That may seem initially true, but there are bound to me massive general economic effects from employing 1000 highly skilled workers and their families, and all the increased support business that would come up around them.
Are you sure that it's necessarily wise for the OS community to really go out of their way to punish and ruin companies that misuse the code? Can you imagine how this could easily be spinned to middle management by people like Microsoft?
"Linux is dangerous to use; one honest mistake with the code, and those hippies can ruin your business entirely. You'd be much safer with this licensed, professionally developed solution."
Modern business seems to be more about sucking the life out of the customers you do get than attracting new ones through better features. You'd think it wouldn't work, until you realize everyone does it.
On a second look, it appears that these robots do not, in fact, walk. It might've been helpful to read the article. Or the summary. Or something about what the hell a segway is.
I would like to announce to you all, for the first time ever on/. that I, Xeth, will be starting an online mp3 business. Sure, the market may be crowded by much bigger players, but that won't stop me! I'll just add on some new innovative business plans such as:
1. Offering crippled files
2. Offering crippled files for more than the baseline price set by iTunes
3. ?????
4. Profit!
Hmmmm... seems that they list addresses on those applications. Maybe we can look up "Method for causing stock price manipulation through insane allegations" and find out where Darl and his minions are hiding out...
Not necessarily. If Patent Office employees won't spend more than 25 hours reviewing a patent that costs thousands of dollars to apply for, do you really think they'll read at -1?
The bottom line that a lot of companies seem to be missing is that most people don't want to put something that looks like a big shoehorn, or otherwise bulky object, next to their head to talk. This is why people are going for sleeker, slimmer phones. I really think that these sort of hybrid devices won't sell well unless the manufacturers heavily stress using a small hands-free headset for actual use as a cell phone.
The Player I've been looking at is definately the iRiver IHP-120. It's got an extremely slick chrome and black case, a wired remote, and it plays OGG files. The only thing is that it has a bit of a hefty price tag.
As someone who has used LAMP several times, I can assure you that it's not a filesharing network (Though MIT is in the process of creating a carefully monitored Legal network). Yes, one could, theoretically, convert the stuff coming down the cable line back into digital, but the quality really wouldn't be worth it. It really has FAR more in common with a request based radio station than any kind of sharing network.
The problem is that the songs from Apple come with measures to prevent resale. Instead of thinking of it as going to a book store and asking them to help you sell the book, it's like asking them to remove the thumbprint scanner from your book that prevents anyone but you from reading it.
And perhaps they were clear about what they offered, but the question is whether or not the user actually owns the rights to a song after purchasing it from iTunes. If they do, I think that Apple should be responsible for allowing them to transfer it, whether by their own DRM-controlled way, or by allowing the user to remove such impediments and exercise their rights.
It's all in how you explain in. If it's described as "Magic" or whatever, most people will accept it just fine. But if you actively flout the rules of physics, people might get mad. Look at the Midichlorians in Star Wars. The fact that they were mysterious meant that they were never questioned. Trying to attribute them to some weird parasitic life form just makes people groan and roll their eyes.
The problem with this argument (as much as I'd love for it to be correct) is that copyright and all other intellectual property must *by their very nature* restrict free speech. If they cannot, they have no power at all. And much as the general crowd around here might hate them, reasonable copyrights do (at least for the time being) serve a reasonable purpose. Perhaps in some vaguely distant future where we have sufficient automation to make working an option for most we can abolish such laws, but until then they do serve an (at least on ocassion) beneficial purpose.
As an aside, DeCSS is a ridiculous abuse of the DMCA's overly broad powers, and should be abolished with that corrupt law. I am just trying to point out that limiting free speech is a necessary property of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
"All your mouse are belong to us"
That may seem initially true, but there are bound to me massive general economic effects from employing 1000 highly skilled workers and their families, and all the increased support business that would come up around them.
Slightly less than half of all your base are resolve to us?
That's simply not true. Successful is a valid subtring of "Not Successful", right?
"Linux is dangerous to use; one honest mistake with the code, and those hippies can ruin your business entirely. You'd be much safer with this licensed, professionally developed solution."
Modern business seems to be more about sucking the life out of the customers you do get than attracting new ones through better features. You'd think it wouldn't work, until you realize everyone does it.
How can the first post be redundant?
Just wondering...
On a second look, it appears that these robots do not, in fact, walk. It might've been helpful to read the article. Or the summary. Or something about what the hell a segway is.
I, for one, welcome our new walking killbot overlords.
But the question is....
Was it better than revolutions?
Sure sounds like it.I would like to announce to you all, for the first time ever on /. that I, Xeth, will be starting an online mp3 business. Sure, the market may be crowded by much bigger players, but that won't stop me! I'll just add on some new innovative business plans such as:
1. Offering crippled files
As you can see, my market dominance is immiment2. Offering crippled files for more than the baseline price set by iTunes
3. ?????
4. Profit!
I'm sure they mean "artist services" in the same way the RIAA means "artist's rights".
It'd be a moral step upward...
Hmmmm... seems that they list addresses on those applications. Maybe we can look up "Method for causing stock price manipulation through insane allegations" and find out where Darl and his minions are hiding out...
Not necessarily. If Patent Office employees won't spend more than 25 hours reviewing a patent that costs thousands of dollars to apply for, do you really think they'll read at -1?
The bottom line that a lot of companies seem to be missing is that most people don't want to put something that looks like a big shoehorn, or otherwise bulky object, next to their head to talk. This is why people are going for sleeker, slimmer phones. I really think that these sort of hybrid devices won't sell well unless the manufacturers heavily stress using a small hands-free headset for actual use as a cell phone.
The Player I've been looking at is definately the iRiver IHP-120. It's got an extremely slick chrome and black case, a wired remote, and it plays OGG files. The only thing is that it has a bit of a hefty price tag.
As someone who has used LAMP several times, I can assure you that it's not a filesharing network (Though MIT is in the process of creating a carefully monitored Legal network). Yes, one could, theoretically, convert the stuff coming down the cable line back into digital, but the quality really wouldn't be worth it. It really has FAR more in common with a request based radio station than any kind of sharing network.
Get with the times man! Now they're calling it TCPA...
They'd probably have the same reaction looking at the games section...
Buying MS Software will do that to you...
What are you mods thinking? Mod this man down before word gets out!
The problem is that the songs from Apple come with measures to prevent resale. Instead of thinking of it as going to a book store and asking them to help you sell the book, it's like asking them to remove the thumbprint scanner from your book that prevents anyone but you from reading it.
And perhaps they were clear about what they offered, but the question is whether or not the user actually owns the rights to a song after purchasing it from iTunes. If they do, I think that Apple should be responsible for allowing them to transfer it, whether by their own DRM-controlled way, or by allowing the user to remove such impediments and exercise their rights.
It's all in how you explain in. If it's described as "Magic" or whatever, most people will accept it just fine. But if you actively flout the rules of physics, people might get mad. Look at the Midichlorians in Star Wars. The fact that they were mysterious meant that they were never questioned. Trying to attribute them to some weird parasitic life form just makes people groan and roll their eyes.
As an aside, DeCSS is a ridiculous abuse of the DMCA's overly broad powers, and should be abolished with that corrupt law. I am just trying to point out that limiting free speech is a necessary property of copyright.