I don't see how, especially on the user end. In ad serving, maybe. But, when it comes to things like this, if one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to have a Google+ account, Gmail account, Google Reader account, or even a Google account at all thereby negating any and all of Google's service integration. If one doesn't have a Google account, one can use Google search. And, if one does have a Google account and is using ALL of Google's services, one can STILL use Google search anonymously by using incognito mode, or a different browser with which one does not log into Google services.
No one is forcing anyone to use any Google service and even if one was forced to use any and/or all of Google's services, it is trivial to get around the integration of services. Google is not the end all of the Internet, Internet search, or portal services. If you or I wanted to, we could easily save most, if not all, of our data in our various Google services and, with little effort, walk away from Google and never use Google services again.
That is fine, but it doesn't address the actual issue. You, yourself, say that the anti-trust issue is at a corporate level, not a user level. The Google+ search integration is easy to get around by not having Google+ or using other Google services. Use Yahoo mail, LiveMail, etc. Use Facebook ( I would suggest another but I am just not up on social networks) instead of Google+. Use Bing or Yahoo Search or Ask instead of Google.
The GPP was asking how adding personalized results from one's Google services to one's Google search results was different from MS bundling Internet Explorer. The difference is that one doesn't have to have Google+ or any other Google service to use Google Search and one does not even have to be logged into Google to use Google Search. It would be trivial for almost all users to stop using Google Search and most other Google services. Even the commenter who talked about Google reader could change all his other services and not use Google Search. And, he could just roll his own on-line reader.
The ad issue is completely separate and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is, in essence, a red herring.
A) That link seems to be complaining that Google is adding services the way Yahoo and Microsoft did. Strange that they would complain NOW.
B) And, your point is what? Inferior products tend to die off.
C) Right, and because Netscape was, by your own admission, pretty inferior, it died off.
Seriously, Google isn't doing anything other than what other gateways did in the past. And, by many accounts, it is doing them in an inferior way. If you don't like what is happening or the services provided, don't use Google. Problem solved.
Seems to me when I am keying something into Google.com I am looking for things primarily that are actually quite impersonal. What's the address of this business?, who is a good local plumber?, how to make that netfilter rule work, does anyone have Slackware packages or buildscripts for $project, What is a $object?, How does $object work?, etc.
And, if your friend Joe used Steve's Plumbing and posted about it, Joe's post will show up in your results. The same goes for everything else you have mentioned.
First off, it is much easier to change search engines than it is to change operating systems. No one is required to use Google Search and there are plenty of competitors. Many people haven't looked at another search engine in years simply because Google does what they want and they presume it is the best. And, of course, many slashdotters wouldn't ever consider using Bing because it is made by the evil M$.
Secondly, you assert that MapQuest is dying off because of Google integrating maps into Google Search, but you offer no evidence. My experiences with MapQuest and it's user interface were far inferior to my Google Maps experience.
Finally, no one is being forced to use any particular service of Google's and no one is forcing one to use Google's other services if one uses Google Search.
What do you think that stupid flash game about occupation and islamic terrorists was? It was propaganda. Complaining about propaganda games now is just hypocrisy in action.
Really, you shouldn't make comments about logical fallacies if you don't know what they actually are. There is no argument from authority. He points out the fact that nothing Stallman has said or done would have any effect on the legislation nor on what is being said about the Occupy protesters. He also points out Stallman's obviously poor thinking in numerous things.
Cheaters are generally dishonorable, shitbag assholes and dishonorable, shitbag assholes are generally friends with other dishonorable, shitbag assholes. This is not rocket science, folks. People are generally friends with people who share the same behaviors and values as themselves. "Birds of a feather" and all that.
Oh, so what you are saying is that if someone steals your car, wrecks it, is arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail, you and/or your insurance company should not be able to file suit against the thief to recoup the losses.
Or, even better, someone without insurance speeds, drives recklessly, hits you and puts you in the hospital for a couple of weeks, is arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail, you should not be able to sue him for medical costs, lost wages, etc.
You do know that he can still be sued by the studios for copyright infringement, right? This was a criminal action. The studio can still take civil action against him if it so desires.
No conclusions can be gained from this "experiment" because there is no control. No one knows nor can tell how much would have been made if it the show in question was released for $5.00 and contained DRM. Any conclusion that this release was as/more successful than a DRMed release are not supported.
That is irrelevant because the company on the outside of the firewall can request and, if necessary, subpoena the information. If Universal went to Warner and said "We have evidence someone in your organization is pirating our IP.", you can pretty much bet that Warner is not just going to cooperate, they will actively assist in the investigation to find and fire the individual in question.
You don't seem to have worked in a corporate environment. You also don't seem to have any clue how companies and corporations interact.
My company tracks IP assignments to MAC addresses and machine names and keeps a log of it so they can fire people who are doing things they are not supposed to be doing.
As someone else has stated, as long as the person at the company is downloading the items on the behalf of the company who is the copyright holder, neither PROTECTIP nor SOPA will apply because the company and by extension the person have the legal right to make copies while people who are not authorized to make copies do not have a legal right to make copies.
