This... products are SUPPOSED to compete in a capitalist system. If you cannot survive competition then you should either improve or get out of the way.
No, this is the new capitalism where patents, copyright, trademarks, and the government protect your business model -- and you use lawyers to make sure you stay profitable.
Not sure it's mismanaged so much as "decided to suddenly stop for no apparent reason"
After spending billions to buy it in the first place.
If you're spending billions to only turn around and decide you want to be going in a different direction -- well, that's kind of a problem with management isn't it? Billions of dollars isn't exactly chump change.
So don't bet on any of this meaning LG is going to hire Palm/HP staffers and start building webOS tablets.
Of course they're not. For starters, most of those staffers aren't even at HP any more, and TFA even says they have no intention of doing that:
LG has no intent to use WebOS for its smartphones, with the company largely focused on Android as its mobile operating system of choice. Indeed, much of the WebOS team members that work on the various mobile products at HP has already left, according to a person familiar with the deal.
This isn't going to be LG saving a failed HP product, this is someone who is buying the property and using it for something else. LG doesn't give a damn about people who got stuck with WebOS tablets, and they're not planning on being the savior of anybody hoping for an update.
I'm simply talking about whether someone can actually make use of this code which was touted as being full of awesomeness.
if you "don't know much about WebOS", then how do you know HP's mismanagement was to blame?
Because HP have been mismanaging themselves for years.
Seriously, google "hp mismanaged webos" -- the fact they did a piss-poor job of bringing to market and doing anything with it is pretty well documented.
I don't need to be up to date on the specifics of the OS to have seen the news coverage over the last few years. HP selling their tablets for $99 and discontinuing them is a pretty good clue.
According to whom? They certainly believed themselves to be Catholic, and they weren't excommunicated, so they must still be Catholic.
Calling yourself a Catholic does not make you a member of the Catholic faith, that goes for any faith. Striving to live the teachings of a faith makes you a member.
So, are priests who molest children Catholic? How about the people who cover it up?
The problem becomes when people still believe they're following the teachings. Unless God himself comes down to clarify a few things, you're stuck with human interpretations of religion -- and sadly, humans will quite readily twist things around to suit their own purposes.
In conclusion: as a business it would have been a flop, partially because I haven't optimized the setup for that application. As a learning opportunity and 200 watt heater it's been phenomenal.
Well then, a learning opportunity and a 200 watt heater are fine outcomes then.:-P
My AMD is cranking out Bitcoin hashes 15 times faster than an equivalently priced Nvidia so I'm okay with the results of this article.
Out of curiosity, what's your break even point?
If you went out now, and bought one of these video cards solely for this... how long would it take to recoup the cost of the card? Or is this something you'd run for a long time, and get two bucks out of, but still have had to pay for your electricity?
I hear people talking about this, but since I don't follow BitCoin closely enough, I have no idea if it's lucrative, or just geeky.
Are you serious? This is 2013! Defending against man-in-the-middle attacks is a solved problem. There are numerous methods such as browsing through a VPN or with HTTPS.
When the entire infrastructure is government controlled and monitored, why would you trust DNS or any of that? They likely have their own CA as well.
If you're worried about your encryption being brute forced, a nation with the tech level of North Korea should be a lot less worrisome than a first world country.
Depends on how motivated they are... you average Kim in North Korea might not be, but that doesn't mean the entire country is like that.
but with modern MITM defenses, there's no need to trust the channel you are on.
Most of these require some level of trust with a server, and if the entire telcomms infrastructure is stacked against you, how do you establish that level of trust? (There may actually be ways, but if you are relying on VPN or HTTPS, you still need to rely on hostnames and IPs, which they pretty much have full control over).
Since only foreign people (and Dear Glorious Leader I assume) will be on this network, if they're sufficiently motivated (which I don't doubt they are) and throw enough resources at it (manpower is cheap) -- they certainly could compromise things. Especially since they know it's a smaller number of people on this, and only foreigners. At that point, you'd be a pretty high value target, especially since it probably takes a fair bit of effort to get into North Korea and they likely know you're coming. (I'm assuming if I went to a travel agent and said I wanted to book a flight to North Korea I'd be informed that isn't possible.)
So if they know who you are, where you are, and that you're on a network they completely control... that's a lot of points in the chain where they can defeat most forms of security.
