Were you not paying attention? It isn't "part of a product line". It isn't tied to specific hardware at all. It's applicable to virtually any/every scanner. How exactly do you conclude that it's "part of a product line"? I never said nor even implied that HP should give it away: people would gladly pay to buy software with this new technology FOR THEIR EXISTING SCANNERS. Those people would include me.
I used the word "restrict" because I conclude that's exactly what HP is going to do with it. HP won't offer it for sale separately, even though it is in fact separate: what HP will do is restrict it artificially and use it to blackmail and coerce people into buying new hardware they don't need to use the new software. HP already has a history of doing this with their scanning software.
Either get off your Libbie/Cappie high horse and join the real world, or ride off and make dust/FUD somewhere else.
Do you suppose HP will be nice consumer-friendly guys and update their PrecisionScan software for previous scanner models? Nope: they'll roll this feature into software that'll only work with new scanners they wanna sell you. So, even though it doesn't REQUIRE new hardware, you can bet they'll figure out how to restrict it so that you still have to buy new hardware in order to use it.
When are we gonna stop electing these authoritarian nimrods? Sure, use of a social networking site might make a criminal act possible or at least easier, but use of a social networking site is of itself not criminal behavior.
(Yeah, I see the witty opportunity in that last phrase... think Twitter and go for it.)
Maybe Chevrolet's engineers are just insisting on being thorough and working the bugs out BEFORE release... which is a concept too many software engineers seem to have forgotten? That fleet of 50 "beta" Volt cars that's been on the road wasn't just for advertising, ya know.
I suppose you believe the moon landing and the Holocaust were carefully contrived hoaxes, too, perpetrated by thousands of people all working in perfect harmony to pull them off?
You really need to be less trusting of some of the garbage you've been reading, but I suspect you WANT to believe this for some reason, which is why it's crossing your blood-brain barrier so easily.
That's just not even an issue if you use the dedicated search field in Firefox, as you OUGHT to be doing. I can't even recall the last time I searched directly from an address bar!
The big fucking difference here that everyone, including you, is ignoring is that the goal and intent of OpenDNS is completely different from Comcast. Comcast is a for-profit entity whose SOLE goal is maximizing profit potential. OpenDNS only has a goal of providing a specific service, and of bringing in enough money to fund that operation and its survival.
One has greed as a motive, the other has service and survival as a motive. Do you honestly think the two should be lumped in the same box, even if their approach on the face of it appears similar?
I don't see any unintentional mimicry going on here at all, do you? It appears quite deliberate. That this mimicry is actually intended will make the consequences more painful, if the general reaction is a big bucket of FA1L as the responses so far suggest.
The ultimate in noncommittal business models, eh? Well, I am a fan of generalized solutions to problems, so I guess I should cut them some slack for being so ambiguous then?
I don't see any reason why we can't retain ownership of the infrastructure and yet have private contractors to manage, control, and maintain that infrastructure. It's the ownership that would give us the ultimate control: contractors can be fired and replaced. Perhaps if we were paying the same princely sums for highway maintenance that we do for telecom network access and usage, our roads would be better maintained by the contractors we already have for that work. It seems that (a) we completely underestimated the long-term expense of building that highway (and bridge) system, and (b) we just don't have enough money to keep those contractors busy.
Even if these proposed telecom contractors weren't charging us as much as the current telecom oligopoly, I think there would still be plenty of money rolling in to keep the network greased and running. If one of them bungles the job, there will be another contractor eager to take their place.
The bottom line is still the same: true network neutrality REQUIRES that we collectively own the network itself. Calling anything else network neutrality is just cowardly manipulation.
I actually never said "the government" would have control of it: what I said is that the network would be publicly owned. It could be a non-profit or a private contracting firm(s) that actually controls and manages it for us. It could wind up being much like what we have now, the difference being that the contractors wouldn't own the wires and would not have the last word... we would.
I think your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight. Do you avoid the highways, too, out of fear that the guvment is tracking you with unseen devices under the asphalt? Do you cringe when you pull up over a sensor coil embedded around an intersection?
