Whatever, freetard. You're the one defending a defunct enterprise.
See how easily you are manipulated? First I made you start using profanity. Then I made you apply your own personal bogeyman to myself, when I haven't said one single statement in support of 'freetards.' Classic schizoid reaction to having your own logic challenged. Cognitive dissonance kicks in and anyone who doesn't fit in your comfort zone is a member of the same group of enemies. There there, little broken head, it will be OK, you'll get well one day... well, probably not.
It would be like dialing a 10-XXX prefix and then a number. In this way, Google Voice is *exactly* like a 10-XXX long distance provider.
Except that google's outgoing calls are carried by an actual long distance provider, google does not have any 'peering' equivalents with local telcos, if they did then they would be subject to the same tarifs that actual long distance carriers are.
See how that blind spot in your defective head works? Isn't it grand that you think you proved something - when all you did was express your own personal mental defect once again.
What's important is that Sun drank the koolaid that morons like you dish out and that's a massive enterprise gone. They got taken for everything they're worth, and no shit eating freetard argument is going to change that.
Sun died because their largest customers went away - most died in the dotcombomb, many of the remaining went to linux companies like redhat and novel. That you think they "got taken for everything they're worth" by 'freetards' is just another expression of your mental defect.
That's the problem. AT&T has to pay the fees because they are a phone company and a phone company *has* to connect those calls. Google is setting itself up as a phone company, but is excluding itself from the rules that phone companies have to play by.
No, Google is not "setting itself up as a phone company" any more than having answering machine makers are phone companies either. Google provides a set of services that is layered on top of POTS, without POTS, google voice would be just as useful as an answering machine without a phone line.
You don't really understand how google voice works do you?
Here's a sarter -- there is nothing about google voice that will ever enable free phone calls on a cellphone unless the cellphone service independently allows free phone calls.
Right. So, Sun did not build their technology platform and market position around Java?
That is precisely what they did. What part of halo product do you fail to understand? It did not require monetizing java itself. Sure they tried some piddly licensing revenue stuff early on with Microsoft, it didn't work out too well and they dropped it long ago. Java sold services and hardware around java, that's where java made them money and open-sourcing java did not hurt that revenue one bit.
Again, if you really disagree, put up or shut the fuck up, child.
I am not arguing with you anymore. You're dense as shit.
Oh really? Here's a clue, when you go around using terms like "freetard" its like waving a big fucking flag that says "poster is mentally defective" - some people just mod you troll. Some people call you out and then stick their fingers right in the middle of your obvious mental defect and mush it around some more knowing that your self-identified blind-spot will cause you to spin your wheels and grind your gears jousting at windmills. The fact that you even tried to defend an obviously indefensible position by ignoring your own claim from the get go just made it that much funnier. Don't like it? Then don't wave the banner that says you love it.
Lol. Not. It was a halo product all along. If I'm wrong, let's see some numbers. Put up or shut up.
Listen, dumbass - they're not marketing the product as GNU Linux, they're not pushing the GPL first, they're not presenting that as the main selling point.
Keep on moving those goalposts shitfucker. Redhat buys into all of that GNU stuff, they buy into it 10x more than Sun ever did. And now Redhat is "hiding" things on their site out in the open in their "about us" page and their marketing magazines and employee blogs. Rrrright.
Sun spent all the time and money developing, designing, and maintaining it while Red Hat is merely able to draw profit from selling the platform.
Right. Redhat doesn't spend any significant money on any free software at all. Forest for the trees now that you are fixated on Java. Keep on pitching those slowballs.
Not only are you failing to grasp the most basic foundation of what I am saying,
No, I get what you are saying. Your problem is, it has zilch to do with the premise you promoted and I disputed - that Sun markets to 'freetards' and Redhat doesn't. You make up bullshit about the original point and you muddy the waters with random unsupported assertions and blatant opinion on tertiary points that you desperately want to focus on in order to avoid admitting defeat on your original claim.
Admit it, you've utterly failed to answer this:
Red Hat markets to enterprises, not freetards. Freetards do not purchase RHEL.
Why not? There wasn't any revenue being generated from java licensing anyway.
Sun open sourced things that rendered their company pointless. Why drop money on Open Office? Even Red Hat had the sense not to initially open source RHN.
Wait, wait, wait. So now Redhat is catering to the 'freetards' because they changed their mind about RHN? You can't have it both ways. EVERYTHING Redhat makes or buys is FREE and that's not catering to 'freetards' but when Sun does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and it is catering to freetards. Yeah, that's really complex dude.
What are these links? What is your point? Red Hat has all sorts of open/free bullshit hidden deep in their site, but their marketing material says Red Hat before it says "open" or GPL or anything useless like that. It's not a selling point.
