I've never seen a stronger case for Nokia being a willing Microsoft crony than a Microsoft exec who leaves to Nokia, fosters a relationship with Nokia, and now trashtalks their competitors.
methinks you forgot the reality of your statement: they rely on having linux on them (which, no, just having custom firmware will not fix because the removal of otherOS also means it's not legal to flash custom firmware), but also because they rely on PS3's having linux on them for hardware replacement.
From the air force on this exact issue, and why you, sir are the one who is not at all bright:
"We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that use to have it."
I noticed this after the fact. I was debating being annoyed with a lack of facts by any stretch and/or being generally annoyed by them even joking that I'd want to download green lantern. Really, green lantern? Also associating IP's with the wrong areas was kind of odd, even for the "hurr we have your IP/geolocation!" crap.
Truth be told, pulling a list of IP's from a torrent is not going to be accurate anyway.
how many of these downloads can they even validate occurred? how many ip addresses can they even confirm are valid? oh right, facts. forgot about those things.
Instead, it's some RIAA themed site that says "Hi, Pirate!" at the top of it.
if you don't get successful funding on kickstarter, you get zero dollars and nobody who offered to contribute gets money. Had you read the fucking information at kickstarter, you'd know this.
So I'm assuming funding must be coming from elsewhere.
The reality of the 21st century is that *everyone* can be a journalist, whether you consider them one or not. You can define it any way you want, but anyone can be a part of the press: reporting, feedback, facilitating, etc. Good/factual/relevant journalist? That's up to one's own interpretation.
Here's an example of long range: FM frequencies, which go hundreds of miles. How low is the frequency? in the 88-> 175 megahertz range. Lower ranges work better. Here's an example of short range: bluetooth, which can go up to 130 meters or so if I recall correctly. Bluetooth is in the gigahertz range.
I think you are possibly conflating radiation/emission and frequency itself - while they have things in common, they are not the same.
The "range" of the frequencies is theoretically infinite. It doesn't mean that you don't have significant attenuation after a extremely short amount of time/distance, which makes it basically impossible to get anything useful from the signal. Think of this like trying to connect to a wifi point at your house from 20 miles away. doesn't work, does it? The signal is theoretically infinite, and when it's an open area a wifi point is rated in miles instead of meters, why? because higher frequency doesn't penetrate solid objects well. and even higher frequency can't even penetrate gaseous objects well.
you're talking about infrastructure costs, not the costs to go into business.
In a large majority of the united states, the cost to register a business is somewhere in the range of $200-400 maximum.
The cost to go into business could be astronomical or it could be near zero due to a wholly digital business. Any example you make here is simply full of shit because it doesn't reflect on the range being anything from near zero to billions of dollars.
Your examples for based on a restaurant, which is one of the most notoriously bad businesses to open with a really really high rate of failure. Long story short on opening a restaurant: if you aren't a professionally trained chef, don't try to open a restaurant. Fees, are something that should be calculated for. If you can't handle the fees, then the problem is the *business you're trying to open*, not the fees. In the US, a lot of these fees are for safety regulations. China doesn't have those problems because they don't have those regulations, simple. I'm not going to get into "better" or "worse" or the bureaucracy of it.
I note that it's a patent, and google is a company that trends on obtaining patents, not actually implementing them OR preventing other businesses with them. You know, for protection simply due to the nature of the united states and our anti-technology slant.
So I would not expect them a: to release a product that does this nor b: prevent anyone else's products from continuing to do what they do.
This is markedly different from apple, microsoft, oracle, many large tech companies approaches to patents, trademark, copyright, etc.
Would their idea work better? I agree with you, probably not.
disabling anonymous commenting will *LOWER* the quality drastically, not improve it. It will however, ensure that people who simply wish to not show their identity will simply no longer be willing to post. It'll also lower the interest of the site and basically kill slashdot.
Some anons post better comments than registered users and vice versa. Some smart posting registered users will post anon about certain topics, say their own workplace, etc.
meanwhile, the headline is written so poorly that I'm impressed by that as well.
Google throw's slashdot under the bus? How about "google shows slashdot's shortfalls". Slashdot is far from infallible, and the mod system ranges from "useful" to "why the hell was this moderated poorly/positively"?
However, that isn't the nature of slashdot specifically, it's just an accurate depiction of the internet: those looking for useful things can find gems of very useful information, but there is also a lot of crap and sometimes the crap will be found much easier. This is new?
bingo. This is the hilarious reality people have not realized.
