Assuming business orgs are similar to what they are in the U.S., suing the Taiwan office wouldn't kill the company, just that division. Companies typically protect themselves against that sort of liability where possible, particularly when you get to international and/or not strictly controlled by home base offices.
Even if it *did* kill the company or the branch that owns the trademark, Apple really doesn't want that. Most likely, the trademark would then go up for sale with the rest of the company's assets, and you can bet Apple would have to pay far more when they're bidding against any companies that wanted to buy it for resale to Apple.
I see what they're doing, and I get it, but they're probably better off paying the ransom to end this and making damn sure their lawyers get airtight agreements for trademarks next time around.
Eh, I'll agree with you on our U.S. Senators, and concede most of the state offices as well. That said, the state Senate is controlled by Republicans, but the House and Governor's office are Democrats, so there's plenty of opportunity for this to get thrown into gridlock hell....
To be fair, you've only included 2 MS releases vs. 3 Apple releases, which I presume is because including XP would weight the average time between releases against your argument.
I'm not saying that GP's argument is a good one, but yours is really no better...
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, and I am also in IT administration at a public university.
ASU may or may not have such rights. Public universities occupy a broad role, in that they are generally considered agents of the government, and as such are subject to all of the legal issues that entails, including 1st amendment issues.
Also, public universities *are* ISPs. They are not traditional commercial ISPs, but most provide network access for a large group of residents, and provide other network services for incredibly diverse groups at a level that puts most commercial ISPs to shame. That access is not always solely for school use. To pretend otherwise is to argue from a position of absurdity.
Universities certainly have the right and responsibility to ensure the security and stability of their networks. However, they also have the responsibility to do so in the least restrictive manner possible. In the public case, this is partially to ensure that protected rights are not infringed. However, it is crucial to remember that universities are places for growth, learning, and research. As any network blocking puts that mission in jeopardy (you can't possibly be aware of every research project, and you can't effectively guarantee that your block doesn't harm your core mission), the proper course here would have been for the firewall or mail admins to temporarily block messages from the offending servers in order to maintain service availability.
While I don't claim that my employer should be upheld as the great example for IT policy (far from it, in many ways), I do believe that the current firewall policy is in the best traditions of academia. For most VLANs, the firewall blocks only the most commonly exploitable ports (Windows file sharing is the only example I can recall off the top of my head.) If a particular machine on the network causes issues (primarily botnets, DMCA notices, other viruses/trojans), that port is shut down with an email notice to IT security staff across the University. Once the problem is remedied, the port can be reactivated by the IT personnel investigating the incident.
Floods to particular services, including spam, are handled at the service level, never by a blanket firewalling of an external IP. Our mail gateways/scanners are sufficient to handle this type of problem on their own, and our student population is about half of ASU's. If their systems can't handle a single spam source, they need to check their budget or their strategic planning.
Comparing this to an employer blocking a website for its employees is comparing apples and lead bricks. Most people on campus are not employees, and for many ASU is furnishing the only network connection they have. Moreover, as mentioned above, openness is core to the values of a University. Blocking twitter at my law firm was no big deal. Block it at my University and we've got problems, because there are people doing valuable research with that data.
Yeah, management doesn't want to have to look at anything like that except for maybe a demo of how cool it is. As long as they aren't being bombarded by board members or customers, they probably don't really care what's going on.
No. The movie / music buying / renting business is not profitable for them but they don't care because all that matters for them is to use their monopolistic position in the search business to destroy all competition in the other businesses (phones, tablets, etc...) so you're not really their customer. You're their product.
Citation needed. Having a primary revenue stream does not preclude having others as well. I'm not at all convinced that providers are rushing into the content business when it's unprofitable.
I don't know that this is what the GP is referring to, but I see police talking on their cell phones (not their radios) while driving on a regular basis.
OTOH, the rest of your post seems pretty angry in general, so maybe your post isn't really so much about phones and radios....
Out of all people, why would a Windows person mind? Hell, Microsoft made the DNS MMC snap-in idiot-proof when it comes to reverse DNS -- it will ask to create the PTRs for you! Perhaps your DNS isn't on Windows, but still...there are plenty of UIs for DNS control that handle reverse DNS automatically.
You could argue that the money NASA is blowing on lawyers to chase after one of the heroes of the Apollo program for selling a camera which was going to be thrown away anyway could be better spent developing new technology.
As those of us in government well know, "that's another department's budget." It's extremely foolish and wasteful, but the money spent prosecuting this guy would have been spent on some equally foolish legal issue if not for this.
