Unlike the Microsoft case, there is no entry bar for another competitor. They don't have ties into browsers and markets any more than anyone else. The sole reason they dominate the market is because they do it the best. One only has to type in another search engine site and/or change the homepage to use another serach engine. There is no consumer restriction here, thus no antitrust. All it takes is for someone to have a better search and Google is history. Of course competitors seem to more inclined to bring a case against them rather than try to improve their own sites
There is probably a better case against Microsoft for forcing all IE users to use Bing to start. Google is not using another market to muscle its way into search, they ARE the market due to constant innovation.
Here here. It's not like you can't pirate on IOS or PCs or XBox or Playstation......
This guy is just complaining because he can't screw people as much as he wants for a crappy game. There are donation only apps that make ton s of money, and I have been more than happy to scape a few bucks here and there to pass on. What I won't do is pay through the teeth for half-baked games
Besides if people really didn't like those choices Android would not be outselling Iphones. The real difference between the two OSes are the people that use them. People who use Iphones usually do so becuase it's "simple" or "cool". This type of customer usually downloads the first thng that catches thier eye and pays for it. Android users tend to be more about productivity or messing around. Each of these groups tend to look into alteratives before downloading, so if there is a free app that does the same thing they tend to choose that. I also challenge him to show piracy and not simply low sales.
The question proposed is "Has any creative work failed because of piracy?" The real question is "why has piracy become acceptable?"
I Think we can answer this in 2 parts. 1) Congress has made copyright so long that it is essentially "forever" in terms of relevance. This also has an effect of stifling new work that may make use of, or resemble, something else released since it will never become public domain in our lives. 2) Because the respective industries have taken great pains to lock out any works they do not own, they have no reason to produce anything but music, movies etc. that meets the lowest common denominator since it is cheaper to market a few groups or movies than thousands.
The book publishers still thrive despite thousands of choices and a vast array of independent publishers. Sure there are some blockbusters and duds, but they still make money, and would without the incredibly long copyright period. This policy of force feeding media and eternal copyright has made the whole idea a joke. Couple that with the "creative accounting" where the artists don't get paid and no one respects the copyright law. Why should they? The only ones who make money seem to be the ones intent upon curtailing our choices and creativity.
"Except, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics" Actually that is completely wrong. A theory has been proposed that supposedly endangers us all. Evidence is presented. If they are wrong, there is little damage in implementing the solutions provided, and may even ultimately save us money. However, failing to act could be disasterous.
"Hey Harry, I think letting the collant run out of the Reactor chamber would be bad"
"Oh Geoge, you're just being an alarmist. Can you prove it is disasterous every single time?"
The problem is that you can only disprove the sceptics by letting it happen, and by then it is too late.
Even if the global temperature rise IS natural, and by some freak of nature, all of the pollution and CO2 we spew out has nothing to do with the excelleration, a rise in temperature is bad for us. This is simple logic. So, even IF all of these scientists are wrong, we still need to do something.
If people become too much of a jerk, start telling their manager that you can't keep going over there to fix things "they" broke. Doesn't matter if they did. If managers think their employees are loosing time becasue they are mucking with their computer, they tend to get upset. It used to work well for me when I was doing helpdesk many years ago. I was treated like crap by the engineers until I started bring ing their managers into the process. Once the manager knew the person was costing the company money, things changed.
That's great as long as there are consequences for reporting lies, and halve-truths. The problem has become that no one even gets a hand slapped when they don't research, or even make up, stories and report lies or rumors.
You want to use the public airwaves? Sure, but you can't lie to the people while doing it. Combine this with government pressuring reports on what they can and can't report and we have fascism.
Just because you are a conservative, doesn't mean you are a neo-con. The Fox is biased, NOT towards liberals, but towards the neo-con agenda. I am a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. You would think I would love Fox for the fiscal side. However, the recent and administration and Fox news are NOT conservatives. They have spent money, hand-over-fist for pork, wars and personal gain. This is not what a conservative does.
The problem with that is that the new is supposed to be a check in this system of checks and balances. That is a major reason for the freedom of the press. They are supposed to be able to investigate and criticize the government. If you bring in "news for ratings" you break the balance. The news is supposed to report...well, the news.
Biases will happen, but gross, conscious biases prevent people from getting the facts.
The fact that many news organizations wrote positive articles about Obama can be directly abtributed to his charisma and positive message.
What I found appalling is the lack of research and fact finding the news has been doing on either side. They should have been digging deep and offering information without an agenda.
Fox on the other hand was inventing stories with and obvious bias. They had nothing to back up many of the stories, but headlined them anyway. This is just irresponsible, and if someone were doing it in the liberal direction, it would be just as bad.
