One cannot point to a large company, complain that it's doing something you dislike, and therefore, it's both a monopoly and guilty of an antitrust violation. While the uber-parent doesn't bother to substantiate its accusation, an antitrust claim must plead with particularity the violations in question. Assuming Comcast is a monopoly (which is unlikely to be found), it still isn't guilty of antitrust. Common antitrust claims are tying, bundling, and conspiracy. Comcast is not tying or bundling anything; they are not forcing people to buy or use a product or service to use another product or service. They are only withdrawing automated support for a VCR, a VCR which they do not produce or sell. They are not forcing anyone to use its services exclusively. Generally, options are available in both several satellite TV providers, fiber optic in some locations. Dropping support for a VCR doesn't in any way impact their competition (unless DirectTV et al are manufacturing VCRs, and this is a major component of their businesses). There is obviously no conspiracy involved. There's no kernel of antitrust here.
"Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry."
In other news, according to a new entirely authoritative and conclusive scientific study (i.e. me), Cablevision subscribers have the most unrealistic sense of entitlement of any other pay-for-TV consumers in the entire US. They also apparently are all billionaire shareholders of Cablevision.
Turning swapping off is a horrible idea, and will likely lead to an unstable system. Swapping cannot be completely avoided, irregardless of the amount of actual RAM present.
Yep, pretty sure all those "Date 'N Rape" action figures, "The Dangerous Book of Rape for Boys" and Dad sitting down with his pipe every Saturday evening by the fire to have "The Talk" with junior explains why the majority of rapists are male. It's those damned gender-biased parenting and social norms!
Guess we'd better force women at gunpoint to enter careers they wouldn't voluntarily choose to enter. After all, it's for their own good. And it makes the weak spined males feel better about themselves. Cuz that's what this is all about, isn't it?
Artistic "ownership" is an abuse of the term. You can own physical property, such as a painting or book, but you can't "own" an idea or concept, and then morally prevent others from using their own property as they see fit. Intellectual property is a government sanctioned abuse of property rights. Such an innovation must be opposed on principled grounds.
I'm sorry, but did someone at/. forget to mention that the CRU emails did have evidence of a conspiracy to blacklist opposing scientific viewpoints from peer reviewed publications? Did someone forget that Nature, for some years, has been itself criticized for such blacklisting?
More top down central planning of the government schools isn't going to lead to more productive outcomes. Science isn't a rigid, unchanging system that can be taught as dogma. Instead of throwing another stifling straitjacket onto the failed government schools, he might emulate the diverse and decentralized environment of scientific achievement, and allow competition with government schools, and competing curricula that will over time lead to increasingly more beneficial outcomes.
This story has no link whatsoever to anything about ASUS. Of the two links on pricing, one is from June 15 2009, months before Windows 7 was released, while the other is an ancient article from fall 2006. How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?
The only reason the iPhone exists and multi-year contracts with AT&T exist is because consumers bought the iPhone, and signed with AT&T. The root problem is not Apple, but with the people who bought Apple's iPhone. The conspiring consumer is the necessary precondition for Apple's and AT&T's alleged antitrust activity. To end this anti-competitive behavior, ALL PURCHASERS OF THE APPLE IPHONE must be sued for damages, and an emergency injunction must be granted, preventing consumers from purchasing any more iPhones, before any more harm can be done by them.
Less government for the sake of less government is WORSE than more government for the sake of more government, because while the latter might waste money, the former gets people killed.
I'm sure the hundreds of millions of murdered victims who perished at the hands of their governments in the 20th century would agree with you.
Government won't let you test cattle for mad cow, btw. SS and Medicare are imploding on their own, and not enough resources in entire US exist to sustain them.
Cringley, among other bizarre and cringe inducing comments, states "trading is a parasite on investing." No, it's not. It's part of the market mechanism attempting to reach optimal allocation of resources, and can also be used to minimize risk. Trading and investing are serve the exact same function, and are not different beyond a perceived difference in amount of times that securities are held.
Seems ironic that Obama's critics complain about his socialist leanings when thus far strictly from an economic standpoint his administration is almost TEXTBOOK CAPTIALIST FACISM.
How is it ironic? Both Classical Fascism and National Socialism were socialist ideologies, despite being heretical in the eyes of both orthodox socialism and Stalin.
Free-market capitalism is the free-market. As for a capitalism whose goal is to provide greater wealth for the aristocrats who control the capital, that does sound a bit like state capitalism or some variant of fascism, e.g. having a central bank that rewards its allies while looting the people, and endless bailouts for politically favored constituencies, such as the AFL-CIO, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, "green" rent-seekers...
File a provisional patent application, only $100 if you're a small entity; requires disclosures, but not claims, and you have one year to begin the patent prosecution process. See 35 USC Section 111(b).
I don't think it's normally possible to not be ignorant and incompetent, and also be an elected politician. Most of them are still living in the Dark Ages, and think legislative fiat can change the laws of physics et al.
And yes, some of them do lie, but I've come to the conclusion most just aren't that bright to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
The first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to copyright? Does the Copyright Act have a parallel provision to s. 526 of the Tariff Act of 1922?
