Man, that is bad. At the fist two comments I thought you was just joking, but that one has a quite serious tone. Really, we did learn a thing or two at the last couple of millenniums, take a loot at it.
Engines survive because they aren't composed of soft materials, like a bunch of 1cc cubes of electronic devices. Also, the engines are made of resistant materials because one of them disintegrating in-flight would be a major hazard.
But you could choose another part of the plane to put those sensors. I guess the reasons they aren't used are historical (electronics was expensive just a while ago) and because you can deduce the acceleration and temperature of most of the debris of an accident just by looking at them and where they landed. Now, if you make they store instrument data...
I don't get that. If somebody never sees the icons on his desktop, having them does no harm, but if somebody does see those icons, hiding them will do harm. So, instead of the safe choice, they are going for the risky one with no benefit. And, by the way, my anedont (by the people I see using a computer) is that people do see those icons quite a lot.
"New versions of android may infringe more than the one they are are acquiring a license for."
If it is so, it is Microsoft burden to call the people using such a version and negotiate a license for those new patents it is using. A license agreement stating "you shall not offer up-to-dte services" is just anticompetitive.
"Why is it that the same people that say that WP7 is so horrible, are also the ones so damn surprised when licensing it is cheaper than licensing the be-all-end-all of mobile OS's known as Android?"
Because Microsoft does not own Android, and, as you put quite clearly, is trying to sell licenses of it. If you think it is ok, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
"Rail in a free society will be more expensive than planes for a simple reason."
That simple reason only states that planes are more economical when you have less trafic, and rails are more economical when you have more trafic. Except for some nuts* that think that planes must be more expensive no matter what, it shouldn't be news for anybody. And, by the way, roads fit quite well in the middle.
* Sorry GP, you may have sensible opinions about other things, but that line of thinking is just crazy simplist.
And, by the way, high speed trains don't fit anywhere in there. They may get a highter price because they are faster and more confortable than planes, but it is realy rare for them to be cheaper than any other kind of transportation.
Sorry, people may be idiot, or may not. None of that changes the GP point. Some times the public does understand it, and it means failure for the company, other times the public really doesn't understand it, and it means failure for the company.
Well, the advantage of IPv6 is that it will keep working right even after your ISP gets out of IPv4 addresses to give you. I'd say that is a killer feature, and will have a noticeable impact, but didn't happen yet.
But the GP thread is quite old. It just changed from "IPv4 will last for ages" to "there are plenty of addresses available yet" to "people are saying IPv4 would be over for ages, they've been wrong every time", and finally to "see the world didn't end". Now we just have to wait until the world does end and people decide to adopt the new internet.
They are buying the patents, so they could use at will and license to third parties that do not want to abide to the GPLv2 or OIN terms. That also means they can't stop people from using the patents while abiding to the GPLv2 or OIN terms, so for Microsoft that may be in fact useless, but for a normal company that could be useful. IANAL, by the way.
Just to clarify, my comment above was intended as a joke, and I think it is an absurdly bad idea*. Now, you are downplaying a bit too much the importance of brands, they aren't a panacea, but they also aren't useless.
By the xkcd translator it should be 25+ years. That if you assume that the limit on how focused the sunlight can be does not prove it to be impossible. Sadly Randall did not include the time it takes for an impossible technology to reach market.
On EM radiation the electric field is what causes the magnetic field, and the magnetic field is what causes the electric field. The radiation started somewhere, at the source there were some actual charged particles under acceleration, but everywhere else it is one field that makes the other exist.
If you tap the energy from one field, the other one will get weaker "trying" to maintain the relationship and you'll end up tapping all the energy and making they both go away.
The ODF could use the opportunity to make both brands available. That way they can use the momentum of OO.org and the freshness of LO. They can put the current name on some configuration file somewhere, and distribute the rest of the code unchanged.
Are you talking about reason #2 above? No, it is not MY thinking that is all or nothing. It is reality. If left with just my thinking, I'd not belive that people would seriously porpose to make every kind of activity hostage of DRM. It is people sucessfuly implementing those schemas that made me belive (and I'm still a bit astonished).
By your logic you probably work inside an ivory tower, and isn't allowed to look out.
Too bad NAT isn't more convenient from either the user (that will have some things simply not working) or the ISP (that will need to invest on equipment specifically for that, added to the equipment needed for IP).
3 - People that play games online (but not online games).
4 - People that want those intermediate nodes to be available for VoIP.
5 - People that use virtual LANs.
6 - People that use remote access (for support or for working).
I'm sure the list is way longer than that. Oh, and on that #1 there will be all people that have software that updates by P2P or use P2P for remote access control (way to break DRM). You know, you don't have to run bittorrent yourself to use the protocol. Numbers 3 and 4 are probably the majority of the users at the developed countries, and a big share on the developing ones. Number 5 and 6 are the majority of corporation users anywhere.
No. DRM does suck. Definitively and conclusively sucks.
The reasons why it sucks are two:
1 - There is no way it could work. And by that I don't mean any practical, legal or social factor. It simply can't work, the working of our universe doesn't permit DRM to work.
2 - Every human activity must be a hostage of it for we to pretend that it works. The content industry can go to hell, most people think it is way more important to afford real things.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, that is bad. At the fist two comments I thought you was just joking, but that one has a quite serious tone. Really, we did learn a thing or two at the last couple of millenniums, take a loot at it.
