Of course they aren't going to pull out. People here are like the 18 year old girls who seriously trust that their boyfriend is going to pull out just before instead of cumming in.
1) MS has released Silverlight specs to open source community to develop. This is what Moonlight project is about. If the project doesn't have enough interest in developers, it is not MS's fault. 2) FOSS and Open Standards doesn't mean the original developers would be required to develop their software for all platforms and OS. It's about the standards and specs being out openly there, so others can develop them, and currently they are. 3) Silverlight with its open specs is actually even more open than Flash. Adobe refuses to release specs for Flash and all implementations of it are propriety and closed, and reverse engineered alternatives will probably be hit with a lawsuit.
Please learn what the actual FOSS and free software is really about, since you're coming out as the worst type of zealot. For starters, it's not about forcing anyone to do the software for you, but having the possibility to implement it if you want to.
Remember that Google also bought out the company that was developing Google Earth/Maps, they didn't itself actually innovate it. (since you listed keyhole, you probably knew that)
Theres many other Google services you would call "innovative", but are really bought startups that actually did the innovation.
All the top three make sense anyway. New Windows version (with new/changed API's and stuff like UAC) require a new Office version, which leads to more sales. Also, a lot of times both Windows+Office licenses are sold to companies together as they need them anyway. New Windows Server OS versions and tools are also released parallel to customer versions of Windows, so their sale will obviously increase as well.
The drops are probably because a new OS version was coming up and people didn't want to buy the old one.
I've noticed the same thing too. Lot of times people say MS doesn't innovate or think long-term strategies. Losing $500 Million a year for the online division kind of shows that they do, and they're expanding their business. Yeah, it's a lot to lose every year - but theres also the possibility of high returns in future. That's how business works.
I mean, look at the XBox. They pour untold millions into that thing, and it is, at best, on par in only the US and UK markets?
Actually, I find a lot of those numbers surprising. I know several people with Wiis and PS3s, but no one with an XBox. Well, not anyone who would admit to it, I suppose. But, it is important to interpret data honestly.
Being on par (and slightly winning) is really good with consoles, especially with a console that is only on its 2nd iteration. PS1 and PS2 basically dominated the market, killed Sega off from it and made Nintendo skip a generation.
I actually own all the consoles, they're slightly better on different things. First of all, lets get the Wii out of the way since it's targeted to general people and not gamers as such (not that it's not fun for gamers too, it is). PS3 is great with its OS and store. I find it much nicer to use, especially as a media player device, than 360. However, 360's Live as a social gaming, friends and such beats PS3's system. PS3 also is technically better, but it came at really high cost at first and now they had to drop things to get PS3 Slim to lower price.
But the fact is, consoles are something only a few companies can dominate and they all do put millions into it. The current generation of consoles is actually interesting since there are no actual losers - PS3 and 360 are competing about players, are pretty much par with each other, while Wii takes players and general audience.
Uh, where does it say something being "technology" has to be something really really new like when electricity was invented? Have you played too much Civilization?:)
(uncountable) the study of or a collection of techniques. (countable) a particular technological concept the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society.
I think it fits quite good, and it's not like what they're doing even exists currently.
Actually I've found Bing to be quite good on the searching aspect. Live/MSN search was crap, but Bing actually returns good results (better than Google sometimes too). Integrating Wolfram Alpha and other data sources to results works quite good too, especially if you're constantly doing such searches (calculations, conversion of units, food nutrition info, traveling). Google has such things like calculator on it too, but it's not as much comprehensive. On Bing it usually saves you from looking what site might be good and the first click and typing the info again.
The movement in maps, different images and day/night time cycle with star maps when you're looking up looks great. In every aspect it seems Bing is really innovating and beating Google all the time. It's no surprise they're worried about Bing now.
Wheres the correction? You just described exactly the same as I did, but just prove that its more harder to see as it's not a charge per transaction.
The user is going to put the $20 in donation amounts nevertheless of the administration fees. He wont be trying to calculate that 10% and making a $22 donation instead. The seller/donation receiver is still getting less than without the administration fee.