Even if all news organizations were unbiased, you have to realize that the news will not always be in the direction you like. Putting the number of article for one candidate against the number of the other one without understanding the other factors is simply bad science and is only hurting us as a nation. Remember that the decrease in pirates is the reason for global warming... http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
So, you are saying we should have elected someone else and let these issues get worse? If you can't fix it all, and instantly, we might as well give up.
Many of us know reality and know the first part of getting a plan together is getting the proper people. No, these types of issues will take some time. IT is easier to mess everything up than to fix it. So, are you going to be part of the problem or the solution?
Of course this only works if you can afford to move. Intended or not, this type of thinking only benefits the more wealthy. In addition, you have people in one state creating issues in another state. The Federal Government is there is keep this from happening. We do not live in a vacum and what you do in your home CAN affect others. People always complain that someone is affecting them, but when it is time for them to step up and stop affecting someone else, they tell them to move.
Humans are generally selfish and short-sighted.
And exactly how do you figure that? Let's see some numbers. I hate when people just toss out things from the air and demand that it's "proof"
"Joe the plumber" is a great example of this.
I work with many small businesses that could greatly benefit from Linux and many OpenSource applications. The biggest stumbling block I find to converting these people is the fact I cannot get Quickbooks to run on WINE. IF this single program was able to run as on native Windows, I don't think most small companies would ever need the Windows tax.
I am still hoping that there is a viable alternative, but for now I'm hoping WINE might save the day.
IANAP, but can someone please tell me how the theoretically impossible became theoretically possible? Did the theory change, or was the math wrong, or did His Great and Wonderful Noodliness screw with the results? It is still theoretically impossible to get a perfect copy without alerting the sender and listener. However, this technique essentially reads the "noise" around the conversation and rebuilds the data from that. This is much like a damaged hard drive. While you cannot get the data directly, you can rebuild the data with the bits you do get.
Right now there are plenty of free certificate authority programs out there. The only difference is that the authorities are not trusted by the browsers. If you could have every authority trusted, the certificates would mean even less than they do now. All we really need to do is take the methodology CAcert uses and add their authority to the browsers.
Copyright is applied to TANGIBLE medium. Once a story or idea is written or put into movie form etc. it can be copyrighted. Insisting that you have copyright to ideas, text or data that has not yet been written, or written by MY computer is simply reaching. Their program and ONLY the program is copyrightable. That is even without going into the difference about what text is original enough to be granted copyright status. I doubt very much a string on numbers and letters generated by a machine is considered an original idea.
Well, if they delete posts they don't like (censor) then I don't think they get the benefit of the DMCA for content. It could now be considered that anything not removed is explicitly agreed to by Dell. So, if you post a racial slur and Dell doesn't remove it, Dell could be sued for racism. Not a good marketing or legal move.
It seems to me that the argument over a micro vs monolithic kernel comes down to what people expect from Linux. The micro is oviously the choice for security, but as we can see there are some complications to it that make it more difficult to develop. On the other hand, it is much faster to develop in a monolithic kernel, which is what most of the market demands. Why not fork the kernel and start down a path of micro vs monolithic. the micro could be geared towards high security and embedded systems, while the monolithic could be geared towards desktop and the general consumer market. Of course the trick is to make sure both kernels run the same code, which is no easy task, especially if the micro is behind in development.
I have seen the presidential symbol used all over the place in satires. Saturday Night Live and Mad TV use it all the time? Are they next? Are we going to start getting cease and desist letters for mentioning Bush in our Blogs next?
Ok, I tried this with FF 1.04 and could not get it to work no matter what I tried. I tried both the using tabs and opening all links in new windows and I could not get it to work. IE, on the other hand, handled the exploit perfectly, thank god. At least I can still count on IE to run the flaw correctly.
Despite the many loopholes, like out of country spyware etc. the law would give antispyware makers a clear definition on what is spyware and what is not. While I don't expect to see many, if any spyware makers put in jail, I do see this as a defense for the antispyware industry when they wipe out Gator-like programs.
Not a bug, but an exploit; using documented behavior to create unwanted behavior. I guess a quick workaround for this that would not break most of the functionality is to have the browser check to see if the new version of window came from the site that created the old version. If not, pop up a different widow. I guess DOM could prefix the site address to all window requests to make them unique.
On a side note, a student in an Intro to Web Design class I taught found this by mistake about a year ago. I guess the difference is that I wasn't trying to figure out how to profit from it:(
Perhaps, but they didn't buy THAT license. MS will be one of the first to send the BSA your way if you end up with a pirate license because you can't find your own.
