When it comes time for MS to make a Blu-Ray drive, they will go to the BDA for the license. However, let's face it, it's going to be Sony trying to get them to come over.
To be fair, it seems like their plan is to sue to get a piece of it, via technology that they really did create. It wouldn't be very profitable just to stop progress.
The size of the market is one thing, and close to what I think the answer is. The truth of the matter is, there aren't a lot of Linux *users*. There are mostly Linux *enthusiasts*, and a lot of casual/server/embedded copies of Linux running out there. A Linux (OSS, etc.) enthusiast is a hobbyist, the thing they play with is the OS itself. You're a bunch of geeks fiddling with ham radios, and that's cool, but it doesn't leave a lot of time to be hardcore about another hobby. There's also a lack of exclusivity-- if you are smart enough to use Linux, you are *able* to use a Mac, Windows, etc. So having Linux doesn't rule you out from buying other versions.
I actually clicked into this story to comment about the gross misuse of the word "normative" in the summary. Normative means "pertaining to the way things should be" implying of course that it's about discussions of that topic, independent of an assumption of what the answer is. (That is, it opaquely, rather than transparently, relates to "the way things should be".)
The license. It specifically has you say that you won't develop software to be distributed outside of the App Store. Do it and you're a liar, since you promised not to. You're also not likely to have much of a defense in court.
Apple was happier when MS made IE (5.1) for the Mac. Safari was basically the response to development being cancelled. Repeat after me: Apple likes third-party applications.
You are wrong. You can load the app to your phone using the developer tools, for testing. You just can't distribute it to other people. This was all in the presentation today, and all over the major sites that covered it with a blow by blow.
I think the point is that if you're one of the rare people who actually does come up with original ideas, you should be able to benefit from contributing them to society.
That makes your phone a third thicker than the iPhone. As I understand it, Apple made a conscious decision to make their smartphone thin, so it would be comfortable in the pocket. What I really wonder is why you are so upset that I like my phone.
I'm going to blow my mod points, and comment on this instead...
The reasons for releasing an EDGE iPhone are strikingly obvious to me, and I know others have seen the same two things:
First: The simple fact is that at the time of the release, AT&T 3G coverage in the US, the main market for the iPhone, was very low. Even months later, it is still spotty at best. Coverage was just not ready.
Second: Apple has also been very clear that, at the time of the release, 3G chips were battery hogs. Remember that this device has a hugh, bright screen with the added power draw of the touch interface, a powerful processor, all while barely thicker than the thinnest phone MOTO offers (the SLVR). Adding any more power drain would have meant making it thicker (less appealing) and slightly more expensive by adding a bigger battery.
All this leads to an obvious conclusion: The first generation iPhone *needed* to be EDGE, not 3G. That gave them time for 3G coverage and power drain on 3G chips to catch up with their needs. From what I am hearing, that process is going well. I think Apple will release a 3G iPhone when it is ready, though of course timed to maximize revenue. (Plus, let's be fair, if they released it too soon, people would have bitched about being ripped off by the original. Some companies just can't win.)
Also, honestly, who here has an iPhone, and thinks the EDGE speeds are slow for what they use them for? The only pain I experience is trying to use Google Maps with the satellite or hybrid mode , in a lower coverage area where bandwidth takes a hit.
I am an artist first, and a techie second. Personally, I think it would be enough if I, and my children, could benefit from my works. I don't see the benefit of my great-grandchildren still having control. Worse, why should a corporation be able to be a copyright holder at all, and in that case, maintain their rights for even longer than an individual who has descendents to support?
Re:Sure, plant the seen of the idea.
on
The Knol Hypothesis
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is actually a perfect opportunity for this to be fair. If anyone can write scripts to mass-post Wikipedia to Knol, presumably Wikipedia itself could. Let them survive, and get compensation, but posting their own articles-- either the main maintainers of those articles, or Wikimedia themselves.