One cannot point to a large company, complain that it's doing something you dislike, and therefore, it's both a monopoly and guilty of an antitrust violation. While the uber-parent doesn't bother to substantiate its accusation, an antitrust claim must plead with particularity the violations in question. Assuming Comcast is a monopoly (which is unlikely to be found), it still isn't guilty of antitrust. Common antitrust claims are tying, bundling, and conspiracy. Comcast is not tying or bundling anything; they are not forcing people to buy or use a product or service to use another product or service. They are only withdrawing automated support for a VCR, a VCR which they do not produce or sell. They are not forcing anyone to use its services exclusively. Generally, options are available in both several satellite TV providers, fiber optic in some locations. Dropping support for a VCR doesn't in any way impact their competition (unless DirectTV et al are manufacturing VCRs, and this is a major component of their businesses). There is obviously no conspiracy involved. There's no kernel of antitrust here.
This has nothing to do with antitrust.
In other news, according to a new entirely authoritative and conclusive scientific study (i.e. me), Cablevision subscribers have the most unrealistic sense of entitlement of any other pay-for-TV consumers in the entire US. They also apparently are all billionaire shareholders of Cablevision.
There are well-intentioned edits on Wikipedia? Even if there were, how could you tell...
Turning swapping off is a horrible idea, and will likely lead to an unstable system. Swapping cannot be completely avoided, irregardless of the amount of actual RAM present.
...that 100 million people by 2020 should have a pretty pony. This will result in 50 people receiving tainted horse steaks by 2035.
Would be much easier to data-mine if you control actual pieces of the network...
Yep, pretty sure all those "Date 'N Rape" action figures, "The Dangerous Book of Rape for Boys" and Dad sitting down with his pipe every Saturday evening by the fire to have "The Talk" with junior explains why the majority of rapists are male. It's those damned gender-biased parenting and social norms!
Guess we'd better force women at gunpoint to enter careers they wouldn't voluntarily choose to enter. After all, it's for their own good. And it makes the weak spined males feel better about themselves. Cuz that's what this is all about, isn't it?
Artistic "ownership" is an abuse of the term. You can own physical property, such as a painting or book, but you can't "own" an idea or concept, and then morally prevent others from using their own property as they see fit. Intellectual property is a government sanctioned abuse of property rights. Such an innovation must be opposed on principled grounds.
I'm sorry, but did someone at /. forget to mention that the CRU emails did have evidence of a conspiracy to blacklist opposing scientific viewpoints from peer reviewed publications? Did someone forget that Nature, for some years, has been itself criticized for such blacklisting?
More top down central planning of the government schools isn't going to lead to more productive outcomes. Science isn't a rigid, unchanging system that can be taught as dogma. Instead of throwing another stifling straitjacket onto the failed government schools, he might emulate the diverse and decentralized environment of scientific achievement, and allow competition with government schools, and competing curricula that will over time lead to increasingly more beneficial outcomes.
This isn't about fact-checking, this is about the editors taking the time to RTFA.
This story has no link whatsoever to anything about ASUS. Of the two links on pricing, one is from June 15 2009, months before Windows 7 was released, while the other is an ancient article from fall 2006. How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?
The only reason the iPhone exists and multi-year contracts with AT&T exist is because consumers bought the iPhone, and signed with AT&T. The root problem is not Apple, but with the people who bought Apple's iPhone. The conspiring consumer is the necessary precondition for Apple's and AT&T's alleged antitrust activity. To end this anti-competitive behavior, ALL PURCHASERS OF THE APPLE IPHONE must be sued for damages, and an emergency injunction must be granted, preventing consumers from purchasing any more iPhones, before any more harm can be done by them.
I'm sure the hundreds of millions of murdered victims who perished at the hands of their governments in the 20th century would agree with you.
Government won't let you test cattle for mad cow, btw. SS and Medicare are imploding on their own, and not enough resources in entire US exist to sustain them.
Then stop attacking the local retailers with taxes.
Horror of horrors, Microsoft is attempting to compete on price with free software!
Cringley, among other bizarre and cringe inducing comments, states "trading is a parasite on investing." No, it's not. It's part of the market mechanism attempting to reach optimal allocation of resources, and can also be used to minimize risk. Trading and investing are serve the exact same function, and are not different beyond a perceived difference in amount of times that securities are held.
How is it ironic? Both Classical Fascism and National Socialism were socialist ideologies, despite being heretical in the eyes of both orthodox socialism and Stalin.
Free-market capitalism is the free-market. As for a capitalism whose goal is to provide greater wealth for the aristocrats who control the capital, that does sound a bit like state capitalism or some variant of fascism, e.g. having a central bank that rewards its allies while looting the people, and endless bailouts for politically favored constituencies, such as the AFL-CIO, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, "green" rent-seekers...
File a provisional patent application, only $100 if you're a small entity; requires disclosures, but not claims, and you have one year to begin the patent prosecution process. See 35 USC Section 111(b).
Who the hell is we, and who is listening to someone so clueless in the first place?
And yes, some of them do lie, but I've come to the conclusion most just aren't that bright to begin with.