actually, paying the bill every month doesn't work because you CARRY no actual debt. It's one of those things that's not logical to normal thinking but you are really showing them your a good "customer", meaning they'll make $$$ off you.
It's logical... they want you to carry a balance, month after month, year after year, so they get all that nice interest. If you don't do that, if you pay it off regularly, so far as they're concerned you're using their services for free (although most charge a yearly fee so they can screw the fiscally-responsible people anyway.)
To be fair to Google, I thought WebOS sounded like a retarded idea as well, and they seemed to make it look and work brilliantly (Never used it personally, but tons of people seem to like it). If Palm had a half credible marketing department, they may have had a chance before getting bought out.
Yeah, Palm's marketing department seemed to have a lot in common with Commodore, when it was trying to push the Amiga. Never could figure out exactly what it was they were trying to sell.
why can't I use that app on MY Android, it works on his!
Hi, Mr. Jobs. How are you today?
Google knows theres a lot of disent in the ranks over the already fragmented and inconsistent android platform from consumers and developers.
Huh? It's a lot less fragmented and inconsistent than Windows or the desktop Linux market, and those seem to be doing quite well.
Seriously, I've been using Android since the G1 came out, and I know tons of people with everything from Samsung Galaxies to Nexus Ones, and I've yet to hear that complaint. Not once. Not saying that it isn't a possibility if cellular providers fragment the OS too badly, but right now I think that's just Apple marketing blowing smoke. Besides, when you get right down to it, in spite of Apple's much-vaunted 75,000 applications, and however many are in the Android Market, the fact is that 99% of everything is crud. The top few percent of applications that are worth anything will be maintained and supported on as many devices as possible.
Furthermore, any cell phone carrier that prevents me from reverting my phone to the stock firmware (or flash a third-party ROM like Cyanogenmod) isn't going to get any of my business, ever. For all you people that are considering an Android-based device, that's one question that you need to ask before you buy a phone or sign up for a contract. Does this phone have the standard boot loader that lets me flash the stock firmware (or a third-party ROM) and a recovery partition. If not... keep looking. If you have the ability to load the regular Android release from Google, odds are you won't have many compatibility problems. In fact, that's a good reason not to buy a subsidized phone: pay the extra for a non-carrier-locked unit running standard Android and you'll be in good shape.
Trust me, I do, and my security is layered: I don't depend upon WPA2 only. Good luck leeching anything from me regardless of my transmit power. It's just that where I live I don't have any need for access outside the house, so I didn't see any reason to allow it. That'll probably change when we move to our next place though. Then I'll probably crank the power up to the legal max.
Nope, I'm afraid you're wrong there. You really should listen to public comments made by the heads of various game publishers. Outfits like Gamestop are, in their tiny minds, depriving them of revenue that they are owed (i.e. sales of new copies because reselling used copies is just wrong somehow), and if they can't stop the sale of used products, then sellers of used games owe the publishers a cut. If that's not a sense of entitlement I don't know what is.
I used to be a big gamer, but I'm not anymore. I don't like who I have to thank for it. I feel the same way about other entertainment media for that matter. I've long been into used music and movies, because I frankly don't want to support industries that I believe are harmful to my country's legal system and way of life. If they're going to take that away from me too, well, it won't bother me too much. I have a huge collection of books and music, most of which I haven't even read or listened to yet. The rest of you might want to stockpile some good stuff as well.
And of course, you've got to be careful; the last time that was tried, we got UCITA, which would have been even more one-sided against people.
That seems to be the major problem with any kind of reform, nowadays. As soon as you start the process, special-interest types immediately being to try and corrupt it. I see a lot of things wrong with the patent system, for example, but I'm afraid that any attempt by Congress to "fix" it will leave us worse off than we are now. After all, they're the outfit that got us into this mess, I see little reason to trust them to make amends.
I bought the physical media. I don't need a copyright license to do that. And now owning a "copy" (defined in 17 USC 101 to be the physical media), I have the right per 17 USC 117 to install and run the software on that copy.
Yes, you have that right. However, the vendor of that software is not (as I understand it) bound to give you that right, and laws such as the DMCA make it very difficult to legally install anything if the vendor has chosen to use copy protection. Basically you have rights that you cannot legally exercise and that a vendor can take away from you on a whim... so for the government to continue calling them "rights" is, to me, just insulting.
