It's not that the U.S. wanted to be bested by the Soviets, but Eisenhower saw a silver lining to the Sputnik. In the previous years, the U.S. was pushing for an "open sky" initiative where anyone could fly over any country in space. The U.S. felt it was important to their spy program, but the Russians balked at the idea of possible U.S. bombs flying over the USSR.
With the launch of the Sputnik, the U.S. no longer had to appear as the aggressor position of insisting on open skies. Now that the Sputnik flew over U.S. territory, the U.S. was free to pursue spy technology satellites orbiting the Soviet Union. By the very early 60s, the U.S. had spy satellites taking pictures over Soviet airspace and literally dropping their film canisters off in Alaska and Northern Canada.
The recording industry is really showing Apple. They're saying. "Hey Apple, we aren't your little monkey that you can boss around! You're trying to make us sell our music DRM free for only $1.28. Well, we'll show you! We are going to sell our music DRM free on Walmart and Amazon for 99 cents. What do you think of that!"
What does Apple think of that? What does Apple think of these two major music stores no longer selling music in non-iPod playing WMV format and now in iPod playing MP3 format? What does Apple who probably didn't make a penny on iTunes think of this whole thing? If it sells iPods, Apple is thrilled. After all, if you download any MP3 anywhere on your hard drive, iTunes can pick it up and throw it on your iPod.
Apple's next trick: They'll modify the iTunes program to allow users to select which store they'd like to buy their non-copy protected MP3 from. Who cares where someone buys their MP3s from as long as they play it on an iPod.
And all along, we all thought that the music industry was absolutely clueless!
I have no knowledge of the arguments. However, I can comment on the state of the Linux Desktop: It needs serious work.
I use Linux and it's great at compiling, running Apache, running MySql or PostGrep. However, as a desktop machine (especially for the masses) it needs serious work. Walt Mossburg has reviewed the Dell Linux system and he pretty much agrees with my experience. Even Mark Shuttleworth (Mr. Ubuntu himself) agrees that the Linux Desktop is not for the non-technical.
Whether forking the Kernel will help this issue or not is up to people who understand the details of kernel design, and I am not one of them. All I can report is that there is no Linux distribution that is ready to take on either Mac OS X or Windows as a desktop machine.
1). "The archives should be free" The archives for the last 20 years are now free. Those over 60 years (public archive) are also free. The ones between 20 to 60 years ago are the only ones you get charged for.
2). "I'd pay extra for ads free/The TimesReader should be free" The TimesReader is still a charge for service, but it contains no ads. This is probably why it isn't free. The big problem is that it is "Windows Only", so Linux and Mac users can't use it. (Yes, I know you can run a Windows emulator, but that's not the point!).
About a decade ago, the idea of paying for your webpage with ads and actually make money seemed silly. "That would never happen." "IIt was a dot.com pipedream". Now, as the New York Times discovered, subscription services are simply not as profitable as ad supported websites. TimesSelect made money, but not as much as if the content was free. Plus, now that it is free, Google searches are more likely to include New York Times articles.
Any bets when the Wall Street Journal will drop its subscription service?
When I pull up a terminal window, it defaults to 80 columns which takes up about 1/3 of my screen. I can pull up three terminals without too much overlapping. With most programming languages, 80 columns is plenty. If you write in Java, Perl, or C++, you can break up long lines -- even print/echo/sysout, or whatever your language calls them. 80 columns simply makes code easier to read and doesn't take up my whole screen.
UNLESS you use Python or XML. Python is very space dependent. You must indent the right way and breaking lines is difficult. I don't know who came up with the idea of a language that takes its formatting cues from Cobol and Fortran, but limiting Python to 80 columns is almost impossible.
And, limiting XML to only 80 columns is downright absolutely impossible (and that includes HTML and embedded HTML languages like PHP and JavaScript. I do Ant build.xml files, and by the time you get to defining a fileset in a task, you've already blown 16 characters (four per indent) for your includes/and excludes tasks. If you wrap things inside an task, that's another 12 characters blown. You get real complex stuff, and you're starting you lines on the 60th to 72nd character.
Anyway, they let you choose a color and background pattern (or even your own picture). When you visit their website, it displays that picture and color. This is extremely difficult for phishing sites to emulate. They may be able to match the main webpage, but they won't be able to match the background and color since only the real website has this information.
It's easy to train users: Just tell them that all the bank's pages will display their background and color and no others. And, it becomes obvious to the user if they visit a phishing site. It's not just a webaddress they may not notice, or a little icon on the status line, but the whole webpage looks completely different.
That will probably work much better than any new domain name to stop phishing. I'm surprised more banks and other institutions don't do the same thing.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said.
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."
So, the bullets might have (but not necessarily) come from more than two bullets. And if the fragments did come from more than two bullets, there could be a second assassin!
While we are doing all this wild eyed speculation, how about speculating up some brains for our current White House resident.
1). Not a patent, but an application for a patent from 2001. 2). This is a specific implementation of a breakpoint function, not breakpoints in general. The idea of this patent is to use an all purpose void function for doing breakpoints instead of a machine dependent instruction as breakpoints are now done.
Patents have been loose (like the one-click patent), but this isn't one of them. Looking at the date on this patent and the way software is now handled, I believe this patent is a bit dated. Sort of like someone patenting a new way to implement the HTTP over a dialup connection without using SLIP or PPP.
There are a few slight of hands Apple has pulled. Apple compares the total amount of waste recycled vs. what they sold when not too many people were buying Apple computers. But, Apple doesn't pick up old Apples. What Apple does is recycle computers when a new purchase is made.
