The worst part of this was revealed by Barnes & Nobel when they said that part of the demanded secret licensing agreement was that it gave Microsoft design approval over future devices. That should never have been agreed to, or allowed. Giving Microsoft that power allows them to control the entire future progress of the Android hardware ecosystem, meaning that they could cripple future Android hardware because their Windows phone is not competitive. It would be like AMD not being allowed to release new processors without Intel approval. If that had ever happened do you think that AMD64 would have ever seen the light of day?
Well good for them. I don't really see a problem with this.
Well then you need a new set of glasses. The sales tax you don't pay (because the online retailer isn't using state and local services such as police/fire protection, roads (UPS and USPS pay for those on Amazon deliveries), utilities, or any other service is rather offset by the delivery charge that you do pay. That makes it pretty much a wash. For local retailers to whine that It's Just Not Fair is simply whining that they don't have a monopoly over your purchases any longer. They have to compete in a more modern world for your dollars, or find a new way to flog their buggy whips.
Even at $1.60 per watt material cost, given power rates in my area, daylight hours, and angle of the sun, it would take a little over ten years to produce $1.60 worth of electricity (22,857 hours at an average of 6 hours per day of peak output). There is no pay back for solar (unless you count grants and tax write offs, but the product cannot pay for itself.)
Nothing wrong with your rough numbers, however, you fail to understand the real plan at work here. Those that intend to force you to use their particular brand of Politically Correct power in the future don't have to drive down the cost of solar. Their plan is to simply and drastically increase the cost of power that they disapprove of. No matter that coal, nuclear, and natural gas could provide the USA with with cheap, plentiful domestically sourced power for the rest of our lives, we're going to have to buy overly expensive and unreliable solar because our political masters are beholden to wackos.
Wackos, I should add, who will profit immensely due to their investments in uneconomic (until you're force to buy it at their prices) Green Energy ventures and carbon offset farms. You're about to be taken for the most expensive ride of your life here -- and in Britain as well.
The fact that people have been talking about exactly this sort of application for decades would make it not novel and thus not patentable.
The general concept may not be patentable, but specific working implementations may very well be innovative and patentable.
You are in a twisty little maze of what is and is not innovative, what is and is not patentable, what is and is not prior art, what is and is not obvious, what is and is not Apple, and how stupid or stupider the US Patent Office is, all different.
Ever since the 1960's and big Control Data Corporation iron the latest/greatest supercomputer always seems headed towards weather forecasting/climate modeling. And we still can't accurately say where the next hurricane will make landfall in 3 days, or if I'm going to get rained on tomorrow.
So are this seems to be a question of UMG behaving like thugs (and who is surprised about that?) and their seeming ability to take down anything that they don't like on YouTube without resorting the the DMCA and the requirements and penalties for misuse of same. The unasked question is: And who else also has this ability wrt YouTube via secret agreements?
Actually this may be a very good thing. Talk about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with. The Megaupload video is so not important. Them taking down the TWIT video podcast really could be a freedom of the press issue and one that overrides their agreement with YouTube.
You can't make that statement without knowing just what the agreement is. Freedom of the press applies to preventing governments from stifling it. Corporations are not bound by the Constitution in the same way.
To retain their safe harbour status, which makes them immune to copyright infringement lawsuits on their hosted content, all that they need to do is take down any content on receipt of a DMCA take-down notice and restore it on receipt of a counter notice.
Except if the contention is that it wasn't taken down under the DMCA rules, then there is no obligation to restore it upon receipt of a valid counter-notice.
And this would make UMG immune under the penalty provisions of the DMCA for taking down fair use and non-owned content.
The really funny thing here -- lawyers, are you listening -- is that while UMG says that this wasn't done pursuant to the DMCA, they still attached a name to the takedown order. Why would they do that if it wasn't DMCA?
It would have made a lot more sense; regardless of what one may think of him, he's had far more impact on the world than a bunch of deluded 'protestors' and now he's dead he won't be able to win it another year.
Yes, the man who founded the largest corporation in the world would have been a significant candidate. Especially as opposed to unwashed hippies kvetching about how society just won't give them everything that they want. Jobs himself has a rather counter-culture background, but at least he worked for his riches. That I can admire.
