You're thinking in terms of the U.S., where text messaging is still relatively small potatoes. In GSM countries, where everybody can text everybody, regardless of provider, text message has been a big business for quite some time. In some poorer countries, texting is actually a bigger business than voice calls.
It's unsuprising the T-Mobile would not want to support an application that's a free alternative to such a lucrative business. I do wonder how they hope to enforce the ban, however.
flat-rate phone service (which still doesn't include overseas calling)
Actually, flat-rate phone service doesn't even include service across a state — and in some cases, across a metropolitan area. (I remember back in modem days, getting socked with huge phone bills if I got careless about which "local" BBSs I connected to.) Unless you're talking about IP phones — and ISPs would argue that they're only able to offer national flat rate because they're getting a free ride.
SGI began its rapid decline the moment the announced the merger with Cray. As the stodgy crew of maanagers went on the land grab trying to justify their existence in their "new " company, it drove out many of the long hair, fast and loose crowd of exceptional engineers who believed SGI was a magical place.
Oh nonsense. It was precisely that "magical place" mentality that got SGI in trouble. It takes more than smart engineers to make a high-tech company. It takes a solid business plan.
Yes, the acquisition of Cray was a disaster from beginning to end, but that was an effect, not a cause. Management correctly anticipated the time when SGI could no longer survive purely as a make of cute little graphics workstations, and did the only sensible thing: used their early success to expand into new markets. Its the fact that they bungled that expansion that killed SGI, not the expansion per se.
If they had tried to maintain the "magic", as you put it, SGI would have died that much sooner. To survive, a company has to build a solid market. Providing a playground for creative people is at best a means to that end.
You're quite correct. But the first step on such a path is to figure out why the market never got automated. Because you're probably not the first person to realize that the market had never been tapped. Before you can succeed, you need to know why your predecessors failed.
As your upmodding indicates, nobody minds a little language nitpicking when we're actually talking about language. It's when we're talking about something else, when nobody who's trying to following the discussion give a shit about split infinitives or misplaced commas, that channeling your high-school English teacher becomes obnoxious.
Whenever a device like this appears on Slashdot, there are always posts that say in effect, "But it doesn't support what I'd like it to do!" You should evaluate a product in terms of what it tries to do, not what you want it to do.
Well, if you're going to be morally consistent, then you can't consume the products of any company that pulls this shit. That means you can't go to movies or rent DVDs or subscribe to cable TV. I guess broadcast TV is OK — provided you don't buy anything you see advertised!
Not practical? Then swallow your self-righteousness and buy that iMac.
It doesn't matter what Apple considers them, they should be published copyrighted material and governed by the rules that apply to such materials. As such, posting a one page excerpt out of a manual that must be several hundred pages ought to be considered "fair use", in particular given the purpose that it's being posted for.
No, TFA is right: Apple wants this information removed for the sole reason that it embarrasses them. Verbal acrobatics like "considers them proprietary" are just an attempt to hide that fact. In the end, Apple had two choices: tolerate it or send in their legal team, and they have chose the latter.
There a nasty leap of logic between your two paragraphs. Apple should do something that you consider common-sensical THEREFORE they have a hidden agenda.
Once again, people are ascribing to malice something that's more easily explained by stupidity. And in situations like this, corporations are profoundly stupid. Apple clearly has a policy that to hassle people who "steal" their IP. The only way to implement such a policy is to assign some low-ranking dweeb to cruise the web and look for this "stolen" IP. When he sees it, he fires off a C&D letter. He does not have the discretion to say "Oh, I should give them a pass, that's probably fair use."
You've obviously never worked in any private organization bigger than a little league team. If you had, you'd know that Apple, and all enterprises like it, have thousands of discretion-free low-level dweebs like the one just described. Ascribing some deeper purpose to such people is silly.
Speaking of, did you visit McDanolds.com? It exists, and has links on it like "First Ever Happy Meal" and "Food Chart For Mcdanolds". It's been registered for less than 6 months though, maybe McDee's lawyers are just being a bit slow?