Don't forget that the the labor *costs* go up, but the cost of transporting the goods goes way down.
People manufacture outside the US because it's not as strictly regulated and companies don't give a shit about following rules, laws, etc that they cannot have drafted themselves. It's not a "cheaper" issue, not in the long run, nor has it ever been.
what part of "you'll be lucky if the signal can travel 1 centimeter" makes you think that reflecting off of anything would matter? I don't mean this as an insult towards you, just a matter of practicality. It wouldn't work.
This could have use in the same way that body scanners work, or the concept of a wireless connection from hardware to hardware - think of those "stone" chargers where you just drop the phone on top of it, but instead being able to just put a graphics card on top to have it connect to your computer - no installation needed.
So while it has uses, any form of even short range communication will beat this hands down.
apparently nothing, because higher frequencies have horrible ranges. This stuff might work at ridiculously short range, but also won't be able to penetrate through anything which would enable it to work anywhere significant. Look at how tough even the 2.4ghz stuff like wireless devices can barely even penetrate a few walls, and now we're talking terahertz?
Long story short, nothing, because this product will never even give you 1.5Gbps.
the most important part of your completely bullshit claim, is where is the court hearing? Where is the proof?
innocent until proven guilty is a key cornerstone of our law, even as generally dismantled as it exists.
So until this goes to court, there's no proof they've done anything wrong or shouldn't have done, etc. It is a first amendment violation of prior restraint, however.
Slashdot Mirror
so then basically the anonymous person had it backwards, and exactly sums up why this should be a non issue- thus the article is right?
Boy am I not surprised.
I've never seen a stronger case for Nokia being a willing Microsoft crony than a Microsoft exec who leaves to Nokia, fosters a relationship with Nokia, and now trashtalks their competitors.
Does he really want Nokia to fail this badly?
this is the exact point. they are well aware of the concern, and they are not okay with it.
methinks you forgot the reality of your statement: they rely on having linux on them (which, no, just having custom firmware will not fix because the removal of otherOS also means it's not legal to flash custom firmware), but also because they rely on PS3's having linux on them for hardware replacement.
From the air force on this exact issue, and why you, sir are the one who is not at all bright:
What part of "it was a joke site" did you miss?
I noticed this after the fact. I was debating being annoyed with a lack of facts by any stretch and/or being generally annoyed by them even joking that I'd want to download green lantern. Really, green lantern? Also associating IP's with the wrong areas was kind of odd, even for the "hurr we have your IP/geolocation!" crap.
Truth be told, pulling a list of IP's from a torrent is not going to be accurate anyway.
clearly we can all validate the posting of an anonymous person with no claims in it. mod up as funny for sure.
I mean after all, my great grandfather's sister's nephew's uncle's brother must be a reliable source!
sheesh.
how many of these downloads can they even validate occurred?
how many ip addresses can they even confirm are valid?
oh right, facts. forgot about those things.
Instead, it's some RIAA themed site that says "Hi, Pirate!" at the top of it.
the article is idiocy and so is your comment.
We have the fact that apple already tried to sue Motorola over the xoom. This is just the response, which was done well before google acquired motorola.
The "Google" Action will be if/what we see from google as a result of this reflecting on them going forward, which could be entirely nothing.
if you don't get successful funding on kickstarter, you get zero dollars and nobody who offered to contribute gets money. Had you read the fucking information at kickstarter, you'd know this.
So I'm assuming funding must be coming from elsewhere.
The reality of the 21st century is that *everyone* can be a journalist, whether you consider them one or not. You can define it any way you want, but anyone can be a part of the press: reporting, feedback, facilitating, etc. Good/factual/relevant journalist? That's up to one's own interpretation.
So what you call it, isn't really relevant. The laws haven't been updated to respect this, but with technology it's held true for quite some time.
If you are an iphone user, it changes into an apple.
Here's an example of long range: FM frequencies, which go hundreds of miles. How low is the frequency? in the 88-> 175 megahertz range. Lower ranges work better.
Here's an example of short range: bluetooth, which can go up to 130 meters or so if I recall correctly. Bluetooth is in the gigahertz range.
I think you are possibly conflating radiation/emission and frequency itself - while they have things in common, they are not the same.