Imagine that Dell sold 5,000,000 computers from 1995 to 2000 and about 5,000,000 computers between 2000 and 2007. Let's say Apple sold only 500,000 computers between 1995 and 2000, but 5,000,000 computers between 2000 and 2007. While I am pulling numbers out of my darker neither regions, let's assume all computers weigh exactly the same.
Let's say that 20% of Dell's customers return a computer when they purchase a new Dell, but only 10% of Apple's customers do the same. So, Dell recycled 1,000,000 computers between 2000 to 2007 and Apple only recycled 500,000 computers. Dell recycled more, but look at Apple's metric:
Dell only recycled 20% of their computers based upon the 1995 to 2000 sales information. However, Apple recycling rate is 100%.
Since Apple recycles when a customer buys a new machine, a better measurement would be machines recycled vs. the number now being purchased. Under these circumstances, does Apple shine so bright?
Now a rap at Greenpeace. Greenpeace's big problem with Apple is that Apple doesn't expand its recycling program world wide. Apple only recycles in the U.S. and Canada. However, in Europe and Japan, either Apple has a recycling partner where you can drop off your computer, or the government has its own recycling program. The U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan probably cover 99% of Apple's market.
Meanwhile, most large corporations don't use Dell's recycling program because repackaging and shipping computers (even for free postage) is too costly. It's cheaper to simply have them carted off. Considering that large corporations probably account for at least 50% of Dell's business, that's a lot of computers not being recycled. Apple, which has a very small presence in large corporations doesn't have this issue. So, although Dell's program looks better on paper, it may simply not be as extensive.
I've had a lot of problems with Greenpeace over the years. They tend to do publicity stunts which many times have their own environmental consequences.
In 1995, Shell Oil wanted to sink an oil platform in deep water. Shell claimed that not only it was the cheapest alternative, but also the most ecological. The oil would seep out at a very slow rate, and there was minimal amount of life near the spot. The quanity of heavy metals and other toxins were minimal compared to the amount spewed out by deep sea vents.
Greenpeace however, forced Shell to take the platform back to shore to be dismantled. Later on, Greenpeace internal memos showed the Shell was actually correct in wanting to sink the platform as the most environmentally favored approach. Dragging the platform to the shore could result in it falling apart and leaking vast quantity of oil near the shoreline. The cost of dismantling the rig would be born by the taxpayers because that was all tax deductible. Plus, the oil slug and heavy metals now had to be disposed on land.
Greenpeace's response was that although it would have been more environmentally sound to dispose of the platform at sea, they felt it set a bad precedence. So, they risked a possible ecological catastrophe just to make a PR point. See http://www.american.edu/TED/SHELLRIG.HTM for more details.
> Kind of reminds me of much ado about Exxonmobil. Say, > whatever happened with those congressional hearings > about an $8 billion dollar profit for a single quarter? > Well, it turns out that over the past 25 years oil companies > paid more than $2.2 trillion in taxes (adjusted for inflation). > That is more than three times what they earned in profits during > the same period.
Wow! It sounds like ExxonMobil is on the verge of bankruptcy! That is, if they are really paying more in taxes than they generate in revenue. And, this has been going on for over 25 years. Better start selling that oil stock before these poor corporations go under.
No wonder no one ever became rich in the oil industry.
How does this move work with their monthly subscription service that is heavily dependent upon DRM? What prevents these people from paying $15, downloading the noncopy-protected songs, then simply dropping their subscription? Their songs will still play.
It was one of the main reasons Apple gave for not wanting to follow the subscription model.
This is just on the back of a rumor that Microsoft is planning to give out either a discounted or free Zune with a paid subscription to the Zune Market.
This is Google merely following the law. When stolen content is brought up to Google's attention, they are legally obliged to remove it. However, Google isn't first vetting the material to begin with.
It would be different if Google held each post on YouTube and vetted it before posting it. Then Google would make itself responsible for any copyright violation or any other violation (such as privacy or libel violations) because it is actively examining each post.
There is a court president that says that bulletin boards are generally not held liable for their contents. It was done back in the days of CompuServ when the court decided that CompuServ's message boards made CompuServ a public carrier much like a phone company and not like a publisher -- thus not responsible for content that someone may have published.
The main idea is that as long as Google doesn't generally vet content, and they remove content that is illegal when it is brought up to their attention, they are not liable for what is posted.
Anyone can bring illegal content up to Google's attention. If you see something that is in violation of someone else's copyright, and you can show that, you could tell Google, and Google will be obliged to remove it. However, usually normal viewers aren't interested in enforcing someone else's copyright, so it is normally the copyright holder who brings it to Google's attention.
What Viacom is complaining about is that they spend millions of dollars policing Google's site, and Viacom is arguing it shouldn't have to be the one paying to police Google's site -- that should be Google. However, Google doesn't want to do that because it will cost them money and they could be held accountable for what is actually posted on YouTube.
The law protects Google, but I do see Viacom's point. Keeping Viacom's stuff off of Google is like fighting the hydra. You cut off one head, and another two popup in its place. Heck, the same clips show up over and over. It's a hopeless battle.
Viacom really doesn't want the case to actually go through. What if Viacom loses? Then, they're really in trouble. Viacom is using the suite to get a better deal out of Google. And Google will settle because if Google loses, they are not only out the billion, but every other copyright holder will then sue. Neither company wants to take the chance of losing.