On my last DVD rental return (I don't use the streaming service due to the much lower quality of the stream, no extra features, and the fact that when I did try it the streaming versions were sometimes markedly inferior in content -- one movie, for example, was missing nearly 20 minutes of what was on the rental DVD) Netflix acknowledged my return, but then didn't send out my next DVD for an entire day. When you're on the 1-at-a-time plan, that is a significant hit.
Their explanation? When I called in I was told that the TOS allows them to only have to send the next DVD in a 1-to-3 day window. Furthermore, the only times in the past when they didn't get my next DVD out the same day as the returned one was received (they send e-mails when they receive the returned DVD so I knew that they had it), they sent me a +1 bonus disc to make up for the loss in rental time. NO LONGER. I was told that the supervisor would not approve it and the guy in customer service actually told me that it had been A MISTAKE that this had ever been done in the past.
Fine, Netflix is losing money now, not my fault. Keep this up and they'll be losing even more customers who remember when their service was much better than it appears to be now.
So how does this bode for the cloud computing services? Rather than try to buy another external backup drive, I'm now looking more seriously into the cloud for those needs myself.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess we are to line 3 already.
* Global warming is real, is caused by people, but there's nothing we can effectively do about it.
The worst part of this was revealed by Barnes & Nobel when they said that part of the demanded secret licensing agreement was that it gave Microsoft design approval over future devices. That should never have been agreed to, or allowed. Giving Microsoft that power allows them to control the entire future progress of the Android hardware ecosystem, meaning that they could cripple future Android hardware because their Windows phone is not competitive. It would be like AMD not being allowed to release new processors without Intel approval. If that had ever happened do you think that AMD64 would have ever seen the light of day?
Well good for them. I don't really see a problem with this.
Well then you need a new set of glasses. The sales tax you don't pay (because the online retailer isn't using state and local services such as police/fire protection, roads (UPS and USPS pay for those on Amazon deliveries), utilities, or any other service is rather offset by the delivery charge that you do pay. That makes it pretty much a wash. For local retailers to whine that It's Just Not Fair is simply whining that they don't have a monopoly over your purchases any longer. They have to compete in a more modern world for your dollars, or find a new way to flog their buggy whips.
Even at $1.60 per watt material cost, given power rates in my area, daylight hours, and angle of the sun, it would take a little over ten years to produce $1.60 worth of electricity (22,857 hours at an average of 6 hours per day of peak output). There is no pay back for solar (unless you count grants and tax write offs, but the product cannot pay for itself.)
Nothing wrong with your rough numbers, however, you fail to understand the real plan at work here. Those that intend to force you to use their particular brand of Politically Correct power in the future don't have to drive down the cost of solar. Their plan is to simply and drastically increase the cost of power that they disapprove of. No matter that coal, nuclear, and natural gas could provide the USA with with cheap, plentiful domestically sourced power for the rest of our lives, we're going to have to buy overly expensive and unreliable solar because our political masters are beholden to wackos.
Wackos, I should add, who will profit immensely due to their investments in uneconomic (until you're force to buy it at their prices) Green Energy ventures and carbon offset farms. You're about to be taken for the most expensive ride of your life here -- and in Britain as well.
It beats the current crop of dual core ARM processors (Exynos, snapdragon s3 and Tegra 2) in one benchmark that "leaked".
Nothing fishy about that at all.
So it beats (maybe) the ARMs of the moment. But what about the ARMs when Medfield actually ships? And the quad-core ARMs now?
Who in the world would want to live under and be governed by these Neanderthals?
(I realize that this is an insult to true Neanderthals.)
So this is the consolation prize for not winning T-Mobile (and that hot T-Mobile girl).
Of course the real cost here is $1.925B + $4B deal breaker fee to T-Mobile. Buy that girl a new pair of heels.
So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.
But if you're an Apple fanboi you've already proven that you like spending lots more money, so why is this news?
The best 3 things about a fuel-cell powered computing device:
1: It's instantly rechargable -- just slap on a new fuel tank.
2: It would actually be possible to have an accurate readout of power remaining.
3: It might (hopefully) retain its full capacity for the lifetime of the fuel-cell.
The worst 1 thing about a fuel-cell powered computing device:
1: All of the Apple lawsuits trying to keep anyone else from doing it also no matter how obvious this patent is in foresight.
