Google has always been a fairly poorly managed company. It wasn't management efficiency or flexibility that made it successful. It was having a killer product.
Amazon is a big company. Not as big as Google, but pretty monolithic. They didn't have a lot of trouble getting the kindle out and making ebooks popular, and apparently are ahead of Google with cloud based storage. Apple is another pretty hefty company but Steve Jobs turned it around and took the lead in a lot of fields.
Google is run by people who are good at technology. That's really al they're good at. Business tactics requires a different skillset.
Actors will have another means of supplementing their income.
Look at reality TV shows. Where do you think they find people who are so eager to put themselves out there? Casting studios are a good bet. Of course, on the TV show, they'll pick a job other than "actor" when they say what they do.
So, perhaps Mr. Kolinski does run a small real estate firm on the side. Perhaps Joan Hess does write about travel. She's certainly presented a travel related TV show.
Maybe she is a travel writer. Most actors have other jobs. Freelance travel writing is a possibility. She's worked on a travel show. Did she write for it as well? Not out of the question.
It's even possible that the "CEO" does run a company. A real estate company doesn't need to have more than one employee and doesn't need to be full time.
That people don't realise that marketing companies use actors.
The other day I saw an advertisement for a fast food establishment*, and there was a family there enjoying the food. I later learned that they weren't even related! The guy on the poster for haemorrhoid treatments doesn't actually have haemorrhoids either.
The point is that they're not deceiving you about anything that matters. A travel writer could use the galaxy for that purpose. Perhaps a travel writer even did, and they got an actress to explain why because it looks better. If you're going to choose something because its recommended by a pretty woman rather than a woman of more average appearance, then who are you to judge the marketing companies for taking advantage of this?
*Disclaimer - dramatisation only. I skip through the ads.
Well, nobody is obligated to drink and drive. You have the choice. Don't drink. Get someone else to drive. Take a cab. If you have even a single drink, your reaction times go down and you're a little more likely to cause an accident.
Seems sensible to reduce the harm done here if we can.
Seriously, I got so cynical about this game ever being released that I think even if I played the game through to completion I'd assume there was some reason it wasn't going to be released.
It simply needs to reach a certain critical mass. Once there are enough players (I have no idea how many "enough" is), then it's going to look like an equally attractive proposition. If other aspects of the game are more compelling then the larger player base is less important.
Exactly how they get to critical mass, I have no idea.
True. But will Sony sell the devkit to absolutely anyone? Also (unless Sony do things differently from Microsoft), the software won't run on a stock PS3 without going through Sony's compliance tests and being commercially published.
Yes. Of course they needed to do a study. There are all sorts of factors affecting energy efficiency. Do you want a university basing its decisions on hypotheticals?
Fair enough. I'm not sure "Time Shifting" actually explicitly allows for indefinite archival, so you may well be acting outside the law in your case.
I only have about 300GB of video on my machine. I'd say pretty much all of it was downloaded from the internet. Also about 14GB of music which I'd say is a 50/50 split.
But my point is, it seems so odd, that a website like Slashdot, where it's generally considered that copyright restrictions are far too heavily weighted in the favour of the media cartels would be so defensive when accused of acting in a manner consistent with this position. There's no reason to be so. Where's the shame in breaking a law you disagree with?
Sure. And I'm sure this is typical of Slashdot users, and he needs to know which of his home videos were directed by Ridley Scott, and has novels written about their children by Terry Pratchett.
But is it at all possible, just conceivably, that there are some Slashdot users who acquire media through downloading from the internet without permission from the copyright holder?
Let's be honest - I doubt most Slashdot are either in a position to criticise him for it, or of the opinion there's anything particularly wrong with it.
I'd suggest the fair use guidelines. Since the GPL is primarily protected by copyright, these apply anyway.
These guidelines that take into account many factors including the amount copied relative to the greater work, the effect on the original work, and the nature of the use.
Show me a device with a CPU in it. I could tell you whether it's a "computer" or not, and there would be considerable consistency in opinion between most people.
My laptop is a computer. My breadmaker is not a computer. A router is not a computer. A satnav is not a computer. A Blu-ray player is not a computer. All of these devices have a CPU in and I'd imagine the vast majority of Dutch people would agree with those classifications. A desktop PC running Smoothwall is possibly a grey area but since this was not involved it's something we'll have to consider when it actually does become an issue.
