The difference between a steering wheel and an OS is that you can still run the laptop without an OS and install your own.
You can't really operate a car without a steering wheel. Forcing the steering wheel to be in the purchase is legal, forcing the OS to be in the purchase with a laptop is called tying, and it's trumped by laws and generally illegal worldwide.
It's pretty funny to say "it's hardware" when there's nothing preventing apple from running it in software except choice (the restriction of the customer's, that is).
This is what you get when you run apple. Literally - you let them dictate the software that you can run, this is the result. Don't like it? Don't use apple.
I would love to see ATT try to sue google for being competitive.
The DOJ would be on top of ATT faster than you can even conceptualize the antitrust semblance there. This is like Microsoft trying to complain to google of antitrust via "non-neutral search" - even the millions of dollars put into fake studies can't convince people of the lies.
You have nobody to thank for this but a: the carriers and b: apple.
It is they, who in collusion, raised the price of buying a phone to astronomical levels. Remember when the highest price for an unlocked phone was usually $200? What phone broke that trend? Iphone.
It ended up making the carriers a ton of money even though the consumer gets screwed.
The government may be lazy and try to just stick behind what makes them money, but going after the internet is not going to simply pass by with passive aggressiveness nor has it.
Since when did google ever have to give a statement to what they're doing outside of what they already did?
They said "we will not sue people with our patents". And have they ever sued with their patents, offensively?
no.
Apple sure as hell has. Samsung sure as hell has fought back. Barnes and Noble fought back.
Google isn't like American Politics, that's exactly why every "evil" company in the US hates them and has tried to shut them down continually, via corruption/bribery/lobbying/outright lies.
So yes, they made a statement, and you're a fucking troll.
Well it sure as hell seems to be widely *assumed* that samsung "stole" the design from apple. Yet, guess what? Neither of these are the answer - neither apple stealing nor samsung, and are just idiotic mindspew.
The reality is that independent invention, where a bunch of people come up with the same glaringly obvious shit at the same time (let's add internet access to...a device! for example), is a reality, a giant benefit to society, and law worldwide simply do not handle this properly.
It's not a question of "who made it/who copied who" it's a question of "if everyone came up with it, why should *anyone* be able to claim ownership?" That's the real problem.
I said not that "they mustn't be qualified", nor did I even imply that. I'm just stating that obviously people in the APHC are traditionally *smart* people. That however, doesn't answer the "are they qualified or not".
It's just like any other "We can neither confirm nor deny" situation. If you're the press, that means "lambaste the shit out of them and imply wrongs based off misstated facts". If you're a rational person who's not an idiot, you understand that this simply leaves the question unanswered, which is still pretty stupid and frankly, unacceptable. I do understand the reasoning - I stated that myself. I find it somewhat questionable that you, however, assume they *are* qualified by your own presumption. What I meant was it doesn't have bearing on their intelligence. We simply don't know about the validity, so we can't really argue for the validity. These can be super smart people, but there's an excessive amount of speculation as to why they may or may not be qualified/approved by ANSI, and any of those reasons should be disregarded.
clarification: I think we're in agreement in what we cover, but I think you're missing the bigger picture of "what's going to happen to facebook" which I think will affect the situation more than the pending failed IPO.
I think you're missing it. Microsoft is majorly invested in facebook and is watching it collapse. When it collapses, they will snatch it up for pennies on the dollar, as Microsoft continually has done for over 25 years, and is positioning to do with Nokia and tried to position (and still is) with yahoo. Not a new premise.
I'm pretty sure facebook would have potentially managed had they not taken the ad money to basically flag "we're done trying to be creative".
What does it matter? The names are blacked out of those who actually performed the test. There isn't any way to validate that the APHC's individual is qualified to perform the test without a name. It's an obvious given that the smart folks in the APHC probably understand the test quite well even if they aren't qualified. I do understand there is bureaucracy and security concerns there, but it leaves an unanswered question.
ok, do you know why they require neutral third parties to validate this stuff? Where shall I begin?
These scenarios highlight exactly why it should not be done by the TSA themselves: is anyone the TSA accredited to perform this measurement per the ANSI standard? Can anyone validate that the units will indeed perform the way these single tests were done? no. Can anyone validate that the testing was done properly? Again, no.
this is why you simply cannot have a first party do testing at all. It's just not reliable. This is like me myself doing the test - while I might get some data, how am I to be able to speak for the validity? Hint: I cannot.