You realize that this isn't the same DRM/Rootkit that is in controversy (XCP) here, right? (That's specifically noted in the Wikipedia article you cite.)
Krogers/Jewel-Osco stores all across the midwest have been using Pay-By-Touch since at least December of last year in all of their stores. Why is this just now getting known?
No Kroger I've been to is using that technology, so that could account for part of the reason why people don't know about it...
Implies that proptietary and hence windows is more innovative. Innovative ~= invention. It is not a huge stretch to infer the meaning of the comments.
Very well, I'll indulge. Assuming that you infer that meaning, which I can now concede is possible, then it is also equally possible to claim that MS did innovate, not by inventing LDAP or Kerberos, which obviously they didn't, but by combining them in creating the AD structure (which they obviously did).
Generally, they poach something that's already widely available and tweak it so it won't be interoperable with other systems. If you call that innovation, then I guess that speaks for itself.
Here, they didn't tweak something widely available, they made huge modifications and combined multiple technologies to create AD. That IS innovation, and my initial call to mod that post down stands.
Those do have more normal markups (at least 15%, probably 25-35% especially on ripoff-priced cables and accessories).
As a former BB employee, I'd say you should be adding at least one zero to the end of those percentages...the general markup (for accessories) is WELL over 100%.
Seems like that would be much more difficult. Apple doesn't (AFAIK) own any satellites, and I'm guessing that Sirius/XM aren't going to give up any of their own satellite power for this. That's just the iTunes stations...the Shoutcast stuff just seems logistically impossible to me.
Well, XM already has the MyFi portable (not sure about any Sirius portables), so evidently they've been able to produce a receiver with decently low power usage. I don't see how decoding the satellite signals should be THAT much more power hungry than decoding MP3 and AAC. Only the receiver itself should be an extra drain, but a passive antenna shouldn't burn that much energy, should it? (I am not an expert in the field of satellite technology, so I'm only speculating here.)
I'm not sure how you think this is relevant. Apple's relationship with other developers that they use code from has no bearing on the quality or "elegance" of their own GUI. Their cooperation or lack thereof with the KDE/KHTML people is regrettable, but it has no relevance to the quality of the projects they've used that code in.
Aren't we being a slightly anal about what is and is not an emulator? Go look at The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
emulate
To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Isn't this what ReactOS does?
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming business orgs are similar to what they are in the U.S., suing the Taiwan office wouldn't kill the company, just that division. Companies typically protect themselves against that sort of liability where possible, particularly when you get to international and/or not strictly controlled by home base offices.
Even if it *did* kill the company or the branch that owns the trademark, Apple really doesn't want that. Most likely, the trademark would then go up for sale with the rest of the company's assets, and you can bet Apple would have to pay far more when they're bidding against any companies that wanted to buy it for resale to Apple.
I see what they're doing, and I get it, but they're probably better off paying the ransom to end this and making damn sure their lawyers get airtight agreements for trademarks next time around.
Eh, I'll agree with you on our U.S. Senators, and concede most of the state offices as well. That said, the state Senate is controlled by Republicans, but the House and Governor's office are Democrats, so there's plenty of opportunity for this to get thrown into gridlock hell....
To be fair, you've only included 2 MS releases vs. 3 Apple releases, which I presume is because including XP would weight the average time between releases against your argument.
I'm not saying that GP's argument is a good one, but yours is really no better...
ASU may or may not have such rights. Public universities occupy a broad role, in that they are generally considered agents of the government, and as such are subject to all of the legal issues that entails, including 1st amendment issues.
Also, public universities *are* ISPs. They are not traditional commercial ISPs, but most provide network access for a large group of residents, and provide other network services for incredibly diverse groups at a level that puts most commercial ISPs to shame. That access is not always solely for school use. To pretend otherwise is to argue from a position of absurdity.
Universities certainly have the right and responsibility to ensure the security and stability of their networks. However, they also have the responsibility to do so in the least restrictive manner possible. In the public case, this is partially to ensure that protected rights are not infringed. However, it is crucial to remember that universities are places for growth, learning, and research. As any network blocking puts that mission in jeopardy (you can't possibly be aware of every research project, and you can't effectively guarantee that your block doesn't harm your core mission), the proper course here would have been for the firewall or mail admins to temporarily block messages from the offending servers in order to maintain service availability.
