This amendment was introduced by Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL). Given that he is in the minority party, and the bill apparently does not have a Democratic co-sponsor (although I didn't look very hard), it is likely that it will die in committee, as most bills do.
Of course they're aware that that's what consumers want. I think it's also pretty obvious that they don't like it, though, because it goes against their traditional strategy of vendor lockin.
Good point. I guess part of it is just that - trying new apps and configs out is fun, and occasionally rewarding. Maybe it does make me 5-10% happier. On average, 7.382%.
I think it's stupid to follow rules just for the sake of following rules, as you seem to espouse. I break rules that I think are stupid, baseless, or irrelevant. I will not and should not apologize for that. I am open-minded and inquisitive enough that I will do some sort of due diligence beforehand to make sure the rule in question is in fact stupid, baseless, or irrelevant. And if you don't like it, tough - I really don't care about anything you think about anything.
I think it is likely that the FAA and FCC know that it is practically impossible to enforce this regulation (although I wouldn't mind a foxy flight attendant patting me down to find my turned-on cell phone, which is always on when I fly). I also think it is likely that there are lots of you who leave your phones on, too. And yet, our planes didn't crash, and here we all are. So I think they are saying no due to some other reason - it certainly isn't because it messes up navigational equipment; many of us are proof of that.
1. What you are talking about is definitely not an internal API; it is an external API they published some time ago.
2. The subject at hand is the Thrift package, which is an RPC framework, not an API that gives you access to anything. So the poster's concern, if not irrelevant, is definitely misplaced.
Sorry, try again. They didn't release their internal API, they released a framework for RPC calls. Completely different, which you might have noticed if you had actually read the article. And if you don't want your information shared, don't put it somewhere beyond your physical control, i.e. on Facebook.
I would be shocked if the Bushies actually asked them that, and even more shocked if Google acquiesced to such a request (I am no Republican fanboy though). My guess would be Google did it because of:
1. a contractual obligation (admittedly unlikely), or
2. a technical glitch (slightly more likely), or
3. more/better satellite maps are available from before Katrina than after, or
4. something to do with the devastation messing with their routing/traffic directions functionality
Well, I do actually use them 'just for kicks' - Photoshop for my personal website, and Office for correspondence and other administrivia/minutiae of everyday life. I could easily switch to FOSS, which has most of the same capabilities and would work fine, although I use Photoshop and Office because imho they are better application software than the FOSS stuff. I mostly agree with you though, for people who really do need to use the real deal.
No harm, no foul. Adobe, MSFT, et al haven't really lost "a sale" because of me, because I wouldn't buy their software no matter what (i.e. even if I was unable to get it for free, like I do now). So it makes sense that there shouldn't be any penalty. Yet another reason to move to Europe:)
Why would it be an issue? I don't think you can GPL arbitrary concepts; it's a source-code license. That is to say, if Mr. Odgaard recreates "look and feel" of the Emacs GUI, but writes it all himself, then by definition he is not using any GPL code, and therefore is not violating the GPL.
The reason I bought an iPod Nano was that the interface is excellent. It's easy to control and makes sense. The clickwheel is also awesome, and you can operate it without looking at it. The iPhone is clearly lacking in the tactile area, and that's why I won't buy one. Not to mention that the Nano is really, really small.
This makes me really happy. It's pretty clear that the traditional record company business model is on the way out, their final whimperings and thrashings notwithstanding. I don't care what they try to do DRM-wise, because someone smarter than they are will probably break it. Most of you are worried, rightly, about their legislative influence - but this will start eroding rapidly once they are unable to afford the lobbyists. In sum, to the record companies, FUCK YOU - I don't need you.
Actually, they are not so much saying that it will undermine 'separation of powers', it is more that it will hamper the president's ability to receive confidential advice & counsel from his aides.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm no Microsoft fanboy (I've been running Linux at home for about 6 years now).
I don't understand how your point is relevant. If you were in business, would you want to help your competitor? What we are talking about is Microsoft withdrawing a product from the marketplace. How does withdrawing a product from the marketplace constitute monopoly abuse?
Slashdot Mirror
This amendment was introduced by Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL). Given that he is in the minority party, and the bill apparently does not have a Democratic co-sponsor (although I didn't look very hard), it is likely that it will die in committee, as most bills do.
