I hope the Trek fans manage to salvage Enterprise - they should give Coto at least another season, and some decent advertising dollars, to demonstrate whether or not he and the rest of the remaining Enterprise team can put on a better show than B&B.
The problem being, no matter how good the series is and could be under Manny Coto, it is tainted by what came before.
Let me put it this way - say you're building a house, and you end up with a lousy contractor that slacks off, does all sorts of code violations, and lets the foundation get water and termite damage. You fire the guy, of course, and bring in the best contractor in the world, with one condition - everything that was done before has to stay in place, because you don't want to start all over again with another new house. The guy builds the friggin Taj Mahal for you, but it's built on the crappy foundation the first guy laid.
The same goes with Enterprise. Manny's doing a pretty good job, but he's working with damaged goods. Oh, he can go back and brace up some of the sagging parts and he can build a fantastic new house, but it's still built on a foundation that was damaged by neglect by B&B. The other problem is - it's not really even his show. Oh, he's running it, but he's just the caretaker, it's still B&B's house.
This is why I don't get the fan campaign to save Enterprise. LET IT DIE. Let Paramount feel the sting of two Trek failures in a row under Berman's rule. After a while, even the dumbest of studios has to recognize a time for change, and maybe then we'll have a Trek series we'll enjoy. Then people like Straczynski (or however you spell it) and Coto and such can come in at that point and do fantastic work with that series.
It's voluntary reporting alright, but you know if your computer is deemed evidence for any reason you are going to get the book (ebook?) thrown at you. And how do you determine an appropriate "sales tax" on downloads. Considering that a majority of downloads are probably free downloads, this idea gets more ludicrous. I just wonder if this is just another way to create a nice ghost department that is funded, yet doesn't really do anything/need a staff.
The tax is only on purchased items. A perfect example is purchased music, which is why they're nicknaming this the 'iPod Tax.' It's on more than music, but that's probably the vast majority of buy-to-download items out there these days.
Wouldn't that fall into federal law? Most internet purchases (especially in Wisconsin) are from over state lines. Unless they started enforcing their state sales tax nationally--which is regularly collected from the seller, not the buyer--then they would be out of their jurisdiction. They would only be able to collect from sellers within the state, so then the internet vendor would just have to establish their business out of state.
You're thinking of the sales tax that retailers collect from you and then file with the state. That's not this.
This is the sales tax that Wisconsin collects as a part of the state income tax. There's a line on the Wisconsin income tax that asks the filer to enter the amount of sales tax due on items purchased from out of state but used within the state, items you didn't pay tax on at the time of sale. For example, internet and mail order purchases.
Of course, the thing is - this line is an "on your honor" line, really. The state doesn't really check to see if the amount - if any - that you pay on this line is actually the amount you owe. As a result, I think I heard only a little over 20,000 people actually enter anything onto this line.
There's been noise that they may start using this line as a trigger for audits, but to my knowlege, at this point, it's just noise.
I already had my rio.
which still works,btw..
(does the patent say something about hd then or something? seems like you can patent just about anything)
The patent for the Music Jukebox's primary claim is as follows:
1. A music jukebox configured for storing a music library therein, said music jukebox comprising: a housing; an audio data receiver arranged to receive audio data from outside the housing; audio output structure located at least partially within the housing for outputting audio signals; data storage memory in the housing for storing audio data received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox including a user interface comprising a display device located at least partially within the housing, said display device providing a display which is viewable from outside the housing, and a plurality of manually operable function controllers on the housing, said music jukebox configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in digital form in the data storage memory as a result of audio data being received from outside the housing through the audio data receiver, said music jukebox configured such that said music library is organizable into a master song list and at least one group of sound tracks wherein each group comprises at least one sound track selected from the master song list, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that indicia of said master song list and indicia of at least one group of sound tracks are displayable on said display, wherein said music jukebox is configured such that said plurality of manually operable function controllers is useable to select a group of sound tracks stored in the data storage memory and operate the music jukebox such that said music jukebox outputs audio signals through said audio output structure.
They then go and describe variations upon this claim, including players that use flash memory, players that use hard drives, etc.
