Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.
When you search for a microsoft KB article on bing, do you complain that it showed up ahead of other relevant results? no.
11 thousand views of your book is 11 thousand more people who know of it versus zero who know about it at all or care.
All removing your book from kindle will do, is reduce your market, sadly. Amazon may have retarded DRM (and it does, and all ebooks do - Nook is just as horrid) - but at least it's an additional market to your book. 11 thousand now have access, somewhere in there is more than 0 sales for you - yes, amazon makes more money here. That is why you *never* rely on a publisher or 3rd party that has full control of your information anyway. All they do is limit the market for their own profit.
Nobody said you have to do an epub version, but it is simply an additional option for you. Or you could make your book available in some format that people can put into an ebook reader in the first place.
What other formatting are you using other than epub, anyway?
if that were true, this would have been made public by politicians willing to take a stand (and gain votes). Instead, it's been acknowledged in complete secrecy.
you know the "the defendant obviously was guilty" part actually kinda makes me wonder if your relative had ever heard of jury nullification and why it's significant. Plenty of people focus so much on the facts that they forget about their rights as a jury, of course the opposite can happen too.
oh no, sir. They sell it at a loss in your perception - in reality they start selling it at a profit, and then all the games are sold at a profit. The result is you get crap hardware over time, and the costs for consoles have skyrocketed.
$200 consoles 10 years ago -> $300-600 today. Blech.
no longer open? It was never completely open. It was simply "better than the competition". It's no less partially open than it ever was. I'm not happy about that, but who else will you go to? I notice the irony in you saying how it's a fail and uncool and all that, yet you have a nexus one.
This has zero to do with the do no evil part and everything to do with "you should be open sourcing everything, not a part".Bolds and trolling don't help.
While I like google products, and I'm glad that it's free-er than the competition, I think they could go further. RMS is correct, however, the fault does not like exclusively with google - it also lies with many phone manufacturers, of which only a few have been sticking to GPL and other OS's straight up encourage proprietary (apple, microsoft).
Remind me who is collecting royalties on android right now?
Remind me who is using patents to defend themselves against microsoft right now?
I know you might think microsoft is magical, or be employed by them, or generally think they might be ethical, but changes of that kind take 50-100 years, not the timespan it takes you to write up something purporting a change that has not occurred.
Where's microsoft contributing open source voluntarily, and REAL open source (and not their own definition)? Where's microsoft not trying to crush their competitors? Why's microsoft still continually quoting Florian? Why's microsoft think they're the center of the universe?
so microsoft has magically changed because they are pushing HTML5? Wow man, I'd better forget all of those antitrust cases and anti-google marketing and anti-apple marketing, plus patent trolling and patent litigation.
where do you make this up? Open sourcing enables competitors, like AMD, to get the benefits from the work without needing patents or any form of protection. How backwards are you?
This is hilarious. How am I an ubuntu zealot when I explicitly state that I blame ubuntu? Try any other distro and the difference is enormous: the interface isn't as stupidly cluttered, and guess what? It doesn't look like OSX.
dude how much of a microsoft shill and/or generally anti-google are you? It's seriously impressive. While they can use patents defensively to save android from being screwed by every competitor (microsoft, apple), it's much more expensive (and much more corrupt) to try to influence congress.
They do not have enough money and lobbyists to spark serious debate on patents. If they did, we wouldn't be stuck in this ridiculous mire, now would we?
Let me add a little bit to what's going on here. Florian has spun this as a "this is bad for google". Yes, that retarded florian mueller. From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html . Of course they have to use patents in a lawsuit. How else will they defend themselves? Google isn't suing anyone with these patents, but they are handing them out to folks like HTC to defend themselves (and thus android). They aren't going after folks. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement from google to lend these patents to HTC is something like exactly that.
Meanwhile, guess what? Look at the groklaw debunk carefully.