Also, both technically and psychologically it makes more sense to take the charge afterwards than when the user is paying it and won't go "whoa, theres lots of overhead costs".
But no matter where they technically take the administration fee, it's still always off from the seller, so yes, there is technically a charge for the sellers.
Its an abstraction of money, a flattr is not an amount of money until the end of the month.
That is a funny sentence.
Money itself is an abstraction, and usually backed up by gold. What is gold worth? Peoples thought that it's a rare metal and worth something. What would flattr money be worth? The thought that its worth of money (probably US dollar), which is worth of other currencies like Euro compared to USD, which again is worth something in gold, which in turn is worth of peoples mindset it actually being worth something.
I would understand seeing this kind of ignorance of how finance works on some teenage girls forum, but slashdot?:)
For this service, Sunde is flipping it around and charging the sender rather than the recipient
Actually, I think it will be exactly the opposite, but the system just makes it more transparent.
Consider this scenario: User creates a subscription to pay a total amount of $20 per month. Along the month he browsers and clicks the Flatrr button on 4 sites. The payment amount is now $5 for every site. Now the 10% administration fees are added, which makes the payment amount $4.50 for every site. The seller is still charged directly, but its just more transparent than lets say PayPal because of the percentage system.
Yeah that's how it is. And yes, you can actually get toucher sentences if you appeal.
However, I was mostly replying to the parents saying about "you can always appeal, so first ruling doesn't matter". For example in civil cases, you cannot if you never answered for the initial court (it will be ruled as one-sided win for the suer). Another case where your appeal is likely refused is if it is quite stupid and a minor case. For example getting a speeding ticket from police, and trying to appeal it even when theres good proof you did actually speed (people do this time to time just for funs)
However on cases like these and when it's about a little bit more than useless things like that, it works pretty much how you described.
Uh, why would these guys need to negotiate copyright licenses. From all of the summary, article and their video I understand it will be like donations to different sites (like the paypal button on different sites). And even if it would actually be about selling something, flatrr would be just a payment gateway - there is no need for them to negotiate any kind of copyright licenses.
They can't always appeal. The appeal process has to be requested and it's possible it's denied if the defendants can't create valid reasons for it. But since this was a large case and they could provide valid enough reasons for it, they were allowed to appeal.
They are in no way "innocent until proven guilty" now as the parent put it. They are guilty already, but they still have a possibility to turn that around.
"Copying of information", yeah right. At least take the stand and speak about things on their correct terms. It's file sharing. It's copyright infringement. On TPB's part, it was massive aiding of copyright infringement.
You see, our legal system actually looks at ones purpose on things, instead of going on merely technical terms. This means the stupid "but.torrent file itself isn't illegal!" doesn't hold much water and you can't just mess around going against laws with such stupid technical excuses. If you look at the legal letters and responses to them, or 99.9% of the content of the side, or the freaking The Pirate Bay name, I think it's pretty clear TPB knew what they were doing.
If they would had just played it cool, responded and acted to copyright infringement notices and, for fucks sake, chosen a little bit more neutral name they could had have a better change. But not like this.
But like you said too, they were sentenced. As it is currently, they have been found to be violating law. You can normally appeal, but as of now the court decision has been done.
Besides, this service charges 10% for "administration fees". Even PayPal doesn't charge that much and some take just 0.30%. Not in it to make profit, yeah sure.
Yes I totally agree here. In my country mail and such carry extended privacy by law, and it extends to email too and cannot be read without a really valid and relevant order by court.
The amount to pay from his wrongdoings is ok, but they should had never needed to access his personal (e)mail.
I often see many pro-piracy comments on slashdot on these things (probably also because pirates are more interested on the matter). But many times these are actual damages caused to companies. Putting out that game a week before surely counted a lot of illegal downloading and people not buying the game. Sure it's bad to for him, but those are the lost money for Nintendo. What's so wrong about them suing him?
