I bought a 16GB N9 a week ago for 299€ (no strings attached). I just love the thing. I've been learning to build small apps for it and the Qt development environment is just awesome to anything I've seen before. And despite it being the only Meego model and only sold in some markets, the Ovi store pretty much has all the apps I care for... ok, I'd take some more games, but that's not critical.
It's just sad that something technically so excellent is abandoned completely for strategic business reasons.:-( But then, I can use it for years regardless of "company support."
This isn't completely true. You can use a Nokia phone as a pretty good conference phone with the speaker mode. It grabs voice from people speaking meters away from the device. I used to think all phones did this, but then I learned that Samsung Galaxy S II and I are pathetic as speakerphones. Great for surfing the web though.
So, yeah, I'd like to have something about talking in the reviews.
Up until now, I've only heard of harassing people applying for jobs. It is easy to demand anything from a job applicant: when they are not selected it was just because they "did not fit" or something. Firing an existing employee is a whole different thing. Now we can finally put a stop to this illegal activity. Or maybe we will learn that it is legal in the U.S. - you never know.
So that's the way it's written in Bible. I've heard about this many times, but never bothered to find the actual text. But.. that's really not very wrong. If you allow for some measurement error:
Assuming pi = 3.14, which would be quite accurate. Take a bit of the 10 cubits to, say 9.6 and: 9.6 * 3.14 = 30.1
All the numbers round to the correct values and they are all reasonably accurate for measuring a "molten sea". Really, this doesn't prove anything. I was hoping for "and the pi shalt be 3, not 3.1 or 2.9, but 3."
Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronCowboy posted a good link. "most people use it" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I read the definition. The definition is for the word Monopoly, but somehow it still defines Monopolization. I'm not accusing Google of Monopolization. I'm accusing them of Leveraging a monopoly - that's also defined in the same place: http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/
Now, apparently just leveraging a monopoly is not illegal, but leveraging a monopoly with predatory pricing can be illegal. And this is what Google is doing. The monopoly is in search and the predatory price is in free maps. (And there is no monopolization.)
Yes, but why would you switch from Google to some other provider? Especially now that they have this wonderful free maps service bundled with the free search service - why would you switch?
It was always possible and actually pretty easy to install Netscape on Windows and still MS lost in court. In the same way I can use Google search and some other map service, but it's just so nice to use Google maps because it's integrated to the same page and all. So because I use the Google search (monopoly and really good) I end up using the Google maps that is tied to the search web page and funded by the search profits.
Really - with your old slashdot id you should remember this stuff from the MS trial - the monopoly power is not a gun in your head, it's a comfortable nudge in the direction of maps.google.com, but it's still the same thing.
Well, you try to create a search service that is not free (= funded by ads) and I think you will quite soon realize what Google has done to the prices of online search. But that really was not my point.
Google search is a monopoly in the sense that most people use it and the google.com front page. The fact that other seach services are easily available is irrelevant as people just use google. This is not illegal, this is success. Now Google wants to get in to other markets like maps and navigation. So it starts giving people access to its maps for free (= funded from search profits) and advertizes its maps on the top of its search page (the top menu). This is leveraging a monopoly to get to other markets and this is what MS was convicted of doing with the operating system and IE. It was never difficult to install other browsers, but still MS lost the court case.
I agree that the MS case was more clear cut then this one, but that does not mean that Google isn't doing the same thing. Also, I have no idea of what Bottin is or isn't and I could not really care less. I really just had two points: Google search is a monopoly and Google is using the monopoly power to gain marketshare in other markets. Now I guess I should RTFA to see what this particular case is all about.
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes: * Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal monopoly does not require 100% market share. Companies have been deemed monopolies with under 50% share and Google is way higher then that - go google it if you don't believe me.
Now, having a monopoly is not illegal, but using your monopoly profits to corner other markets is illegal. This is exactly the same thing that MS was convicted of a decade ago. Google it. When MS was killing Netscape it took the authorities years to act and the trial also took forever to end - Google just hasn't been doing this long enough to end in court yet.
The benefits I get from my credit card aren't nearly as good. And I can only use the credit card to buy stuff. If I want to pay my electricity bill with my credit card I will have to pay the credit card fee myself.
So, really, I think you and the GP are probably both doing the smart thing in the continents you live on.
