a) Limewire allows you to search by genre and album which supposedly is there to encourage infringement. But the court doesn't seem to care that there is a lot of material that the owners permit to be freely exchanged that is legitimately able to be searched and downloaded by album or genre.
b) The large percentage of real-world downloading that seems to be infringing. This seems to be a dangerous precedent. What if someone showed that 95% of betamax users had at some time infringed copyright (seems quite possible to me). Does that mean the govt. can now ban video recorders? If 98% of computer users are infringing copyright, and Intel knows it, is Intel out of business? Should exciting new technologies and techniques be outlawed because many users are abusing it? If most drivers speed, should cars be banned? Should good technology be killed because some or even most users decide to abuse it? Where does this line of thinking end?
c) Limewire did not put filtering in to try and mitigate infringment. This seems akin to banning Firefox because the browser doesn't implement filtering. Why doesn't firefox stop you downloading infringing files? Why doesn't it look for "Madonna" in the name of files and stop you downloading them? It sounds ridiculous, but this is exactly what the court is suggesting.
And nobody seems to notice that Gnutella and Limewire and the entire system are open source and truely distributed. If they shut down limewire nothing whatsoever would happen. Not a single file would be prevented from being downloaded. People would eventually switch to other clients like Frostwire, but the RIAA gains nothing. This is different to Napster and the RIAA's other targets which could be shut down.
Apple fanbois bought the first generation iPhone. But then guess what. Sales went UP after that. They they went up again. Then they continued to go up. So I wouldn't just write it all off yet.
The real problem here is not some obscure technical problem on the Mac, but rather that it took someone obscure in Norway to go look and see if IPV6 works. How this IPV6 cutover is going to proceed with the current level of interest, I don't know.
Err, why? It's not like Apple is a big seller of chips now, and by acquiring ARM they become a bigger seller of chips. Apple is not selling chips now, so acquiring them does nothing to reduce competition in the market place. I doubt the govt. has a category of bad behavior called acquiring your competitors' suppliers.
Because all of/bin is hardly going to be your most used stuff, and there's probably a ton of stuff frequently used that isn't in/bin,/usr.
Sure, you can try and mount your most used stuff on SSD, but that's (a) a pain in the neck to fiddle around with (b) something ideally better left to an algorithm. (c) doesn't actually work that well, since you have to divide all your most used stuff into separate file systems.
Telling everyone? I don't think they ever "told" anyone per se. Plus they had 64 bit Carbon support in OS-X 10.5 betas right up to the last minute before they yanked it. Only at that point could you say people knew they must port to get 64 bit, and by then it was too late.
Firstly, the codec issue is not one of open source but of patents, and there is no guarantee that VP8 is patent free just because it is open source. In fact, it is probably not.
Secondly, we are getting to the point where nothing can become a standard unless Apple endorses it, since Apple are making a number of locked up devices that web sites want to target. So unless someone convinces Apple that this is a good thing, H264 is still a more likely winner.
Microsoft's appetite for aquisitions is part of its downfall. They are constantly distracted by taking over other companies, some of them with very little to do with their core competancy. Often these aquisitions are simply lost money because they take them over and ruin a perfectly good business. Contrast Apple who rarely do aquisitions, and when they do they've got a really really good reason for it, related to a strategic vision.
Actually, market cap should reflect all of those things, if the market is doing its job. Now maybe you think you know better than the market. In which case you are either an arrogant fool, or very very rich since you can be a Warren Buffet and outthink the market. The question is, which one are you?
I think you're right and Google knows it. They can tell Conroy to go F*** himself six ways from Sunday and there isn't a damned thing he can do about it.
Yeah, but as far as I know, the ACT will ship it anywhere in Australia, so effectively it is available in all of Australia, just not as conveniently. A stupid system, but there you have it.
As far as I see, Richard Garriott is the only legitimate illegally parked vehicle on the moon. When the real owners turn up, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
All our languages are now object, but we're still using non-object databases and mapping between rows and columns and objects. WHY?? Yes, tools can help you map, but its a bandaid, it screws up performance on all but simple cases. And it means you can't do queries using the same model as your language.
Yes, relational algebra is a useful query tool, but there is no need to be beholden to relational table structures to get relational algebra. Neither is the so-called object-relational features of postgresql going to cut it. You can't even do a query and get back a list of objects of different types for goodness sake.
If Google or any big company wanted to change the game, all they have to do is throw some money at whoever owns the h264 patents, and buy them out to open it up.
