The problem with correlational statements like this is that they don't necessarily mean what you think. A social psych prof I once had gave this example which has always stood out clearly in my mind: there's a correlation between ice cream sales in the US and deaths in the Middle East. This doesn't mean that ice cream sales in the US cause deaths in the Middle East, but in the summertime it's hotter in both places - more people die from the heat there and more people buy ice cream here. No causal relationship at all.
Now maybe piracy really is partly to blame for lower profits than the year before, and maybe it's not. The kinds of numbers that I've seen from the movie and music industries haven't indicated any causal relationship. It seems just as likely to me that lower box office sales are really caused by a number of other things: a more discriminating audience tired of the same old rehashed crap; frustration with dealing with crowds at the local 20+ screen movieplex; frustration with rude people rustling candy wrappers and ringing cellphones while you're trying to watch the movie; and the fact that home theaters are much more common allowing a near-comparable movie-going experience at home.
More likely it's a very subtle change in the ambient sounds in the room caused by the new person when they enter - there's almost always some sound anywhere we are, even if we've tuned it out and aren't consciously aware of it. And the buzz from your TV is still a sound, just a very quiet sound.
First of all, Google isn't a monopoly. It may not be as popular as it once was, but Yahoo is still just as available as before, and so are a handful of other search engines. Google is just the most popular.
I remember a time when Yahoo was the "only" search engine, because nobody used Alta Vista or Google or DogPile or whichever other out of the bajillion engines were out there that I've forgotten. I see absolutely no problem with Google delisting sites that "misbehave." They have an algorithm that (at least, according to them) tries to give as accurate a result set as possible, and they don't want people trying to cheat the system. If they ever were to get out of hand and try to take over the internet, or any of the other such nonsense I've seen in response to this article today, either or both of the following would happen:
Yahoo becomes the most popular search engine again, and people start "yahoo-ing"
a couple guys in a garage somewhere start a new search engine that aims to be what Google was and make truckloads of money
Then again, if memory serves, the majority of "older people" in pre-16th century times were around 30 years old, so I'm not sure refined sugars from the new world can really be considered a causal factor here. Seems just as likely that most people simply died before their teeth finished rotting.
I disagree. If it were to happen, I'd expect everyone with any shred of investment in Microsoft to be shouting to the rafters "See, it's not just us!!"
You're right - this link shows there were over 17 active pirates in 2005 alone, and that's not including other piracy-related groups such as buccaneers or raiders.
Either you're way off base, or an extra hundred or two megs of RAM makes a WORLD of difference, as my 400mhz PowerMac G4 with ~700MB RAM (and with PCI, so no Quartz Extreme for me, damnit!) doesn't have any problems running Tiger.
You know, this comes up all the time whenever there's a discussion on cellular phones, but a quick glance at cingular.com shows 3-4 phones that are FREE with a 2 year contract, and several more under $50. The fact that the latest and greatest models are expensive and have more features doesn't mean you can't still buy the low end models. Now you (or someone else railing against convergence) might come back with "but I don't want a camera in my phone" - so just don't use it. Especially on a free with plan phone, no one's forcing you to use any of the features, and simply having the feature there doesn't make it harder to use it for only making and receiving calls.
I doubt you'd be liable in that case, but the trademark owner could sue the pants off you if he/she/they ever found you referring to your distro as the abbreviated "LINUX" yourself.
Actually, the way I understand it is that if a trademark goes unprotected anyone is free to use it, and no one can (legally) claim ownership for it anymore.
What I think, and maybe this is just wishful thinking, is that Apple is trying to lay the foundation for a real office suite without immediately driving off MS from developing Office for Mac. They release Keynote first, then Pages, soon maybe a spreadsheet app, but they're all lightweight apps at first and not direct competition to Office. What I'd love to see would be a slow but steady addition of features to each of Apple's office apps to where they really can replace Office.
You are very confused about what the Constitution represents. It represents a limit on the power of government. It does not place restrictions on private businesses such as the airlines. Your rights do not supersede the property rights of the airlines.
