Listening to some freetards trot out the "convicted monopolist" line is like me calling Redhat a bunch of "convicted patent infringers". I don't, however, because I am not a douchebag.
Using the term "freetard" pretty much denotes that you are in fact a douchebag. I won't hold that against you though. Regarding the remainder of that sentence however; Microsoft (fairly or unfairly in your opinion does not matter) has been convicted of monopolistic practices in several courts.
Now.. can you provide links to any article that shows that Redhat has indeed violated patents; as proven in a court of law or similar venue? I found a single instance of Redhat (co-defending with Novell as it happens) being sued for patent infringement. Coincidentally, the company behind this suit appears to be a patent troll headed up by former Microsoft GM of IP licensing. Regardless, there has yet to be a conviction, if there is even one forthcoming.
Could be. I tend to think that Google would rather compete on the merits of their products than the lockin of the browser. If IE retained the market share it had just a few years ago, do you not think that MS would have leveraged that market against Google? MS is known for ruthless business practices, not Google.
Wow.. you sure are gullible. You are assuming that the vendor who is selling you a (server) OS is telling you the truth? I prefer to do a little research and put my money in the solution *I* determine will work for my situation; not the solution some marketroid determined will (might) do the job.
And yet here is a normal person, trying to use it, and finding it frustrating and causing her problems, and people mock her attempt.
According to the story she somehow accidentally ordered the laptop with Ubuntu. I am not sure how she managed that because I have to *search* Dell's site to find their Linux offerings, but I digress and that is irrelevant anyway.
What is relevant is that she received a laptop configured in a manner she was unfamiliar with. She should have just returned the laptop if it was sent this way in error. My point is, she didn't attempt to use it (Ubuntu) in any sort of meaningful way. She *assumed* the laptop had Windows installed. She is familiar with Windows. She attempted running a disk that requires Windows and then looked for the MS Office icons and couldn't find them and then she gave up. Again, if what she ordered was a Windows machine, the blame falls squarely on Dell and Dell should make it right. If she did order the laptop with Ubuntu and ignored all of the warnings about how this order does not have Windows and Windows software will not run on Linux etc.... then the blame is fully hers.
This has nothing to do with Windows vs. Linux as she never made a conscious choice to use Linux. She also didn't make much effort in using Ubuntu. In fact, if she has to miss *two* semesters of school because of this, it screams to me that she was looking for a reason to not go to school and this is the perfect excuse in her mind.
Who said anything about spending $500k doing development? GP was simply stating that if X 1.0 does everything that you bought it for, what reason do you have for upgrading to X 2.0?
I believe the difference would be that Compaq cloned hardware but licensed DOS from MS. IBM had a problem with their hardware being cloned, but MS rather enjoyed the additional revenue/exposure of DOS.
Pystar is doing the opposite. They are selling commodity hardware which has no strings attached with an operating system that has strings attached -- or at least in Apples' eyes it does. That is the crux of the matter.
Personally, I hope Pystar wins this one. I don't think it is right that software should be tied to hardware. That is just my opinion. However, I don't believe Apple should be responsible for supporting their OS on another manufacturers hardware (that responsibility would fall on the manufacturer distributing the system) either. It just seems to me that if I purchase a license to an OS I should be able to do whatever I want with that OS as long as I do not violate copyright. Who is Apple to tell me that even though I purchased their software I cannot use it because I did not purchase their hardware?
Do you want to not get paid for any work you do? Strawman.
If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Companies know that the best IT workers are those that would do it as a hobby even if they couldn't do it professionally.
You hit the nail on the head there. I am IT manager at a small internet company (40 employees) and I am in charge of hiring/firing for my dept. With only 2 notable exceptions, the best employees I have had did not have a degree. However they could tell me how they set up a Linux RAID NAS to supply movies and music to their Xbox or some other similar project. These guys live and breathe technology.
Oh... I also do not have a degree (8+ years experience though).
At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.
Actually these machines *didn't* come with a version of Vista. They came with a sticker claiming they are capable of running Vista with no specific of which version of Vista they would be capable of running. As a result, this sticker meant different things to MS marketroids than it did to consumers who found the stickers misleading; hence the lawsuit.
