This article was a waste of 2 minutes. It meandered about a central issue with plenty of buzz-words and enough links to give a Wikipedian a head-ache. It can be summed up to this:
Yahoo has been unpopular among bloggers despite being a solid business. It has been playing catch-up lately with features and very recently has begun to surpass google with the features provided. It's actions haven't been about business, but about popularity among bloggers. As such it has become much more popular among bloggers. Oh, and the new areas Google has been branching into suck. So does it's search ability.
I don't know about other people here, but a blogger saying that company X is more popular among bloggers because of it's recent changes isn't something "that matters" to me.
Then again, I'm not too keen on the blogging community.
It completely lost me when I came up to: The blog-evangelists unlike press relations folks, only write when there is something important to say. That is if they want to maintain their credibility.
Sorry, but blog evangelists have no credibility among those who like to use their brain when viewing news.
This article does get extra kudo points for irony (displaying google ads on a pro-Yahoo, anti-Google article).
This will be outlawed in the US faster than you can imagine.
FYI: It's currently possible to upload video to the internet. Hasn't been outlawed yet. All that's different is a company is helping people out with it and limiting the subject matter.
Downloading what you want to watch and watching it. The idea has been proposed before and is not really new.
What's new is the fact it's being done. Had they said "this is old stuff, it's been suggested before" about landing on the moon, no-one would have been excited when America did it. Yes, America was the first to do it, but they weren't the first to suggest it.
It is no big deal because digitization of French language works will only hasten their translation to other languages.I can't wait to see the translation of La Planète des Singes by babelfish!
This isn't a troll, it's the exact same joke as the parent poster. However this joke offers something new by saying "France doesn't mean to surrender, the other side just misunderstands France's battle flag."
There's a lot of companies who patented huge swathes of the human genome who are having those patents methodically overturned when it was discovered that 1)they didn't know what they were patenting and 2) they had no use for it then, anyway.
So you're telling me IF they had a use for it and they knew what they were patenting, they could patent part of my DNA? Aren't I enough prior art for them? What about my grandparents? What about their grandparents? What about thousands upon thousands of years of prior art? Forget software patents. DNA patents are much worse.
The article says 1 in 10 people buy stuff from spam.
This is an average of course. Slashdot obviously isn't the average, but it's still likely SOME of you have bought something from spam (even if it's 1 in 100 slashdotters).
This gives ISPs a list of websites that people may want to visit. How long until ISPs begin blocking websites on the list by default, and charge extra for unblocking them?
Poppycock. Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right. Just because perhaps most of the good citizens of Utah don't agree with their children being able to view pornography does not justify this move.
ISPs are forced to provide a filtered internet connection at the request of the customer. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to hear what you say. If I (as the person paying for the internet access in the house I own), choose to filter my internet, then I am allowed to do so.
Whether or not forcing ISPs to offer a filtered internet for those who want it is right is not a First Ammendmant issue.
You have no such "rights". But you sure do like to sound sanctimonious about your make-believe reality.
False. That's what the RIAA wants you to think. I have the right to re-sell products I have bought. There's no getting around that.
DRM makes it impossible for me to re-sell something. That's okay, I can just break the DRM. Oh wait, because of the DMCA I cannot break DRM once it's put in place. Thankfully I'm not breaking the DRM. The DRM just isn't being put in place. Once they start putting the DRM server-side, I will be forced to either break the law or do my business somewhere else. I'll be doing my business somewhere else, but if they're going to infringe on my rights, I'm going to make it difficult for them.
Then why, pray tell, would you ever patronize a store like that to begin with?
Because I'm able to legally reclaim my rights they attempt to take away from me. More and more mainstream music is being DRM'd no matter how you get it. They can try to deny me my legal rights, and I'll continue to reclaim them. They don't have a legal leg to stand on and people like this guy will be more then happy enough to go to court for me to protect my rights.
Their DRM infringe on my right to: * Copy music to the playback device of my choice. * Re-sell a product I have purchased (selling a book second hand is legal. Selling second-hand music is also legal. See Doctrine of First Purchase for more details).
Anyone that gives me back my legal rights, is someone who deserves encouraging.
Didn't get a single pop-up. Then again, I have changed my settings to avoid getting Flash pop-ups. So if these sites utilized that technique they're back to square one for me.
Download company 7 Digital, which is providing the technology for the online shop, said TV companies were increasingly keen to earn money from the internet.
Good to see they aren't trying to get money from the web via lawsuits. Then again, this is a british company, not an American one (before you mod me flame-bait, the American *AA's have always been the first to do it in their industry. If I'm wrong, feel free to post a link:)).
Slashdot Mirror
This article was a waste of 2 minutes. It meandered about a central issue with plenty of buzz-words and enough links to give a Wikipedian a head-ache. It can be summed up to this:
Yahoo has been unpopular among bloggers despite being a solid business. It has been playing catch-up lately with features and very recently has begun to surpass google with the features provided. It's actions haven't been about business, but about popularity among bloggers. As such it has become much more popular among bloggers. Oh, and the new areas Google has been branching into suck. So does it's search ability.
I don't know about other people here, but a blogger saying that company X is more popular among bloggers because of it's recent changes isn't something "that matters" to me.
Then again, I'm not too keen on the blogging community.
It completely lost me when I came up to:
The blog-evangelists unlike press relations folks, only write when there is something important to say. That is if they want to maintain their credibility.
