If we approach it that way, any 64-bit Linux distro wouldn't be able to access "all parts of the Internet" because they don't have a compatible Flash plugin either. Heck, the Olympics site is a very prominant site and so is the Democratic Convention site, and both of them (and a smattering of others) require Silverlight, which doesn't have a full implementation on even 32-bit Linux, but I'd hardly call my Ubuntu laptop an Internet loser.
If you show that any Linux distro can be proven to have advertised in the UK, specifically in the UK, that they could access "all parts of the internet", then yes, they would be subject to the same issue as Apple here.
And the Wii uses Opera on Linux, which probably gets the shaft from a lot of crappy banking sites that boot non-Windows UserAgents. Should Nintendo be barred from claims of access to the whole Internet?
Again, do Nintendo actively claim this in any advertising?
Yes, UK law does allow puffery and the extent is exactly what was passed here - people have a reasonable expectation of being able to view at least flash, if not java content, if the advert says 'all parts of the internet'.
We use something that might fit your need - its an offshoot of the CCTV business, and it goes over the wire.
Basically, its a little black box, which takes a couple of coax inputs and sends the resulting video to any clients connected via TCP/IP. It works over the internet (even over NAT, you just have to forward the right port), has a Windows client and is fairly cheap. One box each end, one client each end and you are done.
The company we buy from is Vista, the boxes are various models of the SmartTel range but we mainly use the VLS-04TR. Norbain are their UK distributor.
They care so much they don't bother providing examples that can't be invalidated with the slightest amount of examination. 'Convict by any means possible' is not a noble or viable course of action...
I care, but I care more that your point is complete bullshit based on the evidence you gave.
The problem is, there has been 40 years of advancement since Apollo - not just in technology, but also in materials science, production, quality etc. Basically, we don't have access to yesterdays methods because everything supporting them is basically dead.
Let me tell you a little story about a project an airforce undertook to modernise their maritime patrol aircraft. Instead of brand new aircraft, it was decided that to reduce costs, the fuselage of the old aircraft would be refurbished and reused, along with new wings etc.
So everything went swimmingly well, Airbus redesigned the wings using the original 40 year old designs and delivered the first set to BAE - at which point the problems started.
See, 40 years ago tolerances were not high. They were simply 'good enough', and the assembly line adapted the parts to fit each and every aircraft. Basically, every aircraft in the current fleet could be said to have been 'hand built', because they were.
So after significant delays and much drilling of new holes and mounting points, BAE manages to get the wings mated with the fuselage. Only to find that the 40 year old fuselage metals reacted badly with the brand new metals of the wings. Again, 40 year old tolerances in the metals composition had it downsides - no one quite knew what exactly was in the metal.
The project is now 8 years over due and the first aircraft isn't yet in service.
More to the point Vista is preventing you from taking a screen shot of a video, even one you've recorded from the evening news. A still image of a news broadcast in the context of a discussion regarding the broadcast or its subject is fair use, and Vista is preventing you from that fair use and so depriving you of your civil right of freedom of expression. That's not a minor thing. Maybe you don't care because you don't care to discuss current events or world history in the lens of public media - but some do and they're rightly offended.
Uhm, quite a few media players on XP use screen overlays, which will result in a blank box where the video should be - nothing new in Vista, nothing to do with DRM and nothing to do with violation of rights.
And every rumour that makes it to the press is real? Apple doesn't actually deny rumours as such, they just don't discuss them at all - in this case however, spreading a rumour about the imminent withdrawl of a company from one of their core industries can be *extremely* costly to that company in terms of customer and shareholder confidence.
So based on past performance, I would say that the Nvidia denial is correct, and the rumour is false - we aren't talking about a denial to cover up a new product, we are talking about a denial of a rumour that could cost Nvidia significant stability and market confidence. In my opinion, whomever spread the rumour should be investigated by the SEC or whoever else has jurisdiction.
But anyhow - why should we put more weight on the rumour and dismiss the denial as you seem wanting to do?
Intel and AMD share patent licenses between each other - Intel gets certain technologies, including EM64T, and AMD gets other technologies. Unless Nvidia can break into the patent deals in the same way, neither AMD nor Intel are under any obligation to give them time of day.
Nvidia also denied that rumour vigorously, going so far as to demand a retraction of the story (from the news site, not Slashdot...). As typical, everyone seems to have caught the rumour and completely missed the denial.
You can't ignore problems like an overzealous volunteer counting a few hundred more votes for his favorite candidate.
Which is why standard counting practices include having multiple unaffiliated people count the same ballot stacks independently to confirm any recorded result.