Yeah, I'd want to use internet on a device in a country where His Supreme Leader of Batshit Fucking Crazy reigns. That would be secure and trustworthy.
Then again, except for this publicity stunt (?) from Schmidt, I have no idea why most people would have any interest in going to North Korea.
Yep, it's a code red emergency when a yacht is held up at customs while its tax paper work is refiled.
Ignore the millionaire's boat for a minute there, Skippy.
If you bought something and were bringing it into the country, and if the government paperwork was incorrect and you tried to correct it, would you expect that the DHS would be capable of actually resolving this issue and fixing the paperwork? Or would you expect them to confiscate what you have?
I don't give a damn if this is a yacht or an computer monitor -- it shouldn't be that difficult to try to work with them to correct broken paperwork.
And if the customs agent doesn't have the authority to amend the paperwork then and there, what happens?
Well, she can call a more senior agent who does have the authority.
She called another agent and said simply "He won't sign the form." I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn't allow that.
Except she only did so to say he wasn't being cooperative.
Sorry, but if there's nobody there who can make a decision, you call someone else -- and you need to keep going until you find someone who can.
This is the story of a bureaucrat doing their job and inconveniencing someone as a result, not a violation of a basic human right.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The DHS agent didn't care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter," she said. I declined.
This is a story of a bureaucrat acting like a fucking idiot and asking someone to sign incorrect paperwork, and then acting like a miserable old cow when he tried to resolve the problem.
Sorry, but if DHS is that incompetent and behaves that much like assholes, that's a major problem.
If the document stated the price in US dollars and was clearly marked as being US dollars why would one care that they paid Canadian Dollars if the paper had the correct exchange rate and listed it in US dollars
Dude, seriously, it's in the article... they took the Canadian dollar value, turned it into American dollars (incorrectly), and asked him to sign a form under oath that what the form said was true.
The government form was wrong, he tried to fix it, they became assholes and confiscated his boat.
I'm entirely willing to believe some DHS agent went off and acted like an idiot when he was trying to reasonably fix a clerical error.
Otherwise you wouldn't have been an asshole about the whole thing. Make the correction, initial it, and sign the bottom. Ask to have the paperwork re-done and make an appointment to come back when it's ready.
Did you read the whole article?
The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.
I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.
I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.
The DHS agent didnâ(TM)t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter," she said. I declined.
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
What should have happened was a motion for discovery be granted before the case was dismissed.
Based on what? An IP address? If all you have is an IP address, you don't have enough to go through a discovery motion is what the judge is telling them.
I would expect the burden of proof to be much higher than "we have an IP address" before they drag in all of his stuff and do discovery on it.
We know from past news coverage that their way of gathering this evidence cab be suspect and not always accurate.
There's no way someone should have all of their computers confiscated and examined based on a tenuous bit of evidence that hasn't been objectively evaluated.
Especially when the best they can say is something to the effect of "since your name is on the account, you're the most likely infringer".
A motion for discovery needs more evidence than "we say so", because it's expensive and disruptive for the defendant, and there hasn't been enough evidence presented to support it. Letting them do it on the thin evidence they've been using gives them the power to conduct fishing expeditions and go straight to the intimidation tactics.
The only way that a Plaintiff could obtain the evidence needed is with a subpoena. The judge dismissed the case before allowing any subpoenas to occur.
No, the judge forbade them from going on a fishing expedition to try to make their case based on nothing other than an IP address.
Lack of evidence isn't a basis to get a subpoena to gather more evidence. It means you lack evidence.
Therefore the judge forbade the Plantiff from doing any useful investigation.
No, the judge correctly identified that they haven't done any useful investigation, and that they need something more substantial to file a lawsuit.
Or do you think that if I loudly accused you of embezzling money you should be immediately arrested and your stuff searched to provide evidence that what I said is true? I suspect you'd demand that I show evidence first. These guys are asking to be provided with evidence for their accusations, but haven't provided enough to support the claim.
The judge hasn't hampered the case of the plaintiff, he's told them they haven't established one with anything they can link to the named individual. It actually puts the burden of proof on them, which is the way it should be.
The judge's ruling states that an IP address isn't sufficient information to bring a claim, and that discovery is not permitted. Doesn't that make it pretty much impossible to file a copyright infringement claim against someone for downloading a file?
