I've always thought web accelerator was a dumb naming... we'll waste your bandwidth by downloading a bunch of shit you haven't clicked on so that if you do want it, the it is cached.
It would load quicker if they weren't pre-fetching the entire fucking internet on the notion that I might want it at some point.
Sorry, Mozilla, but you're simply not getting the point here.
I don't want to load a link just by hovering on it. I don't want to tell every damned link in a webpage that I've looked at it. If I click on it I'll click on it, but don't just load random shit you think I might fucking want to load.
I swear, Firefox is making some really stupid decisions of late. For a browser which used to be concerned with privacy they seem to have decided to do everything possible to reverse that.
It's like they're either suddenly staffed by morons.
I'm not normally one to defend copyright suits... and I don't have it in for the CBC... but I think corporations need to be held to the same standard as they abuse us with.
Cutia owned a piece of copyrighted work, which was explicitly marked as such.
The hiding behind the license sold to you by a third part who didn't have the rights to sell you that license starts to get very thin.
So if it is a valid defense to say you bought a license in good faith but were lied to.. is it a valid defense for me to buy a pirated DVD and say I just thought it was a good price? I'm not convinced that would work for me.
And if the CBC used this for more than 10 days (say they left it on their webpage)... can they then claim to be shielded by saying they acted in good faith when they used the video longer than their license?
I'm not a lawyer, and like you I don't know all the facts either.
But the ice starts to get pretty thin, and we also get into areas where corporations are subjected to a different interpretation of the law than we are. And that is completely crap.
You know, if being a greedy, corrupt, rich douchebag who bought politicians in the past is ever considered a plus in running for office... your society is deeply fucked.
He can't be part of the solution when he's part of the problem. Precisely because he doesn't see it as a problem, and probably defends the practice.
Do you want to live in a world in which a billionaire president buys whatever policy outcomes he wants by paying off the rest of the politicians? Or blackmailed them by saying he'll tell how he bribed them?
That society will become a shithole pretty quick.
Precisely because it would end up with whatever policy outcomes assholes like Donald Trump want, or whatever large corporations are willing to pay for.
Except you're comparing apples to spaceships, and the issue is affordability.
If the doctor in question doesn't earn enough to be able to pay for the $200 version (or the $50 version, or the $10 version), and currently hasn't got one at all... talking about someone who can afford the $200 version is pointless. It's completely missing the point.
Sometimes cheap also means that people who would never have been able to afford to buy one can be given one.
Hell, I'd personally pay for $100 worth of 30 cent stethoscopes if it means some agency could pass them out to doctors who don't have them because they're already there trying to help. I'd do it in a hearbeat if you'll pardon the pun, because it sounds like really low hanging fruit in terms of improving medical care in poor places.
Give the clinic a box of the damned things, one breaks, grab another.
Cheap, 3d printed medical equipment means it gets in the hands of people who can make use of it in places which otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to have it. Which is why these guys designed it in the first place.
Gee, I don't know... maybe the poor doctor isn't going to get a 3d printer... but maybe a super awesome organization like, say, Doctors Without Borders does what they can to ensure they get spread around because they're suddenly cheap as hell.
That's kind of what Doctors Without Borders does. Not to mention various UN aid agencies, and who knows what else.
And I bet if you gave them 100 or so free stethoscopes and said "if you find a doctor without a stethoscope, give him one", they'd all say "hell yeah". In fact, I bet they'd already be able to tell you where to start. What would that be, 20 pounds of cargo?
When the cost of the stethoscope is no longer the barrier to entry, the act of giving them out might prove to be fairly manageable.
The benefit isn't everyone prints their own thirty cent stethoscope. The benefit is someone prints a bunch of them and hands them out like candy.
Which falls apart entirely when the CBC used it after their invalid license expired.
Look at it this way, if they had a valid 10 day license from CNN, and kept using it after 10 days, they'd be using it without a valid license and CNN could have done something about it.
It gets really messed up when your defense that you had a license but continued to use it even after that (non existent) license expired.
They'd have been infringing no matter if the license was real or not.
