No, we just recognize the hypocrisy. Because China sells steel less than the US Steel people can sell it for and make a 50% profit on it, it must be illegally dumped. If the quality is almost as good as US Steel, then the quality must have been stolen. No proof of either accusation is presented. Just an undesirable business outcome that US Steel wants to turn into an international incident, because that's easier than making good steel.
He was paid for his time, so it was work for hire, so not a copyright issue. It could be considered a breach of contract, but there is no contract details in TFA, so we can only guess. But that's for US copyright, I haven't studied international law.
Then think of the US as 50 nations, in a federation similar to the EU. You don't poke fun at the EU for both Spain and Germany having a national flower, so why is it different when you talk about California and New York? The federal government doesn't have an excessive number of "national" objects. Though, there are probably more than there should be, brought in because a representative from one place or another traded favors to make them look good by passing something, and had to then support someone else's national aglet (should be bronze, if it isn't already).
What the US has an obscene number of is national days.
Trade secret for the replacement for patent, yes. But since we have a patent system now, not using it isn't the fault of the Chinese, who more likely reverse engineered it, and US Steel is mad that China is charging less. It's about profit, not tradecraft.
if they had them for longer than 14 years then they gambled and won.
For someone who sometimes says smart things, you spend most of your time pretending to be dumb. Patents are good for much longer than that. Velcro is still being protected with patents, invented in 1948. Yes, I know you disagree, argue with reality, not the messenger who points out reality doesn't match your strawman. Yes, I know how long a patent is for. I also know the result of derivatory patents. Effectively, patents are 14 years with 14 year extensions available, even if that's not how it's supposed to be.
So, China is steeling trade secrets. The kinds of secrets Patents were invented to protect. Since the steel companies didn't try to protect their inventions in the ways set up that greatly benefit corporations, they deserve to lose them to the Public Domain (where trade secrets lost end up). The people of the US are better off, now that we can legally use the same tech. It's corporate greed. They didn't want to have it exclusively for only 14+ years, so kept it secret until they lost it. They gambled and lost, and had the intention to keep it hidden forever.
I thought it was a perversion of Automatic Gain Control to create constructive interference to make copies of protected content (and sometimes unprotected content) unwatchable.
Intel Celeron processor N2840 works fine in tablets, so why does this make it sound like they are dropping out of tablets? It is just too expensive? I haven't priced the parts, just the systems they come in.
Yeah, and I was never diagnosed with dyslexia, I just had a qualified person tell me that I should never get tested, because I have all the symptoms and if I were diagnosed with it, I'd end up in special ed with the people who can't dress or feed themselves (hey, it was before the enlightened times).
And plenty of people claim the symptoms were obvious, despite the cover-up of it while he was serving as president.
An did you need another link to him being sworn in? Or can we consider that issue covered?
Did you forget that the Republicans ran an alzheimer's sufferer for president so "I do not recall" would be backed by medical evidence? Clinton and Obama didn't do anything that wasn't already done by Nixon and Reagan. That's why the Republicans are so mad. Using their own tactics against them isn't fair.
That supports your argument that HP's servers were shit, but not that Compaq's are actually any good.
Comparatively good, then. Dell didn't have much for servers at the time, and there weren't too many choices for Wintel. Compaq was the server leader at the time. It's obvious you didn't like them, but they were more popular than anything else. And HP was not popular, at all.
You are arguing that HP could have acquired someone better than Compaq, not that Compaq was a bad acquisition.
HP never had a handheld worth a fuck outside of calculators, and calculator sales are basically nonexistent today.
Even over 20 years after introduction, the HP 200LX is still in use in mission-critical places. A device the size of a cell phone that ran DOS, and had a serial port. If they had kept up the miniturization on that and kept it small and cheap, http://www.amazon.com/Hewlett-... You can still buy used ones for more than the cost of new, back when they were made. Had HP not been idiots, they could have had 100% of the DOS market, in a PC that runs on AA batteries (or forever off a low-power wall wart).
Yes, their WinCE devices were shit, but mainly because WinCE was shit.
Because of that and other mergers and such, it's hard to tell who would have been better off for what. Can you tell me the value of $10,000 of AOL stock held at opening on January 10, 2000 would be worth today? Given the dot-com bust, I'd assume that it's worth less now than before. A loss for AOL shareholders isn't a "jump". When looking at news stories of the day, they seem to be inconsistent, so I didn't find short term results. And it looks like the combined market cap of the resultant AOL/TW company did drop below the market cap of either before the merger. So again, still worse than HP's acquisition.