It needs to be made more difficult, and there needs to be some burden of proof shifted to the accuser.
So many of these they seem to send the "you've been caught downloading, pay us this much money and this goes away" extortion letters, or they file the John Doe lawsuits to get the subscribers names, and then sue them that way. They just go with presumed guilt, and make it impossible for someone to defend themselves without bankrupting themselves.
I am no fan of the copyright trolls, but I don't think making it completely impossible to track down copyright infringement cases is fair either.
It doesn't need to be completely impossible... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now. They've been trending too much to the point where they can claim anything with no real evidence, and the courts follow along.
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, the expenses the ISP incurs to process this will get passed onto the consumers in their bills.
Which means the consumers will end up paying for the ISPs to police copyright on behalf of the *AAs.
What an awesome outcome for the *AAs.
No, this is the new capitalism where patents, copyright, trademarks, and the government protect your business model -- and you use lawyers to make sure you stay profitable.
After spending billions to buy it in the first place.
If you're spending billions to only turn around and decide you want to be going in a different direction -- well, that's kind of a problem with management isn't it? Billions of dollars isn't exactly chump change.
Of course they're not. For starters, most of those staffers aren't even at HP any more, and TFA even says they have no intention of doing that:
This isn't going to be LG saving a failed HP product, this is someone who is buying the property and using it for something else. LG doesn't give a damn about people who got stuck with WebOS tablets, and they're not planning on being the savior of anybody hoping for an update.
I'm simply talking about whether someone can actually make use of this code which was touted as being full of awesomeness.
Because HP have been mismanaging themselves for years.
Seriously, google "hp mismanaged webos" -- the fact they did a piss-poor job of bringing to market and doing anything with it is pretty well documented.
I don't need to be up to date on the specifics of the OS to have seen the news coverage over the last few years. HP selling their tablets for $99 and discontinuing them is a pretty good clue.
Or, conversely, maybe it has a chance to thrive if it's being maintained by people who have an idea of what to do with it?
I don't know much about WebOS, but the fact that HP basically mis-managed it and did a half assed job is more about HP.
Now, as to whether anybody is actually going to be interested in yet-another-operating-system ... who knows.
According to whom? They certainly believed themselves to be Catholic, and they weren't excommunicated, so they must still be Catholic.
So, are priests who molest children Catholic? How about the people who cover it up?
The problem becomes when people still believe they're following the teachings. Unless God himself comes down to clarify a few things, you're stuck with human interpretations of religion -- and sadly, humans will quite readily twist things around to suit their own purposes.
Yeah, they're called usage charges and tolls -- you pay either way, and in the long term the companies will probably gouge you more.
But some view it as better to pay a private company instead of the government.
No, because an opt-out mechanism starts with the assumption they have the right to track your information, and you need to turn it off.
An opt-in mechanism acknowledges that you need to give them permission first.
Now ponder what opt-out for spam would function like, and ask yourself if you really think opt-out vs opt-in is a matter of semantics.
Indeed ... armed with only Newton's laws of motions, I could come up with all sorts of dastardly things.
And don't even get me started on gravity. ;-)
Well then, a learning opportunity and a 200 watt heater are fine outcomes then. :-P
You'll note that I didn't. ;-)
Out of curiosity, what's your break even point?
If you went out now, and bought one of these video cards solely for this ... how long would it take to recoup the cost of the card? Or is this something you'd run for a long time, and get two bucks out of, but still have had to pay for your electricity?
I hear people talking about this, but since I don't follow BitCoin closely enough, I have no idea if it's lucrative, or just geeky.
That unpossible. :-P
When the entire infrastructure is government controlled and monitored, why would you trust DNS or any of that? They likely have their own CA as well.
Depends on how motivated they are ... you average Kim in North Korea might not be, but that doesn't mean the entire country is like that.
Most of these require some level of trust with a server, and if the entire telcomms infrastructure is stacked against you, how do you establish that level of trust? (There may actually be ways, but if you are relying on VPN or HTTPS, you still need to rely on hostnames and IPs, which they pretty much have full control over).
