Its now common knowledge that you can't build anything in the United States without some IP leech suing you, so is this really even a big deal anymore? We all know the eventual result of this: either more products will be invented in other countries
So wrong it's not funny...
It doesn't matter where you MAKE it, what matters is where you SELL it. If you are going to sell to the USA (the single biggest market in the world) then you have to follow US patent laws.
Make it in on MARS if you want, but you'll still be sued in the USA as soon as you start selling.
They waited until they were no longer in the market to sue so they cant be counter sued as effectively.
The article claims negotiations broke down. No idea how long they have been going on, but it well could have started when they were still making CPUs.
If your IP is so great why couldn't they make salable product out of it?
Well the obvious assumption is that Intel used the same "great" patented tech illegally, thereby not only removing their advantage, but also leaving them with the bill for developing it in the first place.
In all fairness, Intel has actually been guilty of repeated patent infringement in the past. I have no idea about the merits of this case, however.
If the victim was a complete stranger, that would be suspicious. Since this is his ex wife, it's not hard to imagine MANY senarios to explain that away... People get injured all the time. The article doesn't say if this was huge ammounts of blood spread all around the vehicle, or just 2-3 drops on the floor...
Hans Reiser removed the passenger seat of his 1988 Honda hatchback
Not at all suspect. In an '88 model-year car, it's not hard to imagine the seat was damaged, cracked, etc. He may have dumped it before getting a new one, or perhaps was leaving it out for extra cargo room.
and that he attempted to hide the vehicle from authorities.
Completely subjective. That could just mean he didn't immediately offer to let them look at it, or immediately tell them where it was.
books on how police investigate homicides,
Seems pretty standard. If someone I know was to disappear, I'd read-up about the process, too. The books are only even slightly suspicious if you are prejudiced and already believe he's guilty.
We don't know if he did it - yet - but we know more than enough to say that it's most probable that he did.
No, we have one-liners from the police department that don't even sound remotely suspicious, unless you let your mind go wild and assume the worst, in absence of any facts.
There isn't enough evidence to even suggest she's dead.
As for the high pitch, I can hear when any plasma/CRT monitor is on in a room (with no signal, obviously). Period. I haven't noticed it as being any worse with my plasma.
I thought the same way, until I bought my CRT HDTV (Toshiba). The thing is dead silent.
They also lack the resources to monitor everyone's video site everywhere in the world constantly, and since infringing their copyright is illegal, I'm not sure why they should have to.
Because there's nothing magic about illegally copied videos, which make it obvious (to a 3rd party) they shouldn't be there... They don't start flashing "ILLEGAL!!!" when you watch them on YouTube or Google Video.
Only the copyright holder can tell that they own the video, and that they didn't give anyone permission to share it. Google/YouTube has no magic insight into the legal status of anonymously uploaded videos.
is a 5 minute daily show clip a copyright violation?
Most definately.
You could probably get away with much shorter clips of the show, if you actually DID SOMETHING with them, as opposed to just directly copying it... Throw in some narration, some criticism of the show, etc. In fact, The Daily Show itself, using clips from other News shows, is a good example of actual fair use... As opposed to everyone here, who thinks fair use means you can do anything you want with copyrighted material.
Does youtube (now google) have some sort of common carrier for video defense they could claim?
DMCA Safe Harbor provision. If they take down videos at the first notice, they are blameless.
If you have someone actually in the video, saying things like that, you could make a very weak case. Even then, a 5 minute clip is probably extremely excessive. If the video is just a direct copy of The Daily Show without any changes to it (and the opinions are seperate from the video) then you've got nothing at all.
Those sound like criticism to me. Unless you are a snob and want only some kind of scholarly criticism only to be allowed.
No, you're redefining criticism. In fact The Daily Show itself, showing short clips of other TV News shows, is a perfect example of what is actually legal (as opposed to the laws everyone is making up in their head around here).
while YouTube built up a userbase with the corporate controlled but much more user friendly Flash format?
Flash Video (FLV) isn't any more controlled than any other video format, it's just a bit nonstandard. It's not any harder to copy, or anything of the sort.
(Egad, it even uses patented video codecs that Macromedia licensed!)
Almost EVERY video codec is patented. MPEG-1 (expired) VP3/Theora and Dirac/Snow are the rare exceptions. What's more, the first are ineffecient, while the latter aren't ready for prime time.
Neither Javascript nor Flash are required to show videos (all you have to do, is link to a.mpg) but they're required by YouTube to show a video. Lame.
YouTube reencodes all videos to SWF/FLV format, so it's absolutely not possible to play them without the Flash plugin installed.
FFmpeg/libavcodec is supporting more and more FLV files, so it will likely be possible to install mplayerplug-in and have most of YouTube working in the near future without Flash.
Google Video gets around this by ALSO offering a DOWNLOAD link, where you can download the AVI/MPEG file instead of the FLV. Unfortunately, most of google requires javascript as well.
