What happens if Virgin drops the whole "Apple=monopoly" thing and instead chooses to simply license the Harmony hack from realplayer in order to get their music onto iPods?
In the SCO case specifically, "smoking gun" basically means nothing more or less than "Darl's going on a fishing expedition and he's just bought some bait".
You know, I've never found artists not getting a very big cut as a good excuse to not pay them at all...
Which is an excellent point!
But I have to admit that conversely, I don't find "the artists will get a miniscule, almost insignificant amount of money that will probably all go just toward paying back their recoupment" a terribly convincing reason all by itself go make me really want to just rush out and spend $17 at fye.
SCO's seriously going to try to start picking up customers again?
I hope IBM, Sun, HP, and everyone else who competes with SCO has marketing departments with the good sense to swoop on on any of SCO's potential customers and tell them "you know if you start buying SCO's products, if you try to start using competing products they'll sue you... they've done it twice already.."
Most people who use a new search engine want to find relevant news. If the news is relevant, few will care whether its source is MSNBC or CNN.
News aggregator services are expressly intended for persons who do care. If persons simply wanted relevant news and did not care if it were from CNN or MSNBC, they would be reading CNN or MSNBC already. However by stepping into the news aggregator space MSN is indicating they are aiming for a slightly different group, one which explicitly cares about diversity in their media intake.
Perhaps people who already read MSN but would occasionally like a second perspective might be persuaded to stick with MSN; perhaps this feature might lure away CNN readers. However ostensibly this feature exists to compete with Google, not CNN. If MSN is trying to capture away Google News readers with their aggregator service, they are seriously sabotaging themselves with their editorial preference toward MSN since the entire purpose of a news aggregation site is as a central hub which collects items of importance but which itself tries not to impose editorial preferences.
Why do you think so? Microsoft is highly profitable. I'd say that a rather robust indicator they're doing something right. From a business perspective their actions make total sense.
Every single division of Microsoft except for the Office and Windows divisions lose money. The one exception is one quarter last year when MSN briefly made a small profit. Since Microsoft's MSN division, in general, loses money, it is fair to assume they are doing something wrong.
that my post indicated that such a thing would be a good thing from google's perspective. I made no comment on whether or not it would be good for anybody else.
It being wrong for Google to expand outside the 'just search' business.
In the last few weeks I've started regularly reading Google News and have found it more rewarding than any website I've found in a really long time. It's useful, good at what it does, a pleasure to use, and, well, it has made me happy. I now load Google News much more often than Google itself. If Google's additional expansions are of the same quality as this, I say they should go for it.
(That said: How exactly, if at all, does Google make money from Google News? I don't see any ads.)
that if Google has any sense, they'll try to start donating money in an attempt to influence the November elections... so that they can try to ensure once Microsoft's "competitive" push against them begins sometime next year, the person running the executive branch of the United States of America is someone who actually believes in, you know, ENFORCING our antitrust laws...
The way I see it, there's two kinds of innovation. Innovation of invention and innovation of implementation.
The first one involves coming up with an idea, and showing, "hey look, this works!", maybe in a lab or in an academic paper or something.
The latter involves showing it's something you can actually do useful stuff with, and ideally something you can put in a box and sell.
We had GUI systems of various sorts for about ten years when the Macintosh was released, but the technology was hardly proven either as something people would want to use or as something you could make money off of. If your system isn't the first of its kind, but it's the first of its kind designed to actually be put into practice or use, then that takes almost as much, if not more, courage than being the one to build that first prototype would have.
If you can implement metadata like this on top of the filesystem rather than within it, and have the utility to the user be the same, then I'd call that a win.
Millions -- tens or hundreds of millions? billions? -- of financial transactions are conducted electronically every day. These transactions are stored on RAID and other redundant error-correcting systems that are as near to foolproof as any data storage system ever devised by hand of man, and yes, that includes handwritten paper records. Very, very few of these transactions fail, and when they do, there are some pretty serious laws about what has to be done to correct them.
Yeah, and you know one of the reasons why? Because when these systems go wrong, there are CONSEQUENCES. If your financial system products lose data people are not going to be buying your financial system products anymore.
