oops did i just fart on his big plans? the processing power required for that sort of thing is there in a small enough form factor, but not the battery power to keep it alive. yes yes it can go into a cradle when in use with the TV, but i won't by one that needs to be recharged ever 5 hours and is useless as a phone.
you completely missed the point that this kind of thing is going to be snapped up by poor bastards in their mid twenties who've lost most of their hair. of course middle aged people are less likely to give a crap, thank you captain obvious.
and no i'm not talking about myself i've got a full head of hair, before you go off on some wild assumption.
housing is out of control here in australia, yet it hasn't been reflected in our offical inflation rates. real world, rent has gone up $200 a week in the space of 2 years in most areas. i don't see many people getting $200 a week more in their pockets. if the US method is anything like ours (which i think it is) the offical inflation rate is nothing better then a guess.
then why hasn't he done so? if he doesn't even know what a website is he cannot have been given an expert explanation on the subject. and no, he needs to know more then just the law, he has to understand the case he is ruling on. and if that requires technical understanding then he bloody well needs to get it.
well i worked in a nickle plant and we had 4 autoclaves which heated water to 200c under 5000psi, and even after 2 step down chanbers the jet of steam coming from the final step downs chimney was 50 meters or so high. so save to say 300c water woudl be an impressive explosion.
only the tops of rivers freeze because they are the slowest moving parts of the water, hence why they freeze from the edges in, and why lakes freeze first. he also clearly stated it's salt water which takes a lot more to freeze. try actually reading what was said ok?
"Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community"
1. they know 99% of them will be debunked
2. *IF* anything is even remotely valid it will be worked around in a matter of days.
SCO tried this with the copyright bat and lost, which was funded by MS depending on your paranoida, now it appears MS didn't learn anything OR is trying to play the same card of a different suit.
1. google supplies a free service, an MS computer was a $2000 investment.
2. you were tied to windows, there was no software then that could do the job, and changing required another huge investment of cash. changing search providers is as easy as typing in a new url.
i hope these assholes get sued into a big blackhole. what they are claiming, is that if i create something, i MUST drm it, and it MUST be their own technology. excuse me while i shit on their door step.
since when has cnet been even remotely useful? this crap doesn't suprise me at all. even more amusingly, the open source he dismisses is what this guys crummy article is being hosted on - and netcraft confirms it.
so what he is saying, is people have learnt what the term DRM stands for, so to mislead and confuse them we will change the name? people like him are whats wrong with the world.
the reason is they lack the ability to put things into context. computers compute, therefor they calculate numbers and stats very well, but the context of a number, that elusive subtle meaning that a number has completely escapes them.
example, say i presented you with the number 42. on here you might associate it with hitch hiker to the galaxay or maybe something else depending on the infinte number of ways i could put it in a sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
oops did i just fart on his big plans? the processing power required for that sort of thing is there in a small enough form factor, but not the battery power to keep it alive. yes yes it can go into a cradle when in use with the TV, but i won't by one that needs to be recharged ever 5 hours and is useless as a phone.
and no i'm not talking about myself i've got a full head of hair, before you go off on some wild assumption.
i've traveled europe, and your wrong unless your thing is haggard chain smokers who wear too much makeup and have hairy pits and boxes.
i couldn't care less if i was bald as a new born. the ladies however, beg to differ
right, because women's preoccupation with their appearence is less so?
housing is out of control here in australia, yet it hasn't been reflected in our offical inflation rates. real world, rent has gone up $200 a week in the space of 2 years in most areas. i don't see many people getting $200 a week more in their pockets. if the US method is anything like ours (which i think it is) the offical inflation rate is nothing better then a guess.
you didn't read the article, he stated it lies between predetermination and randomness.
then why hasn't he done so? if he doesn't even know what a website is he cannot have been given an expert explanation on the subject. and no, he needs to know more then just the law, he has to understand the case he is ruling on. and if that requires technical understanding then he bloody well needs to get it.
well i worked in a nickle plant and we had 4 autoclaves which heated water to 200c under 5000psi, and even after 2 step down chanbers the jet of steam coming from the final step downs chimney was 50 meters or so high. so save to say 300c water woudl be an impressive explosion.
only the tops of rivers freeze because they are the slowest moving parts of the water, hence why they freeze from the edges in, and why lakes freeze first. he also clearly stated it's salt water which takes a lot more to freeze. try actually reading what was said ok?
BINGO, YES why can't the rest of them understand this?
1. they know 99% of them will be debunked
2. *IF* anything is even remotely valid it will be worked around in a matter of days.
SCO tried this with the copyright bat and lost, which was funded by MS depending on your paranoida, now it appears MS didn't learn anything OR is trying to play the same card of a different suit.
MS tested the waters with SCO, saw that copyright attacks failed now they are using frivilous patents, which we predicted years ago.
2. you were tied to windows, there was no software then that could do the job, and changing required another huge investment of cash. changing search providers is as easy as typing in a new url.
they can release it on an encrypted turd for all i care.
wow because linux hasn't been doing this for the last 3 years!
i hope these assholes get sued into a big blackhole. what they are claiming, is that if i create something, i MUST drm it, and it MUST be their own technology. excuse me while i shit on their door step.
seriously when he goes off at these frauds it's sexy. if he was younger, less hairy and a woman i'd fuck him.
since when has cnet been even remotely useful? this crap doesn't suprise me at all. even more amusingly, the open source he dismisses is what this guys crummy article is being hosted on - and netcraft confirms it.
so what he is saying, is people have learnt what the term DRM stands for, so to mislead and confuse them we will change the name? people like him are whats wrong with the world.
example, say i presented you with the number 42. on here you might associate it with hitch hiker to the galaxay or maybe something else depending on the infinte number of ways i could put it in a sentence.
damnit man you don't NEED a command line, why aren't you using punch cards or dip switchs to program the thing!
try running ubuntu on a fortune 500 companys network and see how you fair.
they pay lead actors 10 million odd per flick - cry me a fucking river.
because you know, the american agencies don't torture or abduct people... oh wait a sec! they do!