It's a shame the TSA is a private business, free from restrictions of the Constitution, and not a government organization. Oh, wait...
You really haven't pointed out any flaws in anyone's reasoning but your own. You've resorted to name calling. Congratulations.
I may find Dashboard to be indespensable, or I may find it to be fun but not useful, or I might even find it to be an annoyance, but until I actually use it I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Apple (who seems to have a pretty good feel lately for what works and what doesn't) and not a "random Slashdot user such as yourself".
I'd suggest going one step farther. Send the site administrator an email explaining why you won't be visiting that site anymore. Be polite though, no "I HaTe AdS! u r teh sux0r!!!" crap, just let them know how you feel and why you won't be returning.
Anyone else see the irony in someone with the name "ArthurDent" saying that the Earth is not in imminent danger of destruction?
Forget global warning for a minute, earthman, and consider a meteor the size of Texas slamming into us at a few million miles per hour. The effects of that would be, in a word, bad.
Untrue - you can willingly enter into a contract with me (I can be a person or a corporation) that says you agree not to divulge some piece of information I give you. If you then reveal that information (even if you're ordered to do so by a court) I can sue you for breaking the contract.
Unless you knowingly encourage someone who did sign an NDA to divulge Apple's trade secrets to you, in which case they do have a right to try and stop what you say, and even sue you for damages. Since it's a civil and not a criminal case, they don't even have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt - Apple can win if a jury decides a preponderance (i.e., more than 50%) of the evidence favors Apple.
Look up "trade secrets" and "third party liability" sometime, and you may understand this case a little better.
Slashdot Mirror
Should Apple just base their decisions on whether or not it benefits your friend?
The problem with correlational statements like this is that they don't necessarily mean what you think. A social psych prof I once had gave this example which has always stood out clearly in my mind: there's a correlation between ice cream sales in the US and deaths in the Middle East. This doesn't mean that ice cream sales in the US cause deaths in the Middle East, but in the summertime it's hotter in both places - more people die from the heat there and more people buy ice cream here. No causal relationship at all.
Now maybe piracy really is partly to blame for lower profits than the year before, and maybe it's not. The kinds of numbers that I've seen from the movie and music industries haven't indicated any causal relationship. It seems just as likely to me that lower box office sales are really caused by a number of other things: a more discriminating audience tired of the same old rehashed crap; frustration with dealing with crowds at the local 20+ screen movieplex; frustration with rude people rustling candy wrappers and ringing cellphones while you're trying to watch the movie; and the fact that home theaters are much more common allowing a near-comparable movie-going experience at home.
More likely it's a very subtle change in the ambient sounds in the room caused by the new person when they enter - there's almost always some sound anywhere we are, even if we've tuned it out and aren't consciously aware of it. And the buzz from your TV is still a sound, just a very quiet sound.
First of all, Google isn't a monopoly. It may not be as popular as it once was, but Yahoo is still just as available as before, and so are a handful of other search engines. Google is just the most popular.
I remember a time when Yahoo was the "only" search engine, because nobody used Alta Vista or Google or DogPile or whichever other out of the bajillion engines were out there that I've forgotten. I see absolutely no problem with Google delisting sites that "misbehave." They have an algorithm that (at least, according to them) tries to give as accurate a result set as possible, and they don't want people trying to cheat the system. If they ever were to get out of hand and try to take over the internet, or any of the other such nonsense I've seen in response to this article today, either or both of the following would happen:
Then again, if memory serves, the majority of "older people" in pre-16th century times were around 30 years old, so I'm not sure refined sugars from the new world can really be considered a causal factor here. Seems just as likely that most people simply died before their teeth finished rotting.
I disagree. If it were to happen, I'd expect everyone with any shred of investment in Microsoft to be shouting to the rafters "See, it's not just us!!"
You're right - this link shows there were over 17 active pirates in 2005 alone, and that's not including other piracy-related groups such as buccaneers or raiders.