The "range" of the frequencies is theoretically infinite. It doesn't mean that you don't have significant attenuation after a extremely short amount of time/distance, which makes it basically impossible to get anything useful from the signal. Think of this like trying to connect to a wifi point at your house from 20 miles away. doesn't work, does it? The signal is theoretically infinite, and when it's an open area a wifi point is rated in miles instead of meters, why? because higher frequency doesn't penetrate solid objects well. and even higher frequency can't even penetrate gaseous objects well.
hi, troll!
you're talking about infrastructure costs, not the costs to go into business.
In a large majority of the united states, the cost to register a business is somewhere in the range of $200-400 maximum.
The cost to go into business could be astronomical or it could be near zero due to a wholly digital business. Any example you make here is simply full of shit because it doesn't reflect on the range being anything from near zero to billions of dollars.
Your examples for based on a restaurant, which is one of the most notoriously bad businesses to open with a really really high rate of failure. Long story short on opening a restaurant: if you aren't a professionally trained chef, don't try to open a restaurant. Fees, are something that should be calculated for. If you can't handle the fees, then the problem is the *business you're trying to open*, not the fees. In the US, a lot of these fees are for safety regulations. China doesn't have those problems because they don't have those regulations, simple. I'm not going to get into "better" or "worse" or the bureaucracy of it.
I note that it's a patent, and google is a company that trends on obtaining patents, not actually implementing them OR preventing other businesses with them. You know, for protection simply due to the nature of the united states and our anti-technology slant.
So I would not expect them a: to release a product that does this nor b: prevent anyone else's products from continuing to do what they do.
This is markedly different from apple, microsoft, oracle, many large tech companies approaches to patents, trademark, copyright, etc.
Would their idea work better? I agree with you, probably not.
disabling anonymous commenting will *LOWER* the quality drastically, not improve it. It will however, ensure that people who simply wish to not show their identity will simply no longer be willing to post. It'll also lower the interest of the site and basically kill slashdot.
Some anons post better comments than registered users and vice versa. Some smart posting registered users will post anon about certain topics, say their own workplace, etc.
meanwhile, the headline is written so poorly that I'm impressed by that as well.
Google throw's slashdot under the bus? How about "google shows slashdot's shortfalls". Slashdot is far from infallible, and the mod system ranges from "useful" to "why the hell was this moderated poorly/positively"?
However, that isn't the nature of slashdot specifically, it's just an accurate depiction of the internet: those looking for useful things can find gems of very useful information, but there is also a lot of crap and sometimes the crap will be found much easier. This is new?
bingo. This is the hilarious reality people have not realized.
Don't forget that the the labor *costs* go up, but the cost of transporting the goods goes way down.
People manufacture outside the US because it's not as strictly regulated and companies don't give a shit about following rules, laws, etc that they cannot have drafted themselves. It's not a "cheaper" issue, not in the long run, nor has it ever been.
what part of "you'll be lucky if the signal can travel 1 centimeter" makes you think that reflecting off of anything would matter? I don't mean this as an insult towards you, just a matter of practicality. It wouldn't work.
This could have use in the same way that body scanners work, or the concept of a wireless connection from hardware to hardware - think of those "stone" chargers where you just drop the phone on top of it, but instead being able to just put a graphics card on top to have it connect to your computer - no installation needed.
So while it has uses, any form of even short range communication will beat this hands down.
people can't even comprehend half the shit they do. I don't think people will ever get it.
Meanwhile, when will facebook go out of business/dwindle/etc? give it 2 to maybe 5 years maximum.
maybe you don't realize that people do try to claim copyright on API's which are software.
Where have I heard that before....oh right? maybe the google vs oracle case?
Patents and copyright both have problems, at least we can work on one at a time.
apparently nothing, because higher frequencies have horrible ranges. This stuff might work at ridiculously short range, but also won't be able to penetrate through anything which would enable it to work anywhere significant. Look at how tough even the 2.4ghz stuff like wireless devices can barely even penetrate a few walls, and now we're talking terahertz?
Long story short, nothing, because this product will never even give you 1.5Gbps.
actually, this is against EU law, if I recall correctly.
"shouldn't be selling"? Says who?
the most important part of your completely bullshit claim, is where is the court hearing? Where is the proof?
innocent until proven guilty is a key cornerstone of our law, even as generally dismantled as it exists.
So until this goes to court, there's no proof they've done anything wrong or shouldn't have done, etc. It is a first amendment violation of prior restraint, however.
that's not piracy, that's just rebranding, as the poster you are replying to acknowledged.