Yes, "wholesale" bandwidth is nearly free. I remember when "Internet" was free. But a T1 to the POP, get unlimited Internet for free. The "trick" was that the connections to the POP were expensive. The ISP "Kool-aid" is that the cost isn't getting the Internet to the user, but getting bandwidth capacity to the user.
Buying Internet in a datacenter is unrelated to the commercial considerations of a residential ISP.
There's just this hazy assertion that it might have been worse otherwise because HP servers are descended from Compaq servers. All I know for sure is that Fiorina turned the combined current market share of HP and Compaq into less than the market share of HP at the time of the merger.
She still did better than AOL/Time Warner, then.
We can't know what the result would have been, until we invent time machines and alternate universes.
The H1-B visa holders are doing jobs Americans are willing and able to take (illegal) and the H1-B visa holders are being paid below market for the position (also illegal).
What do you see that makes you think they are being done right?
Compaq was a good buy. That she mis-managed the opportunity doesn't mean the purchase was necessarily a bad thing. The HP servers were falling, and with them the more profitable professional services. Compaq had a better server line, and the popular servers these days are descendants of Compaq, not HP server lines. So without Compaq, HP would have been even worse off. It's just that the inability to act on the good acquisition makes it look like a bad move. Given the other blunders at the time, how is one able to tell which blunder lead to which bad result?
The unforgivable sin was the damage to the handhelds (including calculators).
It's not "self imposed" but cost imposed. Data caps are a proxy for bandwidth use. If everyone used too much bandwidth, they'd have to buy more. So caps impose usage penalties designed to reduce overall bandwidth usage, to decrease cost.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we just recognize the hypocrisy. Because China sells steel less than the US Steel people can sell it for and make a 50% profit on it, it must be illegally dumped. If the quality is almost as good as US Steel, then the quality must have been stolen. No proof of either accusation is presented. Just an undesirable business outcome that US Steel wants to turn into an international incident, because that's easier than making good steel.
He was paid for his time, so it was work for hire, so not a copyright issue. It could be considered a breach of contract, but there is no contract details in TFA, so we can only guess. But that's for US copyright, I haven't studied international law.
Then think of the US as 50 nations, in a federation similar to the EU. You don't poke fun at the EU for both Spain and Germany having a national flower, so why is it different when you talk about California and New York? The federal government doesn't have an excessive number of "national" objects. Though, there are probably more than there should be, brought in because a representative from one place or another traded favors to make them look good by passing something, and had to then support someone else's national aglet (should be bronze, if it isn't already).
What the US has an obscene number of is national days.
if they had them for longer than 14 years then they gambled and won.
For someone who sometimes says smart things, you spend most of your time pretending to be dumb. Patents are good for much longer than that. Velcro is still being protected with patents, invented in 1948. Yes, I know you disagree, argue with reality, not the messenger who points out reality doesn't match your strawman. Yes, I know how long a patent is for. I also know the result of derivatory patents. Effectively, patents are 14 years with 14 year extensions available, even if that's not how it's supposed to be.
So, China is steeling trade secrets. The kinds of secrets Patents were invented to protect. Since the steel companies didn't try to protect their inventions in the ways set up that greatly benefit corporations, they deserve to lose them to the Public Domain (where trade secrets lost end up). The people of the US are better off, now that we can legally use the same tech. It's corporate greed. They didn't want to have it exclusively for only 14+ years, so kept it secret until they lost it. They gambled and lost, and had the intention to keep it hidden forever.
Further proof that IP laws don't work.
I thought it was a perversion of Automatic Gain Control to create constructive interference to make copies of protected content (and sometimes unprotected content) unwatchable.
Intel Celeron processor N2840 works fine in tablets, so why does this make it sound like they are dropping out of tablets? It is just too expensive? I haven't priced the parts, just the systems they come in.
Yeah, and I was never diagnosed with dyslexia, I just had a qualified person tell me that I should never get tested, because I have all the symptoms and if I were diagnosed with it, I'd end up in special ed with the people who can't dress or feed themselves (hey, it was before the enlightened times).
And plenty of people claim the symptoms were obvious, despite the cover-up of it while he was serving as president.