So then how screwed up is it that, whether or not the CBC had bought a license from CNN (if if the license was a lie)... they'd still have been infringing after 10 days anyway?
CNN provided a license to something they didn't own. the CBC used it after that license expired.
In the really roundabout way that there is logic behind the law, the CBC was infringing no matter how you spin it. The difference is if CNN would have actually taken any action against them.
Not me. I often want my technical docs serarchable, because you can't grep a dead tree.
However, when I'm doing leisure reading, I want old fashioned paper. When I'm on vacation I want to be able to sit by the pool with a mojito, and not have to worry about an electronic device getting killed by errant water (or rum), or worrying about the battery life.
I can fall asleep and drop my book, and at worst I'll lose my place.
I think the argument goes that CBC thought they'd obtained a 10-day license from CNN.. which CNN wasn't authorized to provide them... but after this good-faith 10-day license lapsed (which wasn't really valid), the CBC continued to use the material... meaning that, even if they had obtained an actual license, and acted in good faith, they stopped acting in good faith when they used it after the 10 days anyway.
So on day 11 you can no longer claim that you were using it under license if you knew you only licensed it for 10 days.
I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.
Up to day 10, you can say you got the license from CNN and if that was an invalid license then CNN misrepresented themselves, and you are a victim.
Use it after 10 days, and you can't even claim that. Now you'd have been willfully violating the original (but invalid) license.
The man does have a point. And I'm sure if you took a CNN video and used it improperly, they'd go all crazy. For them to suddenly claim "it was on YouTube so it's free" would be complete bullshit.
So, by doing what would have been a breech of license if CNN was allowed to give you a license then your unlicensed use of the video violated your license because your license had ended.
As someone who will never use a stethoscope professionally... I will restrict my enthusiasm purely to the fact that doctors in poor countries can have one, instead of simply putting their ear to someone's chest.
This strikes me as one of those things where you get far more gain by ensuring anybody who needs one can have it.
I mean, is there an actual downside to these things being easy to get? Well, aside from the sudden spike in safe cracking and eavesdropping I guess.
I'm not assuming the US is the only country with good medical care.
I'm explaining to a moronic AC why developing countries will have 'better' health care.
I'm not saying better than the US. I'm not saying everybody else will suck. I'm saying having a stethoscope is 'better' than not having a stethoscope in terms of medical care.
The world is full of good doctors. Some of them, apparently, are working on how to get stethoscopes more widely available.
You should stop making assumptions about WTF I'm assuming and read what I wrote.
And by "give a crap about medical standards" you mean "barely have any medical care available now".
Let's be perfectly clear on this... in a poor country in which there are no stethoscopes, and the doctor puts his ear to your chest, anything is better than nothing.
In a lot of ways, a stethoscope is about as sophisticated as putting a glass against a door to listen into the room. I had a toy one from Fisher Price when I was a kid.
If I was a doctor in a poor country who couldn't afford to buy a damned stethoscope, this would literally be a game changer. Which is why they did it in the first place.
But, honestly, you can solve the problem of distribution far more cheaply than you can solve the problem of purchasing expensive things and then solving the problem of distribution. Because you'd never be able to afford to buy as many as you can print.
Yes, it will cost more to ship 1000 stethoscopes than it would to ship 3... but if you can print 1000 stethoscopes for less than buying those 3... I'm sure the agencies involved in this would love to have that problem.
I'm no doctor, but if NGOs, aid agencies, Doctors without Borders, or poor countries suddenly had 1000 (or 10,000) stethoscopes they had to figure out how to distribute... they would be overjoyed.
Freakin' stethoscopes for everyone. I'm not seeing much of a downside here.
Right, because an organization providing medical care to refugees and people in dirt poor countries are concerned about those things.
And, really...
He is so confident of the device that he expects the peer-review process to be a "cake walk".
The device was tested using a the standard practice of pressing it against a balloon filled with water - a test dubbed the Hello Kitty protocol given the availability of cat-branded balloons at the time.