It doesn't work like that (here in Europe). I get a bill to my bank. I go to my banks website and login with a password + one time pad. I see a list of bills I have received. I check them approved one by one. Then they are payed on the last possible date given in the bill.
Before that I have already selected the companies that are allowed to send me bills to the bank.
So, really, it's really a great thing for most payments. I still want paper bills for stuff that I use in my taxation since I need to keep those records for seven years. All other bills are easier to handle with the online bank.
Judging by my kids, the idea of home learning is absurd. Or at least it will require one parent to constantly supervise the home learning. Kids lack discipline and tenacity, they only learn those after growing up. So, if we are going to teach them boring stuff while they are growing, they need an environment that helps them focus on the matter at hand. I-products do not.
I actually find it quite interesting how many different schools around the world try something like this. Wonder if any of these projects are working out well. From what I've heard from teachers, even though kids nowadays know a lot about computers, it's all gaming and entertainment. They might not even know how to write a letter with their computer.
Of course the US stance is correct in the sense that eventually everyone must be on board to curb the CO2 emissions. That said, I do think that it is our duty in rich western countries to lead the way - even if it means more unemployment and lower wages. When we are already committed to lowering CO2 emissions we can start to pressure other nations to do the same, but as long as the US does nothing, we are completely unable to pressure China in this matter.
So I think the US position is correct if what we want is to make sure we get to pollute as much as everyone else. If we want to actually achieve change, I think the US position is completely wrong.
I didn't go to school with either of you guys, but his verbal French is really not the issue here: all that is required is that he can understand the French original and write good English. You translate towards your native/best language if at all possible.
Here in Finland it's a popular right wing strategy to call some taxes "unfair". Most often I hear of how unfair taxing inheritance is, but the same thing can be said about any tax that you personally don't like. Just repeat it enough on air and it will become reality. But when you actually think of it your question does not make any sense at all. The governament has the power and the right to tax you as much as they see fit. Whether it's once or twice or a thousand times doesn't matter at all.
And when I personally think of taxation my personal tax rate has been falling for the last ten years while my income has doubled (from a student to an experienced developer). So - honestly - I think it would be fair if I and people like me would pay more taxes then we pay now. And then we wonder why there is no money to fund anything anymore. I bet your experience in the US is the same - because it's the same right wing policy that is sweeping everywhere.
(And yeah, I do agree that if I was living in the US I wouldn't trust my governament to actually start saving instead of wasting the extra tax revenue.)
When I was young we had 0.1% CO2 in the atmosphere. When I was in school it was 0.2%. Now people are talking about 0.3%. My house has a ventilation system that is designed to keep the CO2 level below 1%. By my calculation we are 7 decades from having an atmosphere that is as hard to breathe as your bedroom in the morning.
CO2 is a pollutant - we cannot breathe it.
And the fact that the CO2 levels are rising mean that the plants are not sucking it up as fast as we are creating it.
Now, maybe we can still live with 2-3% CO2, but the fact is that CO2 levels are rising faster and faster as more coal is burned. I'd really rather not leave that kind of a planet to my children.
Of-course for the past 6 months the Fed was buying 100% of all new debt (QE2 was equal in size to the amount of new debt created in that time period for a reason, it's not a wild coincidence,) and they are buying the outstanding debt on the market as well, which isn't rolled over. They want to keep interest rates low at expense of inflation.
And this is how US will always prevail. You pay the Chinese with dollars and inflate them so low that you can pay back. What I do not understand is how a country can do this and still have the lowest possible interest rate, because the inflation causes the real interest payed to be negative. Has to be somehow related to the fact that the interest rates are determined by American companies.
Now, I don't live in the US, but at least here a bank can call in a loan anytime. I think they have to be in "hard times" or something like that, but it is a condition they just declare to be in. Then they can force me to pay back my entire mortgage immediately - which is, of course, impossible if I cannot get a loan from another bank. Are you really sure the banks in the US cannot do this?
Here in Finland, recycled paper is quite valuable, because the paper buyers in central Europe want paper that has as much recycled material in it as possible. So if we want to sell paper made from our trees to central Europe, we must have tons of recycled paper too. At some point we were importing recycled paper from Germany, I'm not sure if that's still going on.
I just like to recycle paper and cardboard, because they fill the bin so fast I'd need to have it emptied even more often then now. This way I save, maybe 10€ a month.
No he won't. As long as A is reasonably effective he will get to keep his job. Are you the best employee at the place you work at? No? Why do you still have a job?