The fact that people have been talking about exactly this sort of application for decades would make it not novel and thus not patentable.
The general concept may not be patentable, but specific working implementations may very well be innovative and patentable.
You are in a twisty little maze of what is and is not innovative, what is and is not patentable, what is and is not prior art, what is and is not obvious, what is and is not Apple, and how stupid or stupider the US Patent Office is, all different.
Ever since the 1960's and big Control Data Corporation iron the latest/greatest supercomputer always seems headed towards weather forecasting/climate modeling. And we still can't accurately say where the next hurricane will make landfall in 3 days, or if I'm going to get rained on tomorrow.
It's a meeting request, just like any other meeting request, but now we do it on your cell phone -- PROFIT!
Why would Sony feel the need to include a You Can't Sue Me provision in their ToS?
Common Sense sez: Because they are already planning to be doing things to you that you will want to sue them for.
Can BT show that they've been damaged in any way at all by Android? I think that legally you have to show how you've been damaged.
Since when has BT produced anything of actual value? Whereas Android is a great alternative to the iApple hegemony.
So are this seems to be a question of UMG behaving like thugs (and who is surprised about that?) and their seeming ability to take down anything that they don't like on YouTube without resorting the the DMCA and the requirements and penalties for misuse of same. The unasked question is: And who else also has this ability wrt YouTube via secret agreements?
Actually this may be a very good thing. Talk about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with.
The Megaupload video is so not important. Them taking down the TWIT video podcast really could be a freedom of the press issue and one that overrides their agreement with YouTube.
You can't make that statement without knowing just what the agreement is. Freedom of the press applies to preventing governments from stifling it. Corporations are not bound by the Constitution in the same way.
To retain their safe harbour status, which makes them immune to copyright infringement lawsuits on their hosted content, all that they need to do is take down any content on receipt of a DMCA take-down notice and restore it on receipt of a counter notice.
Except if the contention is that it wasn't taken down under the DMCA rules, then there is no obligation to restore it upon receipt of a valid counter-notice.
And this would make UMG immune under the penalty provisions of the DMCA for taking down fair use and non-owned content.
The really funny thing here -- lawyers, are you listening -- is that while UMG says that this wasn't done pursuant to the DMCA, they still attached a name to the takedown order. Why would they do that if it wasn't DMCA?
... they could have picked Steve Jobs.
It would have made a lot more sense; regardless of what one may think of him, he's had far more impact on the world than a bunch of deluded 'protestors' and now he's dead he won't be able to win it another year.
Yes, the man who founded the largest corporation in the world would have been a significant candidate. Especially as opposed to unwashed hippies kvetching about how society just won't give them everything that they want. Jobs himself has a rather counter-culture background, but at least he worked for his riches. That I can admire.
It's a crock, but who thinks that Time is still relevant anyway?
On my last DVD rental return (I don't use the streaming service due to the much lower quality of the stream, no extra features, and the fact that when I did try it the streaming versions were sometimes markedly inferior in content -- one movie, for example, was missing nearly 20 minutes of what was on the rental DVD) Netflix acknowledged my return, but then didn't send out my next DVD for an entire day. When you're on the 1-at-a-time plan, that is a significant hit.
Their explanation? When I called in I was told that the TOS allows them to only have to send the next DVD in a 1-to-3 day window. Furthermore, the only times in the past when they didn't get my next DVD out the same day as the returned one was received (they send e-mails when they receive the returned DVD so I knew that they had it), they sent me a +1 bonus disc to make up for the loss in rental time. NO LONGER. I was told that the supervisor would not approve it and the guy in customer service actually told me that it had been A MISTAKE that this had ever been done in the past.
Fine, Netflix is losing money now, not my fault. Keep this up and they'll be losing even more customers who remember when their service was much better than it appears to be now.
So how does this bode for the cloud computing services? Rather than try to buy another external backup drive, I'm now looking more seriously into the cloud for those needs myself.
So where is Anonymous when you really need them.
So they derive income for premium services by replacing adverts on the web? Google, Facebook etc. are going to love that. Top of the stack wins.
So yes, it sounds slimy, AND YET, it's MY browser and I should be the one who decides which ads, if any, that I care to view.