If the actual standard test involves a Hello Kitty balloon, it's probably not as hard as you think.
Ummm.... Feel free to travel to a developing nations for 'better medical care' then. If you dare.
Better than the doctor not having a stethoscope, moron.
The Glia project was born sometime after the 2012 Israeli incursions into Gaza, where Loubani and his medical colleagues were in short supply of the life-saving equipment and forced to listen to the heartbeats of scores of wounded Gazans with ears placed on chests.
That there will exist 3d printers is fairly obvious. That people will have a cost recovery model where they'll charge you for materials and time is also pretty likely.
So you print a few hundred of the damned things, have Medicine Sans Frontiers ship them in and distribute them, and voila... you've got stethoscopes where they were too expensive to have. At 30 cents a piece, print a few thousand and give to anybody who comes even close to patient care.
Hell, design enough stuff which can be printed, and organizations like MSF will simply decide "holy cow, look at how much more medical care we can deliver if we can print this stuff cheaply" and buy their own printers.
Yes, the overall costs surrounding it still exist... but spread across enough things and you can do a lot with it. For $100 you could print 333 stethoscopes... which is half the price of buying one.
That's a lot of stethoscopes, and in poorer places, I'm sure something as basic as a stethoscope goes a long way.
Why am I suddenly picturing the scenes from Iron Man 2 where Tony Stark hijacks the Congressional hearing to show video of Justin Hammer's failed attempts to build his own version?
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. Actually using the trademark isn't a requirement.
It really doesn't matter if they're not actively using it. You can't just decide that it's yours now and release something with it.
And it seems like they should have known from the start they have no legal way to just suddenly decide it was theirs for the taking.
Which are you annoyed at?
The fact that it's getting posted, or the fact that Microsoft is acting like such major assholes?
Everything about Windows 10 seems to be saying "we don't give a fuck about you peons, we'll do any damned thing we want".
Calamari. ;-)
I'm sure when the article was posted originally a bunch of people said "how the hell do they propose to do that since they don't own it".
Is this just a case of someone deciding they'd simply appropriate someone's trademark and release a product around it?
From the sounds of it, this was legally DOA before it was announced.
Something about this sounds really sketchy to me.
I've always thought web accelerator was a dumb naming ... we'll waste your bandwidth by downloading a bunch of shit you haven't clicked on so that if you do want it, the it is cached.
It would load quicker if they weren't pre-fetching the entire fucking internet on the notion that I might want it at some point.
Sorry, Mozilla, but you're simply not getting the point here.
What idiot decided to do this?
I don't want to load a link just by hovering on it. I don't want to tell every damned link in a webpage that I've looked at it. If I click on it I'll click on it, but don't just load random shit you think I might fucking want to load.
I swear, Firefox is making some really stupid decisions of late. For a browser which used to be concerned with privacy they seem to have decided to do everything possible to reverse that.
It's like they're either suddenly staffed by morons.
Disappointing. Very disappointing.
I'm not normally one to defend copyright suits ... and I don't have it in for the CBC ... but I think corporations need to be held to the same standard as they abuse us with.
Cutia owned a piece of copyrighted work, which was explicitly marked as such.
The hiding behind the license sold to you by a third part who didn't have the rights to sell you that license starts to get very thin.
So if it is a valid defense to say you bought a license in good faith but were lied to .. is it a valid defense for me to buy a pirated DVD and say I just thought it was a good price? I'm not convinced that would work for me.
And if the CBC used this for more than 10 days (say they left it on their webpage) ... can they then claim to be shielded by saying they acted in good faith when they used the video longer than their license?
I'm not a lawyer, and like you I don't know all the facts either.
But the ice starts to get pretty thin, and we also get into areas where corporations are subjected to a different interpretation of the law than we are. And that is completely crap.
You know, if being a greedy, corrupt, rich douchebag who bought politicians in the past is ever considered a plus in running for office ... your society is deeply fucked.
He can't be part of the solution when he's part of the problem. Precisely because he doesn't see it as a problem, and probably defends the practice.
