There's a quote I'd like to single out in that article from Voltage Pictures:
Essentially, because of the nature of the swarm downloads as described above, every infringer is simultaneously stealing copyrighted material from many ISPs in numerous jurisdictions around the country.
Next time somebody claims that downloading a film is analogous to stealing a car, I'm going to throw this one at them. "But I'm simultaneously stealing the car with a network of over 20, 000 of my peers, and each time one of them steals the car it creates a new car which is physically identical".
We need a term for copyright trolls - if they can compare duplicating data to the practise of attacking and robbing ships at sea, surely we can throw a dictionary of FUD analogies at them, right?
Sorry, this is closer (but $80 dearer as it has twice the memory and a much faster chip). I thought the one I linked to was a touchscreen, but it wasn't.
Equivalent (if not better) hardware ~US$100 cheaper here, though admittedly I wouldn't expect anything more than palm-off from Lenovo tech support if you asked them how to set up anything more than a dialup modem on M$ Windows. OTOH I've never been a fan of purchasing products on the premise that you will receive support when/if you need it, because you USUALLY (though I could be wrong with this particular company) don't get it.</disgruntled former M$ customer> Also their website seems to say that $699 is $100 below RRP (inferring that the cost could increase), but that's probably just something a marketoid threw in
This device is aimed at people who want/need a VERY simplified computing experience, so just slapping Android/MeeGo/whatever on there is not and will not be enough.
My point is not that Android/MeeGo/whatever necessarily has a better UX for the elderly, but I just don't see why it was necessary to cause more fragmentation in the desktop Linux marketplace. Is saying "There is a large and able developer/user base for <platform(s)>, but we're going to throw it all out and more-or-less start again from scratch" REALLY sound business practise? Is it that hard to change around the landing screen a little and add some accessibility features? Now they've (presumably) created YET ANOTHER set of widget toolkits/platform integration APIs.
I can't understand what makes companies believe that they can offer a device for $699 that offers half the functionality of a (Android|Windows|Linux|Mac|WebOS) box and still have it sell. Why do companies insist on making *everything* from scratch except the kernel (the entire UX looks totally alien to me) and then release it - bugs-n-all - for review?
Get cheap touchscreen ARM hardware, throw Android/MeeGo/whatever on there, make your own look-and-feel changes and RELEASE IT WHEN IT'S READY. PLEASE. Customers DON'T need more market fragmentation in software and customers DON'T need a $700 paper weight running a neutered desktop OS.
The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is defined under Section 73 of the Constitution. The High Court can hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the States, from any federal court or court exercising federal jurisdiction (such as the Federal Court of Australia), and from decisions made by one or more Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the court.
It seems that the High Court was originally reserved for matters pertaining to the Constitution and Commonwealth offices, but now has a much larger jurisdiction. Of course, IANAL, so can anybody confirm/deny/correct this?
I see a lot of over-reactions here. Just because the High Court has agreed to hear the trial does NOT mean that the outcome will be any different this time. IANAL, but AFACT's claim seems like absolute bullshit. From Copyright Act 1968:
A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.
That seems like some pretty strong legalese in favour of iiNet.
100% of rioters identified used Facebook, Twitter of flickr. In related news, a new study shows Facebook, Twitter and flickr users found to be 100% more likely to take part in riots than those who do not use Facebook, Twitter or flickr.
That's like saying "Windows Vista doesn't get viruses if you use a Microsoft Certified Firewall Solution, Microsoft Certified Anti-Virus Solution, only install Microsoft Certified software and don't open files from outside your own network in addition to exercising due diligence and having your computer serviced by a Microsoft Approved Technician weekly."
Also: jailbreaking uses the same mechanism as viruses do to get onto your iPhone. A virus could well jailbreak your iPhone and install itself without you even knowing given an appropriate exploit (such as the Adobe Reader exploit from a while back).
Anyone know where I can find a good DNS server *outside* of America that does not censor queries?
I live in Australia, but I switched to Google public DNS when my ISP began filtering content INTERPOL considers harmful (or at least the domain names of content INTERPOL considers harmful).
And I hate passive aggressive douchebags who make broad generalisations like " claim that the material welfare of the population at large isn't as important as preserving their warped definition of liberty" in order to make it clear that they really only intend to write quasi-political flames rather than contribute to a constructive discussion on the topic at hand. OTOH if you'd like to read my whole post (rather than just the first sentence), I'd be happy to have a civilised discussion with you.