I think that it's pretty obvious the patent doesn't hold water - the first MP3 player sold in the US was the Eiger Labs MPMan, released in the summer of 1998. It was followed by the Rio, released in late 1998. Both players follow the same general form as the device described in the patent - they receive audio data, store it, and play it back out the headphone jack; they both have a screen where you can select a specific track from your library, and both have controls that allow you to do the selecting.
CNET described these early MP3 players, even tracking down a 6 gig USB based MP3 player with a large screen that was released in 1999.
The IL company doesn't have a hope in the world of defending their patent.
Still, overall we prefer a player with a navigation window. When we use random play on our personal digital audio player, we often find that it stimulates a musical mood; we'll then switch to a specific playlist or group of albums.
Are we supposed to CARE how you use random play? How you use random play is a personal decision, and should NOT factor into the review or the score you give the product. You might play it that way - others might not.
The review should have been, not on the way they would prefer to use the device, but how well the device works within the parameters it was designed for. That is, it was designed as a small-form random-play digital music player, and it does very well within those parameters.
This would be like reviewing a Kia and mentioning "We tend to drive luxury vehicles like a BMW, and wished that this car was a luxury car instead of an econobox," and scoring it down simply because it wasn't a BMW.
Agreed. I went back to the article twice because I thought I might have missed some hidden "read more" or "more pictures here" link. Nope. Just about as much info in the summary as in the article itself, and two lousy pictures. Wa-hoo.
1. You are correct. Sirius music channels have always been 100% commercial free, while XM's haven't. But that's the past. They're now both 100% commercial free music.
2. Lee Abrams pretty much invented the use of psychographics in radio, which, in a nutshell, is when they tailor a radio station for a specific listening profile. This is EXACTLY what satellite radio specializes in, creating "niche" stations that a small number of people are interested in listening to. See this Wired article for more information. (Oh, and Abrams came most recently from ABC Radio. He might have worked at Clear Channel in the past, I can't find an answer either way. But if he did, it's been quite some time since he did.)
3. Yes, you have to pay more for the premium channels, of which there are only two - Playboy and High Voltage. And yes, you have to pay to access the streaming access. However, the streaming access gets you MORE channels than are even broadcast over the satellite, so-called "micro-niche" stations that don't have a wide enough appeal, so you're definitely getting your money worth on the streaming access.
Additionally, you are incorrect on BOTH counts on the discounts - XM does offer "family pack" discounts as well as multi-year discounts.
4. XM doesn't have Stern. That's actually a selling point... for XM.:)
Both Sirius and XM's music streams are both completely commercial free. The talk, news, and informational channels on both services carry commercials (partially because many of the channels are simulcasts of TV audio).
XM had originally tried having some of their music channels carrying commercials, but it's been almost a year since that point.
It doesn't look like this unit comes with an internal antenna, in fact it looks to come with an indoor and an outdoor antenna as well as the docking setup for each.
It includes a home and car setup (with associated antennas, yes) but also has the "First-ever built-in XM antenna" (see the bottom of this page.)
The same applies to the Sony Gallery in Chicago on the Magnificent Mile... horrible store.
First, you have to pass through one of the more foreboding entryways, and pass by the pissed off looking security guard staring you down like you're about to take everything in the store. Once past that, you're hit by the horrible lighting and the bad architecture, having to walk up two flights of stairs to get to the second level... to find about 3 products up there, including their high end plasma.
Product selection throughout the whole store is abysmal... high end stuff at 3x what you can buy it for at ANY electronics store, and some of the worst of the personal electronics line. All of it looks broken or not correctly set up. The store help is less than helpful... they're all off in a corner acting like the Gap Girls on SNL.
Walk down the street to the Apple Store and see what a REAL manufacturer retail outlet should look and act like.
BTW, does anyone know if that is the case? I thought you COULD be executed for crimes committed as a minor.
I don't know, but my interpretation was that all the responses were speaking about federal law, not state law. And if the above is true, which I have no reason to doubt, federal law might prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed as a minor, while your state might permit it.
I DO know that Tivo has had a very suspect privacy policy in the past and that they DO transfer personally idendifiable data back to their dbs.