How do you get that? There are plenty of media services/apps (Rhapsody, Pandora, etc.) you can use on the iPhone OS that are not connected to Apple. The author of the article complains there's no Netflix app - but how is that Apple's fault? Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose. The only issue is the inability to play in the background - something that primarily affects music apps.
How it has been before is that Apple has disallowed software that "duplicates features of existing software". I would see any competitor to iTunes being one.
(messed up the quote.. gets complicated on this level:)
How do you get that? There are plenty of media services/apps (Rhapsody, Pandora, etc.) you can use on the iPhone OS that are not connected to Apple. The author of the article complains there's no Netflix app - but how is that Apple's fault? Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose. The only issue is the inability to play in the background - something that primarily affects music apps.
How it has been before is that Apple has disallowed software that "duplicates features of existing software". I would see any competitor to iTunes being one.
"Sean and Larry were in their office, using the whiteboard, trying to think up a good name - something that related to the indexing of an immense amount of data," Koller writes.
"Sean verbally suggested the word 'googolplex' [a one followed by a googol zeros], and Larry responded verbally with the shortened form, 'googol'....Sean was seated at his computer terminal, so he executed a search of the Internet domain name registry database to see if the newly suggested name was still available for registration and use.
"Sean is not an infallible speller, and he made the mistake of searching for the name spelled as "google.com," which he found to be available. Larry liked the name, and within hours he took the step of registering the name 'google.com" for himself and [fellow co-founder] Sergey [Brin]."
Slashdot Mirror
Who really thought that?
Of course they aren't going to pull out. People here are like the 18 year old girls who seriously trust that their boyfriend is going to pull out just before instead of cumming in.
Uh, what?
1) MS has released Silverlight specs to open source community to develop. This is what Moonlight project is about. If the project doesn't have enough interest in developers, it is not MS's fault.
2) FOSS and Open Standards doesn't mean the original developers would be required to develop their software for all platforms and OS. It's about the standards and specs being out openly there, so others can develop them, and currently they are.
3) Silverlight with its open specs is actually even more open than Flash. Adobe refuses to release specs for Flash and all implementations of it are propriety and closed, and reverse engineered alternatives will probably be hit with a lawsuit.
Please learn what the actual FOSS and free software is really about, since you're coming out as the worst type of zealot. For starters, it's not about forcing anyone to do the software for you, but having the possibility to implement it if you want to.
Remember that Google also bought out the company that was developing Google Earth/Maps, they didn't itself actually innovate it. (since you listed keyhole, you probably knew that)
Theres many other Google services you would call "innovative", but are really bought startups that actually did the innovation.
All the top three make sense anyway. New Windows version (with new/changed API's and stuff like UAC) require a new Office version, which leads to more sales. Also, a lot of times both Windows+Office licenses are sold to companies together as they need them anyway. New Windows Server OS versions and tools are also released parallel to customer versions of Windows, so their sale will obviously increase as well.
The drops are probably because a new OS version was coming up and people didn't want to buy the old one.
I've noticed the same thing too. Lot of times people say MS doesn't innovate or think long-term strategies. Losing $500 Million a year for the online division kind of shows that they do, and they're expanding their business. Yeah, it's a lot to lose every year - but theres also the possibility of high returns in future. That's how business works.
I mean, look at the XBox. They pour untold millions into that thing, and it is, at best, on par in only the US and UK markets?
Actually, I find a lot of those numbers surprising. I know several people with Wiis and PS3s, but no one with an XBox. Well, not anyone who would admit to it, I suppose. But, it is important to interpret data honestly.
Being on par (and slightly winning) is really good with consoles, especially with a console that is only on its 2nd iteration. PS1 and PS2 basically dominated the market, killed Sega off from it and made Nintendo skip a generation.
I actually own all the consoles, they're slightly better on different things. First of all, lets get the Wii out of the way since it's targeted to general people and not gamers as such (not that it's not fun for gamers too, it is). PS3 is great with its OS and store. I find it much nicer to use, especially as a media player device, than 360. However, 360's Live as a social gaming, friends and such beats PS3's system. PS3 also is technically better, but it came at really high cost at first and now they had to drop things to get PS3 Slim to lower price.