Slashdot Mirror
The court's reasoning seems to be:
a) Limewire allows you to search by genre and album which supposedly is there to encourage infringement. But the court doesn't seem to care that there is a lot of material that the owners permit to be freely exchanged that is legitimately able to be searched and downloaded by album or genre.
b) The large percentage of real-world downloading that seems to be infringing. This seems to be a dangerous precedent. What if someone showed that 95% of betamax users had at some time infringed copyright (seems quite possible to me). Does that mean the govt. can now ban video recorders? If 98% of computer users are infringing copyright, and Intel knows it, is Intel out of business? Should exciting new technologies and techniques be outlawed because many users are abusing it? If most drivers speed, should cars be banned? Should good technology be killed because some or even most users decide to abuse it? Where does this line of thinking end?
c) Limewire did not put filtering in to try and mitigate infringment. This seems akin to banning Firefox because the browser doesn't implement filtering. Why doesn't firefox stop you downloading infringing files? Why doesn't it look for "Madonna" in the name of files and stop you downloading them? It sounds ridiculous, but this is exactly what the court is suggesting.
And nobody seems to notice that Gnutella and Limewire and the entire system are open source and truely distributed. If they shut down limewire nothing whatsoever would happen. Not a single file would be prevented from being downloaded. People would eventually switch to other clients like Frostwire, but the RIAA gains nothing. This is different to Napster and the RIAA's other targets which could be shut down.
The govt. has got to keep tossing the coin till it gives them the answer they are looking for.
Apple fanbois bought the first generation iPhone. But then guess what. Sales went UP after that. They they went up again. Then they continued to go up. So I wouldn't just write it all off yet.
The real problem here is not some obscure technical problem on the Mac, but rather that it took someone obscure in Norway to go look and see if IPV6 works. How this IPV6 cutover is going to proceed with the current level of interest, I don't know.
I guess Rolls Royce has a monopoly on automobiles then.
What are they going to do to stop it? They'd have trouble outbidding Apple, and even bigger trouble moving to MIPS.
Err, why? It's not like Apple is a big seller of chips now, and by acquiring ARM they become a bigger seller of chips. Apple is not selling chips now, so acquiring them does nothing to reduce competition in the market place. I doubt the govt. has a category of bad behavior called acquiring your competitors' suppliers.
Err.. what market does Apple have a monopoly over?
A lot of people replace the DVD drive with a 2nd drive. There are kits available.
Because all of /bin is hardly going to be your most used stuff, and there's probably a ton of stuff frequently used that isn't in /bin, /usr.
Sure, you can try and mount your most used stuff on SSD, but that's (a) a pain in the neck to fiddle around with (b) something ideally better left to an algorithm. (c) doesn't actually work that well, since you have to divide all your most used stuff into separate file systems.
Sure, if you already own the DVDs. But if you've got your collection ripped, its easier to sync.
Isn't it because every time flash production increases, Apple buys it all?
That's 400lb gorilla, or rather 181kg gorilla.
Abusive is not a legal concept. The sin is using a monopoly to wrest control of a secondary market.
Telling everyone? I don't think they ever "told" anyone per se. Plus they had 64 bit Carbon support in OS-X 10.5 betas right up to the last minute before they yanked it. Only at that point could you say people knew they must port to get 64 bit, and by then it was too late.
Worst case Apple looks for the binary signature for the runtime of tool XYZ, and then you are busted. Pretty hard to hide that.
Firstly, the codec issue is not one of open source but of patents, and there is no guarantee that VP8 is patent free just because it is open source. In fact, it is probably not.
Secondly, we are getting to the point where nothing can become a standard unless Apple endorses it, since Apple are making a number of locked up devices that web sites want to target. So unless someone convinces Apple that this is a good thing, H264 is still a more likely winner.
Microsoft's appetite for aquisitions is part of its downfall. They are constantly distracted by taking over other companies, some of them with very little to do with their core competancy. Often these aquisitions are simply lost money because they take them over and ruin a perfectly good business. Contrast Apple who rarely do aquisitions, and when they do they've got a really really good reason for it, related to a strategic vision.
Actually, market cap should reflect all of those things, if the market is doing its job. Now maybe you think you know better than the market. In which case you are either an arrogant fool, or very very rich since you can be a Warren Buffet and outthink the market. The question is, which one are you?
I think you're right and Google knows it. They can tell Conroy to go F*** himself six ways from Sunday and there isn't a damned thing he can do about it.
Yeah, but as far as I know, the ACT will ship it anywhere in Australia, so effectively it is available in all of Australia, just not as conveniently. A stupid system, but there you have it.
As far as I see, Richard Garriott is the only legitimate illegally parked vehicle on the moon. When the real owners turn up, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
All our languages are now object, but we're still using non-object databases and mapping between rows and columns and objects. WHY?? Yes, tools can help you map, but its a bandaid, it screws up performance on all but simple cases. And it means you can't do queries using the same model as your language.
Yes, relational algebra is a useful query tool, but there is no need to be beholden to relational table structures to get relational algebra. Neither is the so-called object-relational features of postgresql going to cut it. You can't even do a query and get back a list of objects of different types for goodness sake.
Didn't somebody mention a $5M cap? So Mozilla pays their $5M, and now their products can be distributed ad-infinitum, right?
If Google or any big company wanted to change the game, all they have to do is throw some money at whoever owns the h264 patents, and buy them out to open it up.