Technically, yes. But do you not see a slight difference between, say, a macbook pro, and an d-link router? Or a satnav for that matter?There is a difference. The thing is, I can't actually work out how to define the difference other than by intended use.
Property rights do matter. However, this sounds like a law protecting data. And there's no significant personal data stored on a router. If The Netherlands have a law regarding unauthorised network use, this is the law that should be used. If not, there should probably be one (although the harm done is typically fairly minor).
In law there's the concept of "a reasonable man". When a person talks about a computer, they're typically talking about a general purpose computing device. A desktop or laptop PC, a server, or possibly a mobile phone.
If someone asks you "do you own a computer", is your response "Why yes. It's a D-Link router. I also own a satnav, have a CPU in y television, and another in my bread maker" or would you simply mention the devices that people are typically referring to?
If you're in the right, and willing to accept a sensible amount, most likely result is they're settle. It's not worth their money to bankrupt the claimant over a few thousand dollars.
Er, because it's a non multi-tasking, non copy and pasting,
Overrated. The same can be said of the iPhone until quite recently. Didn't cause a lot of complaints there.
[[General complaint about scrolling (sorry for the cut but it was a bit ranty)]]
Is this really a requirement? Yes, that does sound like it sucks. Although it's strange that this is the first I've heard of it.
And you wonder why the WP7 despite the 500 million dollar marketing campaign and stupid commercials was met by a collective meh...
I thought it was mainly about Microsoft's abysmal brand image, especially in tech circles. Everyone hates Microsoft. Nobody wants their products but they're forced to use them. Given this, it's remarkably hard to be enthused about their mobile phone. That and it isn't a vast improvement over android or iPhone which means it's nothing special.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, this is an investment. Invest a pound in the games industry and you get more than that back in tax revenue.
At least that's the claim.
Google has always been a fairly poorly managed company. It wasn't management efficiency or flexibility that made it successful. It was having a killer product.
Amazon is a big company. Not as big as Google, but pretty monolithic. They didn't have a lot of trouble getting the kindle out and making ebooks popular, and apparently are ahead of Google with cloud based storage. Apple is another pretty hefty company but Steve Jobs turned it around and took the lead in a lot of fields.
Google is run by people who are good at technology. That's really al they're good at. Business tactics requires a different skillset.
Actors will have another means of supplementing their income.
Look at reality TV shows. Where do you think they find people who are so eager to put themselves out there? Casting studios are a good bet. Of course, on the TV show, they'll pick a job other than "actor" when they say what they do.
So, perhaps Mr. Kolinski does run a small real estate firm on the side. Perhaps Joan Hess does write about travel. She's certainly presented a travel related TV show.
Maybe she is a travel writer. Most actors have other jobs. Freelance travel writing is a possibility. She's worked on a travel show. Did she write for it as well? Not out of the question.
It's even possible that the "CEO" does run a company. A real estate company doesn't need to have more than one employee and doesn't need to be full time.
That people don't realise that marketing companies use actors.
The other day I saw an advertisement for a fast food establishment*, and there was a family there enjoying the food. I later learned that they weren't even related! The guy on the poster for haemorrhoid treatments doesn't actually have haemorrhoids either.
The point is that they're not deceiving you about anything that matters. A travel writer could use the galaxy for that purpose. Perhaps a travel writer even did, and they got an actress to explain why because it looks better. If you're going to choose something because its recommended by a pretty woman rather than a woman of more average appearance, then who are you to judge the marketing companies for taking advantage of this?
*Disclaimer - dramatisation only. I skip through the ads.
Well, nobody is obligated to drink and drive. You have the choice. Don't drink. Get someone else to drive. Take a cab. If you have even a single drink, your reaction times go down and you're a little more likely to cause an accident.
Seems sensible to reduce the harm done here if we can.
Probably true... Does depend on how drowsy and exactly which specific situation.
But how do you legislate that one?
Seriously, I got so cynical about this game ever being released that I think even if I played the game through to completion I'd assume there was some reason it wasn't going to be released.
It simply needs to reach a certain critical mass. Once there are enough players (I have no idea how many "enough" is), then it's going to look like an equally attractive proposition. If other aspects of the game are more compelling then the larger player base is less important.
Exactly how they get to critical mass, I have no idea.
