I don't really see a problem, though. It seems reasonable to make an exception with open formats for those who need aid. We let seeing-eye dogs in where pets aren't allowed.
So if all the state's tax rules, for instance, are stored in ODF format, and a blind person needs to access them, then they can have a special version created in Word format? That's your solution? Sounds a bit labour-intensive if you ask me.
Sure, the format's open, so in theory you can build a tool to transfrom ODF into a paper hat, but it's a matter of practicality and the current state of the market. All the best accessibility tools* are for Microsoft Windows, and specifically for Microsoft Office. Therefore mandating ODF means that disabled people have to give up all their current accessibility tools and start using inferior products. TFA gives a really good summary of the state of play, including some of the advantages that GNOME has, so it isn't cut-and-dry.
I understand why you're upset, but basically until the third-party tools are better, this is a fair criticism (although maybe not a show-stopper).
*OK, not strictly "all" or "best", but most of the popular ones
IANA is like a badge, and ICANN is wearing that badge at the moment. Effectively IANA is part of ICANN untill the Dept. of Commerce says that it isn't any more.
one organization - worse, a corporation - has so much power
Someone has to make the final cut as to who gets what IP address. Domain name allocation can be distributed, and IP allocation within natinoal blocks can be handled by local groups, but there has to be an ultimate source that decides how the IP space is broken up. It's a non-profit, and it is governed by rules, so I don't realy have a major conceptual issue with ICANN.
This post may partially contradict opinions that I expressed in earlier posts. I can change my mind.
I don't know of anyone who is "looking for" Yahoo or AOL to do shit for them. No-one I know uses AOL, I only know one person who uses Yahoo and that's because of their BT tie-in, but god damn, who do they think they are? Delusions of relevance.
I was just about to say the same thing. I got a bunch of 7"x5" prints at Boots (the biggest chemist (drugstore) chain in the UK) for 15p each, that's about a quarter. Four large photo-quality prints for a dollar, 7 for just over a quid, no-one needs it to be cheaper than that.
If it's existing DVD production, is it readable by *existing* DVD players like those in a computer.
No, that's why it's a Blu-Ray format!
The data structure will be different - different encryption (CSS is so thoroughly cracked that they won't use it any more) and possibly even a different track layout. It will use the red laser that the Blu-Ray drive uses to read old DVDs, that's just about the only thing that it has in common with DVDs.
It wouldn't be right if the day went by without a Sony Rootkit story on Slashdot. Seriously, I can't get enough of this story, it's what Slashdot was invented for.
then playing Halo 2 for just under eight hours, which is about how long it takes for a good player to get through the single player, means you've made the same entertainment-to-dollars ratio.
My friends' copy of Halo 2 has easily provided several hundred man-hours of entertainment.
Do you mean a service provider, or a 'phone manufacturer? If they buy a service provider in order to lift the restrictions on the customer (wireless downloading of songs, easy transfer of 'photos, etc.), then would the manufacturers make a 'phone with features that can only be used on one network?
Could they do both? I know that there are limits on some cross-marketing, such as a record label not being allowed to own a radio station (in the UK, I don't know about the US), it wouldn't surprise me if some markets had rules about 'phone manufacturers and service providers keeping separate in order to avoid a monopoly being created.
if he had been selling a product designed to defend glass-in-wall windows, then Microsoft wouldn't have had a very strong case
They would not have needed a case, they could have registered "Windows Defender" as a trademark in the area of computer software, and not clashed with the "Windows Defender" trademark in the area of chemical products. This is a classic case of tough luck on the little guy, he shouldn't have put Microsoft's trademark in his product name. If I started a business called "Ford Car Parts" selling parts for Ford cars, then Ford would shut me down in a hearrtbeat, even if my name were Ford. Mike Rowe was lucky to get what he did.
Is it just me, or does the page fail to load in Firefox? I don't see the article text, but I do see "href='http://mediauk.247realmedia.com/..." where the article should be. Could be Flashblock or Adblock gumming it up.
Its intent was not to cause terror, but to inflict economic damage. I heard about a similar incident where a Japanese shipbuilder was stealing blueprints from a UK shipyard tendering for a contract and undercutting them. The UK shipbuilder deliberately designed a ship that would capsize on launch, which the Japanese duly stole, built, and launched. I don't know if anyone was killed, but ethically it's a tricky one.
