Usually, when ceo's talk like this about their competitors, it's because there have been buyout talks. Offers, counter offers, maybe ARM is shopping around. There was talk a few years ago that Apple would buy ARM. We know that Intel is interested, how could they not be? My best guess is that there have been talks, maybe they've recently broken down, or ARM is trying to get Intel to the table to initiate talks. Either way, expect ARM to be acquired by someone over the next year. You heard it here first.
Yeah, but these are works that have no commercial value. Even if it could be done, which is iffy, you would have to prove monetary damages to the market product itself which is non existent. If you can't, there's no cause, or the punishment is minimal at best. Unless you can demonstrate that you routinely sell state secrets, that is. But as the state... do you really want to do something like that?
You've missed the point, my friend. How many "social media" consultants? How many programmers have spent time writing "social media" add-ons to their programs? How much time has been spent selling misc "social media" services across the board? The number is too much to measure, and you shouldn't under play it.
Do you LOL in conversation often? That must be embarrassing.
Just think about what this guy did.
He created an industry, spawned jobs for millions, helped the feds track criminals more easily, and made a lot of money. Rather than kick him out of the country, they need to give him a freaking medal.
I started outsourcing awhile back when I needed to be in two or three places at once, and the work was too much for me to finish on my own. Initial experiences with it were awful. Just really bad. The work was terrible, and I had to shell out cash for things that never got done. Initially, I ended up doing a lot of rework. My first thought was that the language barrier and cultural differences were an issue.
So I engaged with Google translate, broke projects up into smaller pieces, and communicated in shorter well thought out sentences. Also, for cultural reasons, they almost never tell you when they fail at something. So you have to actually instruct them to do so, or they will leave you hanging, or worse, spinning their wheels on the clock for days on the wrong thing.
If you're doing something complex, you're going to want to stop, break it up, and explain it exceptionally well. Otherwise, you're virtually garaunteed to lose money.
That said, I don't think outsourcing is so bad these days, once I've gotten the hang of it. Now that I'm accustomed to it, I don't offend people as often with bad jokes (never tell jokes), and the work gets done with close to an 80% satisfaction rate. I recommend it, but there will be a learning curve.
If the entertainment industry really cared about making money, they would hire me at a six figure salary (a pittance) for a year, and I would happily show them how to use the web effectively. As of now, I have received no phone calls. All I can deduce from this strange occurrence is that they must want to go out of business at the hands of a dying business model, rather than hire a professional who understands internet marketing and web based solutions.
I was just thinking about that last night, when I downloaded Libre office for my new windows install. I opted for the torrent because it's a lot faster than the regular download. Good stuff.
What if you made copyright expire every year, and made it renewable for a dollar? Say what you will about ICANN, but the domain naming system that's in place works remarkably well. Why not apply the same general principle to copyright? You could have companies become accredited copyright registrars, and sell value added services like POD publishing, or legal services. The government would make a lot more money because they're not charging anywhere near a dollar per year for copyrights right now, and if you could renew your copyright indefinitely... Mickey Mouse could live forever. And that's really what the whole copyright system is about, isn't it? Mickey Mouse and Superman? I say, let them have it. It's not worth tying up the whole culture for a couple of key commercial works.
This isn't the first time they've tried to disrupt file sharing. First, they added whitespace to music files. And that mostly killed Kaza.
There has been file sharing since Kaza. Every time there's an iteration like this, the technology evolves, and the previous methods to stop illegal sharing are rendered useless. Honestly, I think this whole business is more of a fetish, or compulsive fascination with file sharing on the part of the old guard, than a solution to any actual problem.
It's kind of silly. I don't see how any of these (we've been using them for years at work) techniques are any more technical than a proxy, other than they kind of suck. You'll end up with broken links, images you can't see, and what not. With a proxy, you'll sometimes have speed issues, but the pages are usually complete. Something else you can do if you're not searching for new releases is go to archive.org. I think you would be shocked to find how complete their copies of pirate bay have been over the years.