True freedom of speech really doesn't exist anywhere in the world today. What is arguably more important in democracies is freedom of political persuasion, and freedom to hold one's own views. If one can express these views without harming any other person's ability to hold them (for example: inciting violence against those who hold opposing views would soon cause the system to crumble), then they should be perfectly able to express them in any way they see fit. Outside of this, I believe there are very few things people should have a "right" to.
The nauseating sense of self-entitlement in some "Internet access should be a basic human right" posts is so thick that I could almost cut through it with a knife.
Is there anybody here that can RTFA? Oh well, the two main reasons I can think of (off the top of my head) are:
1. One less person with their hands on the steering wheel = one more person with their hands on a gun
2. If the vehicle hits an anti-vehicle mine, only the vehicle will be destroyed. If somebody is at the wheel, OTOH, the driver will be destroyed too
It may only be of limited utility (on foot patrols, etc) but, as mentioned above, a single life saved is a massive ROI both psychologically and financially.
Actually the real Oh My God moment was that I just clicked on that waste of a link.
I even clicked on the subsequent two links to get to the *actual* story rather than just CNET's "commentary". Outbound links to content farms really should be banned from/.
MSHTML40.dll != Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a browser, a user facing application browser chrome and a renderer. In this case, the renderer is MSHTML. MSHTML is also used in Windows applications for rendering HTML markup (i.e. for documentation). This is not anti-competitive behaviour, this is ensuring a consistent user experience when rending web pages.
Removing MSHTML is roughly equivalent to removing the shared library for Qt WebView on a KDE system.
Aside: Has anyone ever tried removing M$N messenger from an XP system? It's almost impossible to get rid of.
Yes, patents bad, boo hoo. When you're a small independent startup, sure, let's talk about how crappy patents are. When you're a billion dollar a year mega corporation, pay the damn licensing fees.
I fear you misunderstand the patent system. There generally aren't licensing fees, and if there are then they're guaranteed to be exorbitant as IP owners can charge what they wish. If you can get the patent granted, than you can do whatever you wish with both the patent subject and the people unlucky enough to have implemented it. Read up about submarine patents and you'll understand what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a quote I'd like to single out in that article from Voltage Pictures:
Essentially, because of the nature of the swarm downloads as described above, every infringer is simultaneously stealing copyrighted material from many ISPs in numerous jurisdictions around the country.
Next time somebody claims that downloading a film is analogous to stealing a car, I'm going to throw this one at them. "But I'm simultaneously stealing the car with a network of over 20, 000 of my peers, and each time one of them steals the car it creates a new car which is physically identical".
We need a term for copyright trolls - if they can compare duplicating data to the practise of attacking and robbing ships at sea, surely we can throw a dictionary of FUD analogies at them, right?
1) Notorious troll/Apple fanboy
2) Because somebody is WRONG on the INTERNET
Sorry, this is closer (but $80 dearer as it has twice the memory and a much faster chip). I thought the one I linked to was a touchscreen, but it wasn't.
Equivalent (if not better) hardware ~US$100 cheaper here, though admittedly I wouldn't expect anything more than palm-off from Lenovo tech support if you asked them how to set up anything more than a dialup modem on M$ Windows. OTOH I've never been a fan of purchasing products on the premise that you will receive support when/if you need it, because you USUALLY (though I could be wrong with this particular company) don't get it.</disgruntled former M$ customer>
Also their website seems to say that $699 is $100 below RRP (inferring that the cost could increase), but that's probably just something a marketoid threw in
This device is aimed at people who want/need a VERY simplified computing experience, so just slapping Android/MeeGo/whatever on there is not and will not be enough.
My point is not that Android/MeeGo/whatever necessarily has a better UX for the elderly, but I just don't see why it was necessary to cause more fragmentation in the desktop Linux marketplace. Is saying "There is a large and able developer/user base for <platform(s)>, but we're going to throw it all out and more-or-less start again from scratch" REALLY sound business practise? Is it that hard to change around the landing screen a little and add some accessibility features? Now they've (presumably) created YET ANOTHER set of widget toolkits/platform integration APIs.
Now normally I wouldn't pimp my own page like this...
I agree with you, and I respect the fact that you put two links in your comment and a link in your sig, as well as the "homepage" field!
I can't understand what makes companies believe that they can offer a device for $699 that offers half the functionality of a (Android|Windows|Linux|Mac|WebOS) box and still have it sell. Why do companies insist on making *everything* from scratch except the kernel (the entire UX looks totally alien to me) and then release it - bugs-n-all - for review?