Either you're way off base, or an extra hundred or two megs of RAM makes a WORLD of difference, as my 400mhz PowerMac G4 with ~700MB RAM (and with PCI, so no Quartz Extreme for me, damnit!) doesn't have any problems running Tiger.
I don't know how you watch TV, but I've been pointing my eyes at it all this time. Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
Obviously, the Nano scratches happen as a result of the werewolf attacks.
And a camera-phone is more portable than a phone and a camera. What's your point?
You know, this comes up all the time whenever there's a discussion on cellular phones, but a quick glance at cingular.com shows 3-4 phones that are FREE with a 2 year contract, and several more under $50. The fact that the latest and greatest models are expensive and have more features doesn't mean you can't still buy the low end models. Now you (or someone else railing against convergence) might come back with "but I don't want a camera in my phone" - so just don't use it. Especially on a free with plan phone, no one's forcing you to use any of the features, and simply having the feature there doesn't make it harder to use it for only making and receiving calls.
I doubt you'd be liable in that case, but the trademark owner could sue the pants off you if he/she/they ever found you referring to your distro as the abbreviated "LINUX" yourself.
Actually, the way I understand it is that if a trademark goes unprotected anyone is free to use it, and no one can (legally) claim ownership for it anymore.
Windows will even warn you if your machine has committed an illegal operation and shut it down for you - that's how good it is.
What I think, and maybe this is just wishful thinking, is that Apple is trying to lay the foundation for a real office suite without immediately driving off MS from developing Office for Mac. They release Keynote first, then Pages, soon maybe a spreadsheet app, but they're all lightweight apps at first and not direct competition to Office. What I'd love to see would be a slow but steady addition of features to each of Apple's office apps to where they really can replace Office.
I'm still waiting for a breakdown of klingon/federation relations followed by a quadrant-wide war between the Romulans, Federation, and the Klingons.
Maybe you missed that the last time it was on, when it was called "Deep Space 9"
You are very confused about what the Constitution represents. It represents a limit on the power of government. It does not place restrictions on private businesses such as the airlines. Your rights do not supersede the property rights of the airlines.
It's a shame the TSA is a private business, free from restrictions of the Constitution, and not a government organization. Oh, wait...
You really haven't pointed out any flaws in anyone's reasoning but your own. You've resorted to name calling. Congratulations.
I may find Dashboard to be indespensable, or I may find it to be fun but not useful, or I might even find it to be an annoyance, but until I actually use it I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Apple (who seems to have a pretty good feel lately for what works and what doesn't) and not a "random Slashdot user such as yourself".
I know, because SG1 doesn't ever resort to the kinds of things /.ers hate about Enterprise...no weak plots having to do with time travel there, right?
"Moebius", Episode #819.
When SG-1 disrupts the space-time continuum, civilian Carter and Daniel must set things right.
I'd suggest going one step farther. Send the site administrator an email explaining why you won't be visiting that site anymore. Be polite though, no "I HaTe AdS! u r teh sux0r!!!" crap, just let them know how you feel and why you won't be returning.
Sure it's not pretty - it's like some kind of larval stage Xbox - but uglier than a mid nineties geocities website? That's just harsh.
Anyone else see the irony in someone with the name "ArthurDent" saying that the Earth is not in imminent danger of destruction?
Forget global warning for a minute, earthman, and consider a meteor the size of Texas slamming into us at a few million miles per hour. The effects of that would be, in a word, bad.
Untrue - you can willingly enter into a contract with me (I can be a person or a corporation) that says you agree not to divulge some piece of information I give you. If you then reveal that information (even if you're ordered to do so by a court) I can sue you for breaking the contract.
Unless you knowingly encourage someone who did sign an NDA to divulge Apple's trade secrets to you, in which case they do have a right to try and stop what you say, and even sue you for damages. Since it's a civil and not a criminal case, they don't even have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt - Apple can win if a jury decides a preponderance (i.e., more than 50%) of the evidence favors Apple.
Look up "trade secrets" and "third party liability" sometime, and you may understand this case a little better.