I wonder, with over two centuries of completely retarded laws in England, does anyone actually take anything the government puts out seriously? The pirate bay blocking isn't the only dumb thing they've done lately. There's also the indecipherable cookie legislation that goes into effect this month that makes website operators responsible for asking permission for all cookies. Dumbasses.
Dropbox was not the first, they won't be the last. First app I ever used to sync files between machines was X-Drive. Remember them? It was great. This was back when you couldn't download anything free without a ton of spyware though. This one was no exception. Too bad. Dropbox is a good service. Don't get me wrong, but the idea has been there since the beginning of the web, practically, so you can't really call it new or innovative.
All big companies do this. It's not proof that Google is Microsoft. It's proof that Google is big. What made Microsoft distinct was the way it competed. Google doesn't compete with the same level of carnage that Microsoft did. There has been some bloodshed, but the fact that Google+ is where it is, would be a good way to demonstrate the argument that Google is not Microsoft. Have there been allegations of predatory behavior? Yes, of course. Do you hear about it happening all the time? Not really. Google drive is kind of like Dropbox, but Amazon Drive is a lot more like Dropbox. Why is everyone talking about Google, when Amazon stole the service and copied it lock, stock, and barrel? Amazon is Dropbox's ISP for hosting this stuff. And yet, despite the fact that the case of Amazon is predatory, everyone's so concerned about the case of Google, which isn't? Why, exactly do people who care about predatory business practices care more about Google than Amazon? The mind boggles.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, when ceo's talk like this about their competitors, it's because there have been buyout talks. Offers, counter offers, maybe ARM is shopping around. There was talk a few years ago that Apple would buy ARM. We know that Intel is interested, how could they not be? My best guess is that there have been talks, maybe they've recently broken down, or ARM is trying to get Intel to the table to initiate talks. Either way, expect ARM to be acquired by someone over the next year. You heard it here first.
You know that's another option. Maybe trial by Darth Vader isn't such a bad idea.
Yeah, but these are works that have no commercial value. Even if it could be done, which is iffy, you would have to prove monetary damages to the market product itself which is non existent. If you can't, there's no cause, or the punishment is minimal at best. Unless you can demonstrate that you routinely sell state secrets, that is. But as the state... do you really want to do something like that?
Yes, but most of those countries have filing requirements.
Unless you're in the military. Then you get a tribunal.
The US government cannot hold copyrights... on anything.
You've missed the point, my friend. How many "social media" consultants? How many programmers have spent time writing "social media" add-ons to their programs? How much time has been spent selling misc "social media" services across the board? The number is too much to measure, and you shouldn't under play it.
Do you LOL in conversation often? That must be embarrassing.
Didn't event? What does that mean? I'm not saying he invented anything.
Not just facebook. Everyone who works in "social media" can thank him. It's big.
So the exit tax in the hundreds of millions of dollars that he had to pay wasn't enough for you? Jesus man, what more do you want?
Not to mention the $500,000,000 exit tax he has to pay too.
That can be just as problematic in many of the same ways.
Just think about what this guy did. He created an industry, spawned jobs for millions, helped the feds track criminals more easily, and made a lot of money. Rather than kick him out of the country, they need to give him a freaking medal.
Doesn't solve the problem of unfair taxation, and makes a bad problem worse. Why are we still voting for these idiots again?
I started outsourcing awhile back when I needed to be in two or three places at once, and the work was too much for me to finish on my own. Initial experiences with it were awful. Just really bad. The work was terrible, and I had to shell out cash for things that never got done. Initially, I ended up doing a lot of rework. My first thought was that the language barrier and cultural differences were an issue.
So I engaged with Google translate, broke projects up into smaller pieces, and communicated in shorter well thought out sentences. Also, for cultural reasons, they almost never tell you when they fail at something. So you have to actually instruct them to do so, or they will leave you hanging, or worse, spinning their wheels on the clock for days on the wrong thing.