Of course they're aware that that's what consumers want. I think it's also pretty obvious that they don't like it, though, because it goes against their traditional strategy of vendor lockin.
Good point. I guess part of it is just that - trying new apps and configs out is fun, and occasionally rewarding. Maybe it does make me 5-10% happier. On average, 7.382%.
The time I spend tweaking the settings asymptotically approaches something like 5-10% of the time I spend on the PC.
I think it's stupid to follow rules just for the sake of following rules, as you seem to espouse. I break rules that I think are stupid, baseless, or irrelevant. I will not and should not apologize for that. I am open-minded and inquisitive enough that I will do some sort of due diligence beforehand to make sure the rule in question is in fact stupid, baseless, or irrelevant. And if you don't like it, tough - I really don't care about anything you think about anything.
I think it is likely that the FAA and FCC know that it is practically impossible to enforce this regulation (although I wouldn't mind a foxy flight attendant patting me down to find my turned-on cell phone, which is always on when I fly). I also think it is likely that there are lots of you who leave your phones on, too. And yet, our planes didn't crash, and here we all are. So I think they are saying no due to some other reason - it certainly isn't because it messes up navigational equipment; many of us are proof of that.
Realtime raytracing, anyone?
*Holds up picture of John Connor*
Well, you'd probably get charged for it.
1. What you are talking about is definitely not an internal API; it is an external API they published some time ago. 2. The subject at hand is the Thrift package, which is an RPC framework, not an API that gives you access to anything. So the poster's concern, if not irrelevant, is definitely misplaced.
Sorry, try again. They didn't release their internal API, they released a framework for RPC calls. Completely different, which you might have noticed if you had actually read the article. And if you don't want your information shared, don't put it somewhere beyond your physical control, i.e. on Facebook.
And in any case, even though Google Maps/Earth is the most widely used mapping utility, there are definitely other ones out there.
I would be shocked if the Bushies actually asked them that, and even more shocked if Google acquiesced to such a request (I am no Republican fanboy though). My guess would be Google did it because of: 1. a contractual obligation (admittedly unlikely), or 2. a technical glitch (slightly more likely), or 3. more/better satellite maps are available from before Katrina than after, or 4. something to do with the devastation messing with their routing/traffic directions functionality
Why is Congress asking them this? I just don't see why Congress should have any say in what Google puts on its own website.
Excellent point.
Well, I do actually use them 'just for kicks' - Photoshop for my personal website, and Office for correspondence and other administrivia/minutiae of everyday life. I could easily switch to FOSS, which has most of the same capabilities and would work fine, although I use Photoshop and Office because imho they are better application software than the FOSS stuff. I mostly agree with you though, for people who really do need to use the real deal.
No harm, no foul. Adobe, MSFT, et al haven't really lost "a sale" because of me, because I wouldn't buy their software no matter what (i.e. even if I was unable to get it for free, like I do now). So it makes sense that there shouldn't be any penalty. Yet another reason to move to Europe :)
Why would it be an issue? I don't think you can GPL arbitrary concepts; it's a source-code license. That is to say, if Mr. Odgaard recreates "look and feel" of the Emacs GUI, but writes it all himself, then by definition he is not using any GPL code, and therefore is not violating the GPL.
The reason I bought an iPod Nano was that the interface is excellent. It's easy to control and makes sense. The clickwheel is also awesome, and you can operate it without looking at it. The iPhone is clearly lacking in the tactile area, and that's why I won't buy one. Not to mention that the Nano is really, really small.
I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just clarifying that that's what they are arguing (not separation of powers).
This makes me really happy. It's pretty clear that the traditional record company business model is on the way out, their final whimperings and thrashings notwithstanding. I don't care what they try to do DRM-wise, because someone smarter than they are will probably break it. Most of you are worried, rightly, about their legislative influence - but this will start eroding rapidly once they are unable to afford the lobbyists. In sum, to the record companies, FUCK YOU - I don't need you.
Actually, they are not so much saying that it will undermine 'separation of powers', it is more that it will hamper the president's ability to receive confidential advice & counsel from his aides.
I don't understand how your point is relevant. If you were in business, would you want to help your competitor? What we are talking about is Microsoft withdrawing a product from the marketplace. How does withdrawing a product from the marketplace constitute monopoly abuse?
Why wouldn't they want to harm Apple? They're competitors! Why is this news?
Because they have no obligation to be "nice" to you?