And, if an employee is downloading without permission and thus making unauthorized copies of a work, said employee is almost guaranteed to be violating corporate use policies and can be fired for such use.
An IP address is not a person, IP addresses can be shared among many people, and anyone can be behind a keyboard at any given time.
Well, actually, in a corporate environment, that is almost always false and in every single corporate behavior policy involving computer and network access I have ever seen it has stated that one is responsible for anything done under one's ID and from one's computer if one is logged into one's computer.
Also, I wonder if the IP addresses are for an open guest internet connection, something several companies I have worked for have had.
If I'm a potential customer, and I wouldn't touch any closed source toolkits, then to have an open source toolkit is clearly an advantage. I don't know if it would be a "primary" advantage, but an important one.
As the submitter stated that their advantage comes from their novel and efficient algorithm, loosing one customer versus loosing their competitive edge is a no-brainer.
how is that then different from simple reverse engineer your closed source code, and use the algorithm?
Please read most EULAs. There are generally provisions prohibiting reverse engineering along with stiff penalties and this allows for easier legal remedies.
I disagree with this 100%. Customers are people who are paying for one's work. In this case, the work is motion capture sensors. They don't need to provide their drivers or software as open source for anyone to use their product.
Your advantage may also not be as big as you think, so open sourcing the software may not matter much,
You do understand that you are shooting yourself in the foot here, right? If their advantage is the algorithm and it is a small advantage, then open sourcing the code, and thus the algorithm, completely destroys their advantage and they end up losing to the established companies.
Also, this is not a question of using a close source toolkit. This is about whether a company should open source the code that is their primary competitive advantage.
I'm not quite sure, but if you release your code as GPL, wouldn't the competitor need to release their code as GPL, too, if they are using your algorithms?
No, they would not as they could use the OS code as a basis for improving their own code. Also, the could include the algorithm implemented in the OS in their code and it would be difficult for the owners of the OS code to prove anything unless they simply copied and pasted the code.
Sure, the OP could see the improved processing in the competing company's software, but he will have no real evidence. And, if OP files suit, the respondent can claim that:
A) the OP's company inspired them to up their game
and B) That providing the source code to the claimant would result in the release of trade secrets to a competitor.
The companies that survive and thrive are those that use both open and closed source technologies, especially when the primary competitive advantage is in the source code. If they want a successful business, they should, at the very least, keep the algorithms closed source,
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how, especially on the user end. In ad serving, maybe. But, when it comes to things like this, if one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to have a Google+ account, Gmail account, Google Reader account, or even a Google account at all thereby negating any and all of Google's service integration. If one doesn't have a Google account, one can use Google search. And, if one does have a Google account and is using ALL of Google's services, one can STILL use Google search anonymously by using incognito mode, or a different browser with which one does not log into Google services.
No one is forcing anyone to use any Google service and even if one was forced to use any and/or all of Google's services, it is trivial to get around the integration of services. Google is not the end all of the Internet, Internet search, or portal services. If you or I wanted to, we could easily save most, if not all, of our data in our various Google services and, with little effort, walk away from Google and never use Google services again.
If the results are so crappy, why are you still using it? Have you checked with other sites to see if they give more relevant results?
Please explain how you are being forced to use any Google service.
That is fine, but it doesn't address the actual issue. You, yourself, say that the anti-trust issue is at a corporate level, not a user level. The Google+ search integration is easy to get around by not having Google+ or using other Google services. Use Yahoo mail, LiveMail, etc. Use Facebook ( I would suggest another but I am just not up on social networks) instead of Google+. Use Bing or Yahoo Search or Ask instead of Google.
The GPP was asking how adding personalized results from one's Google services to one's Google search results was different from MS bundling Internet Explorer. The difference is that one doesn't have to have Google+ or any other Google service to use Google Search and one does not even have to be logged into Google to use Google Search. It would be trivial for almost all users to stop using Google Search and most other Google services. Even the commenter who talked about Google reader could change all his other services and not use Google Search. And, he could just roll his own on-line reader.
The ad issue is completely separate and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is, in essence, a red herring.
A) That link seems to be complaining that Google is adding services the way Yahoo and Microsoft did. Strange that they would complain NOW.
B) And, your point is what? Inferior products tend to die off.
C) Right, and because Netscape was, by your own admission, pretty inferior, it died off.
Seriously, Google isn't doing anything other than what other gateways did in the past. And, by many accounts, it is doing them in an inferior way. If you don't like what is happening or the services provided, don't use Google. Problem solved.
Seems to me when I am keying something into Google.com I am looking for things primarily that are actually quite impersonal. What's the address of this business?, who is a good local plumber?, how to make that netfilter rule work, does anyone have Slackware packages or buildscripts for $project, What is a $object?, How does $object work?, etc.
And, if your friend Joe used Steve's Plumbing and posted about it, Joe's post will show up in your results. The same goes for everything else you have mentioned.
First off, it is much easier to change search engines than it is to change operating systems. No one is required to use Google Search and there are plenty of competitors. Many people haven't looked at another search engine in years simply because Google does what they want and they presume it is the best. And, of course, many slashdotters wouldn't ever consider using Bing because it is made by the evil M$.