Meanwhile when Diebold goes wrong there's no consequences whatsoever, people keep using the Diebold machines, in fact the governmental systems seem to be cheerfully trying to keep people from even investigating these malfunctions.
One of the crucial aspects of any democratic voting process is that WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE THE PROCESS. At the moment, there's lots of reasons-- like these documented voting machine crashes-- to actively mistrust the operators of the process. But even if we're using RAID systems and all kinds of backups, the problem still comes down to trusting the machinery. There is NO GOOD REASON for this.
I don't mind if touchscreens are involved, but I think it is reasonable to demand a system where the votes themselves are little slips of paper put into locked boxes and then counted and kept. That way I don't have to trust the mechanism, or the people implementing it, because we can have volunteer election monitors standing around and watching to see if anyone's fiddling with those boxes. You can't have election monitors standing around and watching the bits on a hard drive be flipped.
Go to Google News, what do you get? A nice, spaced out, clear interface, search box clearly located, the categories clearly separated and the source for each article clearly marked.
Go to this MSN thing, what do you get..?... A HUGE MSNBC logo, links to the rest of MSNBC scattered everywhere, a big MSNBC navbar on the left, and the actual news squeezed into the right, huddled together in a claustrophobic manner that almost hurts to look at, with the cites for each article tiny and easy to overlook at the end of each blurb.
You know what? For the moment, I don't care whose news aggregation algorithm is better. Even if I wasn't a rabid MS-boycotting "fanboy" I'd stay far away from this MSNBC thing, because (1) I find it rather unacceptable that the page layout seems almost to be presenting all of this as MSNBC content rather than what it is, news aggregation and (2) Google offers an easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to use site layout and design.
As usual, not only does MS feel compelled to do "whatever their competitors are doing", but when they do it they do it in a self-serving and shoddy manner.
And do you really think that if this "vaccination" is put into practice, it will be used voluntarily by the person it's used on in more than a tiny minority of cases?
Or you could just actually just, you know, watch the movie understanding what parts are fact (such as: there was a plan to build this pipeline through Afghanistan in the 90s, moves were made to remove U.S. interests from this project during the late Clinton administration, moves were made to restore U.S. interests into this project during the early Bush administration, and the U.S. backed government after Afghanistan was invaded was headed up by a man with very close ties to this project) and which parts are conjecture (such as: the U.S. implementation of the war in Afghanistan was colored by oil-related interests, and more effort was placed into furthering these business interests than into locating Al-Qaeda), react to each of these accordingly, and possibly form independent conclusions of your own other than the conclusions Moore was promoting (such as: the early Bush Administration did not seem to consider the known harboring of terrorists an important factor in its dealings with the Taliban, the selection of Hamid Karzai is of questionable ethics and may in fact be an instance of some sort of cronyism and this bears looking into further). That would be a good third alternative to slavishly worshipping Michael Moore and discarding everything he had to say offhand.
I'm sure there are some Michael Moore fans who do what you describe, but your implication that this extends to all of them is hardly fair. You may or may not have been able to discern the difference in Moore's presentation between his reporting and his op-ed, but for some of us the division came across as pretty clearly demarcated.
Of course it's always best to try to double-check the things Moore says with other sources, since otherwise you might miss things like the 60-minutes-hackjob mess that was the smear attack segment on Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, but that's true with pretty much any form of media.
Actually there's another release being finished up right now, when I last talked to Joe a couple days ago he was finishing up the packaging. I will yell at him to hurry up. I am sorry about the inconvenience, we need to be better about keeping people up to date on these things.
exactly, would this DaimerChrysler thing have on the Autozone case? Weren't the Autozone and DaimerChrysler suits very similar in nature?
When you say RedHat and Autozone are stayed until the "copyright issues" are resolved, does that mean that they could potentially start moving again once the August 4 judgement comes in the IBM case? When you say it's "scheduled", do you mean the judge will release a decision or do you mean that there will be a hearing and the decision will come about a month later?
You could go with the widely-held theory that #2 in your list above is "commit a stock pump&dump scheme". Go with this theory and pretty much all of SCO's actions make immediate sense, since everything they've done, no matter how illogical, makes perfect sense if you look at it as a stall tactic.
That man could read "Green Eggs and Ham" and it would sound profound.