From a practical perspective, I have no problem with a corporation wanting to license their software to me, under whatever restrictions they care to place upon it. If I don't like them, I won't rent that software. However, this crap about charging the full retail price for a product under the false pretense of selling it is ridiculous. You want to charge me a nominal monthly fee for the use of your software, fine. I buy the item outright, and you give me the box with the shiny plastic disc in it... just get out of my face. I won't make illegal copies, but telling me what I can do with it after I've bought it will just get me to seek out alternatives. As this behavior becomes prevalent, when sites like E-Bay start taking down thousands upon thousands of auctions because the software was "sold" with a "non-transferable license"... well. It just opens up business opportunities for companies willing to treat their customers will more respect. Look, just because something is perfectly legal doesn't mean there's a good business case for doing it, and squeezing one's customers too hard usually has consequences.
Seriously, this is going to present a better and better case for open source products, wherever viable alternatives to commercial shrink-wrapped software exist. That's not always the case, I know (don't want to start a GIMP/Photoshop flamefest here), but if I'm a big company that has traditionally resold old copies of major closed-source apps, I'd think twice before I buy the next version, maybe I'll look at what's out there before sending in that P.O. that, in the past, would have been a no-brainer. At the very least, corporations are going to be scrutinizing those license agreements a bit more closely in the future.
In any event, Congress needs to be replaced far more often than it is. Those fuckers are the ones that sold us out (and there's no other term for it.)
"I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it."
Have you thought that there would be no way for a system emitting overpower if the hardware was such that it couldn't do it? FCC regulations is security by obscurity at best and lame excuses at worst.
True, but I think the reason is more one of business efficiency. Different locales have different regulations, and from a manufacturer's perspective, it's nice if a single design can accommodate multiple markets. For example, my Linksys unit also supports two extra channels that aren't legal in the U.S., but are elsewhere in the world. The stock firmware won't let you select them, of course, because that firmware is targeted for the U.S. market. The author of Tomato had no such restrictions, and thus I have the ability to run my device using unauthorized spectrum. Same goes with power output: other countries may allow higher power output, so it's nice if the same mainboard (with different firmware options) can be used there as well.
The question is more one of whether the benefits of allowing third-party and open-source products is worth the risk of someone operating his equipment outside of local regulations. Given the functional superiority of Tomato, DD-WRT and the like, I'd say the answer is "Yes". I've used so-called corporate-level firewalls that weren't as c capable (or as customizable) as Tomato.
Frankly, I think Linksys ought to just hire the guy, or at least license his firmware. It's far and away a better product than what they offer. Now that Linksys is owned and operated by Cisco, my guess is they don't want their $50 routers competing on functionality with their higher-end equipment.
Had they just requested sample prints, many (most?) shoe companies would probably have been happy to provide them with a full list - not because they had to, but because its a simple enough request to comply with. By doing the work themselves they ended up with less useful data that's, quite possibly, illegal to use.
Sigh...
Well, I'm not a lawyer (certainly not a Swedish lawyer) but it seems likely that if the cops used a database that was illegally garnered, they might find any cases using that information compromised in some way. Not very smart on their part, any way you look at this.
If you had the firmware source code you could all sorts of crazy stuff that would be against regulations.
Yes. I run Tomato on my WRT54G. It has an option to directly set the desired output power in milliwatts. Don't know how accurate it is, but it does do something. I actually used that feature to reduce the power output. I set it to provide good connectivity throughout the house, yet make it very difficult to get a connection outside.
Nevertheless, I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it. That's not the way to advance the state-of-the-art.
As a counterpoint, I found it dead easy with Ubuntu Netbook Remix on an Asus 701. It was about as many clicks and menus as it takes on OS X and WinXP. Now a given distribution may not always make it that easy for you but this should basically be solved for the distros intended for desktop use.
I agree. I found Ubuntu and also OpenSUSE both pretty painless on my Thinkpad. The only problem I had with either of them was that they wouldn't control the CPU fan (but that's a known issue with this model's embedded controller firmware.)
hmm.. I still have to see a driver for any wireless card that crashes linux. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't work, which was incidentally the problem I had with my broadcom adapter on an Acer Aspire One D250. but crash the OS? not really, no.
I guess I was fortunate: every distro I've tried on my Thinkpad R40 has worked right out of the box. Then again, Thinkpads were always pretty Linux friendly.
it's not inappropriate to use male pronouns to refer to someone presenting as typically male, unless they've made it clear that they are not a man
but it is transphobic and prejudiced to negatively value, stereotype and discriminate against people whose appearance or identity doesn't match narrowly defined social expectations of gender
I think you're the one with the narrowly-defined social expectations.
