I think this guy's scientific paper is some bizarre spin on "this statement is false." It is more like "there is a 50% chance this statement is false." I mean, he wrote a paper about how papers are wrong a lot.
I can't blame them at all. Our legal system is the problem. If they have a patent on something that the ipod uses the board could probably be sued by their shareholders for "not using it for moral reasons." The problem, at least the only problem we can fix (trying to give companies morals by berating them won't do a damn thing), is the system.
"Only lawsuit of its kind that apple won" means nothing. The quote you wanted validated was, "Apple targeted a lot of smaller companies for the same thing, many of whom where unable to pay for the litigation and went out of business." This doesn't imply that the litigation was sucessful it just implies that the people getting sued couldn't afford to defend themselves and instead just settled with Apple. Many small companies got sued like this over the GUI; I don't have any examples off-hand I'm just making sure you realize that the answer to your question doesn't depend on any court outcomes and additionally a lot of settlements aren't even public.
I agree. All I was arguing is that the wording of the thing says one thing and intent isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if the wording is clear.
Way to rearrange the words into something that wasn't said: "No, it excludes non-PCs, or devices running an embedded operating system"
The relevant bit is: "you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device versions of the above operating systems [windows being one of the above operating systems] including, but not limited to... tablets..." (Emphasis added) Windows XP Tablet PC Edition is a device version for tablets.
You are right, the contract doesn't intent to exclude laptops. But it very clearly does. If I signed a contract with the bank saying that my home loan won't be valid if used to buy a home I will say to myself "wow of course they can't mean that," but I will not sign that contract. Courts don't go by intent in contract law unless something is either left out of the contract (and even then there are often statutory and even common law defaults which override intent) or extreme mistakes (obvious typos, etc.). Now, beyond intent, I'm not sure that this applies to laptops. But by its language it most definitely applies to tablet PCs; you can't buy Windows XP Tablet PC Edition by itself. It can only be licensed for... you got it, a tablet PC. It only comes with tablets.
The part of the agreement that says, "you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, including, but not limited to" blah blah blah is particularly vague. Not limited to? What the hell? This is a great example of a terrible job by whoever drafted this thing.
When they are using it as is it should shield them from "but this feature isn't here" type complaints but not "this thing is totally broken" complaints. Granted that means they are using it as a bit of a misnomer but I think anyone who has followed them for a bit can see what they mean by 'beta' as opposed to what 'beta' traditionally means.
It doesn't work like that. You can't say "oh.net is slow so performance doesn't matter to people using it." If that were true then you could extrapolate it to say people who use.net would be happy with a free alternative that has no performance (i.e. takes infinite time to run anything).
Yeah because printing is free and people who write open source books are real concerned with the politically correct bullshit that is required of classroom textbooks these days. Oh wait, no. Most freely available books are made as a reaction against the tripe that most states require in their text books--until you can get these authors to not only write for free but also write absolute crap which they don't agree with for free you are looking at a lost cause.
How hard is this? When users type in a key and forget it do you think they know to plug in an ethernet cable to reset it? Do you think they will figure out how to reset the router to re-enable its default password? I think they can figure both of these things out--after calling the 800 number on the box. All the hardware in these things is just a commodity at this point; the various companies can only save costs by making support cheaper.
I don't see this is some big advancement in the client technology. I don't think anyone is claiming that. The advancement is that now (hopefully) IM and voice are going to be as legitimate and ubiquitous as email. Your ISP will eventually host a jabber server in addition to its mail and news servers. Google isn't doing anything beyond being a MAJOR presence supporting this. AIM, Yahoo, and MSN (though it will be a cold day in hell for MSN) will hopefully eventually be forced to interoperate with each other, not to mention Google, because of this. Google honestly doesn't have that much to gain from it--but the longer the others wait to join in on it the more they will lose to Google. IBM didn't gain many tangibles from opening up the PC platform in terms of marketshare of the PC platform (if they kept it closed they would have 100% of it). Instead they got a miniscule percentage of a giant market.
Unlike Skype they are making everything completely open and interoperable. It came out like a day ago.. give it some time. People will come up with some great stuff using their voice protocols.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that a joke?
KDE has a lot of problems with widgets not redrawing correctly with compositing turned on.
So you begin your post by admitting you haven't read the article? Most of us at least pretend; it is common courtesy.
You are so lost that were you a whale I would expect to find you on a beach any day now.
Are you awake? Do you have any idea how slow 112bits/sec is? You are so far off from reality it is ridiculous.
I was reminded of Bruce Sterling's Think of the Prestige.