How many members of the Linux Kernel team, the Apache team or the Samba team are actually unpaid for their work on said project? Last time I looked, the vast majority of all those teams were made up of dedicated, paid developers.
Tried getting a certificate from one of the big providers that allows for SAN? Either you won't be getting one, or it won't be cheaper than two individual certs. Theres a reason practically all hosting providers require you to have a unique IP for https.
If PsyStar were limiting themselves to shipping hardware and bundled unmodified OS X 10.5 retail disks, I really think why would have no legal issues at all. However, by the sound of it, not only are the PsyStar systems running a modified variant of the OS X operating system (including some modifications to get the system running on generic hardware, just like OSX86), but they intend to ship 'Restore disks' that sound suspiciously like modified OS X 10.5 install sets.
That's going to be their downfall in this - the derivative work.
Seems like this is a tough business to stick around in.
Considering Nvidia reject the reports of its exit from the chipset market out of hand and demanded a retraction from the original source (Digitimes), I don't think that story is worth linking to...
Tried running ASP or ASP.Net 1/1.1 under.Net 2 (including 3 and 3.5, as they are the same runtime) lately? Won't happen - you have to *specifically* select either ASP page functionality or the.Net 1.1 framework in IIS to run either of these legacy platforms. No legacy support bogging ASP.Net 2 down there...
You seem to think there are any benefits for Ryanair in their customers going through a third party site - basically, there aren't. The custom the sites produce are mainly price-comparison based, meaning Ryanair will probably win the sale based on lowest cost, meaning lowest revenue.
That, combined with loss of anciliary product sales at booking stage, means lower profit per seat for Ryanair. Ryanair can't make up profits in numbers because each flight is a fixed capacity, so they have to make as much as possible off of each and every seat sold - those 99p seats are a tag product, they get you looking at the site.
Another thing Ryanair loses when customers go through other sites are the impulse bookings - bookings people make because they see its only 10 euros each way to fly to Spain for a long weekend in September. Ryanair won't get those sales through third party sites.
Basically, there is no reason for Ryanair to allow third party booking sites.
The reason why they want to block third party bookings is this - ancilliary revenue.
Ryanair has partners for carhire, hotels, travel at destination etc. They upsell these during the booking process on their website. The 3rd party aggregator sites do not show these upsell opportunities, they replace them with their own upsell items and thus Ryanair loses potential revenue as any upsells are not made through their channel partners.
Given that 16% of Ryanairs revenue comes from these upsell items, its quite understandable that they are getting pissed off with people getting sold the main item without being exposed to Ryanairs upsells.
Uhm, most airlines (including hte legacies) in the US have posted profits at one point or another - American Airlines for instance posted a profit in 2nd quarter 2005, just before the current downturn, and was last profitable before 9/11. If you go outside of the US, the situation is even better - Emirates Airline has posted a profit for 22 years of the 23 years its been in existence, and that includes the fact that its grown by a minimum of 20% year on year (with some years growth being greater than 50%). British Airways posted a profit 10 years out of the last 12.
The airline industry is not in a hugely dire state, its just that some markets are vastly over developed (the US market is a prime example of this), and what you are seeing is consolidation.
Ryanair already disallows these aggregator sites in their T&Cs - its the aggregator sites that are breaking the rules, and thus Ryanair are well within their rights to null and void the tickets. If any legal action were to be taken by disgruntled customers, it would be against the aggregator sites - Ryanair is not responsable for their distress.
Also, Ryanair only has 44.25% of shares in third party hands, and this action is actually a damn good move on Ryanairs part (althought I hardly expect Slashdot to understand that - after all, the story posted is rather inflamatory) - the shareholders have already been consulted on the move.
Ryanairs whole reason for doing this is because 16% of their annual revenue comes from ancilliary sales - carhire, hotels, travel tickets et. Aggregator sites do not expose customers to Ryanairs upsell opportunities, only their own - not good for Ryanair, because they want that revenue. Perfectly understandable.
Ryanair works because of the *other* products you can buy from them during booking - hotels, carhire etc. The aggregator sites do not show these and thus the customers are not exposed to the upsell chances that Ryanair want them to be.
Its perfectly understandable that Ryanair would want to ban these third party sites.
Slashdot Mirror
If we approach it that way, any 64-bit Linux distro wouldn't be able to access "all parts of the Internet" because they don't have a compatible Flash plugin either. Heck, the Olympics site is a very prominant site and so is the Democratic Convention site, and both of them (and a smattering of others) require Silverlight, which doesn't have a full implementation on even 32-bit Linux, but I'd hardly call my Ubuntu laptop an Internet loser.