If you're doing something complex, you're going to want to stop, break it up, and explain it exceptionally well. Otherwise, you're virtually garaunteed to lose money.
That said, I don't think outsourcing is so bad these days, once I've gotten the hang of it. Now that I'm accustomed to it, I don't offend people as often with bad jokes (never tell jokes), and the work gets done with close to an 80% satisfaction rate. I recommend it, but there will be a learning curve.
If the entertainment industry really cared about making money, they would hire me at a six figure salary (a pittance) for a year, and I would happily show them how to use the web effectively. As of now, I have received no phone calls. All I can deduce from this strange occurrence is that they must want to go out of business at the hands of a dying business model, rather than hire a professional who understands internet marketing and web based solutions.
Seems that way.
I was just thinking about that last night, when I downloaded Libre office for my new windows install. I opted for the torrent because it's a lot faster than the regular download. Good stuff.
What if you made copyright expire every year, and made it renewable for a dollar? Say what you will about ICANN, but the domain naming system that's in place works remarkably well. Why not apply the same general principle to copyright? You could have companies become accredited copyright registrars, and sell value added services like POD publishing, or legal services. The government would make a lot more money because they're not charging anywhere near a dollar per year for copyrights right now, and if you could renew your copyright indefinitely... Mickey Mouse could live forever. And that's really what the whole copyright system is about, isn't it? Mickey Mouse and Superman? I say, let them have it. It's not worth tying up the whole culture for a couple of key commercial works.
Interesting. I didn't know about that one.
Ha! Yeah, pretty much.
This isn't the first time they've tried to disrupt file sharing. First, they added whitespace to music files. And that mostly killed Kaza. There has been file sharing since Kaza. Every time there's an iteration like this, the technology evolves, and the previous methods to stop illegal sharing are rendered useless. Honestly, I think this whole business is more of a fetish, or compulsive fascination with file sharing on the part of the old guard, than a solution to any actual problem.
It's kind of silly. I don't see how any of these (we've been using them for years at work) techniques are any more technical than a proxy, other than they kind of suck. You'll end up with broken links, images you can't see, and what not. With a proxy, you'll sometimes have speed issues, but the pages are usually complete. Something else you can do if you're not searching for new releases is go to archive.org. I think you would be shocked to find how complete their copies of pirate bay have been over the years.
I wonder, with over two centuries of completely retarded laws in England, does anyone actually take anything the government puts out seriously? The pirate bay blocking isn't the only dumb thing they've done lately. There's also the indecipherable cookie legislation that goes into effect this month that makes website operators responsible for asking permission for all cookies. Dumbasses.
Dropbox was not the first, they won't be the last. First app I ever used to sync files between machines was X-Drive. Remember them? It was great. This was back when you couldn't download anything free without a ton of spyware though. This one was no exception. Too bad. Dropbox is a good service. Don't get me wrong, but the idea has been there since the beginning of the web, practically, so you can't really call it new or innovative.
All big companies do this. It's not proof that Google is Microsoft. It's proof that Google is big. What made Microsoft distinct was the way it competed. Google doesn't compete with the same level of carnage that Microsoft did. There has been some bloodshed, but the fact that Google+ is where it is, would be a good way to demonstrate the argument that Google is not Microsoft. Have there been allegations of predatory behavior? Yes, of course. Do you hear about it happening all the time? Not really. Google drive is kind of like Dropbox, but Amazon Drive is a lot more like Dropbox. Why is everyone talking about Google, when Amazon stole the service and copied it lock, stock, and barrel? Amazon is Dropbox's ISP for hosting this stuff. And yet, despite the fact that the case of Amazon is predatory, everyone's so concerned about the case of Google, which isn't? Why, exactly do people who care about predatory business practices care more about Google than Amazon? The mind boggles.