There is actually an interesting question. As long as Google doesn't actively manage the content of YouTube, they can claim "safe harbor" provision of the Copyright Act because they are not acting as an editor. You Tube is like a public bulletin board. The minute they start scanning their content, they can be held accountable because YouTube becomes more like a "newspaper" than a bulletin board.
If Google made it a policy to track all copyrighted material, they are expressing an editorial decision of what can and cannot be posted. Therefore, anyone who finds their copyrighted material on Google, and Google didn't take it down, that copyright holder could hold Google legally responsible for the material.
And its not just copyrighted material they could land in trouble for. They could be held for libelous material too. Or for material that violates some user's right to privacy. For Google to start scanning material leaves Google open to many different charges.
I bet the licensing provision Google is asking for merely makes Google an agent to the copyright holder. That would allow Google (acting as the copyright holder's agent) to remove material without becoming an "editor" of the content on YouTube.
I know Google does scan for hate speech and pornography, but the laws allow for banning of such content without removing Google from the Safe Harbor provisions. What Viacom is asking is for Google to take editorial control of YouTube, and to become legally responsible for anything posted on YouTube. That is something Google certainly isn't willing to do. If Viacom wins this case (and I don't think they necessarily will) Google would probably be forced to close down YouTube.
What Viacom really wants out of all of this is for users to come to their websites to watch the content, so Viacom gets the ad revenue instead of Google getting it. Truthfully, Google really hasn't figured out a way to make money on YouTube since you can post YouTube content embedded in another Webpage without any ad content.
I think Google will go with a "box" approach where the video is surrounded by a box with one or two text ads embedded in the box. Then when it plays copyrighted material, it could track the revenue per play, and when a copyright holder finds their material on Google, Google could offer the ad revenue to the copyright holder as compensation. That would weaken Viacom's argument about the cost of policing YouTube.
Why should Google build a mobile device, then compete against every other mobile device? Want to watch everyone switch partners and go with Yahoo? They also have free webmail, maps, and (gasp) even search technology.
It is much better for Google to "partner" with others and be the dominate set of mobile applications no matter what device or carrier you use.
There's a lot more experience on the market for setting up and maintaining major web sites, so it will be easier for Borders to setup a *profitable* site now. The big problem with the Borders/Amazon co-mingle is that many times you ended up in Amazon and not Borders. A lot of times, I would order a book from "Borders.com", then discover that I can't use my Borders gift card because I am buying from Amazon and not Borders. Plus, now that Amazon is selling everything, the book side is merely a side business for Amazon where it's Border's bread and butter.
With Border own site, it will be easier for customers to order books and pick them up at a Borders store (and save shipping). The web store and B&M store can now be merged into a single shopping experience. More important, Borders will now own the information gleaned from web orders and not Amazon. Loyal customers may get special marketing promotions and be told when new books are available.
It was bound to happen. I see the day when other major retailers will pull out of Amazon's marketing agreement and build their own sites.
Here's the problem. NBC and NewsCorp makes a site. Disney makes a site. Viacom makes a site. Everybody and their brother makes a site. Now, you have a dozen different video sites all making sure that no one else downloads their videos anywhere else. If you want a SNL video, you go to one site. If you want a Daily Show video, it's another site. Download a Pixar clip, another site. That was the big advantage of YouTube. It wasn't like these clips weren't already on the Web. It was the fact you only had to go to a single site to find them.
It would be so much better to make a deal with YouTube. Let Google handle the bandwidth hassle and infrastructure problems. A single mete-site will draw more users, and the money. To make sure there's no monopoly, make deals with other meta-video sites.
Re:Cool project (Apple suing Franklin)
on
ReactOS 0.3.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The comparison between Apple and IBM is simply not valid. Franklin didn't simply reverse engineer the Apple computer. They copied Apple's design down to the individual electrons. The BIOS and OS was simply stolen from Apple. There was even several places in the Franklin's ROM and in the OS where the string "Copyrighted by Apple Computer" was there for all to see. Even Franklin had to admit they copied the ROM and OS. Franklin tried to use the argument that since the OS and ROM was not in a readable form, it was not copyrightable. They lost on appeal.
Phoenix, on the other hand, carefully documented their reverse engineering efforts. They had a clean room, developers who never saw the IBM BIOS source, and showed how they tested for compatibility. The BIOS IO was well documented and was fairly simple with a very limited number of routines (not to underestimate the challenge of reverse engineering it, but it was simple enough that Phoenix thought it was possible to even undertake the task). The resulting BIOS clone was register compatible, but not source compatible.
The rest of the IBM PC was off the shelf parts, so once the BIOS was cracked, producing IBM PCs clones was a cinch. Later on, IBM attempted to kill the clone market by coming out with the Microbus architecture. The Microbus was copyrightable, so other manufacturers would be unable to produce clones of IBM's newest PCs. However, by that time, IBM no longer dominated the PC market, and other manufactures simply produced their own 32 bit architecture machine. By then, "clones" were no longer clones.
Clicked on the link and found out that Looprumors website has been suspended. So, do you think the cause was the lack of non-payment or a little legal letter to their ISP?
If it was the latter, does that mean they were hot on the trail of something?
My 15 year old son just installed Ubuntu Edgy Eft on his laptop and loves it. He says it is much faster and more responsive than Windows. He uses OpenOffice, FireFox, and the native Ubuntu email client (couldn't convince him to use "elm"). He also uses Sites as his text/programming editor although he mainly does HTML and PHP.
He had some trouble with his wireless card. He could get the neighbor's open access WiFi single, but not ours which we have WPA active. He was able to go to the Unbuntu forum and find someone who could recommend software and a drive he could use, so now he is able to get on our wireless network.
