If the movie/documentary/whatever is obviously anti-Bush (haven't seen it yet) and they're trying to accelerate the process in order to meet a deadline, then I don't think it should be showed as it's apparent there's some sort of political agenda involved - it would be like if they'd been allowed to show Swarchennger's (sp?) movies just before the CA elections. It's just not right.
There's more to these health journals than just the reports themselves, which provide commentary and editorial content above and beyond reports.
Then they shouldn't have a problem with this. They offer value-added content - people that want it will pay for it. They have no just cause to start screaming.
Why is this article more about 'selling out' than the fact that caller ID spoofing is a misrepresentation and prone to abuse. I think the obvious reason for him getting out of this is due to the threats he received (I'm guessing because of the abusive potential of the 'technology') and not because he 'sold out'...
I've been saying for a while that the music industry needs to get with it and start doing this kind of affiliate thing, much like domain names, where everyone and their grandma sells the same things all over the place.
The added bonus with songs is that you can sell it more than once! How the fools at the RIAA failed to still realize this is a testament to their incompetence.
Is Apple the first to do this, or has anyone else (the 'new' Napster?) done it too?
"We remain concerned about any devices or software that permit listeners to transform a broadcast into a music library," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said.
Well, I guess they better ban CDs, DVDs, and all MP3/audio players then!
You can only get IE on Windows (unless you're geek and play around with Wine).
Having the biggest browser marketshare means you can get more sales of Windowz, and you can spit on standards. The more users of it, the more developers write for it, the more users need Windowz to run it.
So while it doesn't directly translate to direct revenue, it does translate into indirect revenue.
"The truth is that consumers aren't going to worry about things like CSS and PNG support," said Robert Iliad, a developer who is participating in the feedback process. "There are still millions of consumers using IE 5.5, so how are you going to get them to use IE 7.0 just because of some obscure thing called CSS?"
Now this is what I call truely clueless. Typical MS thinking that is the cause of IE's sercurity vulnerabilities and lack of established standards.
"so give them credit. retitling the book is probably a major pain in the a$$"
Question is: what the hell too them so freaking long?!? In some editions of the book (as per the statements in the press release) this 'conflict' was already known, yet they still used the same title...
Given the recent news about the story, it's clear they're now doing this to cover their asses (notice how they purposely do not admit to any wrong doing, as usual)
The other question that remains is if that so-called lawyer that doesn't seem to know what rights people already have (she should be dis-barred for this alone) will keep harrasing the domain owner now (isn't there still a 'project' they're planning that will use the same name?)
Typing remains the single fastest way to input anything other than numbers into a computer (barcode scanner are best for numbers/codes). Dictation software is also excellent, but for most people in the IT field (programmers, network admins, etc), the keyboard is really the only way to go, and will be for a long time (I can't see myself programming something in Perl or C++ by dictating it to the computer!), and is the fastest way to put in your data (without having to constantly looking at the keyboard.)
And I must say that typing was one of the most useful classes in HS I ever took - I'm still using those skills today! And I would recommend it to anyone who uses a computer for anything.
They have every right, of course, but I think the argument is that you're not going to get more visitors by forcing people to register - that'll turn people away.
And usually the ones that really want to read it won't bother giving real information anyways, so it ends up being a double loss for them...
I think Salon kinda had it right, where some sections are free and other aren't - it at least gives readers a preview of what they might acutally want to pay for instead of hitting a registration page for anything...
That's what makes having a Linux API great, the company can simply recompile for the appropriate CPU without any changes (or barely any), so they can still keep it closed and make it available to another platform for no additional cost.
Right, but there might be some stuff that isn't - not all software is open source, though I really don't know of any Linux-only software not available on other platforms too, but I guess it could happen...
I tried to find the original article mentioning it but could only find this, which indicates it was originally mentioned on MacOSRumors (wow! they're actually back!).
Slashdot Mirror
Then they shouldn't have a problem with this. They offer value-added content - people that want it will pay for it. They have no just cause to start screaming.
These guys need to be taken down!
That's because we all know software patents are bogus.
Serves you right for registering 'asdf.com'
The added bonus with songs is that you can sell it more than once! How the fools at the RIAA failed to still realize this is a testament to their incompetence.
Is Apple the first to do this, or has anyone else (the 'new' Napster?) done it too?
Well, I guess they better ban CDs, DVDs, and all MP3/audio players then!
Having the biggest browser marketshare means you can get more sales of Windowz, and you can spit on standards. The more users of it, the more developers write for it, the more users need Windowz to run it.
So while it doesn't directly translate to direct revenue, it does translate into indirect revenue.
Now this is what I call truely clueless. Typical MS thinking that is the cause of IE's sercurity vulnerabilities and lack of established standards.
"so give them credit. retitling the book is probably a major pain in the a$$"
Question is: what the hell too them so freaking long?!? In some editions of the book (as per the statements in the press release) this 'conflict' was already known, yet they still used the same title...
Given the recent news about the story, it's clear they're now doing this to cover their asses (notice how they purposely do not admit to any wrong doing, as usual)
The other question that remains is if that so-called lawyer that doesn't seem to know what rights people already have (she should be dis-barred for this alone) will keep harrasing the domain owner now (isn't there still a 'project' they're planning that will use the same name?)
And I must say that typing was one of the most useful classes in HS I ever took - I'm still using those skills today! And I would recommend it to anyone who uses a computer for anything.
nt
And usually the ones that really want to read it won't bother giving real information anyways, so it ends up being a double loss for them...
I think Salon kinda had it right, where some sections are free and other aren't - it at least gives readers a preview of what they might acutally want to pay for instead of hitting a registration page for anything...
Just think of it as Wine for Linux apps.
I guess it can't hurt. Apple is also rumored to be integrating Linux API to future versions of OS X to help bring developers to the Mac side.