I'll repeat the same thing I told both the FCC (re: National Broadband Plan) and Rep. Markey regarding his bill:
The only true form of 'Net neutrality is the kind where the physical medium - the wires or "tubes" - is collectively owned by the public. Our network of roads is almost entirely publicly owned, and the companies that build and maintain them are contractors... we don't allow them to own the stretches of asphalt they lay down. Contractors are exactly what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and all the others in the telecom infrastructure ownership business should be, rather than owners.
We made an error in judgement when AT&T began laying the first telegraph wires, and we failed to recognize the future import and insist that they deed the wires to the public trust. We perhaps had a second chance to correct our error when AT&T was hauled into court for antitrust issues: we could have forced AT&T to sell back the wires to We The People at that time, as a part of the judgement, or perhaps transitioned it into a non-profit pseudo-governmental agency like the USPS, rather than breaking it into smaller entities which STILL owned the wires in their respective fiefdoms.
We're still paying - dearly - for that original error in judgement and our continuing failure to recognize the error and deal with it, even belatedly. It appears that it might now require a revolution with guns to get the wires back into public hands, because the only way any of these corporations' CEOs are going to relinquish this profit-making control is by forcibly prying the wires from the vise-like grasp of their cold dead fingers.
As a result, we now talk about kludges and band-aids for the problem, in the form of laws and regulations, and we call these band-aids "Net neutrality" even though they're really nothing of the sort.
Does the FCC have the spine and "guns" to finally create true telecom network neutrality? I doubt it, but I suggest that perhaps you should try. If not, please do not entertain any of these legislative band-aids: in this case covering the wound with a band-aid will not actually aid in healing, rather only hide the wound from view and defer the surgery necessary to finally heal it. LET IT FESTER IN THE OPEN - in other words let the telecom companies section and "tier" the network - until it becomes so noxious that we're collectively ready to agree to the surgery.
I don't think so. I read at length about the name change at the time it occurred, and no licensing was mentioned. As I said, they had paid a San Francisco ad agency the whopping sum of 750 grand to come up with that name; I doubt they would have paid so much if a part of it required licensing! Further, AT&T now owns the domain telesis.info. And finally, there's this, the proverbial nail in the coffin:
PTG actually sued another company, International Telesis Communications, for service mark infringement. ITC lost, so perhaps they licensed "Telesis" *FROM* Pacific Telesis. You might have had it backwards.
... what's to stop the microbes from evolving/adapting BACK to the lower output when they're placed in a rich environment (fuel cell, whatever) again? Stupid researchers... they forget that mutation doesn't only occur when they want it to occur and not only in the fashion they desire.
The parent object "exploded" on impact and this got flung far from the impact point, most likely. I believe they call that phenomenon ejacula... err, ejecta.
Slashdot Mirror
Were you not paying attention? It isn't "part of a product line". It isn't tied to specific hardware at all. It's applicable to virtually any/every scanner. How exactly do you conclude that it's "part of a product line"? I never said nor even implied that HP should give it away: people would gladly pay to buy software with this new technology FOR THEIR EXISTING SCANNERS. Those people would include me.
I used the word "restrict" because I conclude that's exactly what HP is going to do with it. HP won't offer it for sale separately, even though it is in fact separate: what HP will do is restrict it artificially and use it to blackmail and coerce people into buying new hardware they don't need to use the new software. HP already has a history of doing this with their scanning software.
Either get off your Libbie/Cappie high horse and join the real world, or ride off and make dust/FUD somewhere else.
Ummmm... because I'm not?
Do you suppose HP will be nice consumer-friendly guys and update their PrecisionScan software for previous scanner models? Nope: they'll roll this feature into software that'll only work with new scanners they wanna sell you. So, even though it doesn't REQUIRE new hardware, you can bet they'll figure out how to restrict it so that you still have to buy new hardware in order to use it.
Aw, c'mon, admit it: the crease was deliberate because you were trying to spare your eyes and sanity!
But, but, but... that would ruin my collection of photos of the valleys of female cleavage and buttocks!
When are we gonna stop electing these authoritarian nimrods? Sure, use of a social networking site might make a criminal act possible or at least easier, but use of a social networking site is of itself not criminal behavior .
(Yeah, I see the witty opportunity in that last phrase... think Twitter and go for it.)
Maybe Chevrolet's engineers are just insisting on being thorough and working the bugs out BEFORE release... which is a concept too many software engineers seem to have forgotten? That fleet of 50 "beta" Volt cars that's been on the road wasn't just for advertising, ya know.