. It increases the likelihood that Apple will lose or at least wish it never started this stupid patent war. Don't you recall what Eric Schmidt said recently, that Google would make sure HTC didn't lose? You thought he was just talking? If Apple wanted to rumble with Google, it would have done it already. That's the last thing they want, and with good reason. If it happens, it won't be because they desired it. The thing about patent litigation is you usually go after folks who can't do much to you back. Google can do plenty. They had a remarkable record in patent litigation before they bought the patents from IBM and bought Motorola. Now they are more fully armed, they can do a great deal more.Trying to spin this as a threat to Google is absolutely upside down
linux hasn't lost it's way. You're conflating linux and ubuntu. Ubuntu is bloated to shit, centos, fedora, other flavors of linux are not at all as stupidly bloated.
The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.
In reality, google has yet to ever, offensively go after anyone with patents. Microsoft and apple on the other hand, have even gone as far as trying to do the ITC loophole, and trying to directly restrict competition in other countries. Not the same.
The long story short of it is you can't bend society to follow a law that they themselves do not care for. You could make circumventing censorship illegal but if people want to avoid censorship they will do so regardless of the penalty.
There is no solution that will stop this copyright thing because the RIAA/MPAA/international equivalents (which seem to be completely controlled by RIAA/MPAA) are the only folks bothered by this stuff, mostly because of their legacy businesses. Meanwhile, nobody else even gives a shit. Thus, see above.
No, he's exactly correct. It's not patent-worthy if people independently invented it in multiple places at the same time. That's just a common combination of existing technology. That is actually part of the intent as far as patents go, that neither should be able to patent this. It's part of the "machine transformation" stuff, etc.
Meanwhile, it'll never be possible to prevent the first to file problem this way because things like this would slip past oversight from the patent office continually. The real problem is the ease at which patents are being obtained, not the "how do we fix after the fact?"
Compliance is expensive, they already ran the test on one device and said they were compliant. Remember that? Compliance probably involves ongoing tests of the scanners, not just "oh hey we tested one and it was okay!". That of course, is more expensive.
Yes the machines are useless, and no they aren't safe. Meanwhile, this covert thing sounds like they're saying that they can't be governed because they're part of a different group than the TSA. That's how I took the covert thing. So who governs the "covert"?
Slashdot Mirror
Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.
When you search for a microsoft KB article on bing, do you complain that it showed up ahead of other relevant results? no.
I thought they used those for abortions?
11 thousand views of your book is 11 thousand more people who know of it versus zero who know about it at all or care.
All removing your book from kindle will do, is reduce your market, sadly. Amazon may have retarded DRM (and it does, and all ebooks do - Nook is just as horrid) - but at least it's an additional market to your book. 11 thousand now have access, somewhere in there is more than 0 sales for you - yes, amazon makes more money here. That is why you *never* rely on a publisher or 3rd party that has full control of your information anyway. All they do is limit the market for their own profit.
Nobody said you have to do an epub version, but it is simply an additional option for you. Or you could make your book available in some format that people can put into an ebook reader in the first place.
What other formatting are you using other than epub, anyway?
if that were true, this would have been made public by politicians willing to take a stand (and gain votes). Instead, it's been acknowledged in complete secrecy.
you know the "the defendant obviously was guilty" part actually kinda makes me wonder if your relative had ever heard of jury nullification and why it's significant. Plenty of people focus so much on the facts that they forget about their rights as a jury, of course the opposite can happen too.
oh no, sir. They sell it at a loss in your perception - in reality they start selling it at a profit, and then all the games are sold at a profit. The result is you get crap hardware over time, and the costs for consoles have skyrocketed.
$200 consoles 10 years ago -> $300-600 today. Blech.
other way around. all MS trolls usually *are* sponsored by Microsoft (and their partners).
no longer open? It was never completely open. It was simply "better than the competition". It's no less partially open than it ever was. I'm not happy about that, but who else will you go to? I notice the irony in you saying how it's a fail and uncool and all that, yet you have a nexus one.
This has zero to do with the do no evil part and everything to do with "you should be open sourcing everything, not a part".Bolds and trolling don't help.
While I like google products, and I'm glad that it's free-er than the competition, I think they could go further. RMS is correct, however, the fault does not like exclusively with google - it also lies with many phone manufacturers, of which only a few have been sticking to GPL and other OS's straight up encourage proprietary (apple, microsoft).
this is the most brilliant troll I have ever seen. I get that you don't like google and all, but you have this completely backwards.
this is the funniest thing I have ever seen.
Remind me who is collecting royalties on android right now?