Good, they are going to need it when people start suing them for copyright infringements.
The DMCA Safe Harbor provision will protect them from all lawsuits. So long as they take down each specific video as soon as they are notified by the copyright holder, they are held blameless.
You'll be surprised how fine it works on a 24MB system where modern versions of KDE or Gnome would choke and die an ugly death.
Why would you compare a (almost) decade-old version of Windows with a recent release of GNOME/KDE?
On older hardware just try, Openbox/Fluxbox, XFce (3.x), Afterstep, etc. It'll run faster than Windows 98 could hope to, all while being far more stable, responsive, and actually getting security updates and supporting most modern hardware, not just old hardware.
Well, nowadays, when you get XP it already has SP2 on it and you don't get these problems.
How many people have bought a copy of XP since the release of SP2? Not many I presume. I'm sure there aren't a lot of home users slipstreaming their Windows XP CDs, because Microsoft makes it needlessly difficult (but possible, of course) to create a bootable install CD.
So the BBC conclusions sound misleading until you realize that this was done with an old version of XP.
It's not misleading just because it isn't exactly what you wanted to hear. They are testing what most users are in for, and most certainly don't have an SP2 CD...
So by unprotected, they mean some old installation without any recent patches, not a patched machine with no firewall.
What part of "The machine was attacked within seconds of being connected to the Internet," did you not understand?
How quickly can you apply the latest service pack and all the patches to your fresh installation of Windows?
Over 2 years ago, I was hearing from several people that experienced exactly that... They were incredibly frustrated that their freshly-installed systems were being compromised before they could even download a software firewall, or install necessary patches. It's unbelivable what a horrible situation Windows home users are in. Without a hardware firewall, they don't even get a CHANCE to secure their systems before someone else takes over.
Where the hell does everyone get the "$20 for 1 good song and a bunch of fillers" thing from.
A) CDs used-to be more expensive. It wasn't unusual for CDs to be near $20.
B) There are many recorded cases of a single song being very popular, causing people to go buy the CD, only to find the rest are crap. It's known as the Chumbawamba effect, and is perhaps the main reason for the iPod and iTMS' popularity.
The waste water isn't stored underground for "hundreds of years".
If you've got any evidence of that, please quote it. If so, I've been misinformed by expert reports on the subject.
In a septic system, the solids fall to the bottem of the vessel and the liquids travel through poris underground pipes and "water the lawn"
Septic tanks are specifically built deep enough that tree roots can't reach them, and clog them up. While I suppose there may be tiny ammounts of water somehow getting back up to the surface, most of it slowly decends down torwards the water table.
Slashdot Mirror
So wrong it's not funny...
It doesn't matter where you MAKE it, what matters is where you SELL it. If you are going to sell to the USA (the single biggest market in the world) then you have to follow US patent laws.
Make it in on MARS if you want, but you'll still be sued in the USA as soon as you start selling.
The article claims negotiations broke down. No idea how long they have been going on, but it well could have started when they were still making CPUs.
Well the obvious assumption is that Intel used the same "great" patented tech illegally, thereby not only removing their advantage, but also leaving them with the bill for developing it in the first place.
In all fairness, Intel has actually been guilty of repeated patent infringement in the past. I have no idea about the merits of this case, however.
Most suspects, who decline to answer questions, do.
No. "Arrested" and "Tried" are seperate, and very different. They may arrest multiple people before they bring one all the way to trial.
If the victim was a complete stranger, that would be suspicious. Since this is his ex wife, it's not hard to imagine MANY senarios to explain that away... People get injured all the time. The article doesn't say if this was huge ammounts of blood spread all around the vehicle, or just 2-3 drops on the floor...
Not at all suspect. In an '88 model-year car, it's not hard to imagine the seat was damaged, cracked, etc. He may have dumped it before getting a new one, or perhaps was leaving it out for extra cargo room.
Completely subjective. That could just mean he didn't immediately offer to let them look at it, or immediately tell them where it was.
Seems pretty standard. If someone I know was to disappear, I'd read-up about the process, too. The books are only even slightly suspicious if you are prejudiced and already believe he's guilty.
No, we have one-liners from the police department that don't even sound remotely suspicious, unless you let your mind go wild and assume the worst, in absence of any facts.
There isn't enough evidence to even suggest she's dead.
Computers aren't standard prison-cell equipment.
Communication between prisoners and the outside world has to be carefully monitored.
Convicts tend to spend their time studying the legal system, for any opportunity to get out.
etc.
I vote for YOU as the primary suspect...
Returning to the scene of the crime, tsk tsk.
I thought the same way, until I bought my CRT HDTV (Toshiba). The thing is dead silent.
It isn't absolute, but it has ALWAYS been a defense. Common Carrier status, and the DMCA, just make it explicit in this case.
There are many other situations where ignorance puts you in a much better position.