Do you want to live in a world in which a billionaire president buys whatever policy outcomes he wants by paying off the rest of the politicians? Or blackmailed them by saying he'll tell how he bribed them?
That society will become a shithole pretty quick.
Precisely because it would end up with whatever policy outcomes assholes like Donald Trump want, or whatever large corporations are willing to pay for.
Seriously, nothing good could come from that.
Except you're comparing apples to spaceships, and the issue is affordability.
If the doctor in question doesn't earn enough to be able to pay for the $200 version (or the $50 version, or the $10 version), and currently hasn't got one at all ... talking about someone who can afford the $200 version is pointless. It's completely missing the point.
Sometimes cheap also means that people who would never have been able to afford to buy one can be given one.
Hell, I'd personally pay for $100 worth of 30 cent stethoscopes if it means some agency could pass them out to doctors who don't have them because they're already there trying to help. I'd do it in a hearbeat if you'll pardon the pun, because it sounds like really low hanging fruit in terms of improving medical care in poor places.
Give the clinic a box of the damned things, one breaks, grab another.
Cheap, 3d printed medical equipment means it gets in the hands of people who can make use of it in places which otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to have it. Which is why these guys designed it in the first place.
Gee, I don't know ... maybe the poor doctor isn't going to get a 3d printer ... but maybe a super awesome organization like, say, Doctors Without Borders does what they can to ensure they get spread around because they're suddenly cheap as hell.
That's kind of what Doctors Without Borders does. Not to mention various UN aid agencies, and who knows what else.
And I bet if you gave them 100 or so free stethoscopes and said "if you find a doctor without a stethoscope, give him one", they'd all say "hell yeah". In fact, I bet they'd already be able to tell you where to start. What would that be, 20 pounds of cargo?
When the cost of the stethoscope is no longer the barrier to entry, the act of giving them out might prove to be fairly manageable.
The benefit isn't everyone prints their own thirty cent stethoscope. The benefit is someone prints a bunch of them and hands them out like candy.
Which falls apart entirely when the CBC used it after their invalid license expired.
Look at it this way, if they had a valid 10 day license from CNN, and kept using it after 10 days, they'd be using it without a valid license and CNN could have done something about it.
It gets really messed up when your defense that you had a license but continued to use it even after that (non existent) license expired.
They'd have been infringing no matter if the license was real or not.
So then how screwed up is it that, whether or not the CBC had bought a license from CNN (if if the license was a lie) ... they'd still have been infringing after 10 days anyway?
CNN provided a license to something they didn't own. the CBC used it after that license expired.
In the really roundabout way that there is logic behind the law, the CBC was infringing no matter how you spin it. The difference is if CNN would have actually taken any action against them.
Not me. I often want my technical docs serarchable, because you can't grep a dead tree.
However, when I'm doing leisure reading, I want old fashioned paper. When I'm on vacation I want to be able to sit by the pool with a mojito, and not have to worry about an electronic device getting killed by errant water (or rum), or worrying about the battery life.
I can fall asleep and drop my book, and at worst I'll lose my place.
I think the argument goes that CBC thought they'd obtained a 10-day license from CNN .. which CNN wasn't authorized to provide them ... but after this good-faith 10-day license lapsed (which wasn't really valid), the CBC continued to use the material ... meaning that, even if they had obtained an actual license, and acted in good faith, they stopped acting in good faith when they used it after the 10 days anyway.
So on day 11 you can no longer claim that you were using it under license if you knew you only licensed it for 10 days.
I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.
Up to day 10, you can say you got the license from CNN and if that was an invalid license then CNN misrepresented themselves, and you are a victim.
Use it after 10 days, and you can't even claim that. Now you'd have been willfully violating the original (but invalid) license.
The man does have a point. And I'm sure if you took a CNN video and used it improperly, they'd go all crazy. For them to suddenly claim "it was on YouTube so it's free" would be complete bullshit.
So, by doing what would have been a breech of license if CNN was allowed to give you a license then your unlicensed use of the video violated your license because your license had ended.
LOL .. yo dawg, I hear you like licenses.
