What about OSes that don't even allow other browsers to be installed on them? Are they exempt from this type of ruling?
Yes yes, goddammit yes. The ruling was to attempt to correct *abuse of monopoly*. Bundling browsers (or anything) isn't in itself illegal, but using one monopoly (OS) to leverage another (browser) *is*.
Just because this isn't a problem anymore doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it. Punishments must still happen for past actions.
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Well, perhaps, but isn't that the point of a punishment? To punish? Punishments can never happen at the same time as the offence, so they have to happen after! MS have got off pretty lightly really, considering the damage they managed to do in the past.
So what have you, oh AC, accomplished then that gives you the ability to judge his ego? His being the leading figure in one of the largest distributed projects in human history not enough for you?
"Phone is for talking". Really? What decade are you from? If that's the case why have anything other than a cheap Nokia dumbphone? The rest of us have realised that phones have multiple uses.
Personally, I'm against online sales taxes. When you buy something online, you are already paying a "tax" of sorts and that is your _time_. That is a tax or cost to online purchases as it takes up to five days for your products to arrive. If you want your products that same day, you pay an extra (and real) tax by buying local.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not Google's responsibility to keep the system backwards compatible across version upgrades. Someone (and it's not clear to me whether it's Google or manufacturers) should be providing security patches to existing versions. If you bought a phone with Gingerbread then in most cases there should be an expectation for an upgrade to ICS. But there *should* be security and bug fixes *for Gingerbread*.
But it's not 'some' anymore, it's most. And it's getting worse. Once GOG run out of past games to trail, what then?
First sale rights did not come about because a mutual agreement between consumer and manufacturer was made, it came about because laws were passed to define what is right. We cannot get to a reasonable balanced state by free market negotiation, we have to have consumer protection laws to keep companies from forever screwing people over.
The software is not being sold. It is being licensed.
Blah. This is a common cry, what happens when everything sold is turned into a licence? You might be technically correct, but more and more of the things we consider "purchased items" are now "licensed services", and long-held rights are being thrown away because of it.
It's an item that you buy once and own forever. It looks like a sale, it smells like a sale... it's a frikking *sale*!
Suck it up. Seriously, are people today so pathetic that they can't go without playing some games?
Wait, so as far as you are concern as long as it's not an 'essential' item then it's fine to have to make a choice between complete boycott and giving away long-held consumer rights? The whole article is about games. Non-essential things. We shouldn't have to choose, art and entertainment is what makes life worth fucking living, it is not something that should be so easily dismissed as a triviality.
What an unpleasant person you come across as. It must be nice to live in a brain that can have no empathy for other people, and can dismiss their mistakes because they're an 'idiot'. Not having to deal with trivial emotions like sympathy or concern.
It's good for you that when you became 18 or 16 (in your examples) you knew everything about your rights and could effectively counter any bullying tactics. Sadly the rest of us are not so fortunate, and when threatened by a older more experienced people in authority tend to doubt our poor, meagre minds.
You buy your burgers premade! I eat burgers frequently, but I make them myself
Yeah... some of us have other things to do / not enough time / derive no enjoyment from cooking. Why is it every time there is a complaint about food standards there is one pretentious git to tell us we should do it ourselves.
Your burgers should lovely, you should sell them...
How accurate is this simulation? For example, if something compiles and runs on the development computer, will it run on the target device at roughly the same speed? Otherwise, a developer could end up submitting something that crashes on the device or runs unacceptably slowly on the device.
In that case the cost of Android development is significantly larger given that Android devices span a far greater number of form factors, performance, resolution, screen size, operating system version and various other configurations than do iOS devices.
I would have to guess that you don't actually work in mobile development, since this is not the case at all. Where I develop, the iOS and Android teams are the same size, and get roughly the same work done. Android is *built* around handling different devices, and has the tools to do it, and if anything it's getting more difficult for iOS because the assumptions they make over screen resolutions are getting less reliable as Apple adds variety in the lineup.
Also, I don't know why we are suddenly scared of differing devices - in desktop development we've dealt with varied configurations since the dawn of time. If anything, iOS has been a brief exception to the norm.
Slashdot Mirror
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh cut the amount Samsung is obligated to pay Apple by about $450.5 million, or nearly 43%, to $598.9 million.
And Microsoft is fined $732 million for not complying with a court order / ruling?
You're comparing a civil suit in one country to a criminal fine in another. Why bother comparing, they're completely different things.
What about OSes that don't even allow other browsers to be installed on them? Are they exempt from this type of ruling?
Yes yes, goddammit yes. The ruling was to attempt to correct *abuse of monopoly*. Bundling browsers (or anything) isn't in itself illegal, but using one monopoly (OS) to leverage another (browser) *is*.
Just because this isn't a problem anymore doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it. Punishments must still happen for past actions.