He also has trouble in his school because their network has multiple WiFi access points, but he simply set each of them up as a separate WiFi point, and as long as he isn't walking around school on his laptop, he says it works.
He still has Windows on his drive, but no longer uses it. I showed him how to download and compile packages that aren't available as RPMs, and he's busy. He said the software he was using for webpage development on Windows just was not as capable as the software on our Mac, and since it is all Unix OpenSource software, he's happy he can now use it on his laptop.
That's at least one happy Unbuntu customer. Is it ready for releases to the masses? Needs some work, but for a semi-technical person its great.
Linux is going to have problems becoming desktop software until some computer company decides to start pre-installing it just like the way Windows is pre-installed on computers most people buy. Hardware vendors are going to have to be responsible for the drivers Linux needs for their equipment -- just like they do for Windows. Otherwise, Linux won't be able to compete with Mac OS X and Windows.
Remember that Windows works as "smoothly" as it does because Microsoft designs the PC that everyone uses for Windows and the manufactures follow Microsoft's design. Apple controls both hardware and software, so they can make sure everything works smoothly.
Linux, on the other hand, has to work with hardware that wasn't custom built for it. That means Linux has to keep adopting itself for the hardware which means Linux is always going to be behind Windows and Mac OS X.
There COULD be valid suit if Nintendo knew about the defect, or should have, and produced no remedy.
Unfortunately, this suit is two days late. Nintendo is already shipping free stronger Wii wrist straps to all Wii owners.
Maybe this could be a suit for those whose controller knocked someone's teeth out, or broke a lamp or TV (there's been a few reported cases), but Nintendo has already promised to handle those on a case-by-case basis.
About 1 in 200 owners have experienced a broken wrist strap, so we are talking less than 1000 people with some sort of damage claims against Nintendo which they have already remedied with the free wrist straps.
Out of those, about 20 have claimed other damage ranging from a cracked light bulb, to a shattered mirror, to a broken tooth. Two reports are of damage the television, but the severity of the damage hasn't been determined.
Not a very big class for a class action suit. Sounds like a few lawyers out going fishing.
I use T-Mobile because they put absolutely no lock on their phones. I have a Motorola V360 from them. I can sync my phone with my address book upload and download MP3s as ring tones. Transfer pictures back and forth between my Mac and my phone, and all of this through BlueTooth.
The winner of the last challenge, Team Stanley, actually did drive without a lot of foreknowledge. Team Stanley relied upon Stanley reading the road with various sensors and figuring out the best route for itself. Stanley did have a map of the course, but then even a person would need a map of the course to navigate it.
Team Stanley's tactic differed from the way their main challenger, Red Team, handled the course. Red Team manually entered step-by-step driving instructions into both of its vehicles (Highlander and Sandstorm) which matches what you described.
However, most of the teams from the last challenge took Team Stanley's route, and gave their vehicles what they hoped was enough intelligence to map their own course. This really wasn't a choice since teams didn't get the actual course until right before the race. Team Red had the manpower to manually enter in all of the data, the maps, and the data. Other less well financed teams simple didn't have those resources.
According to the news reports: Some kids left the school property and went to local eateries, some kids horsed around, some kids went home, etc. Teachers did not line students up and escort them to the street where the torch ceremony was taking place. Does that sound like a "school sponsored event"? Apparently, there was very little school supervision. It sounds more like school was suspended to allow kids to watch the event.
Schools also have little right to ban free speech even inside a school. Tinker vs. Des Moines stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." And, apparently in this case, Fredrick, the student who was suspended, hadn't even entered school property that day.
There is a similar case, Bethel School District vs. Fraser. In this case, a student gave a speech full of sexual innuendoes at a school assembly. The Supreme Court ruled against the student because the assembly was a school sponsored event and the school had a policy where "[c]onduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." That assembly was on school grounds, students were strictly supervised and were required to either attend the assembly or go to study hall. Compare this to this event where classes were merely let out, and students could choose to go watch the parade or go elsewhere.
I am also against public school uniforms for many of the same reasons. Schools love uniforms because it shows "they're doing something" while not costing the school a penny. I've successfully fought several school uniform cases. It violates freedom of religion where students are required to wear clothing that violates their religion's dress code. It violates freedom of speech where uniforms prohibit armbands. But, I've been mainly successful because I traced money changing hands between administrators and school uniform companies. Usually, school uniform requirements are silently dropped in order to avoid embarrassment. Students pick up on this change of policy with in a week.
I find that your attitude rather distressing. Schools when given absolute power over student lives abuse it. In the Georgetown Independent School District in Texas, the principal decided to ban Star of Davids. She said they were a symbol of Satanism. Do you believe that is constitutional? In Detroit, some schools tried to crack down on Moslem women wearing head scarfs. Is that constitutional? You also seem to believe that schools may simply flog students for almost any reason. Do you really believe that?
I also find your argument that a school is just the building disingenuous. Do you believe when a news report says "The White House says..." that the building is talking? When we talk about schools, we are talking about the administrators who run the schools.
We need to actively challenge school administrators more. Too many students get randomly suspended because administrators simply want to show they're "in control" and won't tolerate any dissent. School administrators sometimes suspend students simply to put the blame elsewhere. I've had cases where students were suspended because they were involved in a school sponsored activity that later proved to be embarrassing. (like the laser printer episode).
