She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words.
Um, hate to break it to you, Ms High Priced Layer, but that thing you're describing there is called "trademarks" and is a practice that can be found in many industries and is not exclusive to the tech industry nor large corporations.
You're missing the point. You are an individual. You may be saving money. You are not people. People are not going to save money. They are confident that the number of individuals saving money is less than the bulk of people who won't be. 1 vs millions.
I'm willing to bet that's not true. They probably pay the same amount and the heavy users pay more. There's no way that a telco is going to _reduce_ their overall income unless they are forced to. If they are making a change because they want to, I assure you, they are going to make more money in doing so.
People won't save money unless they are extremely light users and doubtfully even then...
At this stage of the game, damn near everything about Nokia is "too late". This is a company on the brink of falling hard because of their failure to recognize a significant shift in the market and adapt in a timely manner (which can be said of RIM as well, imho).
It's really simple - the media landscape has changed and is continuing to change. The internet, literally, changed everything. Companies that think they can get by on the same old, same old are doomed to fail. It might take a couple years or more but, if you fail to evolve when the world around you changes, you will eventually die out. This is true in life and it's equally true in business.
I have zero sympathy for the companies that are failing due to lack of innovation and evolution. Rest on your laurels and you're a footnote in history. Bye bye. Please make room for the companies that are actually _actively_ trying to earn my business.
'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association...
Smart. Very smart. Rather than adopt a business model of offering affordable alternatives which most people would be happy to go with they're going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They're happier to take 45% of nothing rather than a reasonable licensing fee of a reasonable price.
These people are so utterly daft that the mind absolutely boggles. Is it any wonder that they are incapable of adapting to a new technological age and prospering in that age? sigh...
The worst part is these individuals are getting rich from high salaries while the rapidly drive their industries into the toilet. And, once everything gets flushed away, these individuals will walk away with their vast savings and live happily ever after while they've demolished an industry and left it in the stone ages.
Just because you disagree with how copyright law works does not change how copyright law, in fact, works.
Remember, your image is not protected in any way. I've stolen nothing physical from you...
You've (potentially) stolen something from me. You may disagree with that being important but, as copyright law is currently written, that is against the law.
It may be fair use, in which case I'd doubtfully be able to take action. And, for it to count as fair use there's four criteria that are looked at. If you don't know those four criteria or are unsure if your use falls within those criteria, I'm sure an IP lawyer would be happy to help you out.
In the end, however, don't think that the way you think things should work is, in fact, the way things work. Just because you think copyright law should work one way does not mean it does work that way. Assuming that it does might land you in a copyright battle that you will lose.
If you own the copyright to material that someone else posts to the internet, the DMCA is _exactly_ appropriate.
It's simple - they made a mistake - they included material that they did not own the copyright of nor have permission to publish in their video. Utilizing the DMCA is the correct course of action. Simple. Whether or not you like them or agree with them or anything like that is irrelevant - there was a copyright violation and the DMCA was used to correct it. Unless and until the DMCA is done away with or copyright laws are changed, that is the correct course of action for a coopyright holder who feels their content is being used without their permission.
Well, odds are high that the Australian university giving iPads to their students, attending university, in Australia, will make sure that the students are given chargers that work in - you guessed it - Australia. I don't see this being a significant hurdle that requires any sort of specialized thought and is probably well within the mental processing capabilities of non-technical sorts.
You obviously haven't used an iPad. The odds of a student using the entire charge of one without having a convenient opportunity to recharge it are somewhere between none and fat chance in hell. Seriously, the battery life on the iPad, even under heavy use, is considerable and more than adequate for a student's needs. They will be back home and able to charge the device before it runs out of power.
What to do when you forgot your iPad?
Probably the same thing that people do when they forget their notebooks. And, let's be serious - it's far _LESS_ likely that a student will forget an iPad, which is light and cool and fun compared to them forgetting a collection of notebooks which are heavy and boring and dull.
Any other hypotheticals you'd care to throw out there?
This is a stupid move by the MPAA for many reasons but, primarily among them, I would imagine this will put it firmly on the radar of the Wikileaks team who might decide that some MPAA laundry needs airing and, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 1) there is plenty of MPAA laundry and 2) it would be highly embarrassing if it was to be aired.