LOL, that will be handy when the heart attack happens.
That would be one hell of a stop-smoking campaign. "Here, you'll need this".
As someone who will never use a stethoscope professionally ... I will restrict my enthusiasm purely to the fact that doctors in poor countries can have one, instead of simply putting their ear to someone's chest.
This strikes me as one of those things where you get far more gain by ensuring anybody who needs one can have it.
I mean, is there an actual downside to these things being easy to get? Well, aside from the sudden spike in safe cracking and eavesdropping I guess.
I'm not assuming the US is the only country with good medical care.
I'm explaining to a moronic AC why developing countries will have 'better' health care.
I'm not saying better than the US. I'm not saying everybody else will suck. I'm saying having a stethoscope is 'better' than not having a stethoscope in terms of medical care.
The world is full of good doctors. Some of them, apparently, are working on how to get stethoscopes more widely available.
You should stop making assumptions about WTF I'm assuming and read what I wrote.
OK, I'm all up for a little Microsoft bashing where appropriate.
But Microsoft had virtual desktops back in the XP days. It was a power tools download you had to get yourself, but it did in fact exist.
And, yes, those of us who have been using virtual desktops for a long time can't see why we'd ever do without them.
And by "give a crap about medical standards" you mean "barely have any medical care available now".
Let's be perfectly clear on this ... in a poor country in which there are no stethoscopes, and the doctor puts his ear to your chest, anything is better than nothing.
In a lot of ways, a stethoscope is about as sophisticated as putting a glass against a door to listen into the room. I had a toy one from Fisher Price when I was a kid.
If I was a doctor in a poor country who couldn't afford to buy a damned stethoscope, this would literally be a game changer. Which is why they did it in the first place.
But, honestly, you can solve the problem of distribution far more cheaply than you can solve the problem of purchasing expensive things and then solving the problem of distribution. Because you'd never be able to afford to buy as many as you can print.
Yes, it will cost more to ship 1000 stethoscopes than it would to ship 3 ... but if you can print 1000 stethoscopes for less than buying those 3 ... I'm sure the agencies involved in this would love to have that problem.
I'm no doctor, but if NGOs, aid agencies, Doctors without Borders, or poor countries suddenly had 1000 (or 10,000) stethoscopes they had to figure out how to distribute ... they would be overjoyed.
Freakin' stethoscopes for everyone. I'm not seeing much of a downside here.
Right, because an organization providing medical care to refugees and people in dirt poor countries are concerned about those things.
And, really ...
If the actual standard test involves a Hello Kitty balloon, it's probably not as hard as you think.
Better than the doctor not having a stethoscope, moron.
Honestly, use your brain.
That there will exist 3d printers is fairly obvious. That people will have a cost recovery model where they'll charge you for materials and time is also pretty likely.
So you print a few hundred of the damned things, have Medicine Sans Frontiers ship them in and distribute them, and voila ... you've got stethoscopes where they were too expensive to have. At 30 cents a piece, print a few thousand and give to anybody who comes even close to patient care.
Hell, design enough stuff which can be printed, and organizations like MSF will simply decide "holy cow, look at how much more medical care we can deliver if we can print this stuff cheaply" and buy their own printers.
Yes, the overall costs surrounding it still exist ... but spread across enough things and you can do a lot with it. For $100 you could print 333 stethoscopes ... which is half the price of buying one.
That's a lot of stethoscopes, and in poorer places, I'm sure something as basic as a stethoscope goes a long way.
In America, higher profits.
In developing nations, better medical care.
A modern smartphone would have been classified as a supercomputer not so long ago.
At one point, a single CPU/core Apple running at 1GHz was still technically munitions grade equipment.
That we need to provide more juice to these devices should surprise nobody.
My wife's Nexus cell phone has more compute power than ... well, than all of 1983 I think.
These mobile phones are, in fact, full fledged computers. And that takes some power.
Why am I suddenly picturing the scenes from Iron Man 2 where Tony Stark hijacks the Congressional hearing to show video of Justin Hammer's failed attempts to build his own version?