...did they really have the sort of volume where a rollback to Windows was cheaper than writing printer drivers, and writing printer drivers was cheaper than buying a printer with open drivers?
Depends how steep a discount MS used to bribe them into switching back. My guess is "100% until you're out of office" was the offer.
It makes me wonder what arcane version of Linux they were using - or what kind of obscure brand of printers and scanners they insist on using. Any serious manufacturer these days supports Linux.
I have a strong hunch--a very, very strong hunch--that they never actually wrote any printer or scanner drivers, rather the person in charge of explaining the decision reached into the excuse bin and pulled that one out. The real reason probably has more to do with the sort of institutional bribery that Microsoft is famous for.
Please, clarify. I understood that desktops was still Windows, but they used open source apps - Mozilla, OpenOffice.org suites, etc. Where's printer and scanner drivers comes in?
TFA states that the desktop systems were dual-boot. Why they would do that in an office setting instead of just migrating to one or the other, is beyond me.
Without figures, this whole deal smells like MSFT getting a sweetheart deal with the German gov.
I still don't get the driver issue. I bought a brand new Canon all-in-one printer and found Linux drivers for the scanner and printer in a few minutes of googling.
Yeah, my first thought was, "what the hell kind of printers and scanners are they using, that they don't have perfectly fine Linux drivers in this day and age?" I mean, seriously...back in '04 or '00 this may have been the case but the time of having to write one's own drivers for these types of devices is long gone, and that sounds a lot more like a pretext made up on the spot.
Shut up! Your just a linux Zelot and you hate it when your proven wrong. Everybuddy with a brain knew this would happen all along becuz Windwos is just a superior system.
Signed,
Anonymous Koward
Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
The Libertarian Party.
Only if you define "liberty" as "the rich having the choice to do whatever they want and the poor having no choices but what their boss and landlord want them to choose." Or if you're totally ignorant of history.
The only chance of stopping it will be if they can manage to get enough amendments on it that stops republicans from voting for it.
Just add an amendment that says every time the government uses a roving wiretap, they have to provide a free abortion to an inner-city teenager. That ought to do the trick.
You're right, if we could only (legally) divide human being into arbitrary fractions, those disembodied limbs and organs totally would have voted for the bill.
Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers. Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?
Yeah, 'cuz Democrats are always the party of Big Government. I am now going to insert my fingers into my ears and shout repeatedly so that I can't hear you tell me about any evidence to the contrary. Good day.
Yeah, if I were him, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get the images taken down and would have just made even wittier ones of her, accompanied by an article making it completely clear that the only reason I would ever do such a thing was that she struck first.
Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?
NO. I specifically said, "and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results". Once the copyright holder makes that request of the search provider, they must take prompt, reasonable action to remove the material. This is all in US Code Title 17 Section 512, if you'd care to actually educate yourself instead of just stating your idealization of the world as fact.
Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?
The Internet Archive has settled multiple lawsuits, in what is basically an admission that they were in violation of copyright. Most copyright holders don't go after them because it would be bad PR for little to no gain. It's the same reason Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, Tecmo, and Sunsoft haven't sued the pants off the guy who made this game.
So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?
Hint: not him.
Are you sure? He's the only one whose picture is on all of this stuff and whose name is in the search. Yeah, we all know she was a total asshole, but we don't know who she is, so how is it damaging her?
No. Did I say that I did?? No, I asked a question.
-sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?
I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is "According to severoon's personal sense of justice," because according to copyright law, once it's been removed from the original site and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results, failure to remove it does violate the copyright holder's rights.
Does this mean I "believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search" as you allege? No, because these conditions don't apply "whenever it displays a copyrighted image". They apply in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
...did they really have the sort of volume where a rollback to Windows was cheaper than writing printer drivers, and writing printer drivers was cheaper than buying a printer with open drivers?
Depends how steep a discount MS used to bribe them into switching back. My guess is "100% until you're out of office" was the offer.
It makes me wonder what arcane version of Linux they were using - or what kind of obscure brand of printers and scanners they insist on using. Any serious manufacturer these days supports Linux.
I have a strong hunch--a very, very strong hunch--that they never actually wrote any printer or scanner drivers, rather the person in charge of explaining the decision reached into the excuse bin and pulled that one out. The real reason probably has more to do with the sort of institutional bribery that Microsoft is famous for.
Please, clarify. I understood that desktops was still Windows, but they used open source apps - Mozilla, OpenOffice.org suites, etc. Where's printer and scanner drivers comes in?