An did you need another link to him being sworn in? Or can we consider that issue covered?
Did you forget that the Republicans ran an alzheimer's sufferer for president so "I do not recall" would be backed by medical evidence? Clinton and Obama didn't do anything that wasn't already done by Nixon and Reagan. That's why the Republicans are so mad. Using their own tactics against them isn't fair.
Working in tech, many Slashdotters see people fired and replaced with an H1-B worker (also illegal).
So ISPs are expensive because the Internet is free, but the ISP charges an NSA tax? How is that even related to the discussion at hand?
As a result, $10,000 of AOL stock is worth a lot more now than it would have been.
But not worth more than it was. So you agree 100%, but in the most disagreeable way possible. What a prick.
That supports your argument that HP's servers were shit, but not that Compaq's are actually any good.
Comparatively good, then. Dell didn't have much for servers at the time, and there weren't too many choices for Wintel. Compaq was the server leader at the time. It's obvious you didn't like them, but they were more popular than anything else. And HP was not popular, at all.
You are arguing that HP could have acquired someone better than Compaq, not that Compaq was a bad acquisition.
HP never had a handheld worth a fuck outside of calculators, and calculator sales are basically nonexistent today.
Even over 20 years after introduction, the HP 200LX is still in use in mission-critical places. A device the size of a cell phone that ran DOS, and had a serial port. If they had kept up the miniturization on that and kept it small and cheap, http://www.amazon.com/Hewlett-... You can still buy used ones for more than the cost of new, back when they were made. Had HP not been idiots, they could have had 100% of the DOS market, in a PC that runs on AA batteries (or forever off a low-power wall wart).
Yes, their WinCE devices were shit, but mainly because WinCE was shit.
Because of that and other mergers and such, it's hard to tell who would have been better off for what. Can you tell me the value of $10,000 of AOL stock held at opening on January 10, 2000 would be worth today? Given the dot-com bust, I'd assume that it's worth less now than before. A loss for AOL shareholders isn't a "jump". When looking at news stories of the day, they seem to be inconsistent, so I didn't find short term results. And it looks like the combined market cap of the resultant AOL/TW company did drop below the market cap of either before the merger. So again, still worse than HP's acquisition.
Nearly everywhere they operate, they are the government-enforced monopoly CATV/cableTV, thus the only ISP capable of using that connection method.
Yes, "wholesale" bandwidth is nearly free. I remember when "Internet" was free. But a T1 to the POP, get unlimited Internet for free. The "trick" was that the connections to the POP were expensive. The ISP "Kool-aid" is that the cost isn't getting the Internet to the user, but getting bandwidth capacity to the user.
Buying Internet in a datacenter is unrelated to the commercial considerations of a residential ISP.
The investigators know that trick. It's older than you.
It's called a subpoena, and it's done all the time.
There's just this hazy assertion that it might have been worse otherwise because HP servers are descended from Compaq servers. All I know for sure is that Fiorina turned the combined current market share of HP and Compaq into less than the market share of HP at the time of the merger.
She still did better than AOL/Time Warner, then.
We can't know what the result would have been, until we invent time machines and alternate universes.
So, if I said KwH, then you'd have agreed that they are 400% efficient?
If not, then you are just lying to come up with more non sequiturs to hide the fact that you now realize you are 400% wrong.
The H1-B visa holders are doing jobs Americans are willing and able to take (illegal) and the H1-B visa holders are being paid below market for the position (also illegal).
What do you see that makes you think they are being done right?
So you want wholesale pricing on residential lines? I don't see that working out as well as you seem to imply.
Compaq was a good buy. That she mis-managed the opportunity doesn't mean the purchase was necessarily a bad thing. The HP servers were falling, and with them the more profitable professional services. Compaq had a better server line, and the popular servers these days are descendants of Compaq, not HP server lines. So without Compaq, HP would have been even worse off. It's just that the inability to act on the good acquisition makes it look like a bad move. Given the other blunders at the time, how is one able to tell which blunder lead to which bad result?
The unforgivable sin was the damage to the handhelds (including calculators).
They are being done wrong. So is it better to have them done wrong, or not at all?
It's not "self imposed" but cost imposed. Data caps are a proxy for bandwidth use. If everyone used too much bandwidth, they'd have to buy more. So caps impose usage penalties designed to reduce overall bandwidth usage, to decrease cost.