There is no way to affirm if any of the data is even remotely valid.
It was pushed through by someone who owned part of the companies. He knew what he was doing in pushing to have these deployed.
As far as neutral third parties, there are plenty - it's just that the process *cannot* with honesty validate any of the devices being used in the field. Each one could be manufactured differently. They'd have to start back at the manufacturing process, and I don't think the gov't is ready for that part of the process. This is why when they tested just one and it showed it *could* but harmful but wasn't 100% confirmed, it's not even accurate. There's no way to guarantee a device in the field is an accurate representation/isn't set up to pass a test versus one randomly selected during the manufacturing process.
Do you know what defines a better advertising platform? It's not the capability or the accuracy, but sheer numbers of people. All they care about is eyeballs and dollars to eyeballs.
Meanwhile, advertising is simply becoming less and less accurate and more and more obtrusive. I'm really hoping advertisers go back to actually focusing on quality, but online advertising by definition has no correlation to the quality at all.
wha? open source isn't even a question, nor is it related to the situation.
The answer is: facebook didn't innovate at all, they simply had the most popular site by method of exclusivity before they went public. That's it.
that's not "wow! amazing!", it's more a stroke of luck. Their dealings with zynga and microsoft (who surely is positioned to profit from the IPO) highlight that facebook otherwise has no idea what they're doing aside from trying to sell every user's information in every way possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund
go ahead and read. This isn't exactly new.
Was the subsidiary the owner of the trademark?
If crapware subsidizes hardware, why is it cheaper without the crapware?
You might want to learn about your argument there.
The difference between a steering wheel and an OS is that you can still run the laptop without an OS and install your own.
You can't really operate a car without a steering wheel. Forcing the steering wheel to be in the purchase is legal, forcing the OS to be in the purchase with a laptop is called tying, and it's trumped by laws and generally illegal worldwide.
Yep.
It's pretty funny to say "it's hardware" when there's nothing preventing apple from running it in software except choice (the restriction of the customer's, that is).
This is what you get when you run apple. Literally - you let them dictate the software that you can run, this is the result. Don't like it? Don't use apple.
I would love to see ATT try to sue google for being competitive.
The DOJ would be on top of ATT faster than you can even conceptualize the antitrust semblance there. This is like Microsoft trying to complain to google of antitrust via "non-neutral search" - even the millions of dollars put into fake studies can't convince people of the lies.
You have nobody to thank for this but a: the carriers and b: apple.
It is they, who in collusion, raised the price of buying a phone to astronomical levels. Remember when the highest price for an unlocked phone was usually $200? What phone broke that trend? Iphone.
It ended up making the carriers a ton of money even though the consumer gets screwed.
example 1 of the public:
SOPA/PIPA protests
example 2:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120203/01072617645/watch-out-widespread-protests-against-acta-spreading-across-europe.shtml
The government may be lazy and try to just stick behind what makes them money, but going after the internet is not going to simply pass by with passive aggressiveness nor has it.
wha? HTC didn't sue apple, that was a counterclaim in the lawsuit apple has against HTC.
It's sure as hell not mightier than the public, though.
Since when did google ever have to give a statement to what they're doing outside of what they already did?
They said "we will not sue people with our patents". And have they ever sued with their patents, offensively?
no.
Apple sure as hell has. Samsung sure as hell has fought back. Barnes and Noble fought back.
Google isn't like American Politics, that's exactly why every "evil" company in the US hates them and has tried to shut them down continually, via corruption/bribery/lobbying/outright lies.
So yes, they made a statement, and you're a fucking troll.
Well it sure as hell seems to be widely *assumed* that samsung "stole" the design from apple. Yet, guess what? Neither of these are the answer - neither apple stealing nor samsung, and are just idiotic mindspew.
The reality is that independent invention, where a bunch of people come up with the same glaringly obvious shit at the same time (let's add internet access to...a device! for example), is a reality, a giant benefit to society, and law worldwide simply do not handle this properly.
It's not a question of "who made it/who copied who" it's a question of "if everyone came up with it, why should *anyone* be able to claim ownership?" That's the real problem.
The only time you can't force the sharing of ideas is under GPLv2. Funny how GPLv3 got all the negative press, huh.
