It doesn't matter who made the product, it's how it ends up being used that is the question in this case.
Meanwhile, the world doesn't have manufacturing at easy access or the initial investments upfront apple does. If we had that kind of access, tons of things would be far cheaper because companies wouldn't be able to set the prices, the market would yet again.
We spend plenty of money on organizations in illegal fashion in the US and abroad from the US. It's just illegal for US citizens, not for the government. They have made their own exceptions.
The case will be moderately significant, moreso for future trials. Every argument that is accepted is going to be taken note of by every person defending themselves in a copyright case/defense lawyers, and every argument not accepted is going to be taken note of by every IFPA lawyer/policeman. The appeals, if any (as one side will do it guaranteed) will be far more significant immediately as to how things end up after appeals.
This will essentially blow every music industry case out of the water, it establishes a precedent whether or not international/other courts accept it, as both sides of the debates are presented. Just like the recording in the harvard case.
Nobody can prove that piratebay's goal is copyright infringement, or that they're making money off it.
Is making money off tshirts necessarily mean that it's due to copyright infringement? I think not.
do they make a single penny off the actual "copyright infringement"? nope. They get ad traffic, sell merchandise, etc. This would be like buying a Hamas Tshirt. It sounds stupid, but it's not truly a terrorism thing even if it "supports the goal". Welcome to the world not being so black and white.
That is indeed something that neither flash or silverlight 1.0 can do. I think (don't cite me for fact here), but if I recall even from other slashdot comments that silverlight 2.0 can do that but lo and behold, there is no planned release (nor even started development) on that for anything other than windows.
Like people said, silverlight = activeX for multiple OS's. I'll pass.
In addition the fact that it's cheaper for them to make this than the previous version as well, they have every reason to stay competitive.
Who writes this "poor economy" crap?
Many companies are doing just fine through this downturn, it's just a mental state of consumers that has changed, and probably not for the long run either as consumers tend to have about the memory of a goldfish when it comes to taking corrective action financially.
We're just slowly deflating back to where we were before this hyperinflation the last few years has brought.
I'd love to see windows have a file manager that doesn't require internet explorer as a nice start. I don't know if that will ever be technically feasible for both political and technical reasons, but that'd be a bigger issue.
It's not the bundling that people want, it's the unbundling that people want more. So that you don't HAVE to have IE. This would of course cause MS some difficulties with the WGA program/active X as well.
That or something that says "pick your browser" and provides some choices. However, I don't know how reasonable this is either.
See though, we don't know where their efforts will be without the official client. That's the question here, but I think their actions will speak for themselves with enough time anyway.
Eh, not really. I don't know but I'm skeptical as to what Wine contributors could do to persuade them.
CCP is a company that does some truly groundbreaking programming, but mostly on the server-side and not so much on the client side. They do things a little slower client-side.
I suggested such on the forums over there, but CCP is in the business to make money...I'm not sure if they see the "long enough down the road" concept of making money via supporting Linux as a business case or not.
Nobody is losing Eve via Linux/Mac at all. All they're using is a horribly supported, pitiful binary version of Cedega that ran 1000x worse than via Wine. It couldn't even support DirectX9, it was that bad. Wine on the other hand, is working on supporting DX10 soon.
I wish they'd take all that supposed effort in the "official linux client" and sent it towards Wine, really.
Actually, this is the issue with "who will really have a problem".
The answer is, just like lossless formats, there are lots of situations where you absolutely cannot have an error and an equal number of situations where it's not an issue. Especially high performance, industrial, etc settings. Example being how for a lossless codec on cheap headphones you can't hear the differencebut on serious ones it's night and day. However, those situations for fault tolerance don't necessarily go together.
Therefore, if there becomes a way to toggle between problematic and non in a processor, that will be more beneficial than just problematic-only chipped processors. Also, it's all about the implementation. I mean not everyone uses ECC ram.
I agree and disagree. I agree that having the TV actually turn on does indeed make it violate the requirement, and is basically a waste of power. Manufacturer's intent might not have been "Scam" but it is something that could use a fixing.
Meanwhile, your large-screen TV does not operate with 0 power drain when it's off. A completely off TV draws some sort of wattage, and TV's have their own form of standby if they are new.
I do agree that we can't just look at a checklist, but I don't think that such things are simply put out there/useless - it just establishes a baseline of performance in certain aspects, aka a standard.
Lets face it, nobody wants a 40ms monitor at this point (unless its for spreadsheets only or something). However, I'm glad this article has seen some light. I've heard people tell me that big monitors seem to have problems such as these but now I understand what they're talking about, as I have not seen the problems myself.
