If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.
OEMs are not hesitant to use a Linux-based OS on netbooks. They started off with it. The problem was that most of the target market wanted Windows. Those customers were not comfortable with the various Linux distributions being used and they couldn't run the applications they wanted. OEMs are out to make money. Windows may cut into the per unit margin, but if they sell enough units then the OEMs make up the difference in volume.
This is not reporting. Reporting involves stating the facts. This is foolish speculation wrapped in an op-ed piece disguised as reporting.
Iphone owners like myself are getting sick of this treatment and might migrate to other platforms.
Then, maybe, Apple will listen.
The iphone is losing its status of "cool" when Jane Homemaker has one
Maybe for you and people like you, but not for most of the people out there who are like "Jane Homemaker"
and Apple censors any app that might be politically challenging or involve any nudity.
This might effect some iDevice users, but not all. Not even most actually.
There is a story here and the media should continue with it.
Yes, there is a story here and they should report the story, not expound their idea of what would make a good compromise when there is no reason for one party to compromise at all.
1) I didn't know that Apple controls all the apps for Blackberry/RIM and Android. 2) True, but I am doubtful the would be found in violation of such things. But, hey, I could be wrong.
The decision is Apple's and Apple's alone. Apple has all the cards and has no need to cut any deals. InfoWorld's suggestions fail to take that into account.
when you buy a DVD the first thing that happens when you try and watch it is you get told you are Criminal
That is a lie. You are not told you are a criminal. You are told what the law is so you can not claim ignorance if you do break the law. In fact, the only way one could consider that being called a criminal is if you have done or are planning on doing what is listed as being against the law.
See you are using one of the old definitions of what a "right" is. The new definition of a right is "Whatever the fuck I want because I want it and I mean now!!1!one1!1elventy! So, hand it over BITCH!"
See you are using one of the old definitions of what a "right" is. The new definition of a right is "Whatever the fuck I want because I want it and I mean now!!1!one1!1elventy! So, hand it over BITCH!"
"Flash" is not a standard in the strict sense. But it is a standard in the defacto sense. Further, it is a user and developer expectation. When flash is omitted, there is a "hole" left in its place... a sense of incompleteness or brokenness is sensed by users and applications alike.
Didn't I hear something like this as an argument against coding webpages for MSIE?
No, the only side responsible for DRM is the side consisting of people who make unauthorized copies. If they had honor and respect for others, then there would be no DRM.
And, the DRM would not exist if people had not started stealing the games to begin with. Unauthorized copying (aka theft) is not a reaction to DRM, but rather DRM is a reaction to unauthorized copying.
There has been DRM long before there was an Internet. I remember having game that had no DRM on my first computer and I remember needing a key disk soon after and the reason was that people were making copies of the disks and giving them to friends. I remember the introduction of DRM in games. You need to stop putting the cart before the horse and learn a little tech history.
Wow, you are fucking moron. You don't want DRM, don't fucking steal. Got that? Or is that too fucking difficult for you tiny little brain?
Don't want locks on doors, don't steal. Don't want DRM on games, music and movies? Don't make unauthorized copies and violate the copy rights of the people who own the copy rights and thus a legally granted monopoly on making and distributing copies of a work.
It really is as simple as that. Now, shut the fuck up.
Here is a demonstration of where your logic fails:
I have heard zillions of "stolen" songs on the radio and paid for zero - it never cost anyone a sale
No, you didn't hear 'zillions of "stolen" songs on the radio'. The broadcast of those songs were paid for by the radio station. The radio station got the money to pay for the broadcasting of those songs from "advertisers" who paid for these things called "commercials" that are played between the songs.
To recap: The songs you hear on the radio are paid for by those commercials you hear between the songs. They are not free.
Assuming you meant to say "magic, unbreakable DRM that made it impossible to use their products at all without paying." (The way you word it, one would pay and not be able to use what one paid for)
Assuming there is a magic, unbreakable DRM that made it impossible to use a product without paying for said product, then the revenue would not go down, rather it would go up. It would go up because:
Those who pay for said product now would continue to pay for said product.