But the fact is, consoles are something only a few companies can dominate and they all do put millions into it. The current generation of consoles is actually interesting since there are no actual losers - PS3 and 360 are competing about players, are pretty much par with each other, while Wii takes players and general audience.
The next generation will be much more bloody.
Uh, where does it say something being "technology" has to be something really really new like when electricity was invented? Have you played too much Civilization? :)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technology
(uncountable) the study of or a collection of techniques.
(countable) a particular technological concept
the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society.
I think it fits quite good, and it's not like what they're doing even exists currently.
Actually I've found Bing to be quite good on the searching aspect. Live/MSN search was crap, but Bing actually returns good results (better than Google sometimes too). Integrating Wolfram Alpha and other data sources to results works quite good too, especially if you're constantly doing such searches (calculations, conversion of units, food nutrition info, traveling). Google has such things like calculator on it too, but it's not as much comprehensive. On Bing it usually saves you from looking what site might be good and the first click and typing the info again.
The movement in maps, different images and day/night time cycle with star maps when you're looking up looks great. In every aspect it seems Bing is really innovating and beating Google all the time. It's no surprise they're worried about Bing now.
Wheres the correction? You just described exactly the same as I did, but just prove that its more harder to see as it's not a charge per transaction.
The user is going to put the $20 in donation amounts nevertheless of the administration fees. He wont be trying to calculate that 10% and making a $22 donation instead. The seller/donation receiver is still getting less than without the administration fee.
Also, both technically and psychologically it makes more sense to take the charge afterwards than when the user is paying it and won't go "whoa, theres lots of overhead costs".
But no matter where they technically take the administration fee, it's still always off from the seller, so yes, there is technically a charge for the sellers.
Its an abstraction of money, a flattr is not an amount of money until the end of the month.
That is a funny sentence.
Money itself is an abstraction, and usually backed up by gold. What is gold worth? Peoples thought that it's a rare metal and worth something. What would flattr money be worth? The thought that its worth of money (probably US dollar), which is worth of other currencies like Euro compared to USD, which again is worth something in gold, which in turn is worth of peoples mindset it actually being worth something.
I would understand seeing this kind of ignorance of how finance works on some teenage girls forum, but slashdot? :)
For this service, Sunde is flipping it around and charging the sender rather than the recipient
Actually, I think it will be exactly the opposite, but the system just makes it more transparent.
Consider this scenario: User creates a subscription to pay a total amount of $20 per month. Along the month he browsers and clicks the Flatrr button on 4 sites. The payment amount is now $5 for every site. Now the 10% administration fees are added, which makes the payment amount $4.50 for every site. The seller is still charged directly, but its just more transparent than lets say PayPal because of the percentage system.
Yeah that's how it is. And yes, you can actually get toucher sentences if you appeal.
However, I was mostly replying to the parents saying about "you can always appeal, so first ruling doesn't matter". For example in civil cases, you cannot if you never answered for the initial court (it will be ruled as one-sided win for the suer). Another case where your appeal is likely refused is if it is quite stupid and a minor case. For example getting a speeding ticket from police, and trying to appeal it even when theres good proof you did actually speed (people do this time to time just for funs)
However on cases like these and when it's about a little bit more than useless things like that, it works pretty much how you described.
Uh, why would these guys need to negotiate copyright licenses. From all of the summary, article and their video I understand it will be like donations to different sites (like the paypal button on different sites). And even if it would actually be about selling something, flatrr would be just a payment gateway - there is no need for them to negotiate any kind of copyright licenses.
They can't always appeal. The appeal process has to be requested and it's possible it's denied if the defendants can't create valid reasons for it. But since this was a large case and they could provide valid enough reasons for it, they were allowed to appeal.
They are in no way "innocent until proven guilty" now as the parent put it. They are guilty already, but they still have a possibility to turn that around.
Seeing you're quite new here, you probably haven't heard the term "slashdotting a site" either.
I hope your last nerve didn't explode now and you're able to continue to write us your quite pretty insightful opinions.
