless you know an exact configuration of software, hardware, etc you can't make any promises. You just can't, and you never will be able to.
As for the idea that being a member of the press offers no specific protections, you're right in the sense that acts other than publishing aren't protected. But posting on a website is obviously publishing, and "shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" would obviously offer some protection.
Even went so far as to question their motive as profit? Does this moron not understand the concept of a business? OF COURSE their motive is profit!
The page is confusing...the key is to notice that right after where it says it is inevitable it refers to being 6 months to one year out from 2001. Well, its not 2005 so obviously that didn't happen. Instead of including advertising, they laid off their paid editor and now have no plans to accept advertising money. The statement about needing advertising is included for historical information, it is no longer planned at all. And with google's help, doesn't sound like it will be for the indefinite future. The statement that is current is the first line in bold that says they do not plan to have advertising. Obviously plans change, but the intention seems to avoid advertising if at all possible.
Actually, all those convicted in that series of cases were pardoned by the governor of the state. So no one is still in jail.
Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.
That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.
Let me answer these one by one. 1) Because you'd be suspended otherwise. 2) You could, but you would be suspended. 3) Of course its a free speech issue, if you're being punished for exercising your free speech by the government it obviously isn't free!