Those that can not and/or would never pay for the product would not pay for or use the product
Those that can pay for the product and haven't because they got it for free illegally and still want to use the product will pay for.
The only people who would "just DO WITHOUT their unnecessary crap" are the people who either can not afford to buy the product or would never buy the product and thus are not now nor have ever been a source of revenue.
Stop blaming the actual victims and start blaming the people who make and distribute unauthorized copies. Everything you complain about makes you a secondary victim and you are too busy blaming the primary victims to actually go after those that are the cause of all this.
Obstruction occurs AFTER the initial crime and takes place during the investigation. It can be as simple as lying about the whereabouts of a person (I know someone arrested on misdemeanor obstruction for just this reason). Wearing a mask during the original crime doesn't count as obstruction because it does not occur during the investigation, but it could fall under other laws banning the wearing of masks in public.
Kernell is charged with two crimes; one crime is unauthorized access of a computer system and he is charged with a separate crime for destroying evidence during the investigation of the first crime.
No, shithead, you just said that copyright protections are unlimited because they won't be available in your lifetime. It does fall into the public domain, just not in your lifetime. Nice of you be to so transparent of a childish, selfish asshole.
Kernell does not face 2o years for pretexting. Kernell faces 1 year for unauthorized computer access and 20 years for felony obstruction of justice. To the best of my knowledge Kernell has not been sued by anyone over his unauthorized access.
HP settled a civil suit brought by Verizon for US$ 14 million. HP and the investigators hired who did the actual pretexting still face criminal charges. Those charge may result in jail time. There is little chance of a 20 year sentence as there is no felony obstruction charge in the HP case. Each count of unauthorized access carries a penalty which can run either concurrent or consecutive.
Verizon currently sells an HP netbook. HP may buy Palm, but there is no guarantee that Verizon will continue to carry Palm/HP phones. But, that US$ 14 million settlement may result in Verizon continuing to carry HP devices, especially if said devices are popular.
Oh, that is rich. A time frame is only limited if it falls within your lifetime? How amazingly selfish. Your entire argument is "I want to use it, and can't so it is wrong!"
Let me guess, when you die, all humanity dies with you right? No one will exist after you are gone because you are the center of the fucking universe.
Slashdot Mirror
OEMs are not hesitant to use a Linux-based OS on netbooks. They started off with it. The problem was that most of the target market wanted Windows. Those customers were not comfortable with the various Linux distributions being used and they couldn't run the applications they wanted. OEMs are out to make money. Windows may cut into the per unit margin, but if they sell enough units then the OEMs make up the difference in volume.
This is not reporting. Reporting involves stating the facts. This is foolish speculation wrapped in an op-ed piece disguised as reporting.
Then, maybe, Apple will listen.
Maybe for you and people like you, but not for most of the people out there who are like "Jane Homemaker"
This might effect some iDevice users, but not all. Not even most actually.
Yes, there is a story here and they should report the story, not expound their idea of what would make a good compromise when there is no reason for one party to compromise at all.
See, now THAT might work. All this hand-wringing and stating that "Apple should do X" is just a waste of time.
1) I didn't know that Apple controls all the apps for Blackberry/RIM and Android.
2) True, but I am doubtful the would be found in violation of such things. But, hey, I could be wrong.
The decision is Apple's and Apple's alone. Apple has all the cards and has no need to cut any deals. InfoWorld's suggestions fail to take that into account.
Go back to school and take a reading comprehension course and get back to me. Until then, STFU because you did not respond to the comment as posted.
That is a lie. You are not told you are a criminal. You are told what the law is so you can not claim ignorance if you do break the law. In fact, the only way one could consider that being called a criminal is if you have done or are planning on doing what is listed as being against the law.
Last time I checked, "Because it is easier than doing the right thing" was not an excuse to break the law, violate copyright, or anything else.
Screw FORTRAN, let's get Ada on the iPad! How dare they not support Ada! ADA! ADA! ADA!
Software freedom now!!!!!!!
See you are using one of the old definitions of what a "right" is. The new definition of a right is "Whatever the fuck I want because I want it and I mean now!!1!one1!1elventy! So, hand it over BITCH!"
