I choose the one with the most patents, because then I can be reasonably sure that time, money and effort went into researching how to keep my brights bright.
Yeah, because all that time they spent on filing patents sure wasn't wasted when it could have been spent on bettering the product.
No, but I'd rather support an environment that allows competition because competition increases the chance of innovation. Google could improve if it was a monopoly, but I doubt it would improve at it's current rate. Does this mean using inferior products? How can I support an environment that has competition? By not using the one product blindly. Which many people do.
And piss off all your friends and family members for doing it without asking them. Or are you going to claim you meant with permission? With so many zealots saying "permission? Just do it anyway" on slashdot I find that claim unlikely.
The article is actually complete rubbish because of this. Sure it might be an interesting read, but I wouldn't put much stock into it. People use different search engines for various reasons, it's reliability in offering good results to queries is only one factor.
Coprorations do not exist to do evil or good. They exist to make money for their shareholders.
And people wonder why some slashdotters hate capitalism. It isn't because socialism is great, it's because this extreme capitalism is (in my opinion) unacceptable. I'm just glad we have some laws that prohibit companies from acting too bad. Unfortunately laws are being created to allow them to act worse, not better. All in the name of Capitalism.
But it is unethical to post such a link under your own username rather than anonymous...
I believe in standing by whatever I say and never posting as an AC (unless I accidently do so due to being on another computer). This includes mirrors. I've seen many people on slashdot share the ethic of not posting as an AC (which the coders perpetuate by giving anonymous people a degrading name).
A company normally goes public because it needs the extra bit of investment, right? Do shares continue to affect how much money it has once it's gone public? Or is it a one-time deal unless they open up more shares? If they have to open up more shares, is Google likely to do so? If so, then they need their shares to be up and they need to be attractive to investors.
If investors don't care about ethics and google ignores this, their stock will go down and they won't be an attractive investment.
There are also people who are unable to access the media via legitimate means. How are they loosing money by sueing us (hint: we don't get the program in Australia)?
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*, but I'm betting the distributors will anyway.
Pirating doesn't actually hurt the people you're pirating (assuming you had no intention of buying their stuff), but it does hurt competitors who supply a competing item at a lower price.
This is why Open Source is hurt by piraters while Microsoft isn't.
Turn on TV at any given time in prime time and you'll see some moron man (Everyone Loves Raymond) being bossed around by his bitchy wife. I'm not gonna watch shit like that
I would rather have a single box for gaming, DVR functionality, DVD CD and MP3 playback
I hope you live alone or else you'd have fun when one person wants the DVR, another wants to watch a DVD, another wants to listen to an MP3 (with headphones so as to not disturb the movie person) while another wants to play a video game.
Very clever. I know most things I want, I don't want them to have more then one purpose. I don't want my console to act as a PVR. I don't want my cell-phone to: * Play games * Take pictures * Allow me to browse online
I don't want my e-book reader to: * Play games * Take pictures * Play music * Play videos * Browse online
I don't want my fridge to have a television built in.
Yet companies are constantly putting stuff together, in an effort to convince consumers that they're innovative and to upgrade. There are plenty of things people don't want to have the kitchen sink. That was the point of the parent.
I do not think that MS gives a positive permission to use these formats.
According to their FAQ:
Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers?
A.
Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreements and then work in a collaborative fashion on development of a program or programs.
Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form?
A.
Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program.
Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license?
A.
Yes.
While it may not be legally binding, I'd say it's enough permisssion for the layman, and I think it could be argued in court (of course, you could also just read their license which may say the same thing. But I don't speak ligalese myself).
hey have now launched iLife 5 which fixes flaws in iPhoto (amongst other things).
I agree. I own a car that has a big flaw which causes tires to wear down much faster then other cars (there is a "patch" but it doesn't work 100%. The mechanic said the company is making too much money from it). Fortunately it was fixed in a later model, I think this is disgraceful and I know I'm going to go to a car-store and steal one.
As usual your over-enthusiasm for yellow "journalism" has run amuck and the worst kind of lies are now being discussed as truth.Could this be any more racist? I'm an asian-australian and I'm deeply offended by this comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is paying MPAA for this? NOBODY?!??
I would hope not. I know the MPAA is new to this sueing customers thing, but I think they've got enough of a clue to not go that far.
I choose the one with the most patents, because then I can be reasonably sure that time, money and effort went into researching how to keep my brights bright.
Yeah, because all that time they spent on filing patents sure wasn't wasted when it could have been spent on bettering the product.