I think this guy's scientific paper is some bizarre spin on "this statement is false." It is more like "there is a 50% chance this statement is false." I mean, he wrote a paper about how papers are wrong a lot.
Creative's counter argument: "But it isn't specific to an mp3 player." Then the stupidity begins.
I can't blame them at all. Our legal system is the problem. If they have a patent on something that the ipod uses the board could probably be sued by their shareholders for "not using it for moral reasons." The problem, at least the only problem we can fix (trying to give companies morals by berating them won't do a damn thing), is the system.
"Only lawsuit of its kind that apple won" means nothing. The quote you wanted validated was, "Apple targeted a lot of smaller companies for the same thing, many of whom where unable to pay for the litigation and went out of business." This doesn't imply that the litigation was sucessful it just implies that the people getting sued couldn't afford to defend themselves and instead just settled with Apple. Many small companies got sued like this over the GUI; I don't have any examples off-hand I'm just making sure you realize that the answer to your question doesn't depend on any court outcomes and additionally a lot of settlements aren't even public.
I agree. All I was arguing is that the wording of the thing says one thing and intent isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if the wording is clear.
Way to rearrange the words into something that wasn't said: "No, it excludes non-PCs, or devices running an embedded operating system"
The relevant bit is: "you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device versions of the above operating systems [windows being one of the above operating systems] including, but not limited to... tablets..." (Emphasis added) Windows XP Tablet PC Edition is a device version for tablets.
You are right, the contract doesn't intent to exclude laptops. But it very clearly does. If I signed a contract with the bank saying that my home loan won't be valid if used to buy a home I will say to myself "wow of course they can't mean that," but I will not sign that contract. Courts don't go by intent in contract law unless something is either left out of the contract (and even then there are often statutory and even common law defaults which override intent) or extreme mistakes (obvious typos, etc.). Now, beyond intent, I'm not sure that this applies to laptops. But by its language it most definitely applies to tablet PCs; you can't buy Windows XP Tablet PC Edition by itself. It can only be licensed for... you got it, a tablet PC. It only comes with tablets.
The part of the agreement that says, "you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, including, but not limited to" blah blah blah is particularly vague. Not limited to? What the hell? This is a great example of a terrible job by whoever drafted this thing.
I am not a lawyer.
When they are using it as is it should shield them from "but this feature isn't here" type complaints but not "this thing is totally broken" complaints. Granted that means they are using it as a bit of a misnomer but I think anyone who has followed them for a bit can see what they mean by 'beta' as opposed to what 'beta' traditionally means.
Isn't that a bit overkill? They could implement it today on the regular internet.
It doesn't work like that. You can't say "oh .net is slow so performance doesn't matter to people using it." If that were true then you could extrapolate it to say people who use .net would be happy with a free alternative that has no performance (i.e. takes infinite time to run anything).
Yeah, because hydrogen bombs require so much more energy than they put out. Not.
The story said it was an "mp3 of the podcast" not a "podcast of the mp3". I fail to see your point.
He's talking about video poker machines.
Novell's implementation isn't as complete nor does it compete on performance.
Yeah because printing is free and people who write open source books are real concerned with the politically correct bullshit that is required of classroom textbooks these days. Oh wait, no. Most freely available books are made as a reaction against the tripe that most states require in their text books--until you can get these authors to not only write for free but also write absolute crap which they don't agree with for free you are looking at a lost cause.
I think you see her on her webcam and she sees you on yours.
How hard is this? When users type in a key and forget it do you think they know to plug in an ethernet cable to reset it? Do you think they will figure out how to reset the router to re-enable its default password? I think they can figure both of these things out--after calling the 800 number on the box. All the hardware in these things is just a commodity at this point; the various companies can only save costs by making support cheaper.
I don't see this is some big advancement in the client technology. I don't think anyone is claiming that. The advancement is that now (hopefully) IM and voice are going to be as legitimate and ubiquitous as email. Your ISP will eventually host a jabber server in addition to its mail and news servers. Google isn't doing anything beyond being a MAJOR presence supporting this. AIM, Yahoo, and MSN (though it will be a cold day in hell for MSN) will hopefully eventually be forced to interoperate with each other, not to mention Google, because of this. Google honestly doesn't have that much to gain from it--but the longer the others wait to join in on it the more they will lose to Google. IBM didn't gain many tangibles from opening up the PC platform in terms of marketshare of the PC platform (if they kept it closed they would have 100% of it). Instead they got a miniscule percentage of a giant market.
Unlike Skype they are making everything completely open and interoperable. It came out like a day ago.. give it some time. People will come up with some great stuff using their voice protocols.