Engines survive because they aren't composed of soft materials, like a bunch of 1cc cubes of electronic devices. Also, the engines are made of resistant materials because one of them disintegrating in-flight would be a major hazard.
But you could choose another part of the plane to put those sensors. I guess the reasons they aren't used are historical (electronics was expensive just a while ago) and because you can deduce the acceleration and temperature of most of the debris of an accident just by looking at them and where they landed. Now, if you make they store instrument data...
I don't get that. If somebody never sees the icons on his desktop, having them does no harm, but if somebody does see those icons, hiding them will do harm. So, instead of the safe choice, they are going for the risky one with no benefit. And, by the way, my anedont (by the people I see using a computer) is that people do see those icons quite a lot.
If it is so, it is Microsoft burden to call the people using such a version and negotiate a license for those new patents it is using. A license agreement stating "you shall not offer up-to-dte services" is just anticompetitive.
Because Microsoft does not own Android, and, as you put quite clearly, is trying to sell licenses of it. If you think it is ok, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
That can be easily fixed if you are wiling to live with 75% of your salary, instead of 80%...
That simple reason only states that planes are more economical when you have less trafic, and rails are more economical when you have more trafic. Except for some nuts* that think that planes must be more expensive no matter what, it shouldn't be news for anybody. And, by the way, roads fit quite well in the middle.
* Sorry GP, you may have sensible opinions about other things, but that line of thinking is just crazy simplist.
And, by the way, high speed trains don't fit anywhere in there. They may get a highter price because they are faster and more confortable than planes, but it is realy rare for them to be cheaper than any other kind of transportation.
No, they are arguing that enforcing THIS SET of patents, IN THE WAY Microsoft is doins is an anti-trust violation.
Sorry, people may be idiot, or may not. None of that changes the GP point. Some times the public does understand it, and it means failure for the company, other times the public really doesn't understand it, and it means failure for the company.
There is no point in whining.
Say that for all the people that died trying to emulate bird flying.
Well, the advantage of IPv6 is that it will keep working right even after your ISP gets out of IPv4 addresses to give you. I'd say that is a killer feature, and will have a noticeable impact, but didn't happen yet.
But the GP thread is quite old. It just changed from "IPv4 will last for ages" to "there are plenty of addresses available yet" to "people are saying IPv4 would be over for ages, they've been wrong every time", and finally to "see the world didn't end". Now we just have to wait until the world does end and people decide to adopt the new internet.
They are buying the patents, so they could use at will and license to third parties that do not want to abide to the GPLv2 or OIN terms. That also means they can't stop people from using the patents while abiding to the GPLv2 or OIN terms, so for Microsoft that may be in fact useless, but for a normal company that could be useful. IANAL, by the way.
Just to clarify, my comment above was intended as a joke, and I think it is an absurdly bad idea*. Now, you are downplaying a bit too much the importance of brands, they aren't a panacea, but they also aren't useless.
For me? Until I close this broswer tab.
By the xkcd translator it should be 25+ years. That if you assume that the limit on how focused the sunlight can be does not prove it to be impossible. Sadly Randall did not include the time it takes for an impossible technology to reach market.
On EM radiation the electric field is what causes the magnetic field, and the magnetic field is what causes the electric field. The radiation started somewhere, at the source there were some actual charged particles under acceleration, but everywhere else it is one field that makes the other exist.
If you tap the energy from one field, the other one will get weaker "trying" to maintain the relationship and you'll end up tapping all the energy and making they both go away.
No, no problem about what you made to Oracle. We just stopped you to tell the address of Congress; it's over there.
The ODF could use the opportunity to make both brands available. That way they can use the momentum of OO.org and the freshness of LO. They can put the current name on some configuration file somewhere, and distribute the rest of the code unchanged.
Are you talking about reason #2 above? No, it is not MY thinking that is all or nothing. It is reality. If left with just my thinking, I'd not belive that people would seriously porpose to make every kind of activity hostage of DRM. It is people sucessfuly implementing those schemas that made me belive (and I'm still a bit astonished).
By your logic you probably work inside an ivory tower, and isn't allowed to look out.
Tough luck. I guess you'll try it again in a year or two.
Too bad NAT isn't more convenient from either the user (that will have some things simply not working) or the ISP (that will need to invest on equipment specifically for that, added to the equipment needed for IP).
Let me extend your list a bit...
3 - People that play games online (but not online games).
4 - People that want those intermediate nodes to be available for VoIP.
5 - People that use virtual LANs.
6 - People that use remote access (for support or for working).
I'm sure the list is way longer than that. Oh, and on that #1 there will be all people that have software that updates by P2P or use P2P for remote access control (way to break DRM). You know, you don't have to run bittorrent yourself to use the protocol. Numbers 3 and 4 are probably the majority of the users at the developed countries, and a big share on the developing ones. Number 5 and 6 are the majority of corporation users anywhere.
No. DRM does suck. Definitively and conclusively sucks.
The reasons why it sucks are two:
1 - There is no way it could work. And by that I don't mean any practical, legal or social factor. It simply can't work, the working of our universe doesn't permit DRM to work.
2 - Every human activity must be a hostage of it for we to pretend that it works. The content industry can go to hell, most people think it is way more important to afford real things.
Uranium OXIDE won't.
"If MS renamed MS Java to MS Coffee would that have made it okay?"
MS used the name J++, the case was closed, and Sun did go away satisfied. I guess that answers your question.
The shareholders are probably quite busy trying to dump their shares, the don't have time to dump the CEO.