Remind me who is using patents to defend themselves against microsoft right now?
I know you might think microsoft is magical, or be employed by them, or generally think they might be ethical, but changes of that kind take 50-100 years, not the timespan it takes you to write up something purporting a change that has not occurred.
Where's microsoft contributing open source voluntarily, and REAL open source (and not their own definition)? Where's microsoft not trying to crush their competitors? Why's microsoft still continually quoting Florian? Why's microsoft think they're the center of the universe?
ETC. None of this has changed.
so microsoft has magically changed because they are pushing HTML5? Wow man, I'd better forget all of those antitrust cases and anti-google marketing and anti-apple marketing, plus patent trolling and patent litigation.
Leopards don't change their spots.
where do you make this up? Open sourcing enables competitors, like AMD, to get the benefits from the work without needing patents or any form of protection. How backwards are you?
Nice depends on the concept, considering that you would have zero emergency response when it matters as a result.
Are you oblivious? People should have a choice when they are giving up their privacy.
Facebook may be horrible as shit, but the unintended consequences of "protect the children" are massive.
This is hilarious. How am I an ubuntu zealot when I explicitly state that I blame ubuntu? Try any other distro and the difference is enormous: the interface isn't as stupidly cluttered, and guess what? It doesn't look like OSX.
Some of us geeks don't actually like ubuntu.
Troll harder next time, $trolltype
dude how much of a microsoft shill and/or generally anti-google are you? It's seriously impressive. While they can use patents defensively to save android from being screwed by every competitor (microsoft, apple), it's much more expensive (and much more corrupt) to try to influence congress.
They do not have enough money and lobbyists to spark serious debate on patents. If they did, we wouldn't be stuck in this ridiculous mire, now would we?
Let me add a little bit to what's going on here. Florian has spun this as a "this is bad for google". Yes, that retarded florian mueller. From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html . Of course they have to use patents in a lawsuit. How else will they defend themselves? Google isn't suing anyone with these patents, but they are handing them out to folks like HTC to defend themselves (and thus android). They aren't going after folks. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement from google to lend these patents to HTC is something like exactly that.
Meanwhile, guess what? Look at the groklaw debunk carefully.
linux hasn't lost it's way. You're conflating linux and ubuntu. Ubuntu is bloated to shit, centos, fedora, other flavors of linux are not at all as stupidly bloated.
The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.
In reality, google has yet to ever, offensively go after anyone with patents. Microsoft and apple on the other hand, have even gone as far as trying to do the ITC loophole, and trying to directly restrict competition in other countries. Not the same.
The long story short of it is you can't bend society to follow a law that they themselves do not care for. You could make circumventing censorship illegal but if people want to avoid censorship they will do so regardless of the penalty.
There is no solution that will stop this copyright thing because the RIAA/MPAA/international equivalents (which seem to be completely controlled by RIAA/MPAA) are the only folks bothered by this stuff, mostly because of their legacy businesses. Meanwhile, nobody else even gives a shit. Thus, see above.
No, he's exactly correct. It's not patent-worthy if people independently invented it in multiple places at the same time. That's just a common combination of existing technology. That is actually part of the intent as far as patents go, that neither should be able to patent this. It's part of the "machine transformation" stuff, etc.
Meanwhile, it'll never be possible to prevent the first to file problem this way because things like this would slip past oversight from the patent office continually. The real problem is the ease at which patents are being obtained, not the "how do we fix after the fact?"
Note that the link, is from the Guardian, from the same guy who deliberately published the document in the first place.
Guardian is after wikileaks, bigtime. It's incredibly damning of them.
These tests are expensive? No, they aren't.
Compliance is expensive, they already ran the test on one device and said they were compliant. Remember that? Compliance probably involves ongoing tests of the scanners, not just "oh hey we tested one and it was okay!". That of course, is more expensive.
Yes the machines are useless, and no they aren't safe. Meanwhile, this covert thing sounds like they're saying that they can't be governed because they're part of a different group than the TSA. That's how I took the covert thing. So who governs the "covert"?
Actually, it's complete comedy.
How hard is it for anyone to claim anonymous for anything? Aka false flag? Pretty damn easily.
I highly doubt anonymous had *anything* to do with this at all.