"...most standards come with a test suite that can be used by an expert witness to show a court that the claims are fraudulent."
Wasn't this one of the areas of highest contention in ISO with regard to OOXML; the fact that since a reference implementation had never been produced, a test suite could also not be produced?
That depends on your point of view. Did Jammie Thomas make the illegal copy? Or did she just provide someone else (the downloader) the means to make a copy. If she did not make a copy she has (technically) not infringed on anyone's copyright. I know, I know; semantics, but that is up to the court to decide.
One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
I am fairly certain that with the console version (assuming that Spore was ported to a console, which at this time it is not) you can use it on as many of the console as you wish. In other words, I can take the disk out of my system, go to a buddy's house and play it in his console. When I am done there I can go to another friends house and play it there. Rinse and repeat as many times as you like.
With Spore on the PC, it requires activation. You can activate it three times before your activation key is null and void. Yes, you can call EA and request that it be activated again, but there is no guarantee that EA will comply. In fact, you have no guarantee that EA will not shut down the activation servers next week/month/year. Couple this with Microsoft's recommendation to reinstall the OS whenever you run into more than the smallest of problems and you have a game that is merely rented. You are completely at the whim of EA.
My point here is that the DRM on the console is transparent. As long as the console functions, games will continue to work. This is not the case with the DRM on the Spore CD making the console vs. PC argument moot.
Slashdot Mirror
He hasn't actually ordered anyone BY NAME to appear in court.
Yet.
Listening to some freetards trot out the "convicted monopolist" line is like me calling Redhat a bunch of "convicted patent infringers". I don't, however, because I am not a douchebag.
Using the term "freetard" pretty much denotes that you are in fact a douchebag. I won't hold that against you though. Regarding the remainder of that sentence however; Microsoft (fairly or unfairly in your opinion does not matter) has been convicted of monopolistic practices in several courts.
1). http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
2). http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39119500,00.htm
2). http://law.jrank.org/pages/12388/Sherman-Antitrust-Act-Microsoft-Settlement-Twenty-First-Century-s-First-Major-Antitrust-Settlement.html
4). Google for yourself
Now.. can you provide links to any article that shows that Redhat has indeed violated patents; as proven in a court of law or similar venue? I found a single instance of Redhat (co-defending with Novell as it happens) being sued for patent infringement. Coincidentally, the company behind this suit appears to be a patent troll headed up by former Microsoft GM of IP licensing. Regardless, there has yet to be a conviction, if there is even one forthcoming.
And it is not as if MS didn't interfere in hearings about the Google/Yahoo deal either.
Could be. I tend to think that Google would rather compete on the merits of their products than the lockin of the browser. If IE retained the market share it had just a few years ago, do you not think that MS would have leveraged that market against Google? MS is known for ruthless business practices, not Google.
Wow.. you sure are gullible. You are assuming that the vendor who is selling you a (server) OS is telling you the truth? I prefer to do a little research and put my money in the solution *I* determine will work for my situation; not the solution some marketroid determined will (might) do the job.
Off topic I know and apologize; however, regarding your sig, I prefer to hear the full voice of God, not a compressed lossy version.
/usr/src/linux/|perl -e 'while(<>){chomp;if(-f $_){system("cat $_>/dev/dsp");}}'
Want to hear the voice of GOD? find
Possibly poor planning provoked pretentious Polonium Putin's puissance, previously.
She's mine, you can't have her, by the way.
Kenny is a girl?
And yet here is a normal person, trying to use it, and finding it frustrating and causing her problems, and people mock her attempt.
According to the story she somehow accidentally ordered the laptop with Ubuntu. I am not sure how she managed that because I have to *search* Dell's site to find their Linux offerings, but I digress and that is irrelevant anyway.
What is relevant is that she received a laptop configured in a manner she was unfamiliar with. She should have just returned the laptop if it was sent this way in error. My point is, she didn't attempt to use it (Ubuntu) in any sort of meaningful way. She *assumed* the laptop had Windows installed. She is familiar with Windows. She attempted running a disk that requires Windows and then looked for the MS Office icons and couldn't find them and then she gave up. Again, if what she ordered was a Windows machine, the blame falls squarely on Dell and Dell should make it right. If she did order the laptop with Ubuntu and ignored all of the warnings about how this order does not have Windows and Windows software will not run on Linux etc.... then the blame is fully hers.