There is no point in challenging this patent: it is most likely a valid patent under the current rules. The problem is that the patent legislation allows patents that are obvious to be granted, because their interpretation of the word obvious is not the obvious, normal, interpretation. And EFF cannot help with bad laws.
Why cannot Ghazali be both a great thinker and responsible for long term stagnation of thinking and science?
A quote from the wikipedia page on him:
"Ijtihad is the process through which Islamic scholars can generate new rules for Muslims. Ijtihad was one of the recognized sources of Islamic knowledge by early Islamic scholars – that is, in addition to Quran, Sunnah and Qiyas. While it is not widely agreed that Ghazali himself intended to "shut the door of ijtihad" completely and permanently, such an interpretation of Ghazali's work is believed to have led Islamic societies to be "frozen in time". Works of critics of Ghazali (such as Ibn Rushd, a rationalist), as well as the works of any ancient philosopher, are believed to have been forbidden in these "frozen societies" through the centuries. As a result, all chances were lost to gradually revitalize religion – which may have been less painful had it been spread over a period of centuries."
The page goes on to wonder if stopping Ijtihad was his intention or not, but if that was the result of his actions, I think blaming him may have some ground.
The only way the pirate party will change copyright is by gaining some popularity and making the ruling parties take notice of the fact that not all people want more copyright laws. It really does not matter if their goals are a little over the top: those goals will never be implemented. How would they abolish copyright with the maybe 2% representation they might get in some country?
The real goal (and this is for eyes only, so don't tell anyone) is to get some seats away from the major parties and make them scared. Then the main parties will become more hostile to copuright to get the votes back and with luck we will get some limits to copyright within my lifetime.
I'll vote for any pirate party I'm allowed to and I have 0 faith in them being able to actually implement their plans.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a 16GB N9 a week ago for 299€ (no strings attached). I just love the thing. I've been learning to build small apps for it and the Qt development environment is just awesome to anything I've seen before. And despite it being the only Meego model and only sold in some markets, the Ovi store pretty much has all the apps I care for... ok, I'd take some more games, but that's not critical.
It's just sad that something technically so excellent is abandoned completely for strategic business reasons. :-( But then, I can use it for years regardless of "company support."
This isn't completely true. You can use a Nokia phone as a pretty good conference phone with the speaker mode. It grabs voice from people speaking meters away from the device. I used to think all phones did this, but then I learned that Samsung Galaxy S II and I are pathetic as speakerphones. Great for surfing the web though.
So, yeah, I'd like to have something about talking in the reviews.
Up until now, I've only heard of harassing people applying for jobs. It is easy to demand anything from a job applicant: when they are not selected it was just because they "did not fit" or something. Firing an existing employee is a whole different thing. Now we can finally put a stop to this illegal activity. Or maybe we will learn that it is legal in the U.S. - you never know.
So that's the way it's written in Bible. I've heard about this many times, but never bothered to find the actual text. But.. that's really not very wrong. If you allow for some measurement error:
Assuming pi = 3.14, which would be quite accurate. Take a bit of the 10 cubits to, say 9.6 and:
9.6 * 3.14 = 30.1
All the numbers round to the correct values and they are all reasonably accurate for measuring a "molten sea". Really, this doesn't prove anything. I was hoping for "and the pi shalt be 3, not 3.1 or 2.9, but 3."
Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronCowboy posted a good link. "most people use it" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I read the definition. The definition is for the word Monopoly, but somehow it still defines Monopolization. I'm not accusing Google of Monopolization. I'm accusing them of Leveraging a monopoly - that's also defined in the same place:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/
Now, apparently just leveraging a monopoly is not illegal, but leveraging a monopoly with predatory pricing can be illegal. And this is what Google is doing. The monopoly is in search and the predatory price is in free maps. (And there is no monopolization.)
Read this: http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2006/09/articles/article/seventh-circuit-rejects-monopoly-leveraging-theory/
I went and read the definitions that you linked. What google is doing in leveraging a monopoly:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/
In itself it is not illegal, but combined with the price fixing (= $0) in the maps market it is illegal:
http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2006/09/articles/article/seventh-circuit-rejects-monopoly-leveraging-theory/
In the case mentioned in the article monopoly leveraging was legal, because there was no price fixing.