WRONG. TiVo has a very upfront privacy policy, which can be viewed at http://www.tivo.com/5.11.3.asp. TiVo also has hosted on their website a PDF file of a presentation to the FTC that details exactly what information they store on their customers. In short, information is only collected anonymously (this has been verified by multiple third parties) and used in aggregate. If you do not want to participate in this anonymous, aggregate data gathering, you can call TiVo and opt out completely.
Tivo is owned by Phillips
WRONG again. Philips does not own TiVo. TiVo is a publically traded company independent of Philips. Philips did (and still does, I believe) produce products that use licensed TiVo technology.
I work at a college, supervising student workers on the IT Help Desk. I had thought that by college, people would've long since learned the proper way to use a telephone at a place of business. Boy, was I wrong. Every new batch of students that I get are as bad as the last.
"Hello?" NO! You do NOT answer a business line "Hello?"
"Hang on a sec." No... there's no "hang on" button on the telephone, and I know it's not going to be for "a sec." There's a hold button, perhaps you meant "Can I put you on hold a moment?"
(when the caller asks for a specific person) "Who are you??" I'm the guy calling for your boss. The question you want to ask is "May I tell him who is calling?"
And so on. I'm tempted to make up a sheet just like this book, and making the help desk people memorize it before they're allowed to answer the telephone.
Can someone clarify one thing for me - why bother with Bluetooth for this application? I'd think it'd be easier just to use a cell phone that has a standard 2.5mm jack.
Take any "hands-free" kit with a microphone in the cable and a 2.5mm connector. Snip off the earpiece, leaving the microphone behind, and replace the earpiece leads with a 3.5mm mono jack. Use the 3.5mm to hearing aid adapter as shown in this story, and you're done.
If you're going to have something clipped to your belt and a big cable, may as well carry the cell phone on your belt and have the wire going directly to the phone instead of a wire to a wireless link.
DS9 was horrible. What were they thinking? Star Trek is about exploration, going places and finding new civilizations, it's not about sitting in one place waiting for things to come to you. The best episodes were when they got the warship and started kicking some ass, but by then I had pretty much already stopped watching it.
DS9 was outstanding... it just wasn't widely accepted by closed-minded fans who wouldn't accept anything but a 'show on a starship' as a Star Trek series. I have this funny feeling that you stopped watching FAR before the Defiant showed up, just for that reason.
It's not even like the show and it's characters were trapped on the station - they had the runabouts, which were designed to be autonomous warp-capable vessels manned by a small crew. They got out to all sorts of places in just the first season alone.
Star Trek is about exploration, yes, but it's exploration of the "human condition." Sometimes, those sorts of stories can be best told when you have people coming to you, rather than the other way around.
SciFi picked up Andromeda. They're running new episodes. Although God knows why. I watched a couple because TiVo said I should, and I always do what TiVo tells me to.
They were terrible. I mean, beyond bad.
Sci Fi did pick up the new season... but then the production house responsible for both Andromeda and Mutant X, "Fireworks," was put out of business by the parent company, CanWest. As a result, CanWest and Tribune (the company responsible for distributing Andromeda and Mutant X) are being sued... the future of both series looks rather bleak.
Well, this is good news. Enterprise is not my favorite flavor of Trek, but it's better than nothing. Besides, there have been a couple good episodes this season.
I'm sure some people would have revelled in an Enterprise cancellation... to them, I'd like to pose a question which always bugged me: if you don't like a show, you don't watch it, right? If you don't watch it why would it matter to you whether or not it is cancelled? It just seems so mean-spirited to wish for a show's cancellation-- over a hundred people lose their jobs as a result, and I'm not talking about high-paid actors, I'm talking about camera men, editors, janitors-- normal people. It's not fun losing a job, folks.
Is it really better than nothing? The fact is, a bad series can have an impact on the entire franchise. The fact that Enterprise has garnered lackluster ratings - at best - and has had very few really good episodes from a creative aspect makes the chances of more Star Trek (whether it be TV or movie) less attractive to both viewers and Hollywood executives.