XFce is the dead-simple one. Configuration dialogs. Icons you right-click to change. Arrows. etc.
4.x is just a bit more mature, but it's based on GTK2, which makes it much heavier.
3.x doesn't have quite as many features, but it's GTK1 based, so less memory usage and lightning fast.
And while I'm at it, Sylpheed is a damn good Mail/News program, and compiles with either GTK1 or 2. So does Firefox for that matter.
Because there's nothing magic about illegally copied videos, which make it obvious (to a 3rd party) they shouldn't be there... They don't start flashing "ILLEGAL!!!" when you watch them on YouTube or Google Video.
Only the copyright holder can tell that they own the video, and that they didn't give anyone permission to share it. Google/YouTube has no magic insight into the legal status of anonymously uploaded videos.
Most definately.
You could probably get away with much shorter clips of the show, if you actually DID SOMETHING with them, as opposed to just directly copying it... Throw in some narration, some criticism of the show, etc. In fact, The Daily Show itself, using clips from other News shows, is a good example of actual fair use... As opposed to everyone here, who thinks fair use means you can do anything you want with copyrighted material.
DMCA Safe Harbor provision. If they take down videos at the first notice, they are blameless.
If you have someone actually in the video, saying things like that, you could make a very weak case. Even then, a 5 minute clip is probably extremely excessive. If the video is just a direct copy of The Daily Show without any changes to it (and the opinions are seperate from the video) then you've got nothing at all.
No, you're redefining criticism. In fact The Daily Show itself, showing short clips of other TV News shows, is a perfect example of what is actually legal (as opposed to the laws everyone is making up in their head around here).
Flash Video (FLV) isn't any more controlled than any other video format, it's just a bit nonstandard. It's not any harder to copy, or anything of the sort.
Almost EVERY video codec is patented. MPEG-1 (expired) VP3/Theora and Dirac/Snow are the rare exceptions. What's more, the first are ineffecient, while the latter aren't ready for prime time.
YouTube reencodes all videos to SWF/FLV format, so it's absolutely not possible to play them without the Flash plugin installed.
FFmpeg/libavcodec is supporting more and more FLV files, so it will likely be possible to install mplayerplug-in and have most of YouTube working in the near future without Flash.
Google Video gets around this by ALSO offering a DOWNLOAD link, where you can download the AVI/MPEG file instead of the FLV. Unfortunately, most of google requires javascript as well.
The DMCA Safe Harbor provision will protect them from all lawsuits. So long as they take down each specific video as soon as they are notified by the copyright holder, they are held blameless.
Why would you compare a (almost) decade-old version of Windows with a recent release of GNOME/KDE?
On older hardware just try, Openbox/Fluxbox, XFce (3.x), Afterstep, etc. It'll run faster than Windows 98 could hope to, all while being far more stable, responsive, and actually getting security updates and supporting most modern hardware, not just old hardware.
How many people have bought a copy of XP since the release of SP2? Not many I presume. I'm sure there aren't a lot of home users slipstreaming their Windows XP CDs, because Microsoft makes it needlessly difficult (but possible, of course) to create a bootable install CD.
It's not misleading just because it isn't exactly what you wanted to hear. They are testing what most users are in for, and most certainly don't have an SP2 CD...
What part of "The machine was attacked within seconds of being connected to the Internet," did you not understand?
How quickly can you apply the latest service pack and all the patches to your fresh installation of Windows?
Over 2 years ago, I was hearing from several people that experienced exactly that... They were incredibly frustrated that their freshly-installed systems were being compromised before they could even download a software firewall, or install necessary patches. It's unbelivable what a horrible situation Windows home users are in. Without a hardware firewall, they don't even get a CHANCE to secure their systems before someone else takes over.
Right. People shouldn't be ALLOWED to get what they want, ala carte. They should be FORCED to pick a bundle, or nothing at all.
The same way books, education, and printing-presses do.
A) CDs used-to be more expensive. It wasn't unusual for CDs to be near $20.
B) There are many recorded cases of a single song being very popular, causing people to go buy the CD, only to find the rest are crap. It's known as the Chumbawamba effect, and is perhaps the main reason for the iPod and iTMS' popularity.
The system in question certainly doesn't use cooling to extract moisture from the air, or anything of the sort.
It doesn't have to strictly be HUNDREDS of miles away to fit my post. "Dozens" of miles will still pose the same issues.
If you've got any evidence of that, please quote it. If so, I've been misinformed by expert reports on the subject.
Septic tanks are specifically built deep enough that tree roots can't reach them, and clog them up. While I suppose there may be tiny ammounts of water somehow getting back up to the surface, most of it slowly decends down torwards the water table.
Yup, I remember those days too... $20 a disc, for a CD that is 66% empty, which has exactly one song on it you actually like.
Those were the days.
Actually I was referring to the "300 gallons a day". I assumed that would be clear from the following sentence.