I totally disagree. Blizzard have no right to sue anyone but me on the grounds of what software I choose to run on my machine. I am as outraged at that suggestion as I would be if Sony sued Bram Cohen because I had used BitTorrent to copy a Van Zant album.
I think the idea that you are saving money by not buying something that you weren't going to buy in the first place may be more common in the US than it is over here.
And my point is that none of that adds up to Blizzard having a case against Sony on the grounds of WoW players deliberately using Sony's rootkit to hide processes on their own computer.
Against Sony? No way, that's stretching the point too far. It's as daft as suing P2P software authors because people are using their software to violate copyright. Oh, wait...
The parts that worry me are that they are putting uninstallable software that could have serious adverse effects on your system without notice or consent.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the format's open, so in theory you can build a tool to transfrom ODF into a paper hat, but it's a matter of practicality and the current state of the market. All the best accessibility tools* are for Microsoft Windows, and specifically for Microsoft Office. Therefore mandating ODF means that disabled people have to give up all their current accessibility tools and start using inferior products. TFA gives a really good summary of the state of play, including some of the advantages that GNOME has, so it isn't cut-and-dry.
I understand why you're upset, but basically until the third-party tools are better, this is a fair criticism (although maybe not a show-stopper).
*OK, not strictly "all" or "best", but most of the popular ones
IANA is like a badge, and ICANN is wearing that badge at the moment. Effectively IANA is part of ICANN untill the Dept. of Commerce says that it isn't any more.
This post may partially contradict opinions that I expressed in earlier posts. I can change my mind.
I was just about to say the same thing. I got a bunch of 7"x5" prints at Boots (the biggest chemist (drugstore) chain in the UK) for 15p each, that's about a quarter. Four large photo-quality prints for a dollar, 7 for just over a quid, no-one needs it to be cheaper than that.
The data structure will be different - different encryption (CSS is so thoroughly cracked that they won't use it any more) and possibly even a different track layout. It will use the red laser that the Blu-Ray drive uses to read old DVDs, that's just about the only thing that it has in common with DVDs.
It wouldn't be right if the day went by without a Sony Rootkit story on Slashdot. Seriously, I can't get enough of this story, it's what Slashdot was invented for.
I'll forward you an email on how to, I get loads of them every day.
So the patent isn't typo resistant?
<duck/>
Do you mean a service provider, or a 'phone manufacturer? If they buy a service provider in order to lift the restrictions on the customer (wireless downloading of songs, easy transfer of 'photos, etc.), then would the manufacturers make a 'phone with features that can only be used on one network?
Could they do both? I know that there are limits on some cross-marketing, such as a record label not being allowed to own a radio station (in the UK, I don't know about the US), it wouldn't surprise me if some markets had rules about 'phone manufacturers and service providers keeping separate in order to avoid a monopoly being created.
They didn't, they claimed that the domain name "mikerowesoft" infringed on their trademark.
P.S. I was being sarcastic.
Is it just me, or does the page fail to load in Firefox? I don't see the article text, but I do see "href='http://mediauk.247realmedia.com/..." where the article should be. Could be Flashblock or Adblock gumming it up.
Its intent was not to cause terror, but to inflict economic damage. I heard about a similar incident where a Japanese shipbuilder was stealing blueprints from a UK shipyard tendering for a contract and undercutting them. The UK shipbuilder deliberately designed a ship that would capsize on launch, which the Japanese duly stole, built, and launched. I don't know if anyone was killed, but ethically it's a tricky one.
Yes yes thank you I know now!
I think the idea that you are saving money by not buying something that you weren't going to buy in the first place may be more common in the US than it is over here.
And my point is that none of that adds up to Blizzard having a case against Sony on the grounds of WoW players deliberately using Sony's rootkit to hide processes on their own computer.
Great, I'll not buy a hundred then. Wow! I just saved a ton of cash!
There's absolutely nothing illegal in someone hiding a process or a file on their own computer. The rootkit software was even obtained legally!
I think they mean non-uninstallable.