While I don't claim that my employer should be upheld as the great example for IT policy (far from it, in many ways), I do believe that the current firewall policy is in the best traditions of academia. For most VLANs, the firewall blocks only the most commonly exploitable ports (Windows file sharing is the only example I can recall off the top of my head.) If a particular machine on the network causes issues (primarily botnets, DMCA notices, other viruses/trojans), that port is shut down with an email notice to IT security staff across the University. Once the problem is remedied, the port can be reactivated by the IT personnel investigating the incident.
Floods to particular services, including spam, are handled at the service level, never by a blanket firewalling of an external IP. Our mail gateways/scanners are sufficient to handle this type of problem on their own, and our student population is about half of ASU's. If their systems can't handle a single spam source, they need to check their budget or their strategic planning.
Comparing this to an employer blocking a website for its employees is comparing apples and lead bricks. Most people on campus are not employees, and for many ASU is furnishing the only network connection they have. Moreover, as mentioned above, openness is core to the values of a University. Blocking twitter at my law firm was no big deal. Block it at my University and we've got problems, because there are people doing valuable research with that data.
Yeah, management doesn't want to have to look at anything like that except for maybe a demo of how cool it is. As long as they aren't being bombarded by board members or customers, they probably don't really care what's going on.
No. The movie / music buying / renting business is not profitable for them but they don't care because all that matters for them is to use their monopolistic position in the search business to destroy all competition in the other businesses (phones, tablets, etc...) so you're not really their customer. You're their product.
Citation needed. Having a primary revenue stream does not preclude having others as well. I'm not at all convinced that providers are rushing into the content business when it's unprofitable.
OTOH, the rest of your post seems pretty angry in general, so maybe your post isn't really so much about phones and radios....
The important thing being that, at the end of the day, you as a consumer still get choked and logjammed...
Out of all people, why would a Windows person mind? Hell, Microsoft made the DNS MMC snap-in idiot-proof when it comes to reverse DNS -- it will ask to create the PTRs for you! Perhaps your DNS isn't on Windows, but still...there are plenty of UIs for DNS control that handle reverse DNS automatically.
You could argue that the money NASA is blowing on lawyers to chase after one of the heroes of the Apollo program for selling a camera which was going to be thrown away anyway could be better spent developing new technology.
As those of us in government well know, "that's another department's budget." It's extremely foolish and wasteful, but the money spent prosecuting this guy would have been spent on some equally foolish legal issue if not for this.
How dare you slander our good and noble corporate overlords!
Wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to address potential overpopulation issues, so the latter.
And the answer is....NO. Geek average, maybe, but definitely not hot.
I stand corrected. My fault entirely, didn't realize there was any complaint except for the XCP.
You realize that this isn't the same DRM/Rootkit that is in controversy (XCP) here, right? (That's specifically noted in the Wikipedia article you cite.)
Very well, I'll indulge. Assuming that you infer that meaning, which I can now concede is possible, then it is also equally possible to claim that MS did innovate, not by inventing LDAP or Kerberos, which obviously they didn't, but by combining them in creating the AD structure (which they obviously did).
Generally, they poach something that's already widely available and tweak it so it won't be interoperable with other systems. If you call that innovation, then I guess that speaks for itself.
Here, they didn't tweak something widely available, they made huge modifications and combined multiple technologies to create AD. That IS innovation, and my initial call to mod that post down stands.
I don't see where he said that Microsoft invented anything, just that they did AD in 2000.
As a former BB employee, I'd say you should be adding at least one zero to the end of those percentages...the general markup (for accessories) is WELL over 100%.
Check again. Verizon is not the industry leader, Cingular is...Verizon is currently #2.
How hard is it for the submitter/editor to catch this one? WebKit doesn't even appear in the press release...
Seems like that would be much more difficult. Apple doesn't (AFAIK) own any satellites, and I'm guessing that Sirius/XM aren't going to give up any of their own satellite power for this. That's just the iTunes stations...the Shoutcast stuff just seems logistically impossible to me.
Well, XM already has the MyFi portable (not sure about any Sirius portables), so evidently they've been able to produce a receiver with decently low power usage. I don't see how decoding the satellite signals should be THAT much more power hungry than decoding MP3 and AAC. Only the receiver itself should be an extra drain, but a passive antenna shouldn't burn that much energy, should it? (I am not an expert in the field of satellite technology, so I'm only speculating here.)
I'm not sure how you think this is relevant. Apple's relationship with other developers that they use code from has no bearing on the quality or "elegance" of their own GUI. Their cooperation or lack thereof with the KDE/KHTML people is regrettable, but it has no relevance to the quality of the projects they've used that code in.
emulate
To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system. Isn't this what ReactOS does?