I apparently read the grandparent post completely differently. I took it to mean that *if* you accept the idea of reincarnation, the way it would work would logically require something to carry over from death to (re-)birth, and that that thing could be what they call a "Thetan".
That's not quite right. Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution, felt that it should be a temporary document. In essence, he felt that we should follow the model that the French ended up with, with occasional revolts (political or violent, as necessary) to overthrow the existing form of government, to start over. He knew that a Constitution that was taken as sacred would eventually become hopelessly outdated, within about a generation. He'd be shocked that we treat it as sacred, and haven't thrown out the parts that are outdated.
Interestingly, Apple has about $17 Billion in liquid assets right now. (Does anyone remember if they are involved?) I am surprised Google has so much less cash than Apple.
I liked Ghost Rider. It knew exactly what kind of movie it was, and didn't take itself too seriously. If it had, it would have been horrible. I'd watch a sequel.
Let someone else lose money selling XBox consoles, so MS can make money licensing the hardware and the games, and game publishers can make money selling the games themselves. So, who in the world would get on board to do this? The only way to turn a profit on the console alone would be horrendous quality.
He isn't suing to change the law about dog height. He is suing about the take-down of an article he wrote complaining about that law. So yes, this is a censorship issue.
You know, you may be right on that. In fact, as I understand it, being on the receiving end of piracy isn't illegal. I don't pirate intellectual property for moral reasons, not legal ones. In fact, I am surprised that anyone who claims to be a "geek" could do otherwise-- How many of our livelihoods are dependent on intellectual property rights? I do software tech support, and am a photographer-- I'd be broke if it weren't for the value of intellectual property. Let's be honest-- if most of Slashdot needed to till a field or build a house to pay for their lifestyles, we'd be fucked.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes time for MS to make a Blu-Ray drive, they will go to the BDA for the license. However, let's face it, it's going to be Sony trying to get them to come over.
To be fair, it seems like their plan is to sue to get a piece of it, via technology that they really did create. It wouldn't be very profitable just to stop progress.
The size of the market is one thing, and close to what I think the answer is. The truth of the matter is, there aren't a lot of Linux *users*. There are mostly Linux *enthusiasts*, and a lot of casual/server/embedded copies of Linux running out there. A Linux (OSS, etc.) enthusiast is a hobbyist, the thing they play with is the OS itself. You're a bunch of geeks fiddling with ham radios, and that's cool, but it doesn't leave a lot of time to be hardcore about another hobby. There's also a lack of exclusivity-- if you are smart enough to use Linux, you are *able* to use a Mac, Windows, etc. So having Linux doesn't rule you out from buying other versions.
I actually clicked into this story to comment about the gross misuse of the word "normative" in the summary. Normative means "pertaining to the way things should be" implying of course that it's about discussions of that topic, independent of an assumption of what the answer is. (That is, it opaquely, rather than transparently, relates to "the way things should be".)
The license. It specifically has you say that you won't develop software to be distributed outside of the App Store. Do it and you're a liar, since you promised not to. You're also not likely to have much of a defense in court.
Apple was happier when MS made IE (5.1) for the Mac. Safari was basically the response to development being cancelled. Repeat after me: Apple likes third-party applications.
You are wrong. You can load the app to your phone using the developer tools, for testing. You just can't distribute it to other people. This was all in the presentation today, and all over the major sites that covered it with a blow by blow.
I think the point is that if you're one of the rare people who actually does come up with original ideas, you should be able to benefit from contributing them to society.
You sound kind of upset.
That makes your phone a third thicker than the iPhone. As I understand it, Apple made a conscious decision to make their smartphone thin, so it would be comfortable in the pocket. What I really wonder is why you are so upset that I like my phone.