Besides, this is smoke, and if there is smoke, there will be fire.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike the Microsoft case, there is no entry bar for another competitor. They don't have ties into browsers and markets any more than anyone else. The sole reason they dominate the market is because they do it the best. One only has to type in another search engine site and/or change the homepage to use another serach engine. There is no consumer restriction here, thus no antitrust. All it takes is for someone to have a better search and Google is history. Of course competitors seem to more inclined to bring a case against them rather than try to improve their own sites There is probably a better case against Microsoft for forcing all IE users to use Bing to start. Google is not using another market to muscle its way into search, they ARE the market due to constant innovation.
Here here. It's not like you can't pirate on IOS or PCs or XBox or Playstation...... This guy is just complaining because he can't screw people as much as he wants for a crappy game. There are donation only apps that make ton s of money, and I have been more than happy to scape a few bucks here and there to pass on. What I won't do is pay through the teeth for half-baked games Besides if people really didn't like those choices Android would not be outselling Iphones. The real difference between the two OSes are the people that use them. People who use Iphones usually do so becuase it's "simple" or "cool". This type of customer usually downloads the first thng that catches thier eye and pays for it. Android users tend to be more about productivity or messing around. Each of these groups tend to look into alteratives before downloading, so if there is a free app that does the same thing they tend to choose that. I also challenge him to show piracy and not simply low sales.
The question proposed is "Has any creative work failed because of piracy?" The real question is "why has piracy become acceptable?" I Think we can answer this in 2 parts. 1) Congress has made copyright so long that it is essentially "forever" in terms of relevance. This also has an effect of stifling new work that may make use of, or resemble, something else released since it will never become public domain in our lives. 2) Because the respective industries have taken great pains to lock out any works they do not own, they have no reason to produce anything but music, movies etc. that meets the lowest common denominator since it is cheaper to market a few groups or movies than thousands. The book publishers still thrive despite thousands of choices and a vast array of independent publishers. Sure there are some blockbusters and duds, but they still make money, and would without the incredibly long copyright period. This policy of force feeding media and eternal copyright has made the whole idea a joke. Couple that with the "creative accounting" where the artists don't get paid and no one respects the copyright law. Why should they? The only ones who make money seem to be the ones intent upon curtailing our choices and creativity.
"Except, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics" Actually that is completely wrong. A theory has been proposed that supposedly endangers us all. Evidence is presented. If they are wrong, there is little damage in implementing the solutions provided, and may even ultimately save us money. However, failing to act could be disasterous. "Hey Harry, I think letting the collant run out of the Reactor chamber would be bad" "Oh Geoge, you're just being an alarmist. Can you prove it is disasterous every single time?" The problem is that you can only disprove the sceptics by letting it happen, and by then it is too late. Even if the global temperature rise IS natural, and by some freak of nature, all of the pollution and CO2 we spew out has nothing to do with the excelleration, a rise in temperature is bad for us. This is simple logic. So, even IF all of these scientists are wrong, we still need to do something.
If people become too much of a jerk, start telling their manager that you can't keep going over there to fix things "they" broke. Doesn't matter if they did. If managers think their employees are loosing time becasue they are mucking with their computer, they tend to get upset. It used to work well for me when I was doing helpdesk many years ago. I was treated like crap by the engineers until I started bring ing their managers into the process. Once the manager knew the person was costing the company money, things changed.
As a government agency, I didn't think they could copyright or patent things because it is done with taxpayer money.
That's great as long as there are consequences for reporting lies, and halve-truths. The problem has become that no one even gets a hand slapped when they don't research, or even make up, stories and report lies or rumors. You want to use the public airwaves? Sure, but you can't lie to the people while doing it. Combine this with government pressuring reports on what they can and can't report and we have fascism.
Just because you are a conservative, doesn't mean you are a neo-con. The Fox is biased, NOT towards liberals, but towards the neo-con agenda. I am a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. You would think I would love Fox for the fiscal side. However, the recent and administration and Fox news are NOT conservatives. They have spent money, hand-over-fist for pork, wars and personal gain. This is not what a conservative does.
