"Google likely believes use of your images falls under "fair use" in the same manner as those shown on Google Images, and hence feels no obligation to pay."
Which is like having your neighbor say it was OK to use your pool without your permission because they did the same thing to the guy down the street.
The people who wrote the books or took the photographs had nothing to do with Google until Google tried to rip them off. It's annoying how people defend Google's version of "manifest destiny".
At best you should have replaced "existence" with "monopoly" not qualified it.
IBM wasn't under any court-imposed anti-trust sanctions. As I said before, IBM wanted to accelerate the development of a personal computer given how late they were to the game.
The relevant comparison is that they both have followers who will believe whatever they say and do whatever they ask. Jim Jones is just an extreme example of the same phenomenon.
"We don't all need to be RMS, but just about every movement needs an RMS to be successful."
Sure, where would those 900 members of the People's Temple be without Jim Jones. And where would Slasdotters be without the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?
IBM didn't play a role in the existence of Microsoft. It was a profitable company before its involvement in the development of the IBM PC.
IBM didn't involve MS because of any anti-trust issue either. The PC project was an attempt at "agile" development by avoiding the slow-moving IBM bureaucracy in favor of partnering with other companies with expertise in microprocessors (Intel) and microprocessor software (MS).
I think Open source has mostly aided them in a PR capacity. They would probably have made just as much money supporting AIX as they have supporting Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
"Google likely believes use of your images falls under "fair use" in the same manner as those shown on Google Images, and hence feels no obligation to pay."
Which is like having your neighbor say it was OK to use your pool without your permission because they did the same thing to the guy down the street.
That's OK. We don't need movies like Star Wars or Avatar in the future, Youtube production values should be enough for anyone.
The people who wrote the books or took the photographs had nothing to do with Google until Google tried to rip them off. It's annoying how people defend Google's version of "manifest destiny".
I don't see what the problem is unless you want to profit from slicing and dicing somebody else's work.
There were many computers available that were in the same league as the Apple I at that time although most had to be assembled.
The Apple II actually worked.
At best you should have replaced "existence" with "monopoly" not qualified it.
IBM wasn't under any court-imposed anti-trust sanctions. As I said before, IBM wanted to accelerate the development of a personal computer given how late they were to the game.
I apologize to anyone who is a fan of FUD.
The relevant comparison is that they both have followers who will believe whatever they say and do whatever they ask. Jim Jones is just an extreme example of the same phenomenon.
You're going to have to explain in P's and Q's. I can't see the dta fallacy there.
"We don't all need to be RMS, but just about every movement needs an RMS to be successful."
Sure, where would those 900 members of the People's Temple be without Jim Jones. And where would Slasdotters be without the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?
Did your parents name your older brother unity99?
You have to be a pretty big zealot to go from "eating foot crud" shouldn't matter to "Maybe RMS knows what those benefits are and you don't."
Well, at the end of Austin Powers III he was totally evil.
"I have felt him."
IBM is a big company. These things take time.
There is no free employment market. If there were, any worker could work and live in any country they choose.
IBM didn't play a role in the existence of Microsoft. It was a profitable company before its involvement in the development of the IBM PC.
IBM didn't involve MS because of any anti-trust issue either. The PC project was an attempt at "agile" development by avoiding the slow-moving IBM bureaucracy in favor of partnering with other companies with expertise in microprocessors (Intel) and microprocessor software (MS).
IBM wasn't found anything by a court. The DOJ just dropped the case.
PJ is far more anti-MS than pro open source, so it's not surprising she wants you to ignore this.
I think Open source has mostly aided them in a PR capacity. They would probably have made just as much money supporting AIX as they have supporting Linux.
"IBM started business in 1885"
That's 125 years experience at fooling suckers. The only thing IBM hasn't patented is FUD, but they did invent it.
"People will look back at them as the device that set people free from PCs."
Note to those people: if you want to "free yourself" from a PC, don't buy one. It's a much cheaper solution than buying an iPad.
"This device is as revolutionary as the GUI was in 1984."
That's quite an endorsement given that Apple only had a few years to develop the iPad while Xerox had a decade to perfect the GUI by 1984.
You mean where the symbols are defined that decide which platform-specific lines of the slushball will be executed at run time.
This is the worst case scenario for code coupling - a dozen projects spread throughout a common set of files.