To pull the argument that cancelling the series puts people out of work is rather pathetic actually. Does that mean that we should keep trash on the air, just because people worked on the series? Imagine a schedule full of shows like "The Mullets" just because people didn't want to cancel the series because it would put people out of work... *shudder*
What you missed was that he listed an actual PowerBook on ebay - and actually SOLD said PowerBook on eBay to a legitimate buyer. The events of this story all take place SEPERATELY from the eBay sale, outside of eBay. No defrauding of eBay went on here.
As for defrauding PayPal - all he asked for was donations for shipping an item to Great Britain, and said funds were used for that purpose. I think that accusing him of defrauding PayPal is a bit of a stretch - you might make the argument, but I don't think anyone would really swallow it.
The only defrauding that went on here is FedEx - the contents of the package and value were both misstated.
READ THE FUCKING PATENT. It's not enough just to be translucent. It has to allow stuff like becoming transparent to user input over time as well.
Nice. Someone who READ the patent instead of just commenting on the stupid summary. This is a VERY SPECIFIC method of USING translucent windows. Not just "a patent on translucent windows."
This is essentially a patent on a context-sensitive user interface, where windows become more or less opaque based on how many windows are open and how many are layered, and whether or not the user interfaces with them. I imagine this would look very cool and be fairly usable.
You can't buy them ala' cart anymore? I don't know anything about the Satalite providers, but I know that, at least here in Florida, the cable company's at least, and I thought all television signal carriers were required to offer ala' cart prices by law. I always figured that that requirement imposed on cable companies also held for satalite companies.
I can't say whether you can select channels a la carte there where you are in Florida - I don't have that information. What I can respond to is the statement that law requires it.
The Cable Act of 1992 actually says that they cannot link "premium" channels, such as HBO, Cinemax, etc., to a specific "tier" of programming. That is - you cannot be required to buy the "expanded" package just to get HBO. The law also says that they cannot require you to buy a package of premium channels - you can pick and choose which premium channel you want.
The law does NOT say anything about picking and choosing your standard channels a la carte. If your cable provider allows you to do this - which I highly doubt - it's not because it's required by law, it's just because the provider either wants to be nice or feels that it's a business advantage to do so.
Here's a transcript of a television news story that talks about this.
someone needs to explain to production houses that it's perfectly possible to have 4:3 and 16:9/letterboxed formats on the same disc if they're double-sided: i own a few discs sthat do that. this practice of having to have the pan & scan (spits) and widescreen versions as separate is ridiculous.
It's possible, but no more practical than having two discs (a double sided DVD is, more or less, just two single sided DVDs bonded together).
Additionally, consumers have proven they do not like the double sided discs - generally, most consumers tend to feel that the double sided nature of the discs means they're more susceptible to damage, since there are now two sides of the disc containing data to get scratched, instead of just one.) Plus - it gives the consumer the feeling that they are getting more value - they're getting two discs instead of just one (regardless whether the one disc contains the same amount of information as the two discs).
Lastly, having them on seperate discs allows you to loan out one disc while retaining the other, should you so choose.
But on a serious note: I thought that if one didn't vigersously enforce a pattent then after a while as the idea covered in the pattent has been in whide use then that pattent is legally in the public domain. besides don't pattents expire after 17 years ? and Hasn't FAT been around since the early 80's ? Its pattent has surely run out by now.
Microsoft's licensing agreement lists 4 patents that it covers. All were filed since 1992, and all were granted within the last 8 years or so.
However... if you look at the materials patented, all refer to long file name support. ("Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats," "Common name space for long and short file names," etc.) If one develops a device that utilizes FAT without using long file names, I'd imagine that they'd be safe.
While it's hard to tell from a press release that's been groomed by a PR department of a major international corporation, I still sense that this isn't a very strong denial.
All the press release says is that they haven't announced anything yet, and that the reports are speculation. (This is something we all knew ANYWAY.) This could've been released to deflate expectations a bit before the real announcement.... or it in fact could be that they have no plans to do the iTMS deal.
In either case, I'm not getting my hopes up, but then again, I didn't have my hopes up when the rumor first floated. I figured that if the deal would happen, it probably wouldn't happen right away.
Sure they may have told you, but the question is whether it's just that they didn't want to bother fixing something that was broken of if they did it intentionally to lock out the competition. One is just lazy, the other is pretty low.