The problem with that is that the new is supposed to be a check in this system of checks and balances. That is a major reason for the freedom of the press. They are supposed to be able to investigate and criticize the government. If you bring in "news for ratings" you break the balance. The news is supposed to report...well, the news. Biases will happen, but gross, conscious biases prevent people from getting the facts. The fact that many news organizations wrote positive articles about Obama can be directly abtributed to his charisma and positive message. What I found appalling is the lack of research and fact finding the news has been doing on either side. They should have been digging deep and offering information without an agenda. Fox on the other hand was inventing stories with and obvious bias. They had nothing to back up many of the stories, but headlined them anyway. This is just irresponsible, and if someone were doing it in the liberal direction, it would be just as bad. Even if all news organizations were unbiased, you have to realize that the news will not always be in the direction you like. Putting the number of article for one candidate against the number of the other one without understanding the other factors is simply bad science and is only hurting us as a nation. Remember that the decrease in pirates is the reason for global warming... http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
So, you are saying we should have elected someone else and let these issues get worse? If you can't fix it all, and instantly, we might as well give up. Many of us know reality and know the first part of getting a plan together is getting the proper people. No, these types of issues will take some time. IT is easier to mess everything up than to fix it. So, are you going to be part of the problem or the solution?
Of course this only works if you can afford to move. Intended or not, this type of thinking only benefits the more wealthy. In addition, you have people in one state creating issues in another state. The Federal Government is there is keep this from happening. We do not live in a vacum and what you do in your home CAN affect others. People always complain that someone is affecting them, but when it is time for them to step up and stop affecting someone else, they tell them to move. Humans are generally selfish and short-sighted.
And exactly how do you figure that? Let's see some numbers. I hate when people just toss out things from the air and demand that it's "proof" "Joe the plumber" is a great example of this.
Please cite this as it's a number you just made up. Most taxes are paid by people 35K-125K yearly. In other words, the middle class.
I work with many small businesses that could greatly benefit from Linux and many OpenSource applications. The biggest stumbling block I find to converting these people is the fact I cannot get Quickbooks to run on WINE. IF this single program was able to run as on native Windows, I don't think most small companies would ever need the Windows tax. I am still hoping that there is a viable alternative, but for now I'm hoping WINE might save the day.
Right now there are plenty of free certificate authority programs out there. The only difference is that the authorities are not trusted by the browsers. If you could have every authority trusted, the certificates would mean even less than they do now. All we really need to do is take the methodology CAcert uses and add their authority to the browsers.
Copyright is applied to TANGIBLE medium. Once a story or idea is written or put into movie form etc. it can be copyrighted. Insisting that you have copyright to ideas, text or data that has not yet been written, or written by MY computer is simply reaching. Their program and ONLY the program is copyrightable. That is even without going into the difference about what text is original enough to be granted copyright status. I doubt very much a string on numbers and letters generated by a machine is considered an original idea.
Well, if they delete posts they don't like (censor) then I don't think they get the benefit of the DMCA for content. It could now be considered that anything not removed is explicitly agreed to by Dell. So, if you post a racial slur and Dell doesn't remove it, Dell could be sued for racism. Not a good marketing or legal move.
Great,now the right virus written to memory can create a real deadly virus. "What do you mean my corrupt file caused the extinction of the whales?"
It seems to me that the argument over a micro vs monolithic kernel comes down to what people expect from Linux. The micro is oviously the choice for security, but as we can see there are some complications to it that make it more difficult to develop. On the other hand, it is much faster to develop in a monolithic kernel, which is what most of the market demands. Why not fork the kernel and start down a path of micro vs monolithic. the micro could be geared towards high security and embedded systems, while the monolithic could be geared towards desktop and the general consumer market. Of course the trick is to make sure both kernels run the same code, which is no easy task, especially if the micro is behind in development.
I have seen the presidential symbol used all over the place in satires. Saturday Night Live and Mad TV use it all the time? Are they next? Are we going to start getting cease and desist letters for mentioning Bush in our Blogs next?
Ok, I tried this with FF 1.04 and could not get it to work no matter what I tried. I tried both the using tabs and opening all links in new windows and I could not get it to work. IE, on the other hand, handled the exploit perfectly, thank god. At least I can still count on IE to run the flaw correctly.
Despite the many loopholes, like out of country spyware etc. the law would give antispyware makers a clear definition on what is spyware and what is not. While I don't expect to see many, if any spyware makers put in jail, I do see this as a defense for the antispyware industry when they wipe out Gator-like programs.
Not a bug, but an exploit; using documented behavior to create unwanted behavior. I guess a quick workaround for this that would not break most of the functionality is to have the browser check to see if the new version of window came from the site that created the old version. If not, pop up a different widow. I guess DOM could prefix the site address to all window requests to make them unique. On a side note, a student in an Intro to Web Design class I taught found this by mistake about a year ago. I guess the difference is that I wasn't trying to figure out how to profit from it :(
Perhaps, but they didn't buy THAT license. MS will be one of the first to send the BSA your way if you end up with a pirate license because you can't find your own. Besides, this is smoke, and if there is smoke, there will be fire.