Did you click on any of the links? They're all just machine-generated nonsense, a sort of brute force link spamming. And here's what I find really interesting: none of them point to anything resembling a restaurant.
Since typo-parked domains don't offer the same services
as the domains they target, where's the legal
ground?
"Legal grounds" is beside the point. This is
not about legal fairness, this is about the cost of litigation. If you
own a small business, whether it's in meatspace or online, you do not
want to get into a legal hassle with a big company like McDonalds.
They can spend as much as they need to in order to prolong litigation.
You can't, not unless you're willing to put up everything you own to
pay the legal bills. If you do that, maybe you'll convince the
courts that the big company has a bogus legal theory, and maybe
you'll even force them to pay your legal costs. (Forget about countersuing
them for "frivolous litigation", that's pretty much unwinable.) That's
too many "maybes" for most people — which is why nobody has
ever challenged McDonald's trademark claims
"Fair and balanced" is only a joke because it's the (trademarked!) slogan of the most agenda-driven "news" network. Most real journalists have some notion of objectivity — even in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unsuprising the T-Mobile would not want to support an application that's a free alternative to such a lucrative business. I do wonder how they hope to enforce the ban, however.
I mean damnit, I'm still trying to rescue Maria from Catalina and her henchmen. Give me a chance to catch up!
Depends on whether you're a stockholder or a geek/employee. In any case, there's no playground if there's no money.
... or are other people bothered by the assumption that when somebody says "games" they mean "computer games"?
Yes, the acquisition of Cray was a disaster from beginning to end, but that was an effect, not a cause. Management correctly anticipated the time when SGI could no longer survive purely as a make of cute little graphics workstations, and did the only sensible thing: used their early success to expand into new markets. Its the fact that they bungled that expansion that killed SGI, not the expansion per se.
If they had tried to maintain the "magic", as you put it, SGI would have died that much sooner. To survive, a company has to build a solid market. Providing a playground for creative people is at best a means to that end.
Obviously not one that does IP law.
You're quite correct. But the first step on such a path is to figure out why the market never got automated. Because you're probably not the first person to realize that the market had never been tapped. Before you can succeed, you need to know why your predecessors failed.
Jeez, they spent 30 billion 1969 dollars (about $160 billion in today's money), and they still had to cut corners?
Dude, don't call me stupid. Not when you're getting totally bent out of shape over something I didn't even say.
Huh? PDAs suck because they make lousy servers? Shampoo sucks because it makes lousy toothpaste?
Dude, if you're going to argue with people, you shouldn't get pissed off when they argue back.
Whenever a device like this appears on Slashdot, there are always posts that say in effect, "But it doesn't support what I'd like it to do!" You should evaluate a product in terms of what it tries to do, not what you want it to do.
Not practical? Then swallow your self-righteousness and buy that iMac.
That's sort of what I said, though you put it in a way that kind of makes the process clearer.
Well, you didn't say "logical accusations"!
logical accusations"!
God, you're disgusting. I never suspected you of having a Michigan fetish!
Once again, people are ascribing to malice something that's more easily explained by stupidity. And in situations like this, corporations are profoundly stupid. Apple clearly has a policy that to hassle people who "steal" their IP. The only way to implement such a policy is to assign some low-ranking dweeb to cruise the web and look for this "stolen" IP. When he sees it, he fires off a C&D letter. He does not have the discretion to say "Oh, I should give them a pass, that's probably fair use."
You've obviously never worked in any private organization bigger than a little league team. If you had, you'd know that Apple, and all enterprises like it, have thousands of discretion-free low-level dweebs like the one just described. Ascribing some deeper purpose to such people is silly.
Install porn!
"Fair and balanced" is only a joke because it's the (trademarked!) slogan of the most agenda-driven "news" network. Most real journalists have some notion of objectivity — even in the UK.