I suppose you believe the moon landing and the Holocaust were carefully contrived hoaxes, too, perpetrated by thousands of people all working in perfect harmony to pull them off?
You really need to be less trusting of some of the garbage you've been reading, but I suspect you WANT to believe this for some reason, which is why it's crossing your blood-brain barrier so easily.
Any relation to Hugh? If so we can expect a skit about this any day now.
You don't have the whole story, apparently, even given the references above:
http://blog.opendns.com/2007/05/22/google-turns-the-page/
I think you're cherry-picking.
That's just not even an issue if you use the dedicated search field in Firefox, as you OUGHT to be doing. I can't even recall the last time I searched directly from an address bar!
The big fucking difference here that everyone, including you, is ignoring is that the goal and intent of OpenDNS is completely different from Comcast. Comcast is a for-profit entity whose SOLE goal is maximizing profit potential. OpenDNS only has a goal of providing a specific service, and of bringing in enough money to fund that operation and its survival.
One has greed as a motive, the other has service and survival as a motive. Do you honestly think the two should be lumped in the same box, even if their approach on the face of it appears similar?
I don't see any unintentional mimicry going on here at all, do you? It appears quite deliberate. That this mimicry is actually intended will make the consequences more painful, if the general reaction is a big bucket of FA1L as the responses so far suggest.
How about not using your ISP's own DNS servers? Why not use "agnostic" ones?
http://www.opendns.com/
Hairdryer? I'm bald, you insensitive clod!
I do have a heat gun in the toolbox, though....
The ultimate in noncommittal business models, eh? Well, I am a fan of generalized solutions to problems, so I guess I should cut them some slack for being so ambiguous then?
Nah! It's just weird and dumb. ;-)
I don't see any reason why we can't retain ownership of the infrastructure and yet have private contractors to manage, control, and maintain that infrastructure. It's the ownership that would give us the ultimate control: contractors can be fired and replaced. Perhaps if we were paying the same princely sums for highway maintenance that we do for telecom network access and usage, our roads would be better maintained by the contractors we already have for that work. It seems that (a) we completely underestimated the long-term expense of building that highway (and bridge) system, and (b) we just don't have enough money to keep those contractors busy.
Even if these proposed telecom contractors weren't charging us as much as the current telecom oligopoly, I think there would still be plenty of money rolling in to keep the network greased and running. If one of them bungles the job, there will be another contractor eager to take their place.
The bottom line is still the same: true network neutrality REQUIRES that we collectively own the network itself. Calling anything else network neutrality is just cowardly manipulation.
I actually never said "the government" would have control of it: what I said is that the network would be publicly owned. It could be a non-profit or a private contracting firm(s) that actually controls and manages it for us. It could wind up being much like what we have now, the difference being that the contractors wouldn't own the wires and would not have the last word... we would.
I think your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight, too.
I think your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight. Do you avoid the highways, too, out of fear that the guvment is tracking you with unseen devices under the asphalt? Do you cringe when you pull up over a sensor coil embedded around an intersection?
Where's your politically correct contribution to the dialog, then, Mister Anonymous Coward?
I'll repeat the same thing I told both the FCC (re: National Broadband Plan) and Rep. Markey regarding his bill:
I don't think so. I read at length about the name change at the time it occurred, and no licensing was mentioned. As I said, they had paid a San Francisco ad agency the whopping sum of 750 grand to come up with that name; I doubt they would have paid so much if a part of it required licensing! Further, AT&T now owns the domain telesis.info. And finally, there's this, the proverbial nail in the coffin:
http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/444211
PTG actually sued another company, International Telesis Communications, for service mark infringement. ITC lost, so perhaps they licensed "Telesis" *FROM* Pacific Telesis. You might have had it backwards.
... what's to stop the microbes from evolving/adapting BACK to the lower output when they're placed in a rich environment (fuel cell, whatever) again? Stupid researchers... they forget that mutation doesn't only occur when they want it to occur and not only in the fashion they desire.
The parent object "exploded" on impact and this got flung far from the impact point, most likely. I believe they call that phenomenon ejacula... err, ejecta.
What makes you so sure it was a dude?
How about "Dandy Tandy"? It's just as dumb and nondescript, but at least it's lyrical.