Only fools pick fights that they are ill-equipped to handle and the MPAA are fools. Rich fools, but fools none-the-less.
In the future, the OS should prompt the user that an application wants to do something (eg. accessing your address book) at the point it wants to do it and let the use decide whether or not to allow it - with an option to say "Always do this for [blah]" where [blah] could be "accessing contacts".
Is it just me or doesn't that sound an awful lot like Vista? And we know how popular Vista was...
I was going to say it was this site - http://www.rosscarrock.info/ - but I see that Mr Kelly is mounting a multi-pronged attack against, well, anyone he sets his sights on that wrongs him in even the slightest way.
Its impossible to type with both hands while holding it in a natural position, as you would with a phone.
Yeah. And a phone is impossible to type with both hands while holding it in a natural position, as you would a tablet.
Oh. Wait. A tablet is not a phone and a phone is not a tablet so why would you hold one as if it were the other?
I own an iPad. And an iPhone. I hold them differently because they are different devices. Attempting to judge one as if it was the other is foolish. They are not the same thing.
The point I was making about the Samsung Galaxy is it appears to be attempting to be both while failing to realize that the two are not the same. It will be too big to casually hold like a phone and too small to be of use as a tablet. The two are not the same. Stop thinking that they are and stop judging them as if they are.
Too small to compete with an iPad, too big to compete with the iPhone. And, let's be honest - they're trying to compete with Apple's offerings here. I just don't get their vision of this product. Seriously. It's too big to casually put in your pocket and carry around easily and it's too small to be a "put in your bag" computing device when there are other options with bigger screens available. It might do well - time will tell - but I suspect the screen size puts it in an awkward position that very few customers want.
Um, you do know that certain smartphones have had e-readers (such as Stanza) available for, well, quite a long while now, right? This isn't remotely new so I do hope you're just talking about it in a larger, philosophical sense of "wow, smartphones really are becoming a lot more than just a phone"...
You and most of your friends (I assume) are geeks. Research tech toys is what we enjoy doing. Now ask yourself if your mom or your boss or your kid's teacher is also interested in researching tech toys the same way we are.
I know I'll get modded to hell but I think that Android is in danger of suffering to forking into different carrier-specific versions. I believe that people _will_ hear about cool features that an Android phone offers, buy an Android phone and find out, too late, that it's available on _other_ Android phones, not the one they bought. This will start to result in negative user experiences down the road.
The plus side of it (being fair here) is it is really driving competition and making the different forks of Android as well as iOS better because of it. It's forcing manufacturers to drive to improve, which is good for the consumer but, for people who want Android to win, it will soon become a discussion of specific forks of Android because there will no longer be one unified version.
Heck, I find myself looking at Android phones thinking "if I were to switch from my iPhone, which one would I be interested in getting?" (I won't be switching - I like my iPhone - but I like to contemplate which version of Android interests me to keep my options open and all that.) That, to me, is a clear sign that the differentiation is real and something people need to keep in mind.
As much as I want a Facebook killer to come along (and I really, really, really want Facebook to be killed...), I'm not sure I want it to be Google. My big beef with Facebook is I absolutely do not trust them. They've proven to have no respect for my personal information and thus I've pared my profile down to just the bare minimum information and I use the site to stay in touch with friends and family now. I'm not really using the site to keep my friends and family updated on my going-ons, however, because I don't trust Facebook with that information any more. Google, a company which is built on making money from the activities of web browsers, I trust only a bit more. Google, I know, will try to turn a profit from my information but I at least trust Google to make a serious attempt to respect my privacy while they try to monetize my information.
I really want Facebook erased from the digital landscape but I'm not sure if I want Google to be the vanquisher...
Slashdot Mirror
She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words.
Um, hate to break it to you, Ms High Priced Layer, but that thing you're describing there is called "trademarks" and is a practice that can be found in many industries and is not exclusive to the tech industry nor large corporations.
I'm just sayin'.