Are they really competition? I guess they sort of are... but then again, Apple WAS bundling MusicMatch with the iPod all along until they released iTunes.
I guess the way I see it - they deliberately disabled what they considered an older version of the iPod software (MusicMatch) in favor of the newer version (iTunes).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem being, no matter how good the series is and could be under Manny Coto, it is tainted by what came before.
Let me put it this way - say you're building a house, and you end up with a lousy contractor that slacks off, does all sorts of code violations, and lets the foundation get water and termite damage. You fire the guy, of course, and bring in the best contractor in the world, with one condition - everything that was done before has to stay in place, because you don't want to start all over again with another new house. The guy builds the friggin Taj Mahal for you, but it's built on the crappy foundation the first guy laid.
The same goes with Enterprise. Manny's doing a pretty good job, but he's working with damaged goods. Oh, he can go back and brace up some of the sagging parts and he can build a fantastic new house, but it's still built on a foundation that was damaged by neglect by B&B. The other problem is - it's not really even his show. Oh, he's running it, but he's just the caretaker, it's still B&B's house.
This is why I don't get the fan campaign to save Enterprise. LET IT DIE. Let Paramount feel the sting of two Trek failures in a row under Berman's rule. After a while, even the dumbest of studios has to recognize a time for change, and maybe then we'll have a Trek series we'll enjoy. Then people like Straczynski (or however you spell it) and Coto and such can come in at that point and do fantastic work with that series.
The tax is only on purchased items. A perfect example is purchased music, which is why they're nicknaming this the 'iPod Tax.' It's on more than music, but that's probably the vast majority of buy-to-download items out there these days.
You're thinking of the sales tax that retailers collect from you and then file with the state. That's not this.
This is the sales tax that Wisconsin collects as a part of the state income tax. There's a line on the Wisconsin income tax that asks the filer to enter the amount of sales tax due on items purchased from out of state but used within the state, items you didn't pay tax on at the time of sale. For example, internet and mail order purchases.
Of course, the thing is - this line is an "on your honor" line, really. The state doesn't really check to see if the amount - if any - that you pay on this line is actually the amount you owe. As a result, I think I heard only a little over 20,000 people actually enter anything onto this line.
There's been noise that they may start using this line as a trigger for audits, but to my knowlege, at this point, it's just noise.
The patent for the Music Jukebox's primary claim is as follows:
They then go and describe variations upon this claim, including players that use flash memory, players that use hard drives, etc.I think that it's pretty obvious the patent doesn't hold water - the first MP3 player sold in the US was the Eiger Labs MPMan, released in the summer of 1998. It was followed by the Rio, released in late 1998. Both players follow the same general form as the device described in the patent - they receive audio data, store it, and play it back out the headphone jack; they both have a screen where you can select a specific track from your library, and both have controls that allow you to do the selecting.
CNET described these early MP3 players, even tracking down a 6 gig USB based MP3 player with a large screen that was released in 1999.
The IL company doesn't have a hope in the world of defending their patent.
From the review of the shuffle:
Are we supposed to CARE how you use random play? How you use random play is a personal decision, and should NOT factor into the review or the score you give the product. You might play it that way - others might not.The review should have been, not on the way they would prefer to use the device, but how well the device works within the parameters it was designed for. That is, it was designed as a small-form random-play digital music player, and it does very well within those parameters.
This would be like reviewing a Kia and mentioning "We tend to drive luxury vehicles like a BMW, and wished that this car was a luxury car instead of an econobox," and scoring it down simply because it wasn't a BMW.
Agreed. I went back to the article twice because I thought I might have missed some hidden "read more" or "more pictures here" link. Nope. Just about as much info in the summary as in the article itself, and two lousy pictures. Wa-hoo.
1. You are correct. Sirius music channels have always been 100% commercial free, while XM's haven't. But that's the past. They're now both 100% commercial free music.