Sorry, but blog evangelists have no credibility among those who like to use their brain when viewing news.
This article does get extra kudo points for irony (displaying google ads on a pro-Yahoo, anti-Google article).
B. Liscensing on its own doesn't really say much about the validity of a patent. See my previous post in the thread regarding this.
No, but once you add in winning a lawsuit (which Immersion has done) it sure helps.
all you can think of is a trading channel for Warez? Get some perspective, man!
Exactly! They could encode some pron into it instead. "No honey, I'm not downloading porn. I'm just downloading the 6:00 news."
This will be outlawed in the US faster than you can imagine.
FYI: It's currently possible to upload video to the internet. Hasn't been outlawed yet. All that's different is a company is helping people out with it and limiting the subject matter.
Downloading what you want to watch and watching it. The idea has been proposed before and is not really new.
What's new is the fact it's being done. Had they said "this is old stuff, it's been suggested before" about landing on the moon, no-one would have been excited when America did it. Yes, America was the first to do it, but they weren't the first to suggest it.
Down Under.
:(
Austria! Not Australia. Sheeesh. Having said that, I was excited until I realised it was Austria
Why people choose to deal with Microsoft is quite possibly because Microsoft probably provides nice benefits to the decision makers of big deals.
Well that, and no-one's been fired for choosing Microsoft.
It is no big deal because digitization of French language works will only hasten their translation to other languages.I can't wait to see the translation of La Planète des Singes by babelfish!
This isn't a troll, it's the exact same joke as the parent poster. However this joke offers something new by saying "France doesn't mean to surrender, the other side just misunderstands France's battle flag."
Since the PSP has so many more features than anything Nintendo has
I'm sorry. But I don't class:
* Analog sticks
* movie-playing ability
as a whole lot more features. Nintendo has one feature this doesn't have. Dual-screen. So PSP has 1 more feature then the DS.
No, but about 1000% more accurate that any one persons view on /.
1000% more of nothing is still nothing.
Got a link for that? Because that has got to be the worst thing I've ever heard. We could have gotten DNA from that for sure.
No, no, no. God created the Dinosaurs extinct. Apparently he really liked the idea of dinosaurs, but thought they were too homosexual.
It still had the name Jurassic Park and it still involved DNA.
Birds too, I believe, cannot see things that do not move
False. How else would birds find their water bowl, or their perch? Snakes cannot see things that move, birds obviously can.
There's a lot of companies who patented huge swathes of the human genome who are having those patents methodically overturned when it was discovered that 1)they didn't know what they were patenting and 2) they had no use for it then, anyway.
So you're telling me IF they had a use for it and they knew what they were patenting, they could patent part of my DNA? Aren't I enough prior art for them? What about my grandparents? What about their grandparents? What about thousands upon thousands of years of prior art? Forget software patents. DNA patents are much worse.
The article says 1 in 10 people buy stuff from spam.
This is an average of course. Slashdot obviously isn't the average, but it's still likely SOME of you have bought something from spam (even if it's 1 in 100 slashdotters).
So fess up. Whose being buying stuff from spam?
This gives ISPs a list of websites that people may want to visit. How long until ISPs begin blocking websites on the list by default, and charge extra for unblocking them?
Poppycock. Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right. Just because perhaps most of the good citizens of Utah don't agree with their children being able to view pornography does not justify this move.
ISPs are forced to provide a filtered internet connection at the request of the customer. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to hear what you say. If I (as the person paying for the internet access in the house I own), choose to filter my internet, then I am allowed to do so.
Whether or not forcing ISPs to offer a filtered internet for those who want it is right is not a First Ammendmant issue.
Problem is that YOUR SIDE isn't fighting using legal means
Jon Johansen hasn't done anything illegal, so yes, we are fighting via legal means.
You have no such "rights". But you sure do like to sound sanctimonious about your make-believe reality.
False. That's what the RIAA wants you to think. I have the right to re-sell products I have bought. There's no getting around that.
DRM makes it impossible for me to re-sell something. That's okay, I can just break the DRM. Oh wait, because of the DMCA I cannot break DRM once it's put in place. Thankfully I'm not breaking the DRM. The DRM just isn't being put in place. Once they start putting the DRM server-side, I will be forced to either break the law or do my business somewhere else. I'll be doing my business somewhere else, but if they're going to infringe on my rights, I'm going to make it difficult for them.
Then why, pray tell, would you ever patronize a store like that to begin with?
Because I'm able to legally reclaim my rights they attempt to take away from me. More and more mainstream music is being DRM'd no matter how you get it. They can try to deny me my legal rights, and I'll continue to reclaim them. They don't have a legal leg to stand on and people like this guy will be more then happy enough to go to court for me to protect my rights.
Their DRM infringe on my right to:
* Copy music to the playback device of my choice.
* Re-sell a product I have purchased (selling a book second hand is legal. Selling second-hand music is also legal. See Doctrine of First Purchase for more details).
Anyone that gives me back my legal rights, is someone who deserves encouraging.
Didn't get a single pop-up. Then again, I have changed my settings to avoid getting Flash pop-ups. So if these sites utilized that technique they're back to square one for me.
Download company 7 Digital, which is providing the technology for the online shop, said TV companies were increasingly keen to earn money from the internet.
:)).
Good to see they aren't trying to get money from the web via lawsuits. Then again, this is a british company, not an American one (before you mod me flame-bait, the American *AA's have always been the first to do it in their industry. If I'm wrong, feel free to post a link