TFA states that the desktop systems were dual-boot. Why they would do that in an office setting instead of just migrating to one or the other, is beyond me.
Without figures, this whole deal smells like MSFT getting a sweetheart deal with the German gov. I still don't get the driver issue. I bought a brand new Canon all-in-one printer and found Linux drivers for the scanner and printer in a few minutes of googling.
Yeah, my first thought was, "what the hell kind of printers and scanners are they using, that they don't have perfectly fine Linux drivers in this day and age?" I mean, seriously...back in '04 or '00 this may have been the case but the time of having to write one's own drivers for these types of devices is long gone, and that sounds a lot more like a pretext made up on the spot.
Shut up! Your just a linux Zelot and you hate it when your proven wrong. Everybuddy with a brain knew this would happen all along becuz Windwos is just a superior system. Signed, Anonymous Koward
KHAAAAAAN!
From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For trolling, not for all that other stuff.
Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
The Libertarian Party.
Only if you define "liberty" as "the rich having the choice to do whatever they want and the poor having no choices but what their boss and landlord want them to choose." Or if you're totally ignorant of history.
I'm sorry...all this bitching about Republicans and the Patriot Act...which was written and passed by Democrats?
In what universe was the Patriot Act written and passed by Democrats?
His "own party" was neutral on the thing
That's only true if you define "neutral" as "65% against, 35% for." That's almost 2-to-1 against it.
This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.
Correction: with many people on the Democratic side and a very small handful on the Republican side questioning the extent of the Act.
Ah, the prescience of Michael Moore. Never thought I'd hear myself say that, but there it is.
That makes me wonder why your blinding hatred is focused on only the Tea Party and not the Two Party(R+D) in general.
He never said he didn't have blinding hatred for them too. He only said that the hatred for the Tea Party was reduced by their actions in this case.
The only chance of stopping it will be if they can manage to get enough amendments on it that stops republicans from voting for it.
Just add an amendment that says every time the government uses a roving wiretap, they have to provide a free abortion to an inner-city teenager. That ought to do the trick.
GOP: 210/67 (y/n) -> 75.812% yes DEM: 26/122 (y/n) -> 17.568% yes
http://www.gop.gov/votes/112/1/26
I'm pretty sure you're getting your rows and columns confused in reading that chart.
The bill only lost by rounding error.
You're right, if we could only (legally) divide human being into arbitrary fractions, those disembodied limbs and organs totally would have voted for the bill.
Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers. Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?
Yeah, 'cuz Democrats are always the party of Big Government. I am now going to insert my fingers into my ears and shout repeatedly so that I can't hear you tell me about any evidence to the contrary. Good day.
Guess he must be hurting for work too if he's got so much time to post on slashdot :D
Nah. Like most of us, he just posts from work while pretending to get stuff done.
If the Stanford Prison Experiment has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.
No, it didn't teach that. It taught that it might -- it's just one instance.
What are you saying, that a sample size of one isn't enough to go on when drawing universal generalizations? Preposterous!
Yeah, if I were him, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get the images taken down and would have just made even wittier ones of her, accompanied by an article making it completely clear that the only reason I would ever do such a thing was that she struck first.
Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?
NO. I specifically said, "and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results". Once the copyright holder makes that request of the search provider, they must take prompt, reasonable action to remove the material. This is all in US Code Title 17 Section 512, if you'd care to actually educate yourself instead of just stating your idealization of the world as fact.
Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?
The Internet Archive has settled multiple lawsuits, in what is basically an admission that they were in violation of copyright. Most copyright holders don't go after them because it would be bad PR for little to no gain. It's the same reason Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, Tecmo, and Sunsoft haven't sued the pants off the guy who made this game.
So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?
Hint: not him.
Are you sure? He's the only one whose picture is on all of this stuff and whose name is in the search. Yeah, we all know she was a total asshole, but we don't know who she is, so how is it damaging her?
-sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?
I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is "According to severoon's personal sense of justice," because according to copyright law, once it's been removed from the original site and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results, failure to remove it does violate the copyright holder's rights.
Does this mean I "believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search" as you allege? No, because these conditions don't apply "whenever it displays a copyrighted image". They apply in this case.
You believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search?
No. Did I say that I did?? No, I asked a question.
Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.
Exactly. GP was saying they could keep it up indefinitely and it would never violate the holder's rights or give the holder cause to complain.
Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights.
According to the law, or according to your personal sense of justice?