Since only foreign people (and Dear Glorious Leader I assume) will be on this network, if they're sufficiently motivated (which I don't doubt they are) and throw enough resources at it (manpower is cheap) -- they certainly could compromise things. Especially since they know it's a smaller number of people on this, and only foreigners. At that point, you'd be a pretty high value target, especially since it probably takes a fair bit of effort to get into North Korea and they likely know you're coming. (I'm assuming if I went to a travel agent and said I wanted to book a flight to North Korea I'd be informed that isn't possible.)
So if they know who you are, where you are, and that you're on a network they completely control ... that's a lot of points in the chain where they can defeat most forms of security.
Yeah, I'd want to use internet on a device in a country where His Supreme Leader of Batshit Fucking Crazy reigns. That would be secure and trustworthy.
Then again, except for this publicity stunt (?) from Schmidt, I have no idea why most people would have any interest in going to North Korea.
Ignore the millionaire's boat for a minute there, Skippy.
If you bought something and were bringing it into the country, and if the government paperwork was incorrect and you tried to correct it, would you expect that the DHS would be capable of actually resolving this issue and fixing the paperwork? Or would you expect them to confiscate what you have?
I don't give a damn if this is a yacht or an computer monitor -- it shouldn't be that difficult to try to work with them to correct broken paperwork.
This is just lazy and incompetent agents.
I prefer to use the proper term 'shill' here, because those 'experts' are always going to arrive at the conclusions expected of them.
I highly doubt any music industry expert has ever reach an unbiased conclusion on this stuff.
Well, she can call a more senior agent who does have the authority.
Except she only did so to say he wasn't being cooperative.
Sorry, but if there's nobody there who can make a decision, you call someone else -- and you need to keep going until you find someone who can.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
This is a story of a bureaucrat acting like a fucking idiot and asking someone to sign incorrect paperwork, and then acting like a miserable old cow when he tried to resolve the problem.
Sorry, but if DHS is that incompetent and behaves that much like assholes, that's a major problem.
Dude, seriously, it's in the article ... they took the Canadian dollar value, turned it into American dollars (incorrectly), and asked him to sign a form under oath that what the form said was true.
The government form was wrong, he tried to fix it, they became assholes and confiscated his boat.
I'm entirely willing to believe some DHS agent went off and acted like an idiot when he was trying to reasonably fix a clerical error.
Did you read the whole article?
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
"It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter"
So, a government functionary with a minor Napoleon complex who just wants to get on with the fun parts of the job then?
This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.
Based on what? An IP address? If all you have is an IP address, you don't have enough to go through a discovery motion is what the judge is telling them.
I would expect the burden of proof to be much higher than "we have an IP address" before they drag in all of his stuff and do discovery on it.
We know from past news coverage that their way of gathering this evidence cab be suspect and not always accurate.
There's no way someone should have all of their computers confiscated and examined based on a tenuous bit of evidence that hasn't been objectively evaluated.
Especially when the best they can say is something to the effect of "since your name is on the account, you're the most likely infringer".
A motion for discovery needs more evidence than "we say so", because it's expensive and disruptive for the defendant, and there hasn't been enough evidence presented to support it. Letting them do it on the thin evidence they've been using gives them the power to conduct fishing expeditions and go straight to the intimidation tactics.
No, the judge forbade them from going on a fishing expedition to try to make their case based on nothing other than an IP address.
Lack of evidence isn't a basis to get a subpoena to gather more evidence. It means you lack evidence.
No, the judge correctly identified that they haven't done any useful investigation, and that they need something more substantial to file a lawsuit.
Or do you think that if I loudly accused you of embezzling money you should be immediately arrested and your stuff searched to provide evidence that what I said is true? I suspect you'd demand that I show evidence first. These guys are asking to be provided with evidence for their accusations, but haven't provided enough to support the claim.
The judge hasn't hampered the case of the plaintiff, he's told them they haven't established one with anything they can link to the named individual. It actually puts the burden of proof on them, which is the way it should be.
It needs to be made more difficult, and there needs to be some burden of proof shifted to the accuser.
So many of these they seem to send the "you've been caught downloading, pay us this much money and this goes away" extortion letters, or they file the John Doe lawsuits to get the subscribers names, and then sue them that way. They just go with presumed guilt, and make it impossible for someone to defend themselves without bankrupting themselves.
It doesn't need to be completely impossible ... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now. They've been trending too much to the point where they can claim anything with no real evidence, and the courts follow along.