Secondly, you assert that MapQuest is dying off because of Google integrating maps into Google Search, but you offer no evidence. My experiences with MapQuest and it's user interface were far inferior to my Google Maps experience.
Finally, no one is being forced to use any particular service of Google's and no one is forcing one to use Google's other services if one uses Google Search.
What do you think that stupid flash game about occupation and islamic terrorists was? It was propaganda. Complaining about propaganda games now is just hypocrisy in action.
Interviewer: Where do you see yourself in five years?
Applicant: In your chair, doing your job.
Interviewer: I see.... Next!
Really, you shouldn't make comments about logical fallacies if you don't know what they actually are. There is no argument from authority. He points out the fact that nothing Stallman has said or done would have any effect on the legislation nor on what is being said about the Occupy protesters. He also points out Stallman's obviously poor thinking in numerous things.
At best he engages in some ad hominem.
Person who founded a party supporting the pirating of software doesn't like the corporate software business model. Film at 11!
Seriously, why does anyone give a fuck what this person thinks, especially when his stance pretty fucking well known? You call this shit news?
Cheaters are generally dishonorable, shitbag assholes and dishonorable, shitbag assholes are generally friends with other dishonorable, shitbag assholes. This is not rocket science, folks. People are generally friends with people who share the same behaviors and values as themselves. "Birds of a feather" and all that.
This is just like the "20XX is the year of the Linux Desktop".
I will wait for the end of 2012 before believing the claim.
Oh, so what you are saying is that if someone steals your car, wrecks it, is arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail, you and/or your insurance company should not be able to file suit against the thief to recoup the losses.
Or, even better, someone without insurance speeds, drives recklessly, hits you and puts you in the hospital for a couple of weeks, is arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail, you should not be able to sue him for medical costs, lost wages, etc.
Right? That is what you are saying isn't it?
You do know that he can still be sued by the studios for copyright infringement, right? This was a criminal action. The studio can still take civil action against him if it so desires.
The EU is violating those poor people's human rights! The UN must invade the EU to protect their human rights!~
/sarcasm
No conclusions can be gained from this "experiment" because there is no control. No one knows nor can tell how much would have been made if it the show in question was released for $5.00 and contained DRM. Any conclusion that this release was as/more successful than a DRMed release are not supported.
That is irrelevant because the company on the outside of the firewall can request and, if necessary, subpoena the information. If Universal went to Warner and said "We have evidence someone in your organization is pirating our IP.", you can pretty much bet that Warner is not just going to cooperate, they will actively assist in the investigation to find and fire the individual in question.
You don't seem to have worked in a corporate environment. You also don't seem to have any clue how companies and corporations interact.
My company tracks IP assignments to MAC addresses and machine names and keeps a log of it so they can fire people who are doing things they are not supposed to be doing.
Not necessarily true. It is possible to download a torrent without seeding.
As someone else has stated, as long as the person at the company is downloading the items on the behalf of the company who is the copyright holder, neither PROTECTIP nor SOPA will apply because the company and by extension the person have the legal right to make copies while people who are not authorized to make copies do not have a legal right to make copies.
And, if an employee is downloading without permission and thus making unauthorized copies of a work, said employee is almost guaranteed to be violating corporate use policies and can be fired for such use.
Really, it is that simple.
Well, actually, in a corporate environment, that is almost always false and in every single corporate behavior policy involving computer and network access I have ever seen it has stated that one is responsible for anything done under one's ID and from one's computer if one is logged into one's computer.
Also, I wonder if the IP addresses are for an open guest internet connection, something several companies I have worked for have had.
As the submitter stated that their advantage comes from their novel and efficient algorithm, loosing one customer versus loosing their competitive edge is a no-brainer.
Please read most EULAs. There are generally provisions prohibiting reverse engineering along with stiff penalties and this allows for easier legal remedies.
I disagree with this 100%. Customers are people who are paying for one's work. In this case, the work is motion capture sensors. They don't need to provide their drivers or software as open source for anyone to use their product.
Your advantage may also not be as big as you think, so open sourcing the software may not matter much,
You do understand that you are shooting yourself in the foot here, right? If their advantage is the algorithm and it is a small advantage, then open sourcing the code, and thus the algorithm, completely destroys their advantage and they end up losing to the established companies.
Also, this is not a question of using a close source toolkit. This is about whether a company should open source the code that is their primary competitive advantage.
No, they would not as they could use the OS code as a basis for improving their own code. Also, the could include the algorithm implemented in the OS in their code and it would be difficult for the owners of the OS code to prove anything unless they simply copied and pasted the code.
Sure, the OP could see the improved processing in the competing company's software, but he will have no real evidence. And, if OP files suit, the respondent can claim that:
A) the OP's company inspired them to up their game
and B) That providing the source code to the claimant would result in the release of trade secrets to a competitor.
The companies that survive and thrive are those that use both open and closed source technologies, especially when the primary competitive advantage is in the source code. If they want a successful business, they should, at the very least, keep the algorithms closed source,