Did you read what I had replied to? The guy says he accepts ads to deliberately confuse the accuracy. My side was "why bother?". It's not like you're going to bring an ad company to its knees for confusing ads, even if society did it as a whole.
Only on the same level as us making programs for mono. Considering that slashdot crowd is smart enough to STAY FAR FAR AAWAY from mono, I think that speaks for itself.
Why give impressions? Nobody is paid off impressions for one, and also it would confuse the accuracy of advertising.
Also plenty of people, like myself, do not want to see ads period. We are well past the generational concept from previous generations of "you can buy our eyeballs". Answer is, you can't. I don't care if it's an ad I would actually want to see. I want to browse the web to find what I want.
Only type of "ad" I accept is browsing somethingawful's forums unregistered where they explicitly say Adbot. Also accepted are "click here to view our ads" ideas. However "PLEASE LOOK AT OUR SIGN IN CAPS" as a banner, does not deserve my eyes at all.
The deceptiveness of advertising on the web does not make it more effective. It's the head fake, that gives people a reason to view things. 100% of ads could be taken off the web and many sites would do just fine. Even google and doubleclick have other ways to garner profits. This is something many websites haven't wrapped their heads around. People may be tolerant, but it's really a waste of cash/time.
Google could truly help people make their own sites more relevant in comparison to what meta tags show up,etc aka: website consulting. I bet they already do this anyway. Ads as a market is something many of people are just waiting for it to become obsolete.
It's pretty easy to block flash ads properly with noscript if you know what you're doing. Even if you use one of those subscription blocking lists, blanket-blocking is still worse. Especially for the average user and it only makes more sense for a slashie who is on 4chan or something.
I mean average user+flashblock = "where's my youtube?"
I look back on how I posted this and I agree, there are things that need to be confidential. However, I'm not sure if it had to be necessitated by having a cellphone capable of "confidential communications", and could have just been done other ways.
It's too bad they won't let him just use the Blackberry for all communications as he intended. Now they have given him an reason to have "classified/unclassified conversations".
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter who made the product, it's how it ends up being used that is the question in this case.
Meanwhile, the world doesn't have manufacturing at easy access or the initial investments upfront apple does. If we had that kind of access, tons of things would be far cheaper because companies wouldn't be able to set the prices, the market would yet again.
We spend plenty of money on organizations in illegal fashion in the US and abroad from the US. It's just illegal for US citizens, not for the government. They have made their own exceptions.
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Unconventional_Warfare_in_the_21st_century_:_US_surrogates%2C_terrorists_and_narcotrafficers has plenty of info about that.
The case will be moderately significant, moreso for future trials. Every argument that is accepted is going to be taken note of by every person defending themselves in a copyright case/defense lawyers, and every argument not accepted is going to be taken note of by every IFPA lawyer/policeman. The appeals, if any (as one side will do it guaranteed) will be far more significant immediately as to how things end up after appeals.
This will essentially blow every music industry case out of the water, it establishes a precedent whether or not international /other courts accept it, as both sides of the debates are presented. Just like the recording in the harvard case.
Nobody can prove that piratebay's goal is copyright infringement, or that they're making money off it.
Is making money off tshirts necessarily mean that it's due to copyright infringement? I think not.
do they make a single penny off the actual "copyright infringement"? nope. They get ad traffic, sell merchandise, etc. This would be like buying a Hamas Tshirt. It sounds stupid, but it's not truly a terrorism thing even if it "supports the goal". Welcome to the world not being so black and white.
Well they never promised (contractually) that they wouldn't sue, they just said that they wouldn't.
Obvious difference there. One of those is a threat, the other is a promise.
It's like "We'd hate if something bad were to happen to you if you didn't pay for our protection money, sir".
Not that anything has to, but that kind of thing is indeed a threat.
That is indeed something that neither flash or silverlight 1.0 can do. I think (don't cite me for fact here), but if I recall even from other slashdot comments that silverlight 2.0 can do that but lo and behold, there is no planned release (nor even started development) on that for anything other than windows.
Like people said, silverlight = activeX for multiple OS's. I'll pass.
In addition the fact that it's cheaper for them to make this than the previous version as well, they have every reason to stay competitive.
Who writes this "poor economy" crap?
Many companies are doing just fine through this downturn, it's just a mental state of consumers that has changed, and probably not for the long run either as consumers tend to have about the memory of a goldfish when it comes to taking corrective action financially.
We're just slowly deflating back to where we were before this hyperinflation the last few years has brought.
I'd love to see windows have a file manager that doesn't require internet explorer as a nice start. I don't know if that will ever be technically feasible for both political and technical reasons, but that'd be a bigger issue.
It's not the bundling that people want, it's the unbundling that people want more. So that you don't HAVE to have IE. This would of course cause MS some difficulties with the WGA program/active X as well.