Wrong. ACLS have been used aboard US aircraft carriers since the AN/SPN-10 system in the 1950s.
Worked on this stuff in the 70s/80s. Good science. Good technology. We made it work.
And has it been deployed to the private sector? Do all large commercial aircraft have it? Do all major airports have the requisite ground-based equipment? Are you comparing apples to oranges?
None of this matters if the equipment isn't available. You can't compare military applications to civilian systems.
Does anyone else use use Google to search for something thats on a MS website? I mean, their search on their own site is so horrible in finding what I'm looking for that I use google. I can't be the only person that does this.
Yes, all the time for technical docs and downloads.
Standard Oil used its dominant position to stifle its competition. Microsoft used its dominant market share in Windows to snuff out Netscape. I don't think anyone can doubt that Google could decimate a web-based business by demoting them in search rankings.
Yes, Google could do that. The difference is that Standard Oil and Microsoft didn't get in trouble because of what they were capable of doing, they got in trouble because of what they actually did. Now, if anyone manages to prove that Google was doing this (and it's hard to see what the real benefit would be, given the potential liabilities involved.)
Really, flying a plane isn't terribly complicated, I hear landing requires skill but not smarts.
I am neither an expert in flying one of the commercial planes, but I am going to say your really underestimating this one. It might seem simple to you, but fire up one of the simulators and let's see if you hold that point. With lives on the line, the risk vs. reward is . They barely pay the co-pilots anything as is.
Plus which, even if the GP were correct, there's always those times when something bad happens and the avionic package just starts throwing up warning lights because it doesn't know what to do.
Slashdot Mirror
actually, paying the bill every month doesn't work because you CARRY no actual debt. It's one of those things that's not logical to normal thinking but you are really showing them your a good "customer", meaning they'll make $$$ off you.
It's logical ... they want you to carry a balance, month after month, year after year, so they get all that nice interest. If you don't do that, if you pay it off regularly, so far as they're concerned you're using their services for free (although most charge a yearly fee so they can screw the fiscally-responsible people anyway.)
To be fair to Google, I thought WebOS sounded like a retarded idea as well, and they seemed to make it look and work brilliantly (Never used it personally, but tons of people seem to like it). If Palm had a half credible marketing department, they may have had a chance before getting bought out.
Yeah, Palm's marketing department seemed to have a lot in common with Commodore, when it was trying to push the Amiga. Never could figure out exactly what it was they were trying to sell.
Google Maps on that 7-inch screen is wonderful (as long as I am near wifi access points)
One of my coworkers has that K-Mart Android tablet thingy, and tethers it to his N1 so he can use the bigger screen for browsing.
why can't I use that app on MY Android, it works on his!
Hi, Mr. Jobs. How are you today?
Google knows theres a lot of disent in the ranks over the already fragmented and inconsistent android platform from consumers and developers.
Huh? It's a lot less fragmented and inconsistent than Windows or the desktop Linux market, and those seem to be doing quite well.
... keep looking. If you have the ability to load the regular Android release from Google, odds are you won't have many compatibility problems. In fact, that's a good reason not to buy a subsidized phone: pay the extra for a non-carrier-locked unit running standard Android and you'll be in good shape.
Seriously, I've been using Android since the G1 came out, and I know tons of people with everything from Samsung Galaxies to Nexus Ones, and I've yet to hear that complaint. Not once. Not saying that it isn't a possibility if cellular providers fragment the OS too badly, but right now I think that's just Apple marketing blowing smoke. Besides, when you get right down to it, in spite of Apple's much-vaunted 75,000 applications, and however many are in the Android Market, the fact is that 99% of everything is crud. The top few percent of applications that are worth anything will be maintained and supported on as many devices as possible.
Furthermore, any cell phone carrier that prevents me from reverting my phone to the stock firmware (or flash a third-party ROM like Cyanogenmod) isn't going to get any of my business, ever. For all you people that are considering an Android-based device, that's one question that you need to ask before you buy a phone or sign up for a contract. Does this phone have the standard boot loader that lets me flash the stock firmware (or a third-party ROM) and a recovery partition. If not
Why not just use encryption and be done with it?
Trust me, I do, and my security is layered: I don't depend upon WPA2 only. Good luck leeching anything from me regardless of my transmit power. It's just that where I live I don't have any need for access outside the house, so I didn't see any reason to allow it. That'll probably change when we move to our next place though. Then I'll probably crank the power up to the legal max.