The problem is that most administrators know they can get away with it because they will simply suspend a student for 3 to 10 days. By the time the student goes through the appeals process and into a local court, the suspension is over and the damage has been done. At that point, most students simply want to get back on with their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a business method patent that states you patent an obvious technology, claim it as original, and sue the pants off anyone who uses it.
(Of course, Amazon might be able to prove that they have "prior art" on this particular patent.)
It's not that the U.S. wanted to be bested by the Soviets, but Eisenhower saw a silver lining to the Sputnik. In the previous years, the U.S. was pushing for an "open sky" initiative where anyone could fly over any country in space. The U.S. felt it was important to their spy program, but the Russians balked at the idea of possible U.S. bombs flying over the USSR.
With the launch of the Sputnik, the U.S. no longer had to appear as the aggressor position of insisting on open skies. Now that the Sputnik flew over U.S. territory, the U.S. was free to pursue spy technology satellites orbiting the Soviet Union. By the very early 60s, the U.S. had spy satellites taking pictures over Soviet airspace and literally dropping their film canisters off in Alaska and Northern Canada.
The recording industry is really showing Apple. They're saying. "Hey Apple, we aren't your little monkey that you can boss around! You're trying to make us sell our music DRM free for only $1.28. Well, we'll show you! We are going to sell our music DRM free on Walmart and Amazon for 99 cents. What do you think of that!"
What does Apple think of that? What does Apple think of these two major music stores no longer selling music in non-iPod playing WMV format and now in iPod playing MP3 format? What does Apple who probably didn't make a penny on iTunes think of this whole thing? If it sells iPods, Apple is thrilled. After all, if you download any MP3 anywhere on your hard drive, iTunes can pick it up and throw it on your iPod.
Apple's next trick: They'll modify the iTunes program to allow users to select which store they'd like to buy their non-copy protected MP3 from. Who cares where someone buys their MP3s from as long as they play it on an iPod.
And all along, we all thought that the music industry was absolutely clueless!
I have no knowledge of the arguments. However, I can comment on the state of the Linux Desktop: It needs serious work.
I use Linux and it's great at compiling, running Apache, running MySql or PostGrep. However, as a desktop machine (especially for the masses) it needs serious work. Walt Mossburg has reviewed the Dell Linux system and he pretty much agrees with my experience. Even Mark Shuttleworth (Mr. Ubuntu himself) agrees that the Linux Desktop is not for the non-technical.
Whether forking the Kernel will help this issue or not is up to people who understand the details of kernel design, and I am not one of them. All I can report is that there is no Linux distribution that is ready to take on either Mac OS X or Windows as a desktop machine.
Just wanted to reply to some people:
1). "The archives should be free"
The archives for the last 20 years are now free. Those over 60 years (public archive) are also free. The ones between 20 to 60 years ago are the only ones you get charged for.
2). "I'd pay extra for ads free/The TimesReader should be free"
The TimesReader is still a charge for service, but it contains no ads. This is probably why it isn't free. The big problem is that it is "Windows Only", so Linux and Mac users can't use it. (Yes, I know you can run a Windows emulator, but that's not the point!).
About a decade ago, the idea of paying for your webpage with ads and actually make money seemed silly. "That would never happen." "IIt was a dot.com pipedream". Now, as the New York Times discovered, subscription services are simply not as profitable as ad supported websites. TimesSelect made money, but not as much as if the content was free. Plus, now that it is free, Google searches are more likely to include New York Times articles.
Any bets when the Wall Street Journal will drop its subscription service?
In China, the cost of bootlegged Windows XP disks are half the cost of bootlegged Vista disks.
UNLESS you use Python or XML. Python is very space dependent. You must indent the right way and breaking lines is difficult. I don't know who came up with the idea of a language that takes its formatting cues from Cobol and Fortran, but limiting Python to 80 columns is almost impossible.
And, limiting XML to only 80 columns is downright absolutely impossible (and that includes HTML and embedded HTML languages like PHP and JavaScript. I do Ant build.xml files, and by the time you get to defining a fileset in a task, you've already blown 16 characters (four per indent) for your includes/and excludes tasks. If you wrap things inside an task, that's another 12 characters blown. You get real complex stuff, and you're starting you lines on the 60th to 72nd character.
Maybe it's Bank of America...
Anyway, they let you choose a color and background pattern (or even your own picture). When you visit their website, it displays that picture and color. This is extremely difficult for phishing sites to emulate. They may be able to match the main webpage, but they won't be able to match the background and color since only the real website has this information.
It's easy to train users: Just tell them that all the bank's pages will display their background and color and no others. And, it becomes obvious to the user if they visit a phishing site. It's not just a webaddress they may not notice, or a little icon on the status line, but the whole webpage looks completely different.
That will probably work much better than any new domain name to stop phishing. I'm surprised more banks and other institutions don't do the same thing.
While we are doing all this wild eyed speculation, how about speculating up some brains for our current White House resident.
This is first of all:
1). Not a patent, but an application for a patent from 2001.
2). This is a specific implementation of a breakpoint function, not breakpoints in general. The idea of this patent is to use an all purpose void function for doing breakpoints instead of a machine dependent instruction as breakpoints are now done.
Patents have been loose (like the one-click patent), but this isn't one of them. Looking at the date on this patent and the way software is now handled, I believe this patent is a bit dated. Sort of like someone patenting a new way to implement the HTTP over a dialup connection without using SLIP or PPP.
There are a few slight of hands Apple has pulled. Apple compares the total amount of waste recycled vs. what they sold when not too many people were buying Apple computers. But, Apple doesn't pick up old Apples. What Apple does is recycle computers when a new purchase is made.