I'm going to blow my mod points, and comment on this instead... The reasons for releasing an EDGE iPhone are strikingly obvious to me, and I know others have seen the same two things: First: The simple fact is that at the time of the release, AT&T 3G coverage in the US, the main market for the iPhone, was very low. Even months later, it is still spotty at best. Coverage was just not ready. Second: Apple has also been very clear that, at the time of the release, 3G chips were battery hogs. Remember that this device has a hugh, bright screen with the added power draw of the touch interface, a powerful processor, all while barely thicker than the thinnest phone MOTO offers (the SLVR). Adding any more power drain would have meant making it thicker (less appealing) and slightly more expensive by adding a bigger battery. All this leads to an obvious conclusion: The first generation iPhone *needed* to be EDGE, not 3G. That gave them time for 3G coverage and power drain on 3G chips to catch up with their needs. From what I am hearing, that process is going well. I think Apple will release a 3G iPhone when it is ready, though of course timed to maximize revenue. (Plus, let's be fair, if they released it too soon, people would have bitched about being ripped off by the original. Some companies just can't win.) Also, honestly, who here has an iPhone, and thinks the EDGE speeds are slow for what they use them for? The only pain I experience is trying to use Google Maps with the satellite or hybrid mode , in a lower coverage area where bandwidth takes a hit.
Isn't that a bit like "other than the time it takes, that's very fast"? (I'm assuming that Value = Quality / Price and Rate = Distance / Time.)
Of course, the point of the book may indeed be that things like Money, Power, Consumerism, and Technology *are* the American Gods.
I don't know. I mean, I don't expect my grandparents to support me. I don't even really expect support from my parents at my age.
I am an artist first, and a techie second. Personally, I think it would be enough if I, and my children, could benefit from my works. I don't see the benefit of my great-grandchildren still having control. Worse, why should a corporation be able to be a copyright holder at all, and in that case, maintain their rights for even longer than an individual who has descendents to support?
This is actually a perfect opportunity for this to be fair. If anyone can write scripts to mass-post Wikipedia to Knol, presumably Wikipedia itself could. Let them survive, and get compensation, but posting their own articles-- either the main maintainers of those articles, or Wikimedia themselves.
I apparently read the grandparent post completely differently. I took it to mean that *if* you accept the idea of reincarnation, the way it would work would logically require something to carry over from death to (re-)birth, and that that thing could be what they call a "Thetan".
That's not quite right. Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution, felt that it should be a temporary document. In essence, he felt that we should follow the model that the French ended up with, with occasional revolts (political or violent, as necessary) to overthrow the existing form of government, to start over. He knew that a Constitution that was taken as sacred would eventually become hopelessly outdated, within about a generation. He'd be shocked that we treat it as sacred, and haven't thrown out the parts that are outdated.
Interestingly, Apple has about $17 Billion in liquid assets right now. (Does anyone remember if they are involved?) I am surprised Google has so much less cash than Apple.
Where were you in October 2001? This is hardly the beginning.
I liked Ghost Rider. It knew exactly what kind of movie it was, and didn't take itself too seriously. If it had, it would have been horrible. I'd watch a sequel.
That just isn't true. Most electors are bound by state laws that determine how they must vote.
Let someone else lose money selling XBox consoles, so MS can make money licensing the hardware and the games, and game publishers can make money selling the games themselves. So, who in the world would get on board to do this? The only way to turn a profit on the console alone would be horrendous quality.
He isn't suing to change the law about dog height. He is suing about the take-down of an article he wrote complaining about that law. So yes, this is a censorship issue.
You know, you may be right on that. In fact, as I understand it, being on the receiving end of piracy isn't illegal. I don't pirate intellectual property for moral reasons, not legal ones. In fact, I am surprised that anyone who claims to be a "geek" could do otherwise-- How many of our livelihoods are dependent on intellectual property rights? I do software tech support, and am a photographer-- I'd be broke if it weren't for the value of intellectual property. Let's be honest-- if most of Slashdot needed to till a field or build a house to pay for their lifestyles, we'd be fucked.