It's not a question of them being owed revenue
Nope, I'm afraid you're wrong there. You really should listen to public comments made by the heads of various game publishers. Outfits like Gamestop are, in their tiny minds, depriving them of revenue that they are owed (i.e. sales of new copies because reselling used copies is just wrong somehow), and if they can't stop the sale of used products, then sellers of used games owe the publishers a cut. If that's not a sense of entitlement I don't know what is.
I used to be a big gamer, but I'm not anymore. I don't like who I have to thank for it. I feel the same way about other entertainment media for that matter. I've long been into used music and movies, because I frankly don't want to support industries that I believe are harmful to my country's legal system and way of life. If they're going to take that away from me too, well, it won't bother me too much. I have a huge collection of books and music, most of which I haven't even read or listened to yet. The rest of you might want to stockpile some good stuff as well.
It isn't...
This isn't any different really, and I'd love to know what's in the Court's water pipe...so I can avoid it.
Pb.
How would that be any different? How would that be at all legal, based on existing contract law?
Well, there are protected rights that you can't sign away. Other than that, I don't know. Maybe Capt Kangarooski can answer that one.
And of course, you've got to be careful; the last time that was tried, we got UCITA, which would have been even more one-sided against people.
That seems to be the major problem with any kind of reform, nowadays. As soon as you start the process, special-interest types immediately being to try and corrupt it. I see a lot of things wrong with the patent system, for example, but I'm afraid that any attempt by Congress to "fix" it will leave us worse off than we are now. After all, they're the outfit that got us into this mess, I see little reason to trust them to make amends.
buying the software is agreeing to the EULA.
So you can sign a legally binding agreement without the opportunity actually read it? That's asshattery on the level of my hero Groucho Marx.
That as may be, but Groucho was funny.
I bought the physical media. I don't need a copyright license to do that. And now owning a "copy" (defined in 17 USC 101 to be the physical media), I have the right per 17 USC 117 to install and run the software on that copy.
Yes, you have that right. However, the vendor of that software is not (as I understand it) bound to give you that right, and laws such as the DMCA make it very difficult to legally install anything if the vendor has chosen to use copy protection. Basically you have rights that you cannot legally exercise and that a vendor can take away from you on a whim ... so for the government to continue calling them "rights" is, to me, just insulting.
... just get out of my face. I won't make illegal copies, but telling me what I can do with it after I've bought it will just get me to seek out alternatives. As this behavior becomes prevalent, when sites like E-Bay start taking down thousands upon thousands of auctions because the software was "sold" with a "non-transferable license" ... well. It just opens up business opportunities for companies willing to treat their customers will more respect. Look, just because something is perfectly legal doesn't mean there's a good business case for doing it, and squeezing one's customers too hard usually has consequences.
From a practical perspective, I have no problem with a corporation wanting to license their software to me, under whatever restrictions they care to place upon it. If I don't like them, I won't rent that software. However, this crap about charging the full retail price for a product under the false pretense of selling it is ridiculous. You want to charge me a nominal monthly fee for the use of your software, fine. I buy the item outright, and you give me the box with the shiny plastic disc in it
Seriously, this is going to present a better and better case for open source products, wherever viable alternatives to commercial shrink-wrapped software exist. That's not always the case, I know (don't want to start a GIMP/Photoshop flamefest here), but if I'm a big company that has traditionally resold old copies of major closed-source apps, I'd think twice before I buy the next version, maybe I'll look at what's out there before sending in that P.O. that, in the past, would have been a no-brainer. At the very least, corporations are going to be scrutinizing those license agreements a bit more closely in the future.
In any event, Congress needs to be replaced far more often than it is. Those fuckers are the ones that sold us out (and there's no other term for it.)
"I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it."
Have you thought that there would be no way for a system emitting overpower if the hardware was such that it couldn't do it? FCC regulations is security by obscurity at best and lame excuses at worst.
True, but I think the reason is more one of business efficiency. Different locales have different regulations, and from a manufacturer's perspective, it's nice if a single design can accommodate multiple markets. For example, my Linksys unit also supports two extra channels that aren't legal in the U.S., but are elsewhere in the world. The stock firmware won't let you select them, of course, because that firmware is targeted for the U.S. market. The author of Tomato had no such restrictions, and thus I have the ability to run my device using unauthorized spectrum. Same goes with power output: other countries may allow higher power output, so it's nice if the same mainboard (with different firmware options) can be used there as well.
The question is more one of whether the benefits of allowing third-party and open-source products is worth the risk of someone operating his equipment outside of local regulations. Given the functional superiority of Tomato, DD-WRT and the like, I'd say the answer is "Yes". I've used so-called corporate-level firewalls that weren't as c capable (or as customizable) as Tomato.