Imagine that Dell sold 5,000,000 computers from 1995 to 2000 and about 5,000,000 computers between 2000 and 2007. Let's say Apple sold only 500,000 computers between 1995 and 2000, but 5,000,000 computers between 2000 and 2007. While I am pulling numbers out of my darker neither regions, let's assume all computers weigh exactly the same.
Let's say that 20% of Dell's customers return a computer when they purchase a new Dell, but only 10% of Apple's customers do the same. So, Dell recycled 1,000,000 computers between 2000 to 2007 and Apple only recycled 500,000 computers. Dell recycled more, but look at Apple's metric:
Dell only recycled 20% of their computers based upon the 1995 to 2000 sales information. However, Apple recycling rate is 100%.
Since Apple recycles when a customer buys a new machine, a better measurement would be machines recycled vs. the number now being purchased. Under these circumstances, does Apple shine so bright?
Now a rap at Greenpeace. Greenpeace's big problem with Apple is that Apple doesn't expand its recycling program world wide. Apple only recycles in the U.S. and Canada. However, in Europe and Japan, either Apple has a recycling partner where you can drop off your computer, or the government has its own recycling program. The U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan probably cover 99% of Apple's market.
Meanwhile, most large corporations don't use Dell's recycling program because repackaging and shipping computers (even for free postage) is too costly. It's cheaper to simply have them carted off. Considering that large corporations probably account for at least 50% of Dell's business, that's a lot of computers not being recycled. Apple, which has a very small presence in large corporations doesn't have this issue. So, although Dell's program looks better on paper, it may simply not be as extensive.
I've had a lot of problems with Greenpeace over the years. They tend to do publicity stunts which many times have their own environmental consequences.
In 1995, Shell Oil wanted to sink an oil platform in deep water. Shell claimed that not only it was the cheapest alternative, but also the most ecological. The oil would seep out at a very slow rate, and there was minimal amount of life near the spot. The quanity of heavy metals and other toxins were minimal compared to the amount spewed out by deep sea vents.
Greenpeace however, forced Shell to take the platform back to shore to be dismantled. Later on, Greenpeace internal memos showed the Shell was actually correct in wanting to sink the platform as the most environmentally favored approach. Dragging the platform to the shore could result in it falling apart and leaking vast quantity of oil near the shoreline. The cost of dismantling the rig would be born by the taxpayers because that was all tax deductible. Plus, the oil slug and heavy metals now had to be disposed on land.
Greenpeace's response was that although it would have been more environmentally sound to dispose of the platform at sea, they felt it set a bad precedence. So, they risked a possible ecological catastrophe just to make a PR point. See http://www.american.edu/TED/SHELLRIG.HTM for more details.
> Kind of reminds me of much ado about Exxonmobil. Say,
> whatever happened with those congressional hearings
> about an $8 billion dollar profit for a single quarter?
> Well, it turns out that over the past 25 years oil companies
> paid more than $2.2 trillion in taxes (adjusted for inflation).
> That is more than three times what they earned in profits during
> the same period.
Wow! It sounds like ExxonMobil is on the verge of bankruptcy! That is, if they are really paying more in taxes than they generate in revenue. And, this has been going on for over 25 years. Better start selling that oil stock before these poor corporations go under.
No wonder no one ever became rich in the oil industry.
Uh...
How does this move work with their monthly subscription service that is heavily dependent upon DRM? What prevents these people from paying $15, downloading the noncopy-protected songs, then simply dropping their subscription? Their songs will still play.
It was one of the main reasons Apple gave for not wanting to follow the subscription model.
This is just on the back of a rumor that Microsoft is planning to give out either a discounted or free Zune with a paid subscription to the Zune Market.
This is Google merely following the law. When stolen content is brought up to Google's attention, they are legally obliged to remove it. However, Google isn't first vetting the material to begin with.
It would be different if Google held each post on YouTube and vetted it before posting it. Then Google would make itself responsible for any copyright violation or any other violation (such as privacy or libel violations) because it is actively examining each post.
There is a court president that says that bulletin boards are generally not held liable for their contents. It was done back in the days of CompuServ when the court decided that CompuServ's message boards made CompuServ a public carrier much like a phone company and not like a publisher -- thus not responsible for content that someone may have published.
The main idea is that as long as Google doesn't generally vet content, and they remove content that is illegal when it is brought up to their attention, they are not liable for what is posted.
Anyone can bring illegal content up to Google's attention. If you see something that is in violation of someone else's copyright, and you can show that, you could tell Google, and Google will be obliged to remove it. However, usually normal viewers aren't interested in enforcing someone else's copyright, so it is normally the copyright holder who brings it to Google's attention.
What Viacom is complaining about is that they spend millions of dollars policing Google's site, and Viacom is arguing it shouldn't have to be the one paying to police Google's site -- that should be Google. However, Google doesn't want to do that because it will cost them money and they could be held accountable for what is actually posted on YouTube.
The law protects Google, but I do see Viacom's point. Keeping Viacom's stuff off of Google is like fighting the hydra. You cut off one head, and another two popup in its place. Heck, the same clips show up over and over. It's a hopeless battle.
Viacom really doesn't want the case to actually go through. What if Viacom loses? Then, they're really in trouble. Viacom is using the suite to get a better deal out of Google. And Google will settle because if Google loses, they are not only out the billion, but every other copyright holder will then sue. Neither company wants to take the chance of losing.
