So, if something's illegal, and people are still widely disobeying the law 20+ years later, then it really shouldn't be illegal.
you are either a simpleton or trolling. look at all the crimes that are persistent across not just decades but the ages: rape, molestation, slavery, and so on. so because these are widely disobeyed, they should be legal?
(and this is ignoring the reality that a lot of druggies fund their habit using predatory behavior, and have a lot of collateral damage on their friends and family - saying "they're not hurting anyone but themselves" doesn't cut it when their kids haven't eaten a square meal in months because mommy has to have her crack)
then the charge should have been child abuse not drug use.
the issue is not the patent system in general, it's that software patents were (and are) granted for some really obvious, or vague concepts and these are being used to stifle industry innovation.
do you really think one should be able to patent swiping a finger from left to right? or putting a number next to an icon? or putting icons along the bottom of a screen? patents are there to allow the person that developed the invention to re-coup the loss incurred in research and development. how much r&d do you think goes into those types of ideas? certainly more than "none", but probably in the range of days at most, and most likely, in the order of minutes.
i think some common sense is in order actually. if you are a paranoid about privacy, then you assume everyone's trying to steal your info and additionally you assume they want it for nefarious purposes.
i know google asks for phone numbers, and i think i've provided mine actually. i don't assume they are going to sell it off because well, that'd be the biggest PR blunder of the decade. common sense says they aren't going to risk their massive profits to sell off their users' phone numbers.
looking now, the only place i can find where they ask for a phone number is when you enable 2-step auth. there's a nice diagram, and even a video explaining the whole thing.
i guess your point is that it doesn't make a difference whether users are searching from an iphone or android, so android is meaningless.
android (and the chrome browser) are security. without control of the platform (the OS and the browser), google is at the whim of the owners of those things. without android, apple can cut a deal with MSFT tomorrow and lock google out of mobile search.
without android, the ball is completely in apple's court. apple can decide to make bing the default search provider in mobile safari and there's nothing google can do about it other than try to heap more cash on apple than MSFT. it would still be a very bad thing is apple changed to bing, but at least now google has a lock on the search for all of the android devices.
and of course, it's the same strategy on the desktop. without the chrome browser, google is at the whim of MSFT, apple, and mozilla to keep them as the default search provider. do they sell chrome and make money from it? of course not. but having users locked into their search provider is golden.
does it matter whether they profit directly or indirectly?
with android, google has a lock into mobile search, which is the future are even the "brilliant" mr. cuban points out. without android, google is at the whim of device manufacturers deciding to offer the default search to the highest bidder. android will keep google's gravy train protected into the mobile age.
well you'd have to wonder why they "spent a lot of time" adding keyboard support to an outdated version of android when they could have used a slightly less old version of android that had it natively.
probably has to do with the memory constraints, but lame nonetheless.
the logistical problems you raise (access to a shared repo, internal libs) are non-issues. there are many ways to resolve these issues... although it may mean new tools and processes for you.
as to whether it will save your company money / get the product out faster, that depends on so many factors that it really can't be answered. how "monkey" is the monkey work? will you get a good team off shore? how good are you at managing them? how well structured and documented is the project now?
at the very least, you and your manager can kiss any individual work you might think you are going to get done goodbye. your new job will be directing the off shore team.
oracle has an army of lawyers on staff. if they aren't suing, then they are twiddling their thumbs. this is (almost) a no-lose situation for oracle. they are rolling the dice. if they get lucky with the right jury / judge combo, they could get rich. if not, no harm done, barring some insignificant legal fees.
This is good news: Because obviously Oracle hired mentally challenged lawyers.
they aren't necessarily mentally challenged. they were told to sue and are making the best they can of an extremely weak case.
it's not unthinkable that someone that has never seen code before would look at that function and agree with oracle's lawyers that it's something special. thank god that didn't happen.
If anything, Psystar's use of the software increases the potential profitability of it, because it can be used on more devices.
hardly.
if OSX starts getting bundled with arbitrary hardware, Apple is now getting support calls for malfunctions on hardware they have no control over. if the software doesn't work right on the clones, it makes their product look bad. now they have to spend engineering work to make sure the software runs on all sorts of different hardware permutations.
i'm not saying that it's not possible to make money under those conditions, but it's lower margin, and it's just not Apple's core business as it stands today. they well hardware. the software is their to sell their hardware.
or even an envelope with my US mail address on it, doesn't associate me reliably with any particular behavior.
okay, let's do a test. i'll anonymously mail you a brick of heroin and inform the feds that it's coming to your house. your job is to not go to federal prison. good luck.
Once that is in place, the argument no longer holds and we are back to square one.
if you are using the "wasn't me downloading that" defense as a loophole to allow you to get away with illegal activities, then sure, you are back to square one.
on the other hand, if your goal is to ensure that people aren't incorrectly identified and persecuted for for crimes they did not commit, then it solves the problem perfectly.
by your logic, as long as i can find a buddy to lie for me, i can commit any crime i want. doesn't matter if anyone sees me or not, as long a my buddy corroborates by alibi.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if something's illegal, and people are still widely disobeying the law 20+ years later, then it really shouldn't be illegal.
you are either a simpleton or trolling. look at all the crimes that are persistent across not just decades but the ages: rape, molestation, slavery, and so on. so because these are widely disobeyed, they should be legal?
Horny teenagers will install it even if its called "MyCustomPlayerItWillJackYourSystem.exe if they're promised some hardcore porn.
you don't need to install anything to get hardcore porn.