If you show that any Linux distro can be proven to have advertised in the UK, specifically in the UK, that they could access "all parts of the internet", then yes, they would be subject to the same issue as Apple here.
And the Wii uses Opera on Linux, which probably gets the shaft from a lot of crappy banking sites that boot non-Windows UserAgents. Should Nintendo be barred from claims of access to the whole Internet?
Again, do Nintendo actively claim this in any advertising?
Yes, UK law does allow puffery and the extent is exactly what was passed here - people have a reasonable expectation of being able to view at least flash, if not java content, if the advert says 'all parts of the internet'.
And yes, I'm an iPhone user.
We use something that might fit your need - its an offshoot of the CCTV business, and it goes over the wire.
Basically, its a little black box, which takes a couple of coax inputs and sends the resulting video to any clients connected via TCP/IP. It works over the internet (even over NAT, you just have to forward the right port), has a Windows client and is fairly cheap. One box each end, one client each end and you are done.
The company we buy from is Vista, the boxes are various models of the SmartTel range but we mainly use the VLS-04TR. Norbain are their UK distributor.
http://www.vista-cctv.com/products/cat:SmartTel_-_Transmit_Only/catID:P47B5F3A42CC83/
Knock yourself out.
They care so much they don't bother providing examples that can't be invalidated with the slightest amount of examination. 'Convict by any means possible' is not a noble or viable course of action...
I care, but I care more that your point is complete bullshit based on the evidence you gave.
The problem is, there has been 40 years of advancement since Apollo - not just in technology, but also in materials science, production, quality etc. Basically, we don't have access to yesterdays methods because everything supporting them is basically dead.
Let me tell you a little story about a project an airforce undertook to modernise their maritime patrol aircraft. Instead of brand new aircraft, it was decided that to reduce costs, the fuselage of the old aircraft would be refurbished and reused, along with new wings etc.
So everything went swimmingly well, Airbus redesigned the wings using the original 40 year old designs and delivered the first set to BAE - at which point the problems started.
See, 40 years ago tolerances were not high. They were simply 'good enough', and the assembly line adapted the parts to fit each and every aircraft. Basically, every aircraft in the current fleet could be said to have been 'hand built', because they were.
So after significant delays and much drilling of new holes and mounting points, BAE manages to get the wings mated with the fuselage. Only to find that the 40 year old fuselage metals reacted badly with the brand new metals of the wings. Again, 40 year old tolerances in the metals composition had it downsides - no one quite knew what exactly was in the metal.
The project is now 8 years over due and the first aircraft isn't yet in service.
More to the point Vista is preventing you from taking a screen shot of a video, even one you've recorded from the evening news. A still image of a news broadcast in the context of a discussion regarding the broadcast or its subject is fair use, and Vista is preventing you from that fair use and so depriving you of your civil right of freedom of expression. That's not a minor thing. Maybe you don't care because you don't care to discuss current events or world history in the lens of public media - but some do and they're rightly offended.
Uhm, quite a few media players on XP use screen overlays, which will result in a blank box where the video should be - nothing new in Vista, nothing to do with DRM and nothing to do with violation of rights.
$150/year plus the cost of an IP address from your webhost etc etc... it all adds up.
Which is the problem here - Canvas is part of HTML5, which is currently not a standard, its in draft phase at the moment.
Yeah, it took a second reading to get the sarcasm, sorry ;)
And every rumour that makes it to the press is real? Apple doesn't actually deny rumours as such, they just don't discuss them at all - in this case however, spreading a rumour about the imminent withdrawl of a company from one of their core industries can be *extremely* costly to that company in terms of customer and shareholder confidence.
So based on past performance, I would say that the Nvidia denial is correct, and the rumour is false - we aren't talking about a denial to cover up a new product, we are talking about a denial of a rumour that could cost Nvidia significant stability and market confidence. In my opinion, whomever spread the rumour should be investigated by the SEC or whoever else has jurisdiction.
But anyhow - why should we put more weight on the rumour and dismiss the denial as you seem wanting to do?
Intel and AMD share patent licenses between each other - Intel gets certain technologies, including EM64T, and AMD gets other technologies. Unless Nvidia can break into the patent deals in the same way, neither AMD nor Intel are under any obligation to give them time of day.
Nvidia also denied that rumour vigorously, going so far as to demand a retraction of the story (from the news site, not Slashdot...). As typical, everyone seems to have caught the rumour and completely missed the denial.