2. Lee Abrams pretty much invented the use of psychographics in radio, which, in a nutshell, is when they tailor a radio station for a specific listening profile. This is EXACTLY what satellite radio specializes in, creating "niche" stations that a small number of people are interested in listening to. See this Wired article for more information. (Oh, and Abrams came most recently from ABC Radio. He might have worked at Clear Channel in the past, I can't find an answer either way. But if he did, it's been quite some time since he did.)
3. Yes, you have to pay more for the premium channels, of which there are only two - Playboy and High Voltage. And yes, you have to pay to access the streaming access. However, the streaming access gets you MORE channels than are even broadcast over the satellite, so-called "micro-niche" stations that don't have a wide enough appeal, so you're definitely getting your money worth on the streaming access.
Additionally, you are incorrect on BOTH counts on the discounts - XM does offer "family pack" discounts as well as multi-year discounts.
4. XM doesn't have Stern. That's actually a selling point... for XM. :)
It must've been a while since you listened.
Both Sirius and XM's music streams are both completely commercial free. The talk, news, and informational channels on both services carry commercials (partially because many of the channels are simulcasts of TV audio).
XM had originally tried having some of their music channels carrying commercials, but it's been almost a year since that point.
It includes a home and car setup (with associated antennas, yes) but also has the "First-ever built-in XM antenna" (see the bottom of this page.)
The same applies to the Sony Gallery in Chicago on the Magnificent Mile... horrible store.
First, you have to pass through one of the more foreboding entryways, and pass by the pissed off looking security guard staring you down like you're about to take everything in the store. Once past that, you're hit by the horrible lighting and the bad architecture, having to walk up two flights of stairs to get to the second level... to find about 3 products up there, including their high end plasma.
Product selection throughout the whole store is abysmal... high end stuff at 3x what you can buy it for at ANY electronics store, and some of the worst of the personal electronics line. All of it looks broken or not correctly set up. The store help is less than helpful... they're all off in a corner acting like the Gap Girls on SNL.
Walk down the street to the Apple Store and see what a REAL manufacturer retail outlet should look and act like.
I don't know, but my interpretation was that all the responses were speaking about federal law, not state law. And if the above is true, which I have no reason to doubt, federal law might prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed as a minor, while your state might permit it.
WRONG. TiVo has a very upfront privacy policy, which can be viewed at http://www.tivo.com/5.11.3.asp. TiVo also has hosted on their website a PDF file of a presentation to the FTC that details exactly what information they store on their customers. In short, information is only collected anonymously (this has been verified by multiple third parties) and used in aggregate. If you do not want to participate in this anonymous, aggregate data gathering, you can call TiVo and opt out completely.
WRONG again. Philips does not own TiVo. TiVo is a publically traded company independent of Philips. Philips did (and still does, I believe) produce products that use licensed TiVo technology.
I was thinking something along the same lines.
I work at a college, supervising student workers on the IT Help Desk. I had thought that by college, people would've long since learned the proper way to use a telephone at a place of business. Boy, was I wrong. Every new batch of students that I get are as bad as the last.
And so on. I'm tempted to make up a sheet just like this book, and making the help desk people memorize it before they're allowed to answer the telephone.
Can someone clarify one thing for me - why bother with Bluetooth for this application? I'd think it'd be easier just to use a cell phone that has a standard 2.5mm jack.
Take any "hands-free" kit with a microphone in the cable and a 2.5mm connector. Snip off the earpiece, leaving the microphone behind, and replace the earpiece leads with a 3.5mm mono jack. Use the 3.5mm to hearing aid adapter as shown in this story, and you're done.
If you're going to have something clipped to your belt and a big cable, may as well carry the cell phone on your belt and have the wire going directly to the phone instead of a wire to a wireless link.
DS9 was outstanding... it just wasn't widely accepted by closed-minded fans who wouldn't accept anything but a 'show on a starship' as a Star Trek series. I have this funny feeling that you stopped watching FAR before the Defiant showed up, just for that reason.
It's not even like the show and it's characters were trapped on the station - they had the runabouts, which were designed to be autonomous warp-capable vessels manned by a small crew. They got out to all sorts of places in just the first season alone.
Star Trek is about exploration, yes, but it's exploration of the "human condition." Sometimes, those sorts of stories can be best told when you have people coming to you, rather than the other way around.