"Copying of information", yeah right. At least take the stand and speak about things on their correct terms. It's file sharing. It's copyright infringement. On TPB's part, it was massive aiding of copyright infringement.
You see, our legal system actually looks at ones purpose on things, instead of going on merely technical terms. This means the stupid "but .torrent file itself isn't illegal!" doesn't hold much water and you can't just mess around going against laws with such stupid technical excuses. If you look at the legal letters and responses to them, or 99.9% of the content of the side, or the freaking The Pirate Bay name, I think it's pretty clear TPB knew what they were doing.
If they would had just played it cool, responded and acted to copyright infringement notices and, for fucks sake, chosen a little bit more neutral name they could had have a better change. But not like this.
But like you said too, they were sentenced. As it is currently, they have been found to be violating law. You can normally appeal, but as of now the court decision has been done.
Besides, this service charges 10% for "administration fees". Even PayPal doesn't charge that much and some take just 0.30%. Not in it to make profit, yeah sure.
Yes I totally agree here. In my country mail and such carry extended privacy by law, and it extends to email too and cannot be read without a really valid and relevant order by court.
The amount to pay from his wrongdoings is ok, but they should had never needed to access his personal (e)mail.
I often see many pro-piracy comments on slashdot on these things (probably also because pirates are more interested on the matter). But many times these are actual damages caused to companies. Putting out that game a week before surely counted a lot of illegal downloading and people not buying the game. Sure it's bad to for him, but those are the lost money for Nintendo. What's so wrong about them suing him?
Uhm.. New to Apple's stuff? The answer is big NO!
How do you get that? There are plenty of media services/apps (Rhapsody, Pandora, etc.) you can use on the iPhone OS that are not connected to Apple. The author of the article complains there's no Netflix app - but how is that Apple's fault? Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose. The only issue is the inability to play in the background - something that primarily affects music apps.
How it has been before is that Apple has disallowed software that "duplicates features of existing software". I would see any competitor to iTunes being one.
(messed up the quote.. gets complicated on this level :)
Uhm.. New to Apple's stuff? The answer is big NO!
How do you get that? There are plenty of media services/apps (Rhapsody, Pandora, etc.) you can use on the iPhone OS that are not connected to Apple. The author of the article complains there's no Netflix app - but how is that Apple's fault? Netflix is free to make such an app if they choose. The only issue is the inability to play in the background - something that primarily affects music apps.
How it has been before is that Apple has disallowed software that "duplicates features of existing software". I would see any competitor to iTunes being one.
Can you save and transfer documents to the iPad?
Most likely.
Does the iPad support Microsoft Exchange email?
Not likely.
Does the iPad support VPN and configuration management?
Not likely.
Can you use media services other than iTunes on the iPad?
Uhm.. New to Apple's stuff? The answer is big NO!
Can the iPad be used for videoconferencing?
There is no camera.
Will the iPad's internal storage be upgradable?
There's different storage versions for a reason. Need more space? Buy the larger version (again, in case you have bought the smaller one)
Will the iPad allow multiple apps to run simultaneously?
No.
Will Apple allow the use of Flash on the iPad?
No.
Seriously, Apple is worse than Microsoft in locking down things. The whole iPad is completely locked.
Because they originally did:
"Sean and Larry were in their office, using the whiteboard, trying to think up a good name - something that related to the indexing of an immense amount of data," Koller writes.
"Sean verbally suggested the word 'googolplex' [a one followed by a googol zeros], and Larry responded verbally with the shortened form, 'googol'....Sean was seated at his computer terminal, so he executed a search of the Internet domain name registry database to see if the newly suggested name was still available for registration and use.
"Sean is not an infallible speller, and he made the mistake of searching for the name spelled as "google.com," which he found to be available. Larry liked the name, and within hours he took the step of registering the name 'google.com" for himself and [fellow co-founder] Sergey [Brin]."
The Register has never been an usual news site. I take it you just haven't understood the site.
btw, they don't just hate Google or Wikipedia. They hate everyone.