(and this is ignoring the reality that a lot of druggies fund their habit using predatory behavior, and have a lot of collateral damage on their friends and family - saying "they're not hurting anyone but themselves" doesn't cut it when their kids haven't eaten a square meal in months because mommy has to have her crack)
then the charge should have been child abuse not drug use.
I'll never go back.
unless you lose your job, and aren't able to procure one of the few tech jobs available in idaho.
Since he had three kids, it wasn't really a choice.
he made his choice when he chose to have three kids.
the issue is not the patent system in general, it's that software patents were (and are) granted for some really obvious, or vague concepts and these are being used to stifle industry innovation.
do you really think one should be able to patent swiping a finger from left to right? or putting a number next to an icon? or putting icons along the bottom of a screen? patents are there to allow the person that developed the invention to re-coup the loss incurred in research and development. how much r&d do you think goes into those types of ideas? certainly more than "none", but probably in the range of days at most, and most likely, in the order of minutes.
i think some common sense is in order actually. if you are a paranoid about privacy, then you assume everyone's trying to steal your info and additionally you assume they want it for nefarious purposes.
i know google asks for phone numbers, and i think i've provided mine actually. i don't assume they are going to sell it off because well, that'd be the biggest PR blunder of the decade. common sense says they aren't going to risk their massive profits to sell off their users' phone numbers.
looking now, the only place i can find where they ask for a phone number is when you enable 2-step auth. there's a nice diagram, and even a video explaining the whole thing.
i guess your point is that it doesn't make a difference whether users are searching from an iphone or android, so android is meaningless.
android (and the chrome browser) are security. without control of the platform (the OS and the browser), google is at the whim of the owners of those things. without android, apple can cut a deal with MSFT tomorrow and lock google out of mobile search.
of course they care about android's popularity.
without android, the ball is completely in apple's court. apple can decide to make bing the default search provider in mobile safari and there's nothing google can do about it other than try to heap more cash on apple than MSFT. it would still be a very bad thing is apple changed to bing, but at least now google has a lock on the search for all of the android devices.
and of course, it's the same strategy on the desktop. without the chrome browser, google is at the whim of MSFT, apple, and mozilla to keep them as the default search provider. do they sell chrome and make money from it? of course not. but having users locked into their search provider is golden.
does it matter whether they profit directly or indirectly?
with android, google has a lock into mobile search, which is the future are even the "brilliant" mr. cuban points out. without android, google is at the whim of device manufacturers deciding to offer the default search to the highest bidder. android will keep google's gravy train protected into the mobile age.
no ... ICS supports bluetooth and USB keyboards and mice out of the box. you can see a video of a guy doing it here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK7sK0qCDqI
note the Galaxy Nexus is a 100% stock Android device.
the transformer just uses stock android which has support for USB and bluetooth keyboards.
well you'd have to wonder why they "spent a lot of time" adding keyboard support to an outdated version of android when they could have used a slightly less old version of android that had it natively.
probably has to do with the memory constraints, but lame nonetheless.
VIA spent a lot of time customizing Android to enable keyboard and mouse support which natively it does not support.
yes, it does.
six-strikes is not a law. it's an agreement between copyright holders and ISPs. they don't need to prove anything in court.
correction ...
In *all* cases, the ISPs include "best effort" ...
the logistical problems you raise (access to a shared repo, internal libs) are non-issues. there are many ways to resolve these issues ... although it may mean new tools and processes for you.
as to whether it will save your company money / get the product out faster, that depends on so many factors that it really can't be answered. how "monkey" is the monkey work? will you get a good team off shore? how good are you at managing them? how well structured and documented is the project now?
at the very least, you and your manager can kiss any individual work you might think you are going to get done goodbye. your new job will be directing the off shore team.
oracle has an army of lawyers on staff. if they aren't suing, then they are twiddling their thumbs. this is (almost) a no-lose situation for oracle. they are rolling the dice. if they get lucky with the right jury / judge combo, they could get rich. if not, no harm done, barring some insignificant legal fees.
This is good news: Because obviously Oracle hired mentally challenged lawyers.
they aren't necessarily mentally challenged. they were told to sue and are making the best they can of an extremely weak case.
it's not unthinkable that someone that has never seen code before would look at that function and agree with oracle's lawyers that it's something special. thank god that didn't happen.
If anything, Psystar's use of the software increases the potential profitability of it, because it can be used on more devices.
hardly.
if OSX starts getting bundled with arbitrary hardware, Apple is now getting support calls for malfunctions on hardware they have no control over. if the software doesn't work right on the clones, it makes their product look bad. now they have to spend engineering work to make sure the software runs on all sorts of different hardware permutations.
i'm not saying that it's not possible to make money under those conditions, but it's lower margin, and it's just not Apple's core business as it stands today. they well hardware. the software is their to sell their hardware.
or even an envelope with my US mail address on it, doesn't associate me reliably with any particular behavior.
okay, let's do a test. i'll anonymously mail you a brick of heroin and inform the feds that it's coming to your house. your job is to not go to federal prison. good luck.
Once that is in place, the argument no longer holds and we are back to square one.
if you are using the "wasn't me downloading that" defense as a loophole to allow you to get away with illegal activities, then sure, you are back to square one.
on the other hand, if your goal is to ensure that people aren't incorrectly identified and persecuted for for crimes they did not commit, then it solves the problem perfectly.
And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation?
an honest, upstanding citizen interested in helping? crazy, i know.
visual identification is pretty strong evidence.
by your logic, as long as i can find a buddy to lie for me, i can commit any crime i want. doesn't matter if anyone sees me or not, as long a my buddy corroborates by alibi.
you used facebook.