I'm sorry I was unable to process any useful information your post had because some peculiar spelling distracted me
Being a monopoly isn't necessarily bad
No, but I'd rather support an environment that allows competition because competition increases the chance of innovation. Google could improve if it was a monopoly, but I doubt it would improve at it's current rate. Does this mean using inferior products? How can I support an environment that has competition? By not using the one product blindly. Which many people do.
Your copyright arguments are so ridiculous
Would you mind saying why though? The image-search is fair-use, but no-one has yet to refute his cache comment.
And piss off all your friends and family members for doing it without asking them. Or are you going to claim you meant with permission? With so many zealots saying "permission? Just do it anyway" on slashdot I find that claim unlikely.
The article is actually complete rubbish because of this. Sure it might be an interesting read, but I wouldn't put much stock into it. People use different search engines for various reasons, it's reliability in offering good results to queries is only one factor.
Coprorations do not exist to do evil or good. They exist to make money for their shareholders.
And people wonder why some slashdotters hate capitalism. It isn't because socialism is great, it's because this extreme capitalism is (in my opinion) unacceptable. I'm just glad we have some laws that prohibit companies from acting too bad. Unfortunately laws are being created to allow them to act worse, not better. All in the name of Capitalism.
It almost sounds like a religion.
But it is unethical to post such a link under your own username rather than anonymous...
I believe in standing by whatever I say and never posting as an AC (unless I accidently do so due to being on another computer). This includes mirrors. I've seen many people on slashdot share the ethic of not posting as an AC (which the coders perpetuate by giving anonymous people a degrading name).
A company normally goes public because it needs the extra bit of investment, right? Do shares continue to affect how much money it has once it's gone public? Or is it a one-time deal unless they open up more shares? If they have to open up more shares, is Google likely to do so? If so, then they need their shares to be up and they need to be attractive to investors.
If investors don't care about ethics and google ignores this, their stock will go down and they won't be an attractive investment.
There are also people who are unable to access the media via legitimate means. How are they loosing money by sueing us (hint: we don't get the program in Australia)?
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*, but I'm betting the distributors will anyway.
Pirating doesn't actually hurt the people you're pirating (assuming you had no intention of buying their stuff), but it does hurt competitors who supply a competing item at a lower price.
This is why Open Source is hurt by piraters while Microsoft isn't.
America, the land of the free.
YOU GO OUT AND SOCIALIZE AWAY FROM YOUR TECHNO-CENTRIC-EXCUSE FOR A LIFE! Go find friends that aren't online.
Pffft. You probably just want to get laid and don't care what sex the person is.
Turn on TV at any given time in prime time and you'll see some moron man (Everyone Loves Raymond) being bossed around by his bitchy wife. I'm not gonna watch shit like that
Neither am I. I get enough of it at home.
Why is it ok to buy multiple TVs but not multiple PCs?
It's much cheaper to buy a television then a PC. I also live with 4 people and only have 2 PCs, and we're actually quite well off.
I would rather have a single box for gaming, DVR functionality, DVD CD and MP3 playback
I hope you live alone or else you'd have fun when one person wants the DVR, another wants to watch a DVD, another wants to listen to an MP3 (with headphones so as to not disturb the movie person) while another wants to play a video game.
Very clever. I know most things I want, I don't want them to have more then one purpose. I don't want my console to act as a PVR. I don't want my cell-phone to:
* Play games
* Take pictures
* Allow me to browse online
I don't want my e-book reader to:
* Play games
* Take pictures
* Play music
* Play videos
* Browse online
I don't want my fridge to have a television built in.
Yet companies are constantly putting stuff together, in an effort to convince consumers that they're innovative and to upgrade. There are plenty of things people don't want to have the kitchen sink. That was the point of the parent.
According to their FAQ:
While it may not be legally binding, I'd say it's enough permisssion for the layman, and I think it could be argued in court (of course, you could also just read their license which may say the same thing. But I don't speak ligalese myself).
how are we going to demonize Microsoft?
More importantly, how is Microsoft going to demonize us open source commies?
"M$" hey?
hey have now launched iLife 5 which fixes flaws in iPhoto (amongst other things).
I agree. I own a car that has a big flaw which causes tires to wear down much faster then other cars (there is a "patch" but it doesn't work 100%. The mechanic said the company is making too much money from it). Fortunately it was fixed in a later model, I think this is disgraceful and I know I'm going to go to a car-store and steal one.
As usual your over-enthusiasm for yellow "journalism" has run amuck and the worst kind of lies are now being discussed as truth.Could this be any more racist? I'm an asian-australian and I'm deeply offended by this comment.
In a fit of irony, I hear they're outsourcing the stage and crew to America.
Code reuse saves time, allowing the time to be used to develop other things.
Like DRM