Frankly, I think Linksys ought to just hire the guy, or at least license his firmware. It's far and away a better product than what they offer. Now that Linksys is owned and operated by Cisco, my guess is they don't want their $50 routers competing on functionality with their higher-end equipment.
We have them now? Awesomeness.
Yes, and not only do they run Linux but they're open-source and use Broadcom chipsets.
Had they just requested sample prints, many (most?) shoe companies would probably have been happy to provide them with a full list - not because they had to, but because its a simple enough request to comply with. By doing the work themselves they ended up with less useful data that's, quite possibly, illegal to use.
Sigh...
Well, I'm not a lawyer (certainly not a Swedish lawyer) but it seems likely that if the cops used a database that was illegally garnered, they might find any cases using that information compromised in some way. Not very smart on their part, any way you look at this.
If you had the firmware source code you could all sorts of crazy stuff that would be against regulations.
Yes. I run Tomato on my WRT54G. It has an option to directly set the desired output power in milliwatts. Don't know how accurate it is, but it does do something. I actually used that feature to reduce the power output. I set it to provide good connectivity throughout the house, yet make it very difficult to get a connection outside.
Nevertheless, I don't like the idea of the FCC essentially requiring hardware vendors to keep source code proprietary when even the vendor wants to release it. That's not the way to advance the state-of-the-art.
As a counterpoint, I found it dead easy with Ubuntu Netbook Remix on an Asus 701. It was about as many clicks and menus as it takes on OS X and WinXP. Now a given distribution may not always make it that easy for you but this should basically be solved for the distros intended for desktop use.
I agree. I found Ubuntu and also OpenSUSE both pretty painless on my Thinkpad. The only problem I had with either of them was that they wouldn't control the CPU fan (but that's a known issue with this model's embedded controller firmware.)
(And no, this comment isn't Insightful or anything else; actually I probably HBT).
This is Slashdot. Has Big Tits.
I see some inconsistency between your sig and comment...
Shhhh! Be careful, or the conflict may cause a breakdown in his positronic brain..
hmm .. I still have to see a driver for any wireless card that crashes linux. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't work, which was incidentally the problem I had with my broadcom adapter on an Acer Aspire One D250. but crash the OS? not really, no.
I guess I was fortunate: every distro I've tried on my Thinkpad R40 has worked right out of the box. Then again, Thinkpads were always pretty Linux friendly.
it's not inappropriate to use male pronouns to refer to someone presenting as typically male, unless they've made it clear that they are not a man but it is transphobic and prejudiced to negatively value, stereotype and discriminate against people whose appearance or identity doesn't match narrowly defined social expectations of gender
I think you're the one with the narrowly-defined social expectations.
Wrong. ACLS have been used aboard US aircraft carriers since the AN/SPN-10 system in the 1950s.
Worked on this stuff in the 70s/80s. Good science. Good technology. We made it work.
And has it been deployed to the private sector? Do all large commercial aircraft have it? Do all major airports have the requisite ground-based equipment? Are you comparing apples to oranges?
None of this matters if the equipment isn't available. You can't compare military applications to civilian systems.
Roger, Roger.
Oh, go sniff some glue, both of you. And while you're at it, check out some gladiator movies.
Does anyone else use use Google to search for something thats on a MS website? I mean, their search on their own site is so horrible in finding what I'm looking for that I use google. I can't be the only person that does this.
Yes, all the time for technical docs and downloads.
Standard Oil used its dominant position to stifle its competition. Microsoft used its dominant market share in Windows to snuff out Netscape. I don't think anyone can doubt that Google could decimate a web-based business by demoting them in search rankings.
Yes, Google could do that. The difference is that Standard Oil and Microsoft didn't get in trouble because of what they were capable of doing, they got in trouble because of what they actually did. Now, if anyone manages to prove that Google was doing this (and it's hard to see what the real benefit would be, given the potential liabilities involved.)
Really, flying a plane isn't terribly complicated, I hear landing requires skill but not smarts.
I am neither an expert in flying one of the commercial planes, but I am going to say your really underestimating this one. It might seem simple to you, but fire up one of the simulators and let's see if you hold that point. With lives on the line, the risk vs. reward is . They barely pay the co-pilots anything as is.
Plus which, even if the GP were correct, there's always those times when something bad happens and the avionic package just starts throwing up warning lights because it doesn't know what to do.