Sci Fi did pick up the new season... but then the production house responsible for both Andromeda and Mutant X, "Fireworks," was put out of business by the parent company, CanWest. As a result, CanWest and Tribune (the company responsible for distributing Andromeda and Mutant X) are being sued... the future of both series looks rather bleak.
Is it really better than nothing? The fact is, a bad series can have an impact on the entire franchise. The fact that Enterprise has garnered lackluster ratings - at best - and has had very few really good episodes from a creative aspect makes the chances of more Star Trek (whether it be TV or movie) less attractive to both viewers and Hollywood executives.
To pull the argument that cancelling the series puts people out of work is rather pathetic actually. Does that mean that we should keep trash on the air, just because people worked on the series? Imagine a schedule full of shows like "The Mullets" just because people didn't want to cancel the series because it would put people out of work... *shudder*
What you missed was that he listed an actual PowerBook on ebay - and actually SOLD said PowerBook on eBay to a legitimate buyer. The events of this story all take place SEPERATELY from the eBay sale, outside of eBay. No defrauding of eBay went on here.
As for defrauding PayPal - all he asked for was donations for shipping an item to Great Britain, and said funds were used for that purpose. I think that accusing him of defrauding PayPal is a bit of a stretch - you might make the argument, but I don't think anyone would really swallow it.
The only defrauding that went on here is FedEx - the contents of the package and value were both misstated.
Nice. Someone who READ the patent instead of just commenting on the stupid summary. This is a VERY SPECIFIC method of USING translucent windows. Not just "a patent on translucent windows."
This is essentially a patent on a context-sensitive user interface, where windows become more or less opaque based on how many windows are open and how many are layered, and whether or not the user interfaces with them. I imagine this would look very cool and be fairly usable.
You'll have to forgive most Americans. We were taught what irony was by the music industry.
I can't say whether you can select channels a la carte there where you are in Florida - I don't have that information. What I can respond to is the statement that law requires it.
The Cable Act of 1992 actually says that they cannot link "premium" channels, such as HBO, Cinemax, etc., to a specific "tier" of programming. That is - you cannot be required to buy the "expanded" package just to get HBO. The law also says that they cannot require you to buy a package of premium channels - you can pick and choose which premium channel you want.
The law does NOT say anything about picking and choosing your standard channels a la carte. If your cable provider allows you to do this - which I highly doubt - it's not because it's required by law, it's just because the provider either wants to be nice or feels that it's a business advantage to do so.
Here's a transcript of a television news story that talks about this.
It's possible, but no more practical than having two discs (a double sided DVD is, more or less, just two single sided DVDs bonded together).
Additionally, consumers have proven they do not like the double sided discs - generally, most consumers tend to feel that the double sided nature of the discs means they're more susceptible to damage, since there are now two sides of the disc containing data to get scratched, instead of just one.) Plus - it gives the consumer the feeling that they are getting more value - they're getting two discs instead of just one (regardless whether the one disc contains the same amount of information as the two discs).
Lastly, having them on seperate discs allows you to loan out one disc while retaining the other, should you so choose.
Microsoft's licensing agreement lists 4 patents that it covers. All were filed since 1992, and all were granted within the last 8 years or so.
However... if you look at the materials patented, all refer to long file name support. ("Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats," "Common name space for long and short file names," etc.) If one develops a device that utilizes FAT without using long file names, I'd imagine that they'd be safe.
While it's hard to tell from a press release that's been groomed by a PR department of a major international corporation, I still sense that this isn't a very strong denial.
All the press release says is that they haven't announced anything yet, and that the reports are speculation. (This is something we all knew ANYWAY.) This could've been released to deflate expectations a bit before the real announcement.... or it in fact could be that they have no plans to do the iTMS deal.
In either case, I'm not getting my hopes up, but then again, I didn't have my hopes up when the rumor first floated. I figured that if the deal would happen, it probably wouldn't happen right away.
Are they really competition? I guess they sort of are... but then again, Apple WAS bundling MusicMatch with the iPod all along until they released iTunes.
I guess the way I see it - they deliberately disabled what they considered an older version of the iPod software (MusicMatch) in favor of the newer version (iTunes).