You can't ignore problems like an overzealous volunteer counting a few hundred more votes for his favorite candidate.
Which is why standard counting practices include having multiple unaffiliated people count the same ballot stacks independently to confirm any recorded result.
How many members of the Linux Kernel team, the Apache team or the Samba team are actually unpaid for their work on said project? Last time I looked, the vast majority of all those teams were made up of dedicated, paid developers.
Tried getting a certificate from one of the big providers that allows for SAN? Either you won't be getting one, or it won't be cheaper than two individual certs. Theres a reason practically all hosting providers require you to have a unique IP for https.
If PsyStar were limiting themselves to shipping hardware and bundled unmodified OS X 10.5 retail disks, I really think why would have no legal issues at all. However, by the sound of it, not only are the PsyStar systems running a modified variant of the OS X operating system (including some modifications to get the system running on generic hardware, just like OSX86), but they intend to ship 'Restore disks' that sound suspiciously like modified OS X 10.5 install sets.
That's going to be their downfall in this - the derivative work.
Seems like this is a tough business to stick around in.
Considering Nvidia reject the reports of its exit from the chipset market out of hand and demanded a retraction from the original source (Digitimes), I don't think that story is worth linking to...
Tried running ASP or ASP.Net 1/1.1 under .Net 2 (including 3 and 3.5, as they are the same runtime) lately? Won't happen - you have to *specifically* select either ASP page functionality or the .Net 1.1 framework in IIS to run either of these legacy platforms. No legacy support bogging ASP.Net 2 down there...
My lawyer already gets paid, a letter from him over this wouldn't cost me a penny.
I hope not - there are other free software platforms out there that could be prevented from using anything if it was GPLed.
You seem to think there are any benefits for Ryanair in their customers going through a third party site - basically, there aren't. The custom the sites produce are mainly price-comparison based, meaning Ryanair will probably win the sale based on lowest cost, meaning lowest revenue.
That, combined with loss of anciliary product sales at booking stage, means lower profit per seat for Ryanair. Ryanair can't make up profits in numbers because each flight is a fixed capacity, so they have to make as much as possible off of each and every seat sold - those 99p seats are a tag product, they get you looking at the site.
Another thing Ryanair loses when customers go through other sites are the impulse bookings - bookings people make because they see its only 10 euros each way to fly to Spain for a long weekend in September. Ryanair won't get those sales through third party sites. Basically, there is no reason for Ryanair to allow third party booking sites.
The reason why they want to block third party bookings is this - ancilliary revenue.
Ryanair has partners for carhire, hotels, travel at destination etc. They upsell these during the booking process on their website. The 3rd party aggregator sites do not show these upsell opportunities, they replace them with their own upsell items and thus Ryanair loses potential revenue as any upsells are not made through their channel partners.
Given that 16% of Ryanairs revenue comes from these upsell items, its quite understandable that they are getting pissed off with people getting sold the main item without being exposed to Ryanairs upsells.
Uhm, most airlines (including hte legacies) in the US have posted profits at one point or another - American Airlines for instance posted a profit in 2nd quarter 2005, just before the current downturn, and was last profitable before 9/11. If you go outside of the US, the situation is even better - Emirates Airline has posted a profit for 22 years of the 23 years its been in existence, and that includes the fact that its grown by a minimum of 20% year on year (with some years growth being greater than 50%). British Airways posted a profit 10 years out of the last 12.
The airline industry is not in a hugely dire state, its just that some markets are vastly over developed (the US market is a prime example of this), and what you are seeing is consolidation.
Ryanair already disallows these aggregator sites in their T&Cs - its the aggregator sites that are breaking the rules, and thus Ryanair are well within their rights to null and void the tickets. If any legal action were to be taken by disgruntled customers, it would be against the aggregator sites - Ryanair is not responsable for their distress.
Also, Ryanair only has 44.25% of shares in third party hands, and this action is actually a damn good move on Ryanairs part (althought I hardly expect Slashdot to understand that - after all, the story posted is rather inflamatory) - the shareholders have already been consulted on the move.
Ryanairs whole reason for doing this is because 16% of their annual revenue comes from ancilliary sales - carhire, hotels, travel tickets et. Aggregator sites do not expose customers to Ryanairs upsell opportunities, only their own - not good for Ryanair, because they want that revenue. Perfectly understandable.
Ryanair works because of the *other* products you can buy from them during booking - hotels, carhire etc. The aggregator sites do not show these and thus the customers are not exposed to the upsell chances that Ryanair want them to be.
Its perfectly understandable that Ryanair would want to ban these third party sites.