True. But will Sony sell the devkit to absolutely anyone? Also (unless Sony do things differently from Microsoft), the software won't run on a stock PS3 without going through Sony's compliance tests and being commercially published.
So, @freenyt is retweeting @nytimes. And @nytimes is the official twitter feed. Is that correct?
I just don't see why anyone would follow @freenyt when they could follow @nytimes. Surely both are available on twitter.
Technically, that's just the stated reason...
It could also be the real reason but we can't be totally certain.
Yes. Of course they needed to do a study. There are all sorts of factors affecting energy efficiency. Do you want a university basing its decisions on hypotheticals?
The road traffic accident. As it would before.
This isn't going to replace anything. It's simply going to provide additional information.
Fair enough. I'm not sure "Time Shifting" actually explicitly allows for indefinite archival, so you may well be acting outside the law in your case.
I only have about 300GB of video on my machine. I'd say pretty much all of it was downloaded from the internet. Also about 14GB of music which I'd say is a 50/50 split.
But my point is, it seems so odd, that a website like Slashdot, where it's generally considered that copyright restrictions are far too heavily weighted in the favour of the media cartels would be so defensive when accused of acting in a manner consistent with this position. There's no reason to be so. Where's the shame in breaking a law you disagree with?
Sure. And I'm sure this is typical of Slashdot users, and he needs to know which of his home videos were directed by Ridley Scott, and has novels written about their children by Terry Pratchett.
But is it at all possible, just conceivably, that there are some Slashdot users who acquire media through downloading from the internet without permission from the copyright holder?
Well, chances are he pirated a fair chunk of it.
If he didn't I'm surprised.
Let's be honest - I doubt most Slashdot are either in a position to criticise him for it, or of the opinion there's anything particularly wrong with it.
I'd suggest the fair use guidelines. Since the GPL is primarily protected by copyright, these apply anyway.
These guidelines that take into account many factors including the amount copied relative to the greater work, the effect on the original work, and the nature of the use.
In my experience, most IT people call a router a router.
Then it's a grey area, but I'd imagine it would be considered a computer by that point.
Nobody involved in this case has done that though.
Show me a device with a CPU in it. I could tell you whether it's a "computer" or not, and there would be considerable consistency in opinion between most people.
My laptop is a computer. My breadmaker is not a computer. A router is not a computer. A satnav is not a computer. A Blu-ray player is not a computer. All of these devices have a CPU in and I'd imagine the vast majority of Dutch people would agree with those classifications. A desktop PC running Smoothwall is possibly a grey area but since this was not involved it's something we'll have to consider when it actually does become an issue.
Technically, yes. But do you not see a slight difference between, say, a macbook pro, and an d-link router? Or a satnav for that matter?There is a difference. The thing is, I can't actually work out how to define the difference other than by intended use.
Property rights do matter. However, this sounds like a law protecting data. And there's no significant personal data stored on a router. If The Netherlands have a law regarding unauthorised network use, this is the law that should be used. If not, there should probably be one (although the harm done is typically fairly minor).
In law there's the concept of "a reasonable man". When a person talks about a computer, they're typically talking about a general purpose computing device. A desktop or laptop PC, a server, or possibly a mobile phone.
If someone asks you "do you own a computer", is your response "Why yes. It's a D-Link router. I also own a satnav, have a CPU in y television, and another in my bread maker" or would you simply mention the devices that people are typically referring to?
If you're in the right, and willing to accept a sensible amount, most likely result is they're settle. It's not worth their money to bankrupt the claimant over a few thousand dollars.
Er, because it's a non multi-tasking, non copy and pasting,
Overrated. The same can be said of the iPhone until quite recently. Didn't cause a lot of complaints there.
[[General complaint about scrolling (sorry for the cut but it was a bit ranty)]]
Is this really a requirement? Yes, that does sound like it sucks. Although it's strange that this is the first I've heard of it.
And you wonder why the WP7 despite the 500 million dollar marketing campaign and stupid commercials was met by a collective meh...
I thought it was mainly about Microsoft's abysmal brand image, especially in tech circles. Everyone hates Microsoft. Nobody wants their products but they're forced to use them. Given this, it's remarkably hard to be enthused about their mobile phone. That and it isn't a vast improvement over android or iPhone which means it's nothing special.