There is actually an interesting question. As long as Google doesn't actively manage the content of YouTube, they can claim "safe harbor" provision of the Copyright Act because they are not acting as an editor. You Tube is like a public bulletin board. The minute they start scanning their content, they can be held accountable because YouTube becomes more like a "newspaper" than a bulletin board.
If Google made it a policy to track all copyrighted material, they are expressing an editorial decision of what can and cannot be posted. Therefore, anyone who finds their copyrighted material on Google, and Google didn't take it down, that copyright holder could hold Google legally responsible for the material.
And its not just copyrighted material they could land in trouble for. They could be held for libelous material too. Or for material that violates some user's right to privacy. For Google to start scanning material leaves Google open to many different charges.
I bet the licensing provision Google is asking for merely makes Google an agent to the copyright holder. That would allow Google (acting as the copyright holder's agent) to remove material without becoming an "editor" of the content on YouTube.
I know Google does scan for hate speech and pornography, but the laws allow for banning of such content without removing Google from the Safe Harbor provisions. What Viacom is asking is for Google to take editorial control of YouTube, and to become legally responsible for anything posted on YouTube. That is something Google certainly isn't willing to do. If Viacom wins this case (and I don't think they necessarily will) Google would probably be forced to close down YouTube.
What Viacom really wants out of all of this is for users to come to their websites to watch the content, so Viacom gets the ad revenue instead of Google getting it. Truthfully, Google really hasn't figured out a way to make money on YouTube since you can post YouTube content embedded in another Webpage without any ad content.
I think Google will go with a "box" approach where the video is surrounded by a box with one or two text ads embedded in the box. Then when it plays copyrighted material, it could track the revenue per play, and when a copyright holder finds their material on Google, Google could offer the ad revenue to the copyright holder as compensation. That would weaken Viacom's argument about the cost of policing YouTube.
Why should Google build a mobile device, then compete against every other mobile device? Want to watch everyone switch partners and go with Yahoo? They also have free webmail, maps, and (gasp) even search technology.
It is much better for Google to "partner" with others and be the dominate set of mobile applications no matter what device or carrier you use.
There's a lot more experience on the market for setting up and maintaining major web sites, so it will be easier for Borders to setup a *profitable* site now. The big problem with the Borders/Amazon co-mingle is that many times you ended up in Amazon and not Borders. A lot of times, I would order a book from "Borders.com", then discover that I can't use my Borders gift card because I am buying from Amazon and not Borders. Plus, now that Amazon is selling everything, the book side is merely a side business for Amazon where it's Border's bread and butter.
With Border own site, it will be easier for customers to order books and pick them up at a Borders store (and save shipping). The web store and B&M store can now be merged into a single shopping experience. More important, Borders will now own the information gleaned from web orders and not Amazon. Loyal customers may get special marketing promotions and be told when new books are available.
It was bound to happen. I see the day when other major retailers will pull out of Amazon's marketing agreement and build their own sites.
Here's the problem. NBC and NewsCorp makes a site. Disney makes a site. Viacom makes a site. Everybody and their brother makes a site. Now, you have a dozen different video sites all making sure that no one else downloads their videos anywhere else. If you want a SNL video, you go to one site. If you want a Daily Show video, it's another site. Download a Pixar clip, another site. That was the big advantage of YouTube. It wasn't like these clips weren't already on the Web. It was the fact you only had to go to a single site to find them.
It would be so much better to make a deal with YouTube. Let Google handle the bandwidth hassle and infrastructure problems. A single mete-site will draw more users, and the money. To make sure there's no monopoly, make deals with other meta-video sites.
The comparison between Apple and IBM is simply not valid. Franklin didn't simply reverse engineer the Apple computer. They copied Apple's design down to the individual electrons. The BIOS and OS was simply stolen from Apple. There was even several places in the Franklin's ROM and in the OS where the string "Copyrighted by Apple Computer" was there for all to see. Even Franklin had to admit they copied the ROM and OS. Franklin tried to use the argument that since the OS and ROM was not in a readable form, it was not copyrightable. They lost on appeal.
Phoenix, on the other hand, carefully documented their reverse engineering efforts. They had a clean room, developers who never saw the IBM BIOS source, and showed how they tested for compatibility. The BIOS IO was well documented and was fairly simple with a very limited number of routines (not to underestimate the challenge of reverse engineering it, but it was simple enough that Phoenix thought it was possible to even undertake the task). The resulting BIOS clone was register compatible, but not source compatible.
The rest of the IBM PC was off the shelf parts, so once the BIOS was cracked, producing IBM PCs clones was a cinch. Later on, IBM attempted to kill the clone market by coming out with the Microbus architecture. The Microbus was copyrightable, so other manufacturers would be unable to produce clones of IBM's newest PCs. However, by that time, IBM no longer dominated the PC market, and other manufactures simply produced their own 32 bit architecture machine. By then, "clones" were no longer clones.
Clicked on the link and found out that Looprumors website has been suspended. So, do you think the cause was the lack of non-payment or a little legal letter to their ISP?
If it was the latter, does that mean they were hot on the trail of something?
My 15 year old son just installed Ubuntu Edgy Eft on his laptop and loves it. He says it is much faster and more responsive than Windows. He uses OpenOffice, FireFox, and the native Ubuntu email client (couldn't convince him to use "elm"). He also uses Sites as his text/programming editor although he mainly does HTML and PHP.
He had some trouble with his wireless card. He could get the neighbor's open access WiFi single, but not ours which we have WPA active. He was able to go to the Unbuntu forum and find someone who could recommend software and a drive he could use, so now he is able to get on our wireless network.