Yes, but why would you switch from Google to some other provider? Especially now that they have this wonderful free maps service bundled with the free search service - why would you switch?
It was always possible and actually pretty easy to install Netscape on Windows and still MS lost in court. In the same way I can use Google search and some other map service, but it's just so nice to use Google maps because it's integrated to the same page and all. So because I use the Google search (monopoly and really good) I end up using the Google maps that is tied to the search web page and funded by the search profits.
Really - with your old slashdot id you should remember this stuff from the MS trial - the monopoly power is not a gun in your head, it's a comfortable nudge in the direction of maps.google.com, but it's still the same thing.
Well, you try to create a search service that is not free (= funded by ads) and I think you will quite soon realize what Google has done to the prices of online search. But that really was not my point.
Google search is a monopoly in the sense that most people use it and the google.com front page. The fact that other seach services are easily available is irrelevant as people just use google. This is not illegal, this is success. Now Google wants to get in to other markets like maps and navigation. So it starts giving people access to its maps for free (= funded from search profits) and advertizes its maps on the top of its search page (the top menu). This is leveraging a monopoly to get to other markets and this is what MS was convicted of doing with the operating system and IE. It was never difficult to install other browsers, but still MS lost the court case.
I agree that the MS case was more clear cut then this one, but that does not mean that Google isn't doing the same thing. Also, I have no idea of what Bottin is or isn't and I could not really care less. I really just had two points: Google search is a monopoly and Google is using the monopoly power to gain marketshare in other markets. Now I guess I should RTFA to see what this particular case is all about.
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes:
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal monopoly does not require 100% market share. Companies have been deemed monopolies with under 50% share and Google is way higher then that - go google it if you don't believe me.
Now, having a monopoly is not illegal, but using your monopoly profits to corner other markets is illegal. This is exactly the same thing that MS was convicted of a decade ago. Google it. When MS was killing Netscape it took the authorities years to act and the trial also took forever to end - Google just hasn't been doing this long enough to end in court yet.
Does Humble Indie Bundle count? They seem to port all the bundle games to Linux and if the number of bundles is any indication they are successful...
The benefits I get from my credit card aren't nearly as good. And I can only use the credit card to buy stuff. If I want to pay my electricity bill with my credit card I will have to pay the credit card fee myself.
So, really, I think you and the GP are probably both doing the smart thing in the continents you live on.
It doesn't work like that (here in Europe). I get a bill to my bank. I go to my banks website and login with a password + one time pad. I see a list of bills I have received. I check them approved one by one. Then they are payed on the last possible date given in the bill.
Before that I have already selected the companies that are allowed to send me bills to the bank.
So, really, it's really a great thing for most payments. I still want paper bills for stuff that I use in my taxation since I need to keep those records for seven years. All other bills are easier to handle with the online bank.
Judging by my kids, the idea of home learning is absurd. Or at least it will require one parent to constantly supervise the home learning. Kids lack discipline and tenacity, they only learn those after growing up. So, if we are going to teach them boring stuff while they are growing, they need an environment that helps them focus on the matter at hand. I-products do not.
I actually find it quite interesting how many different schools around the world try something like this. Wonder if any of these projects are working out well. From what I've heard from teachers, even though kids nowadays know a lot about computers, it's all gaming and entertainment. They might not even know how to write a letter with their computer.
Of course the US stance is correct in the sense that eventually everyone must be on board to curb the CO2 emissions. That said, I do think that it is our duty in rich western countries to lead the way - even if it means more unemployment and lower wages. When we are already committed to lowering CO2 emissions we can start to pressure other nations to do the same, but as long as the US does nothing, we are completely unable to pressure China in this matter.
So I think the US position is correct if what we want is to make sure we get to pollute as much as everyone else. If we want to actually achieve change, I think the US position is completely wrong.
(Yeah, I'm from EU.)
Dollars. Someone has to pay for all the stuff China manufactures. If the US will not buy the stuff there will be massive unemployment in China.
I didn't go to school with either of you guys, but his verbal French is really not the issue here: all that is required is that he can understand the French original and write good English. You translate towards your native/best language if at all possible.
Here in Finland it's a popular right wing strategy to call some taxes "unfair". Most often I hear of how unfair taxing inheritance is, but the same thing can be said about any tax that you personally don't like. Just repeat it enough on air and it will become reality. But when you actually think of it your question does not make any sense at all. The governament has the power and the right to tax you as much as they see fit. Whether it's once or twice or a thousand times doesn't matter at all.