That or something that says "pick your browser" and provides some choices. However, I don't know how reasonable this is either.
See though, we don't know where their efforts will be without the official client. That's the question here, but I think their actions will speak for themselves with enough time anyway.
Eh, not really. I don't know but I'm skeptical as to what Wine contributors could do to persuade them.
CCP is a company that does some truly groundbreaking programming, but mostly on the server-side and not so much on the client side. They do things a little slower client-side.
I suggested such on the forums over there, but CCP is in the business to make money...I'm not sure if they see the "long enough down the road" concept of making money via supporting Linux as a business case or not.
Nobody is losing Eve via Linux/Mac at all. All they're using is a horribly supported, pitiful binary version of Cedega that ran 1000x worse than via Wine. It couldn't even support DirectX9, it was that bad. Wine on the other hand, is working on supporting DX10 soon.
I wish they'd take all that supposed effort in the "official linux client" and sent it towards Wine, really.
With a wife like his, what is there to embarass? The man is a walking shit-eating grin, and does a pretty good job as a political figure.
Actually, this is the issue with "who will really have a problem".
The answer is, just like lossless formats, there are lots of situations where you absolutely cannot have an error and an equal number of situations where it's not an issue. Especially high performance, industrial, etc settings. Example being how for a lossless codec on cheap headphones you can't hear the differencebut on serious ones it's night and day. However, those situations for fault tolerance don't necessarily go together.
Therefore, if there becomes a way to toggle between problematic and non in a processor, that will be more beneficial than just problematic-only chipped processors. Also, it's all about the implementation. I mean not everyone uses ECC ram.
I agree and disagree. I agree that having the TV actually turn on does indeed make it violate the requirement, and is basically a waste of power. Manufacturer's intent might not have been "Scam" but it is something that could use a fixing.
Meanwhile, your large-screen TV does not operate with 0 power drain when it's off. A completely off TV draws some sort of wattage, and TV's have their own form of standby if they are new.
I do agree that we can't just look at a checklist, but I don't think that such things are simply put out there/useless - it just establishes a baseline of performance in certain aspects, aka a standard.
Lets face it, nobody wants a 40ms monitor at this point (unless its for spreadsheets only or something). However, I'm glad this article has seen some light. I've heard people tell me that big monitors seem to have problems such as these but now I understand what they're talking about, as I have not seen the problems myself.
As much as that is 100% accurate, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Like people said before, just make a wubi fix-it button, and we're all set.
Did you read what I had replied to? The guy says he accepts ads to deliberately confuse the accuracy. My side was "why bother?". It's not like you're going to bring an ad company to its knees for confusing ads, even if society did it as a whole.
Only on the same level as us making programs for mono. Considering that slashdot crowd is smart enough to STAY FAR FAR AAWAY from mono, I think that speaks for itself.
Why give impressions? Nobody is paid off impressions for one, and also it would confuse the accuracy of advertising.
Also plenty of people, like myself, do not want to see ads period. We are well past the generational concept from previous generations of "you can buy our eyeballs". Answer is, you can't. I don't care if it's an ad I would actually want to see. I want to browse the web to find what I want.
Only type of "ad" I accept is browsing somethingawful's forums unregistered where they explicitly say Adbot. Also accepted are "click here to view our ads" ideas. However "PLEASE LOOK AT OUR SIGN IN CAPS" as a banner, does not deserve my eyes at all.
The deceptiveness of advertising on the web does not make it more effective. It's the head fake, that gives people a reason to view things. 100% of ads could be taken off the web and many sites would do just fine. Even google and doubleclick have other ways to garner profits. This is something many websites haven't wrapped their heads around. People may be tolerant, but it's really a waste of cash/time.
Google could truly help people make their own sites more relevant in comparison to what meta tags show up,etc aka: website consulting. I bet they already do this anyway. Ads as a market is something many of people are just waiting for it to become obsolete.
It's pretty easy to block flash ads properly with noscript if you know what you're doing. Even if you use one of those subscription blocking lists, blanket-blocking is still worse. Especially for the average user and it only makes more sense for a slashie who is on 4chan or something.
I mean average user+flashblock = "where's my youtube?"
Don't you mean Penis Panini?
Penny arcade already has this covered. Maybe they already knew abotu the i7.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/30/
I look back on how I posted this and I agree, there are things that need to be confidential. However, I'm not sure if it had to be necessitated by having a cellphone capable of "confidential communications", and could have just been done other ways.
It's too bad they won't let him just use the Blackberry for all communications as he intended. Now they have given him an reason to have "classified/unclassified conversations".
don't you mean
Windows 7 = mohave = AWESOME?