You're missing the point. You are an individual. You may be saving money. You are not people. People are not going to save money. They are confident that the number of individuals saving money is less than the bulk of people who won't be. 1 vs millions.
Countdown to someone sending DMCA takedown notices for random Suddenlink customers begins now...
...but they are probably saving money...
I'm willing to bet that's not true. They probably pay the same amount and the heavy users pay more. There's no way that a telco is going to _reduce_ their overall income unless they are forced to. If they are making a change because they want to, I assure you, they are going to make more money in doing so.
People won't save money unless they are extremely light users and doubtfully even then...
At this stage of the game, damn near everything about Nokia is "too late". This is a company on the brink of falling hard because of their failure to recognize a significant shift in the market and adapt in a timely manner (which can be said of RIM as well, imho).
It's really simple - the media landscape has changed and is continuing to change. The internet, literally, changed everything. Companies that think they can get by on the same old, same old are doomed to fail. It might take a couple years or more but, if you fail to evolve when the world around you changes, you will eventually die out. This is true in life and it's equally true in business.
I have zero sympathy for the companies that are failing due to lack of innovation and evolution. Rest on your laurels and you're a footnote in history. Bye bye. Please make room for the companies that are actually _actively_ trying to earn my business.
'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association...
Smart. Very smart. Rather than adopt a business model of offering affordable alternatives which most people would be happy to go with they're going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They're happier to take 45% of nothing rather than a reasonable licensing fee of a reasonable price.
These people are so utterly daft that the mind absolutely boggles. Is it any wonder that they are incapable of adapting to a new technological age and prospering in that age? sigh...
The worst part is these individuals are getting rich from high salaries while the rapidly drive their industries into the toilet. And, once everything gets flushed away, these individuals will walk away with their vast savings and live happily ever after while they've demolished an industry and left it in the stone ages.
sigh...
Remember, your image is not protected in any way. I've stolen nothing physical from you...
You've (potentially) stolen something from me. You may disagree with that being important but, as copyright law is currently written, that is against the law.
It may be fair use, in which case I'd doubtfully be able to take action. And, for it to count as fair use there's four criteria that are looked at. If you don't know those four criteria or are unsure if your use falls within those criteria, I'm sure an IP lawyer would be happy to help you out.
In the end, however, don't think that the way you think things should work is, in fact, the way things work. Just because you think copyright law should work one way does not mean it does work that way. Assuming that it does might land you in a copyright battle that you will lose.
If you own the copyright to material that someone else posts to the internet, the DMCA is _exactly_ appropriate.
It's simple - they made a mistake - they included material that they did not own the copyright of nor have permission to publish in their video. Utilizing the DMCA is the correct course of action. Simple. Whether or not you like them or agree with them or anything like that is irrelevant - there was a copyright violation and the DMCA was used to correct it. Unless and until the DMCA is done away with or copyright laws are changed, that is the correct course of action for a coopyright holder who feels their content is being used without their permission.
Just because it's being recorded does not mean the person speaking is giving permission for the recording to be broadcast.
...and some images of himself, which are low-resolution and publicly available online.
Just because it's low resolution and just because it's available online does not necessarily mean you have the legal right to use an image.
Well, odds are high that the Australian university giving iPads to their students, attending university, in Australia, will make sure that the students are given chargers that work in - you guessed it - Australia. I don't see this being a significant hurdle that requires any sort of specialized thought and is probably well within the mental processing capabilities of non-technical sorts.
Your kids go to university?
What to do when the battery dies?
You obviously haven't used an iPad. The odds of a student using the entire charge of one without having a convenient opportunity to recharge it are somewhere between none and fat chance in hell. Seriously, the battery life on the iPad, even under heavy use, is considerable and more than adequate for a student's needs. They will be back home and able to charge the device before it runs out of power.
What to do when you forgot your iPad?
Probably the same thing that people do when they forget their notebooks. And, let's be serious - it's far _LESS_ likely that a student will forget an iPad, which is light and cool and fun compared to them forgetting a collection of notebooks which are heavy and boring and dull.
Any other hypotheticals you'd care to throw out there?