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Well, perhaps, but isn't that the point of a punishment? To punish? Punishments can never happen at the same time as the offence, so they have to happen after! MS have got off pretty lightly really, considering the damage they managed to do in the past.
Desktop effects can be disabled or enabled any time by pressing Alt+Shift+F12.
CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE works even better.
So what have you, oh AC, accomplished then that gives you the ability to judge his ego? His being the leading figure in one of the largest distributed projects in human history not enough for you?
"Phone is for talking". Really? What decade are you from? If that's the case why have anything other than a cheap Nokia dumbphone? The rest of us have realised that phones have multiple uses.
No offence, but I find your figures pretty unconvincing, nobody would be able to run a business with 50% failure rates.
I don't know if you can call the person who owns the company that makes Ubuntu a 'shill'...
Personally, I'm against online sales taxes. When you buy something online, you are already paying a "tax" of sorts and that is your _time_. That is a tax or cost to online purchases as it takes up to five days for your products to arrive. If you want your products that same day, you pay an extra (and real) tax by buying local.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think you can get a better deal.
http://www.lowendbox.com/
For eg, I have a box from stormvz.com/vps.html and I get a box comparable with the one in the article for £4.25/month.
It's not Google's responsibility to keep the system backwards compatible across version upgrades. Someone (and it's not clear to me whether it's Google or manufacturers) should be providing security patches to existing versions. If you bought a phone with Gingerbread then in most cases there should be an expectation for an upgrade to ICS. But there *should* be security and bug fixes *for Gingerbread*.
If you don't know the difference between a language and a runtime, then you don't get to comment on the situation...
But it's not 'some' anymore, it's most. And it's getting worse. Once GOG run out of past games to trail, what then?
First sale rights did not come about because a mutual agreement between consumer and manufacturer was made, it came about because laws were passed to define what is right. We cannot get to a reasonable balanced state by free market negotiation, we have to have consumer protection laws to keep companies from forever screwing people over.
The software is not being sold. It is being licensed.
Blah. This is a common cry, what happens when everything sold is turned into a licence? You might be technically correct, but more and more of the things we consider "purchased items" are now "licensed services", and long-held rights are being thrown away because of it.
It's an item that you buy once and own forever. It looks like a sale, it smells like a sale... it's a frikking *sale*!
Suck it up. Seriously, are people today so pathetic that they can't go without playing some games?
Wait, so as far as you are concern as long as it's not an 'essential' item then it's fine to have to make a choice between complete boycott and giving away long-held consumer rights?
The whole article is about games. Non-essential things. We shouldn't have to choose, art and entertainment is what makes life worth fucking living, it is not something that should be so easily dismissed as a triviality.
Heh... funny...
It's still surprising when we get a bit more data on exactly *how much* of a dick he was. I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
Think of all the code that will need to be totally rewritten.
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means...
What an unpleasant person you come across as. It must be nice to live in a brain that can have no empathy for other people, and can dismiss their mistakes because they're an 'idiot'. Not having to deal with trivial emotions like sympathy or concern.
It's good for you that when you became 18 or 16 (in your examples) you knew everything about your rights and could effectively counter any bullying tactics. Sadly the rest of us are not so fortunate, and when threatened by a older more experienced people in authority tend to doubt our poor, meagre minds.
You buy your burgers premade! I eat burgers frequently, but I make them myself
Yeah... some of us have other things to do / not enough time / derive no enjoyment from cooking. Why is it every time there is a complaint about food standards there is one pretentious git to tell us we should do it ourselves.
Your burgers should lovely, you should sell them...
You did not answer the question about walled gardens. In fact, you gave a hint that the absence of a walled garden *did* exacerbate the problem.
Probably does. The price of freedom is that people are free to install malware.
Kickstarter seems to be getting seriously diluted. Everybody is using it.
That's like saying the internet is diluted. The word you're looking for is *popular*.
Not that this is a particularly worthy project, though...
That is a *lot* of money for something that pretty limited in its usage.
How accurate is this simulation? For example, if something compiles and runs on the development computer, will it run on the target device at roughly the same speed? Otherwise, a developer could end up submitting something that crashes on the device or runs unacceptably slowly on the device.
In that case the cost of Android development is significantly larger given that Android devices span a far greater number of form factors, performance, resolution, screen size, operating system version and various other configurations than do iOS devices.
I would have to guess that you don't actually work in mobile development, since this is not the case at all. Where I develop, the iOS and Android teams are the same size, and get roughly the same work done. Android is *built* around handling different devices, and has the tools to do it, and if anything it's getting more difficult for iOS because the assumptions they make over screen resolutions are getting less reliable as Apple adds variety in the lineup.
Also, I don't know why we are suddenly scared of differing devices - in desktop development we've dealt with varied configurations since the dawn of time. If anything, iOS has been a brief exception to the norm.
Yeah, we saw the same thing.