See you are using one of the old definitions of what a "right" is. The new definition of a right is "Whatever the fuck I want because I want it and I mean now!!1!one1!1elventy! So, hand it over BITCH!"
Didn't I hear something like this as an argument against coding webpages for MSIE?
I stand corrected, though the correct citation is USC17 110(5)
No, the only side responsible for DRM is the side consisting of people who make unauthorized copies. If they had honor and respect for others, then there would be no DRM.
And, the DRM would not exist if people had not started stealing the games to begin with. Unauthorized copying (aka theft) is not a reaction to DRM, but rather DRM is a reaction to unauthorized copying.
There has been DRM long before there was an Internet. I remember having game that had no DRM on my first computer and I remember needing a key disk soon after and the reason was that people were making copies of the disks and giving them to friends. I remember the introduction of DRM in games. You need to stop putting the cart before the horse and learn a little tech history.
Wow, you are fucking moron. You don't want DRM, don't fucking steal. Got that? Or is that too fucking difficult for you tiny little brain?
Don't want locks on doors, don't steal. Don't want DRM on games, music and movies? Don't make unauthorized copies and violate the copy rights of the people who own the copy rights and thus a legally granted monopoly on making and distributing copies of a work.
It really is as simple as that. Now, shut the fuck up.
Please provide a source for your claim.
Here is a demonstration of where your logic fails:
No, you didn't hear 'zillions of "stolen" songs on the radio'. The broadcast of those songs were paid for by the radio station. The radio station got the money to pay for the broadcasting of those songs from "advertisers" who paid for these things called "commercials" that are played between the songs.
To recap: The songs you hear on the radio are paid for by those commercials you hear between the songs. They are not free.
Assuming you meant to say "magic, unbreakable DRM that made it impossible to use their products at all without paying." (The way you word it, one would pay and not be able to use what one paid for)
Assuming there is a magic, unbreakable DRM that made it impossible to use a product without paying for said product, then the revenue would not go down, rather it would go up. It would go up because:
The only people who would "just DO WITHOUT their unnecessary crap" are the people who either can not afford to buy the product or would never buy the product and thus are not now nor have ever been a source of revenue.
Stop blaming the actual victims and start blaming the people who make and distribute unauthorized copies. Everything you complain about makes you a secondary victim and you are too busy blaming the primary victims to actually go after those that are the cause of all this.
You post this and all my mod points are gone as of yesterday. You have pointed out the massive failure in this article.
Obstruction occurs AFTER the initial crime and takes place during the investigation. It can be as simple as lying about the whereabouts of a person (I know someone arrested on misdemeanor obstruction for just this reason). Wearing a mask during the original crime doesn't count as obstruction because it does not occur during the investigation, but it could fall under other laws banning the wearing of masks in public.
Kernell is charged with two crimes; one crime is unauthorized access of a computer system and he is charged with a separate crime for destroying evidence during the investigation of the first crime.
No, shithead, you just said that copyright protections are unlimited because they won't be available in your lifetime. It does fall into the public domain, just not in your lifetime. Nice of you be to so transparent of a childish, selfish asshole.
Now, shut the fuck up.
Kernell does not face 2o years for pretexting. Kernell faces 1 year for unauthorized computer access and 20 years for felony obstruction of justice. To the best of my knowledge Kernell has not been sued by anyone over his unauthorized access.
HP settled a civil suit brought by Verizon for US$ 14 million. HP and the investigators hired who did the actual pretexting still face criminal charges. Those charge may result in jail time. There is little chance of a 20 year sentence as there is no felony obstruction charge in the HP case. Each count of unauthorized access carries a penalty which can run either concurrent or consecutive.
Verizon currently sells an HP netbook. HP may buy Palm, but there is no guarantee that Verizon will continue to carry Palm/HP phones. But, that US$ 14 million settlement may result in Verizon continuing to carry HP devices, especially if said devices are popular.
Oh, that is rich. A time frame is only limited if it falls within your lifetime? How amazingly selfish. Your entire argument is "I want to use it, and can't so it is wrong!"
Let me guess, when you die, all humanity dies with you right? No one will exist after you are gone because you are the center of the fucking universe.
You are nothing but a selfish prick.