So, here's the question I find interesting.
on
1984 Comes To Boston
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Let's say-- we of course hope this will not happen, but stuff is hard to predict-- there are, as is sometimes unavoidable in a situation where there are protesters (and I'm sure there will be protesters) instances of police brutality during the upcoming DNC.
And let's say that the police cameras record this.
Do you suppose anything will come of said recordings?
Another question: when Britain installed similar cameras, there was some thing where some tripped-out version of the FOIA would allow you to request any film they had of you on those cameras. Does Massachusetts have any kind of state-local version of the FOIA that would allow private organizations to request copies of these Boston street cameras?
Um.. the entire point I was trying to make is that 1985 can HARDLY be said to be Nintendo's entry into the home market unless you are defining this market very narrowly.
If you or the parent want to make a point that Nintendo is the oldest one still alive in the console wars, that's fine, but by any reasonably standards, there are plenty of companies developing video games before Nintendo.
How many of these companies are still around? Coleco's dead, Atari exists only as a trademark currently being used by the company formerly known as Infogrames, Mattel can hardly be said to be active in the video game market except for some subsidiaries that produce PC games...
Nintendo was founded in 1889 as a playing card company. Their first electronic game system product was a line of light-triggered gun gallery machines in 1972. They first entered the console market in some fashion later in the 70s as the Japanese distributor of the Magnavox Oddysey console. As the 70s continued they released three home game systems in the "Color TV Game" series, each of which was a small thingy you could hook up to a TV to play one of a number of Pong-like games that were hardwired in to the unit.
In 1980 they released both the Game and Watch line, as far as I'm aware the first handheld electronic gaming product, and their first in-house developed game, Shigeru Miyamoto's "Donkey Kong", an arcade game that was also released for a number of home console systems.
Of course, the first Nintendo product that was an in-house developed console gaming system with games stored on removeable media was the NES, which wasn't released until... 1985, making it the first successful video gaming product in the aftermath of the great crash of the video game market.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens if Virgin drops the whole "Apple=monopoly" thing and instead chooses to simply license the Harmony hack from realplayer in order to get their music onto iPods?
In the SCO case specifically, "smoking gun" basically means nothing more or less than "Darl's going on a fishing expedition and he's just bought some bait".
You know, I've never found artists not getting a very big cut as a good excuse to not pay them at all...
Which is an excellent point!
But I have to admit that conversely, I don't find "the artists will get a miniscule, almost insignificant amount of money that will probably all go just toward paying back their recoupment" a terribly convincing reason all by itself go make me really want to just rush out and spend $17 at fye.
SCO's seriously going to try to start picking up customers again?
I hope IBM, Sun, HP, and everyone else who competes with SCO has marketing departments with the good sense to swoop on on any of SCO's potential customers and tell them "you know if you start buying SCO's products, if you try to start using competing products they'll sue you... they've done it twice already.."
arguing that the mobile phone is the primary convergence point for digital devices and will soon cause iPod sales to evaporate
Because that just worked so well for the n-gage.
Most people who use a new search engine want to find relevant news. If the news is relevant, few will care whether its source is MSNBC or CNN.
News aggregator services are expressly intended for persons who do care. If persons simply wanted relevant news and did not care if it were from CNN or MSNBC, they would be reading CNN or MSNBC already. However by stepping into the news aggregator space MSN is indicating they are aiming for a slightly different group, one which explicitly cares about diversity in their media intake.
Perhaps people who already read MSN but would occasionally like a second perspective might be persuaded to stick with MSN; perhaps this feature might lure away CNN readers. However ostensibly this feature exists to compete with Google, not CNN. If MSN is trying to capture away Google News readers with their aggregator service, they are seriously sabotaging themselves with their editorial preference toward MSN since the entire purpose of a news aggregation site is as a central hub which collects items of importance but which itself tries not to impose editorial preferences.
Why do you think so? Microsoft is highly profitable. I'd say that a rather robust indicator they're doing something right.
From a business perspective their actions make total sense.
Every single division of Microsoft except for the Office and Windows divisions lose money. The one exception is one quarter last year when MSN briefly made a small profit. Since Microsoft's MSN division, in general, loses money, it is fair to assume they are doing something wrong.
that my post indicated that such a thing would be a good thing from google's perspective. I made no comment on whether or not it would be good for anybody else.