He also has trouble in his school because their network has multiple WiFi access points, but he simply set each of them up as a separate WiFi point, and as long as he isn't walking around school on his laptop, he says it works.
He still has Windows on his drive, but no longer uses it. I showed him how to download and compile packages that aren't available as RPMs, and he's busy. He said the software he was using for webpage development on Windows just was not as capable as the software on our Mac, and since it is all Unix OpenSource software, he's happy he can now use it on his laptop.
That's at least one happy Unbuntu customer. Is it ready for releases to the masses? Needs some work, but for a semi-technical person its great.
Linux is going to have problems becoming desktop software until some computer company decides to start pre-installing it just like the way Windows is pre-installed on computers most people buy. Hardware vendors are going to have to be responsible for the drivers Linux needs for their equipment -- just like they do for Windows. Otherwise, Linux won't be able to compete with Mac OS X and Windows.
Remember that Windows works as "smoothly" as it does because Microsoft designs the PC that everyone uses for Windows and the manufactures follow Microsoft's design. Apple controls both hardware and software, so they can make sure everything works smoothly.
Linux, on the other hand, has to work with hardware that wasn't custom built for it. That means Linux has to keep adopting itself for the hardware which means Linux is always going to be behind Windows and Mac OS X.
There COULD be valid suit if Nintendo knew about the defect, or should have, and produced no remedy.
Unfortunately, this suit is two days late. Nintendo is already shipping free stronger Wii wrist straps to all Wii owners.
Maybe this could be a suit for those whose controller knocked someone's teeth out, or broke a lamp or TV (there's been a few reported cases), but Nintendo has already promised to handle those on a case-by-case basis.
About 1 in 200 owners have experienced a broken wrist strap, so we are talking less than 1000 people with some sort of damage claims against Nintendo which they have already remedied with the free wrist straps.
Out of those, about 20 have claimed other damage ranging from a cracked light bulb, to a shattered mirror, to a broken tooth. Two reports are of damage the television, but the severity of the damage hasn't been determined.
Not a very big class for a class action suit. Sounds like a few lawyers out going fishing.
T-Mobile!
I use T-Mobile because they put absolutely no lock on their phones. I have a Motorola V360 from them. I can sync my phone with my address book upload and download MP3s as ring tones. Transfer pictures back and forth between my Mac and my phone, and all of this through BlueTooth.
The winner of the last challenge, Team Stanley, actually did drive without a lot of foreknowledge. Team Stanley relied upon Stanley reading the road with various sensors and figuring out the best route for itself. Stanley did have a map of the course, but then even a person would need a map of the course to navigate it.
Team Stanley's tactic differed from the way their main challenger, Red Team, handled the course. Red Team manually entered step-by-step driving instructions into both of its vehicles (Highlander and Sandstorm) which matches what you described.
However, most of the teams from the last challenge took Team Stanley's route, and gave their vehicles what they hoped was enough intelligence to map their own course. This really wasn't a choice since teams didn't get the actual course until right before the race. Team Red had the manpower to manually enter in all of the data, the maps, and the data. Other less well financed teams simple didn't have those resources.
Did you read anything about this case?
According to the news reports: Some kids left the school property and went to local eateries, some kids horsed around, some kids went home, etc. Teachers did not line students up and escort them to the street where the torch ceremony was taking place. Does that sound like a "school sponsored event"? Apparently, there was very little school supervision. It sounds more like school was suspended to allow kids to watch the event.
Schools also have little right to ban free speech even inside a school. Tinker vs. Des Moines stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." And, apparently in this case, Fredrick, the student who was suspended, hadn't even entered school property that day.
There is a similar case, Bethel School District vs. Fraser. In this case, a student gave a speech full of sexual innuendoes at a school assembly. The Supreme Court ruled against the student because the assembly was a school sponsored event and the school had a policy where "[c]onduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." That assembly was on school grounds, students were strictly supervised and were required to either attend the assembly or go to study hall. Compare this to this event where classes were merely let out, and students could choose to go watch the parade or go elsewhere.
I am also against public school uniforms for many of the same reasons. Schools love uniforms because it shows "they're doing something" while not costing the school a penny. I've successfully fought several school uniform cases. It violates freedom of religion where students are required to wear clothing that violates their religion's dress code. It violates freedom of speech where uniforms prohibit armbands. But, I've been mainly successful because I traced money changing hands between administrators and school uniform companies. Usually, school uniform requirements are silently dropped in order to avoid embarrassment. Students pick up on this change of policy with in a week.
I find that your attitude rather distressing. Schools when given absolute power over student lives abuse it. In the Georgetown Independent School District in Texas, the principal decided to ban Star of Davids. She said they were a symbol of Satanism. Do you believe that is constitutional? In Detroit, some schools tried to crack down on Moslem women wearing head scarfs. Is that constitutional? You also seem to believe that schools may simply flog students for almost any reason. Do you really believe that?
I also find your argument that a school is just the building disingenuous. Do you believe when a news report says "The White House says..." that the building is talking? When we talk about schools, we are talking about the administrators who run the schools.
We need to actively challenge school administrators more. Too many students get randomly suspended because administrators simply want to show they're "in control" and won't tolerate any dissent. School administrators sometimes suspend students simply to put the blame elsewhere. I've had cases where students were suspended because they were involved in a school sponsored activity that later proved to be embarrassing. (like the laser printer episode).
The problem is that most administrators know they can get away with it because they will simply suspend a student for 3 to 10 days. By the time the student goes through the appeals process and into a local court, the suspension is over and the damage has been done. At that point, most students simply want to get back on with their lives.