I said not that "they mustn't be qualified", nor did I even imply that. I'm just stating that obviously people in the APHC are traditionally *smart* people. That however, doesn't answer the "are they qualified or not".
It's just like any other "We can neither confirm nor deny" situation. If you're the press, that means "lambaste the shit out of them and imply wrongs based off misstated facts". If you're a rational person who's not an idiot, you understand that this simply leaves the question unanswered, which is still pretty stupid and frankly, unacceptable. I do understand the reasoning - I stated that myself. I find it somewhat questionable that you, however, assume they *are* qualified by your own presumption. What I meant was it doesn't have bearing on their intelligence. We simply don't know about the validity, so we can't really argue for the validity. These can be super smart people, but there's an excessive amount of speculation as to why they may or may not be qualified/approved by ANSI, and any of those reasons should be disregarded.
Yep, this article has zero to do with game objects.
It's more like they're saying "if they threaten you in real life and you transfer something under duress it's still a theft"
Which has zero bearing on the physical or non. This has been pretty much been settled and answered in judiciaries around the globe for a long time.
clarification: I think we're in agreement in what we cover, but I think you're missing the bigger picture of "what's going to happen to facebook" which I think will affect the situation more than the pending failed IPO.
I think you're missing it. Microsoft is majorly invested in facebook and is watching it collapse. When it collapses, they will snatch it up for pennies on the dollar, as Microsoft continually has done for over 25 years, and is positioning to do with Nokia and tried to position (and still is) with yahoo. Not a new premise.
I'm pretty sure facebook would have potentially managed had they not taken the ad money to basically flag "we're done trying to be creative".
What does it matter? The names are blacked out of those who actually performed the test. There isn't any way to validate that the APHC's individual is qualified to perform the test without a name. It's an obvious given that the smart folks in the APHC probably understand the test quite well even if they aren't qualified. I do understand there is bureaucracy and security concerns there, but it leaves an unanswered question.
This is a two way street.
while they may go after samsung, having this move forward will also put a lot of strength into Barnes and Noble's claims against Microsoft.
ok, do you know why they require neutral third parties to validate this stuff? Where shall I begin?
These scenarios highlight exactly why it should not be done by the TSA themselves:
is anyone the TSA accredited to perform this measurement per the ANSI standard?
Can anyone validate that the units will indeed perform the way these single tests were done? no. Can anyone validate that the testing was done properly? Again, no.
this is why you simply cannot have a first party do testing at all. It's just not reliable. This is like me myself doing the test - while I might get some data, how am I to be able to speak for the validity? Hint: I cannot.
There is no way to affirm if any of the data is even remotely valid.
This is hilariously bullshit.
They tested *one* scanner in the FIELD.
That is not representative of actual safety studies.
But yeah, way to bullshit there.
What do you mean?
It was pushed through by someone who owned part of the companies. He knew what he was doing in pushing to have these deployed.
As far as neutral third parties, there are plenty - it's just that the process *cannot* with honesty validate any of the devices being used in the field. Each one could be manufactured differently. They'd have to start back at the manufacturing process, and I don't think the gov't is ready for that part of the process. This is why when they tested just one and it showed it *could* but harmful but wasn't 100% confirmed, it's not even accurate. There's no way to guarantee a device in the field is an accurate representation/isn't set up to pass a test versus one randomly selected during the manufacturing process.
heh. the funny thing is, I see no reference to the executive branch in any way. Quite interesting.
Just the reference to "Executive agreement", but even that seems to indicate "The senate needs to be involved"
Do you know what defines a better advertising platform? It's not the capability or the accuracy, but sheer numbers of people. All they care about is eyeballs and dollars to eyeballs.
Meanwhile, advertising is simply becoming less and less accurate and more and more obtrusive. I'm really hoping advertisers go back to actually focusing on quality, but online advertising by definition has no correlation to the quality at all.
wha? open source isn't even a question, nor is it related to the situation.
The answer is: facebook didn't innovate at all, they simply had the most popular site by method of exclusivity before they went public. That's it.
that's not "wow! amazing!", it's more a stroke of luck. Their dealings with zynga and microsoft (who surely is positioned to profit from the IPO) highlight that facebook otherwise has no idea what they're doing aside from trying to sell every user's information in every way possible.