It being wrong for Google to expand outside the 'just search' business.
In the last few weeks I've started regularly reading Google News and have found it more rewarding than any website I've found in a really long time. It's useful, good at what it does, a pleasure to use, and, well, it has made me happy. I now load Google News much more often than Google itself. If Google's additional expansions are of the same quality as this, I say they should go for it.
(That said: How exactly, if at all, does Google make money from Google News? I don't see any ads.)
that if Google has any sense, they'll try to start donating money in an attempt to influence the November elections... so that they can try to ensure once Microsoft's "competitive" push against them begins sometime next year, the person running the executive branch of the United States of America is someone who actually believes in, you know, ENFORCING our antitrust laws...
The way I see it, there's two kinds of innovation. Innovation of invention and innovation of implementation.
The first one involves coming up with an idea, and showing, "hey look, this works!", maybe in a lab or in an academic paper or something.
The latter involves showing it's something you can actually do useful stuff with, and ideally something you can put in a box and sell.
We had GUI systems of various sorts for about ten years when the Macintosh was released, but the technology was hardly proven either as something people would want to use or as something you could make money off of. If your system isn't the first of its kind, but it's the first of its kind designed to actually be put into practice or use, then that takes almost as much, if not more, courage than being the one to build that first prototype would have.
If you can implement metadata like this on top of the filesystem rather than within it, and have the utility to the user be the same, then I'd call that a win.
Millions -- tens or hundreds of millions? billions? -- of financial transactions are conducted electronically every day. These transactions are stored on RAID and other redundant error-correcting systems that are as near to foolproof as any data storage system ever devised by hand of man, and yes, that includes handwritten paper records. Very, very few of these transactions fail, and when they do, there are some pretty serious laws about what has to be done to correct them.
Yeah, and you know one of the reasons why? Because when these systems go wrong, there are CONSEQUENCES. If your financial system products lose data people are not going to be buying your financial system products anymore.
Meanwhile when Diebold goes wrong there's no consequences whatsoever, people keep using the Diebold machines, in fact the governmental systems seem to be cheerfully trying to keep people from even investigating these malfunctions.
One of the crucial aspects of any democratic voting process is that WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE THE PROCESS. At the moment, there's lots of reasons-- like these documented voting machine crashes-- to actively mistrust the operators of the process. But even if we're using RAID systems and all kinds of backups, the problem still comes down to trusting the machinery. There is NO GOOD REASON for this.
I don't mind if touchscreens are involved, but I think it is reasonable to demand a system where the votes themselves are little slips of paper put into locked boxes and then counted and kept. That way I don't have to trust the mechanism, or the people implementing it, because we can have volunteer election monitors standing around and watching to see if anyone's fiddling with those boxes. You can't have election monitors standing around and watching the bits on a hard drive be flipped.
Go to Google News, what do you get? A nice, spaced out, clear interface, search box clearly located, the categories clearly separated and the source for each article clearly marked.
... A HUGE MSNBC logo, links to the rest of MSNBC scattered everywhere, a big MSNBC navbar on the left, and the actual news squeezed into the right, huddled together in a claustrophobic manner that almost hurts to look at, with the cites for each article tiny and easy to overlook at the end of each blurb.
Go to this MSN thing, what do you get..?
You know what? For the moment, I don't care whose news aggregation algorithm is better. Even if I wasn't a rabid MS-boycotting "fanboy" I'd stay far away from this MSNBC thing, because (1) I find it rather unacceptable that the page layout seems almost to be presenting all of this as MSNBC content rather than what it is, news aggregation and (2) Google offers an easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to use site layout and design.
As usual, not only does MS feel compelled to do "whatever their competitors are doing", but when they do it they do it in a self-serving and shoddy manner.
CNN is on behind me, and they've been talking about nothing but Google's IPO. Seems like really bad timing for Google. :-(
I'd go so far as to say it was intentionally "bad" timing, on the part of the virus author...
And do you really think that if this "vaccination" is put into practice, it will be used voluntarily by the person it's used on in more than a tiny minority of cases?