This is a stupid move by the MPAA for many reasons but, primarily among them, I would imagine this will put it firmly on the radar of the Wikileaks team who might decide that some MPAA laundry needs airing and, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 1) there is plenty of MPAA laundry and 2) it would be highly embarrassing if it was to be aired.
Only fools pick fights that they are ill-equipped to handle and the MPAA are fools. Rich fools, but fools none-the-less.
In the future, the OS should prompt the user that an application wants to do something (eg. accessing your address book) at the point it wants to do it and let the use decide whether or not to allow it - with an option to say "Always do this for [blah]" where [blah] could be "accessing contacts".
Is it just me or doesn't that sound an awful lot like Vista? And we know how popular Vista was...
I was going to say it was this site - http://www.rosscarrock.info/ - but I see that Mr Kelly is mounting a multi-pronged attack against, well, anyone he sets his sights on that wrongs him in even the slightest way.
Its impossible to type with both hands while holding it in a natural position, as you would with a phone.
Yeah. And a phone is impossible to type with both hands while holding it in a natural position, as you would a tablet.
Oh. Wait. A tablet is not a phone and a phone is not a tablet so why would you hold one as if it were the other?
I own an iPad. And an iPhone. I hold them differently because they are different devices. Attempting to judge one as if it was the other is foolish. They are not the same thing.
The point I was making about the Samsung Galaxy is it appears to be attempting to be both while failing to realize that the two are not the same. It will be too big to casually hold like a phone and too small to be of use as a tablet. The two are not the same. Stop thinking that they are and stop judging them as if they are.
Too small to compete with an iPad, too big to compete with the iPhone. And, let's be honest - they're trying to compete with Apple's offerings here. I just don't get their vision of this product. Seriously. It's too big to casually put in your pocket and carry around easily and it's too small to be a "put in your bag" computing device when there are other options with bigger screens available. It might do well - time will tell - but I suspect the screen size puts it in an awkward position that very few customers want.
Um, you do know that certain smartphones have had e-readers (such as Stanza) available for, well, quite a long while now, right? This isn't remotely new so I do hope you're just talking about it in a larger, philosophical sense of "wow, smartphones really are becoming a lot more than just a phone"...
You and most of your friends (I assume) are geeks. Research tech toys is what we enjoy doing. Now ask yourself if your mom or your boss or your kid's teacher is also interested in researching tech toys the same way we are.
I know I'll get modded to hell but I think that Android is in danger of suffering to forking into different carrier-specific versions. I believe that people _will_ hear about cool features that an Android phone offers, buy an Android phone and find out, too late, that it's available on _other_ Android phones, not the one they bought. This will start to result in negative user experiences down the road.
The plus side of it (being fair here) is it is really driving competition and making the different forks of Android as well as iOS better because of it. It's forcing manufacturers to drive to improve, which is good for the consumer but, for people who want Android to win, it will soon become a discussion of specific forks of Android because there will no longer be one unified version.
Heck, I find myself looking at Android phones thinking "if I were to switch from my iPhone, which one would I be interested in getting?" (I won't be switching - I like my iPhone - but I like to contemplate which version of Android interests me to keep my options open and all that.) That, to me, is a clear sign that the differentiation is real and something people need to keep in mind.
As much as I want a Facebook killer to come along (and I really, really, really want Facebook to be killed...), I'm not sure I want it to be Google. My big beef with Facebook is I absolutely do not trust them. They've proven to have no respect for my personal information and thus I've pared my profile down to just the bare minimum information and I use the site to stay in touch with friends and family now. I'm not really using the site to keep my friends and family updated on my going-ons, however, because I don't trust Facebook with that information any more. Google, a company which is built on making money from the activities of web browsers, I trust only a bit more. Google, I know, will try to turn a profit from my information but I at least trust Google to make a serious attempt to respect my privacy while they try to monetize my information.
I really want Facebook erased from the digital landscape but I'm not sure if I want Google to be the vanquisher...
Google's policy may be "Do No Evil" but each individual's policy may differ...
Way to be timely Slashdot - AppleInsider has already reported that the story is bunk. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/14/steve_jobs_prevented_from_bringing_throwing_stars_on_private_jet_report.html