And when I personally think of taxation my personal tax rate has been falling for the last ten years while my income has doubled (from a student to an experienced developer). So - honestly - I think it would be fair if I and people like me would pay more taxes then we pay now. And then we wonder why there is no money to fund anything anymore. I bet your experience in the US is the same - because it's the same right wing policy that is sweeping everywhere.
(And yeah, I do agree that if I was living in the US I wouldn't trust my governament to actually start saving instead of wasting the extra tax revenue.)
When I was young we had 0.1% CO2 in the atmosphere. When I was in school it was 0.2%. Now people are talking about 0.3%. My house has a ventilation system that is designed to keep the CO2 level below 1%. By my calculation we are 7 decades from having an atmosphere that is as hard to breathe as your bedroom in the morning.
CO2 is a pollutant - we cannot breathe it.
And the fact that the CO2 levels are rising mean that the plants are not sucking it up as fast as we are creating it.
Now, maybe we can still live with 2-3% CO2, but the fact is that CO2 levels are rising faster and faster as more coal is burned. I'd really rather not leave that kind of a planet to my children.
Of-course for the past 6 months the Fed was buying 100% of all new debt (QE2 was equal in size to the amount of new debt created in that time period for a reason, it's not a wild coincidence,) and they are buying the outstanding debt on the market as well, which isn't rolled over. They want to keep interest rates low at expense of inflation.
And this is how US will always prevail. You pay the Chinese with dollars and inflate them so low that you can pay back. What I do not understand is how a country can do this and still have the lowest possible interest rate, because the inflation causes the real interest payed to be negative. Has to be somehow related to the fact that the interest rates are determined by American companies.
Now, I don't live in the US, but at least here a bank can call in a loan anytime. I think they have to be in "hard times" or something like that, but it is a condition they just declare to be in. Then they can force me to pay back my entire mortgage immediately - which is, of course, impossible if I cannot get a loan from another bank. Are you really sure the banks in the US cannot do this?
Here in Finland, recycled paper is quite valuable, because the paper buyers in central Europe want paper that has as much recycled material in it as possible. So if we want to sell paper made from our trees to central Europe, we must have tons of recycled paper too. At some point we were importing recycled paper from Germany, I'm not sure if that's still going on.
I just like to recycle paper and cardboard, because they fill the bin so fast I'd need to have it emptied even more often then now. This way I save, maybe 10€ a month.
No he won't. As long as A is reasonably effective he will get to keep his job. Are you the best employee at the place you work at? No? Why do you still have a job?
There is no point in challenging this patent: it is most likely a valid patent under the current rules. The problem is that the patent legislation allows patents that are obvious to be granted, because their interpretation of the word obvious is not the obvious, normal, interpretation. And EFF cannot help with bad laws.
Why cannot Ghazali be both a great thinker and responsible for long term stagnation of thinking and science?
A quote from the wikipedia page on him:
"Ijtihad is the process through which Islamic scholars can generate new rules for Muslims. Ijtihad was one of the recognized sources of Islamic knowledge by early Islamic scholars – that is, in addition to Quran, Sunnah and Qiyas. While it is not widely agreed that Ghazali himself intended to "shut the door of ijtihad" completely and permanently, such an interpretation of Ghazali's work is believed to have led Islamic societies to be "frozen in time". Works of critics of Ghazali (such as Ibn Rushd, a rationalist), as well as the works of any ancient philosopher, are believed to have been forbidden in these "frozen societies" through the centuries. As a result, all chances were lost to gradually revitalize religion – which may have been less painful had it been spread over a period of centuries."
The page goes on to wonder if stopping Ijtihad was his intention or not, but if that was the result of his actions, I think blaming him may have some ground.
The only way the pirate party will change copyright is by gaining some popularity and making the ruling parties take notice of the fact that not all people want more copyright laws. It really does not matter if their goals are a little over the top: those goals will never be implemented. How would they abolish copyright with the maybe 2% representation they might get in some country?
The real goal (and this is for eyes only, so don't tell anyone) is to get some seats away from the major parties and make them scared. Then the main parties will become more hostile to copuright to get the votes back and with luck we will get some limits to copyright within my lifetime.
I'll vote for any pirate party I'm allowed to and I have 0 faith in them being able to actually implement their plans.