Or you could just actually just, you know, watch the movie understanding what parts are fact (such as: there was a plan to build this pipeline through Afghanistan in the 90s, moves were made to remove U.S. interests from this project during the late Clinton administration, moves were made to restore U.S. interests into this project during the early Bush administration, and the U.S. backed government after Afghanistan was invaded was headed up by a man with very close ties to this project) and which parts are conjecture (such as: the U.S. implementation of the war in Afghanistan was colored by oil-related interests, and more effort was placed into furthering these business interests than into locating Al-Qaeda), react to each of these accordingly, and possibly form independent conclusions of your own other than the conclusions Moore was promoting (such as: the early Bush Administration did not seem to consider the known harboring of terrorists an important factor in its dealings with the Taliban, the selection of Hamid Karzai is of questionable ethics and may in fact be an instance of some sort of cronyism and this bears looking into further). That would be a good third alternative to slavishly worshipping Michael Moore and discarding everything he had to say offhand.
I'm sure there are some Michael Moore fans who do what you describe, but your implication that this extends to all of them is hardly fair. You may or may not have been able to discern the difference in Moore's presentation between his reporting and his op-ed, but for some of us the division came across as pretty clearly demarcated.
Of course it's always best to try to double-check the things Moore says with other sources, since otherwise you might miss things like the 60-minutes-hackjob mess that was the smear attack segment on Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, but that's true with pretty much any form of media.
Actually there's another release being finished up right now, when I last talked to Joe a couple days ago he was finishing up the packaging. I will yell at him to hurry up. I am sorry about the inconvenience, we need to be better about keeping people up to date on these things.
exactly, would this DaimerChrysler thing have on the Autozone case? Weren't the Autozone and DaimerChrysler suits very similar in nature?
When you say RedHat and Autozone are stayed until the "copyright issues" are resolved, does that mean that they could potentially start moving again once the August 4 judgement comes in the IBM case? When you say it's "scheduled", do you mean the judge will release a decision or do you mean that there will be a hearing and the decision will come about a month later?
You could go with the widely-held theory that #2 in your list above is "commit a stock pump&dump scheme". Go with this theory and pretty much all of SCO's actions make immediate sense, since everything they've done, no matter how illogical, makes perfect sense if you look at it as a stall tactic.
That man could read "Green Eggs and Ham" and it would sound profound.
Let's say-- we of course hope this will not happen, but stuff is hard to predict-- there are, as is sometimes unavoidable in a situation where there are protesters (and I'm sure there will be protesters) instances of police brutality during the upcoming DNC.
And let's say that the police cameras record this.
Do you suppose anything will come of said recordings?
Another question: when Britain installed similar cameras, there was some thing where some tripped-out version of the FOIA would allow you to request any film they had of you on those cameras. Does Massachusetts have any kind of state-local version of the FOIA that would allow private organizations to request copies of these Boston street cameras?
Prosecute the Messenger
Um.. the entire point I was trying to make is that 1985 can HARDLY be said to be Nintendo's entry into the home market unless you are defining this market very narrowly.
If you or the parent want to make a point that Nintendo is the oldest one still alive in the console wars, that's fine, but by any reasonably standards, there are plenty of companies developing video games before Nintendo.
How many of these companies are still around? Coleco's dead, Atari exists only as a trademark currently being used by the company formerly known as Infogrames, Mattel can hardly be said to be active in the video game market except for some subsidiaries that produce PC games...
*shrug*
Nintendo isn't very old at all.
Nintendo was founded in 1889 as a playing card company. Their first electronic game system product was a line of light-triggered gun gallery machines in 1972. They first entered the console market in some fashion later in the 70s as the Japanese distributor of the Magnavox Oddysey console. As the 70s continued they released three home game systems in the "Color TV Game" series, each of which was a small thingy you could hook up to a TV to play one of a number of Pong-like games that were hardwired in to the unit.
In 1980 they released both the Game and Watch line, as far as I'm aware the first handheld electronic gaming product, and their first in-house developed game, Shigeru Miyamoto's "Donkey Kong", an arcade game that was also released for a number of home console systems.
Of course, the first Nintendo product that was an in-house developed console gaming system with games stored on removeable media was the NES, which wasn't released until... 1985, making it the first successful video gaming product in the aftermath of the great crash of the video game market.
...what exactly are your criteria for "old"?
(source)
Hey mcc: Nice bbcode, jackass.