Get cheap touchscreen ARM hardware, throw Android/MeeGo/whatever on there, make your own look-and-feel changes and RELEASE IT WHEN IT'S READY. PLEASE. Customers DON'T need more market fragmentation in software and customers DON'T need a $700 paper weight running a neutered desktop OS.
Copypasted from Wikipedia:
The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is defined under Section 73 of the Constitution. The High Court can hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the States, from any federal court or court exercising federal jurisdiction (such as the Federal Court of Australia), and from decisions made by one or more Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the court.
It seems that the High Court was originally reserved for matters pertaining to the Constitution and Commonwealth offices, but now has a much larger jurisdiction. Of course, IANAL, so can anybody confirm/deny/correct this?
Oh dear $DEITY.
Every time somebody uses the word "copyright" to refer to the copyrighted work itself, I die a little inside...
I see a lot of over-reactions here. Just because the High Court has agreed to hear the trial does NOT mean that the outcome will be any different this time. IANAL, but AFACT's claim seems like absolute bullshit. From Copyright Act 1968:
A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.
That seems like some pretty strong legalese in favour of iiNet.
Outcome 11: ???
Outcome 12: Profit.
100% of rioters identified used Facebook, Twitter of flickr. In related news, a new study shows Facebook, Twitter and flickr users found to be 100% more likely to take part in riots than those who do not use Facebook, Twitter or flickr.
That's like saying "Windows Vista doesn't get viruses if you use a Microsoft Certified Firewall Solution, Microsoft Certified Anti-Virus Solution, only install Microsoft Certified software and don't open files from outside your own network in addition to exercising due diligence and having your computer serviced by a Microsoft Approved Technician weekly."
Also: jailbreaking uses the same mechanism as viruses do to get onto your iPhone. A virus could well jailbreak your iPhone and install itself without you even knowing given an appropriate exploit (such as the Adobe Reader exploit from a while back).
Anyone know where I can find a good DNS server *outside* of America that does not censor queries?
I live in Australia, but I switched to Google public DNS when my ISP began filtering content INTERPOL considers harmful (or at least the domain names of content INTERPOL considers harmful).
And I hate passive aggressive douchebags who make broad generalisations like " claim that the material welfare of the population at large isn't as important as preserving their warped definition of liberty" in order to make it clear that they really only intend to write quasi-political flames rather than contribute to a constructive discussion on the topic at hand. OTOH if you'd like to read my whole post (rather than just the first sentence), I'd be happy to have a civilised discussion with you.
True freedom of speech really doesn't exist anywhere in the world today. What is arguably more important in democracies is freedom of political persuasion, and freedom to hold one's own views. If one can express these views without harming any other person's ability to hold them (for example: inciting violence against those who hold opposing views would soon cause the system to crumble), then they should be perfectly able to express them in any way they see fit. Outside of this, I believe there are very few things people should have a "right" to.
The nauseating sense of self-entitlement in some "Internet access should be a basic human right" posts is so thick that I could almost cut through it with a knife.
It may only be of limited utility (on foot patrols, etc) but, as mentioned above, a single life saved is a massive ROI both psychologically and financially.
As if these scanners needed to be more fun to play with.
Actually the real Oh My God moment was that I just clicked on that waste of a link.
I even clicked on the subsequent two links to get to the *actual* story rather than just CNET's "commentary". Outbound links to content farms really should be banned from /.
MSHTML40.dll != Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a browser, a user facing application browser chrome and a renderer. In this case, the renderer is MSHTML. MSHTML is also used in Windows applications for rendering HTML markup (i.e. for documentation). This is not anti-competitive behaviour, this is ensuring a consistent user experience when rending web pages.
Removing MSHTML is roughly equivalent to removing the shared library for Qt WebView on a KDE system.
Aside: Has anyone ever tried removing M$N messenger from an XP system? It's almost impossible to get rid of.
But the new standard's gonna be the web, and not even Microsoft can stop that.
And it doesn't appear they plan to, at least for now.
Singular of "several magnitudes of orders".
Yes, patents bad, boo hoo. When you're a small independent startup, sure, let's talk about how crappy patents are. When you're a billion dollar a year mega corporation, pay the damn licensing fees.
I fear you misunderstand the patent system. There generally aren't licensing fees, and if there are then they're guaranteed to be exorbitant as IP owners can charge what they wish. If you can get the patent granted, than you can do whatever you wish with both the patent subject and the people unlucky enough to have implemented it. Read up about submarine patents and you'll understand what I mean.
"Journalist IQs found to be inversely proportional to the number of premature conclusions they draw"
Edit: I'm talking about Australian fixed line internet vs. American 3G. Should have said that in the post :P