This has nothing to do with Windows vs. Linux as she never made a conscious choice to use Linux. She also didn't make much effort in using Ubuntu. In fact, if she has to miss *two* semesters of school because of this, it screams to me that she was looking for a reason to not go to school and this is the perfect excuse in her mind.
Who said anything about spending $500k doing development? GP was simply stating that if X 1.0 does everything that you bought it for, what reason do you have for upgrading to X 2.0?
You need to take matters into your own hands; I believe it is a Moral Imperative.
I believe the difference would be that Compaq cloned hardware but licensed DOS from MS. IBM had a problem with their hardware being cloned, but MS rather enjoyed the additional revenue/exposure of DOS.
Pystar is doing the opposite. They are selling commodity hardware which has no strings attached with an operating system that has strings attached -- or at least in Apples' eyes it does. That is the crux of the matter.
Personally, I hope Pystar wins this one. I don't think it is right that software should be tied to hardware. That is just my opinion. However, I don't believe Apple should be responsible for supporting their OS on another manufacturers hardware (that responsibility would fall on the manufacturer distributing the system) either. It just seems to me that if I purchase a license to an OS I should be able to do whatever I want with that OS as long as I do not violate copyright. Who is Apple to tell me that even though I purchased their software I cannot use it because I did not purchase their hardware?
Just my $0.02.
Always, no, no...NEVER, forget to check your references
Is that a Real Genius quote? Well done sir.
Your logic is astounding.
Do you want to do your job for free?
Strawman.
Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?
Strawman.
If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Companies know that the best IT workers are those that would do it as a hobby even if they couldn't do it professionally.
You hit the nail on the head there. I am IT manager at a small internet company (40 employees) and I am in charge of hiring/firing for my dept. With only 2 notable exceptions, the best employees I have had did not have a degree. However they could tell me how they set up a Linux RAID NAS to supply movies and music to their Xbox or some other similar project. These guys live and breathe technology.
Oh... I also do not have a degree (8+ years experience though).
Aero is a "major tangible benefit"?
At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.
Actually these machines *didn't* come with a version of Vista. They came with a sticker claiming they are capable of running Vista with no specific of which version of Vista they would be capable of running. As a result, this sticker meant different things to MS marketroids than it did to consumers who found the stickers misleading; hence the lawsuit.
(Unless you are utterly stupid) Office 2007 is much easyer and you can learn it in less than 5 minutes (I teached it myself).
Oh, the irony.
"...most standards come with a test suite that can be used by an expert witness to show a court that the claims are fraudulent."
Wasn't this one of the areas of highest contention in ISO with regard to OOXML; the fact that since a reference implementation had never been produced, a test suite could also not be produced?
That depends on your point of view. Did Jammie Thomas make the illegal copy? Or did she just provide someone else (the downloader) the means to make a copy. If she did not make a copy she has (technically) not infringed on anyone's copyright. I know, I know; semantics, but that is up to the court to decide.
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.
From the article:
One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."
Ummm.... No.
I am fairly certain that with the console version (assuming that Spore was ported to a console, which at this time it is not) you can use it on as many of the console as you wish. In other words, I can take the disk out of my system, go to a buddy's house and play it in his console. When I am done there I can go to another friends house and play it there. Rinse and repeat as many times as you like.
With Spore on the PC, it requires activation. You can activate it three times before your activation key is null and void. Yes, you can call EA and request that it be activated again, but there is no guarantee that EA will comply. In fact, you have no guarantee that EA will not shut down the activation servers next week/month/year. Couple this with Microsoft's recommendation to reinstall the OS whenever you run into more than the smallest of problems and you have a game that is merely rented. You are completely at the whim of EA.
My point here is that the DRM on the console is transparent. As long as the console functions, games will continue to work. This is not the case with the DRM on the Spore CD making the console vs. PC argument moot.
Thank you sir. What had bothered me was that the GGP had been moderated Insightful at the time, thus making me wonder.
/bow
Ok troll.. this is /.
Do you have *any* links to back that up? I did the requisite googling and found *nothing*.