Oh, so now you move the goal posts, if the marketing material says the name of the company before it says anything about being free, then it doesn't qualify as marketing to 'freetards.' Yeah, that's so obviously what you really meant when you said, "try to find this on redhat's website"
Funny thing in this conversation, you toss slowballs, I hit them outta the park and you just keep making up brand new ones and pretending you haven't given up more than enough homeruns to have lost the game three posts ago.
In the US we have this really fucked up way of dealing with derivative works - the more complicated the work, the less of it needs to be incorporated into another work before it is considered an infringement. Yes, that's right the more information in the original the smaller the percentage of that information is required to disqualify any fair use defense.
So you can quote a couple of lines of a short poem in a book or even have a character speak them in a movie and that's generally OK. But sample just 3 notes of another song and you are in deep doodoo. Similarly, any background artwork in a movie - simply just pictures hanging on the wall in the background of a scene and thus mostly out of focus and of very low effective resolution require clearance and licensing fees, frequently absurdly high fees and of course just about any clip of video used in another movie or show - even on a television in the background of a scene - is going to require licensing too.
Most hollywood studies have an entire division devoted just handling these clearances (look in the credits for most movies and you'll see at least one person credited as head of the clearances group). This practice has the effect of keeping the "little guys" out of the motion picture business similar to the way patent pools are used to squash tech start-ups - all the studios have large "pools" of our culture under their copyright and the independent artist can't afford to license any of it for his work while the other studios can make each other sweetheart deals that guarantee cheap and easy access to each studio's "pool" of culture.
So no, mash-ups, since they generally are 100% composed of samples of other songs, aren't anywhere near being gray in the USA.
Red Hat is NOT MARKETING TO OPEN SOURCE ENTHUSIASTS.
And neither was Sun. Duh.
Its funny how you keep trying to pull netgear back in to support applying you 'freetard' theory to Sun. I never said one thing about netgear meanwhile you are the one who started the whole discussion about Sun. I guess you must have realized how silly that was since you keep trying to drop the point under debate and make it about something else. You want to fight about netgear? Get the fuck back up the thread and reply to the people talking about netgear.
Oh, all it seems to talk about is how "free" the software makes you. Try to find this on Red Hat's website.
This is the criminal case. Anywhere else where there is a P2P related case, they are usually civil, like a record label suing for damages. Only in Japan would the cops take you away in cuffs based on a tip from Sony Records.
Bingo! That's why saying something like, "Their marketing is just not freetard centric like anything GNU or the FSF puts their name on" is absolutely moronic.
I'll have to remember that quote next time someone complains they couldn't get the job because they're black?
Yes you will. You will also have to remember the rest of the context of that statement too. Although it seems like you probably won't since you couldn't even do it when the context was staring you in the face.
But, if it makes you feel better to make strawmen by selective quoting, then by all means go ahead, its a free country.
All your ranting says to me is that you've never been a significant commercial customer of Sun and are totally unfamiliar with the support services they provide. RHN? All commercial unix vendors have an equivalent.
Red Hat is just a completely inapplicable example of this. Their marketing is just not freetard centric like anything GNU or the FSF puts their name on.
Now you've got me LOLing on the floor - all RedHat software products, ALL of them, are GNU licensed. Seems to me that you know even less about Redhat than you do about Sun.
Sun blew their load and open sourced everything, even valuable things. They left almost no value in their platform. Red Hat made sure there was no supported free version of RHEL- CentOS being outside of their organization.
And how is that significantly different from Sun? The only way to get support on Solaris to purchase a support contract. And no "freetard" is going to be running other products like Oracle with a support contract on a box without an OS support contract either.
I believe their documentation was openly available, also. Red Hat makes sure to keep their documentation only usable by subscribers.
Red Hat simply has a better monetized business model. Sun died the death of a company that "truly believed" in open source while Red Hat kept it real.
That's funny. The real problem with sun is that they did not 'believe' - upper management's philosophy did not trickle down fast enough to the trenches, Sun was schizo instead of fully committed and thus had a lot of difficulty convincing customers that they were honest about their intentions. Red hat "keeps it real" by being fully open - the only thing they keep locked up is their trademarks.
You probably just mentioned the ones that you particularly dislike or feel are discriminated against/harassed (I could show you a lot of Christians/capitalists/conservatives/heterosexuals/moralists that are, though....), but it's an interesting bias?:)
Boohoo, poor little privileged majority members, life is so hard for them.
Buck up you whiner - discrimination is a fact of life, it will never go away because people are inherently tribal. That it gets spread around a little more equally is the best realistic outcome.
Hyundai is Hynix and they are the second largest DRAM manufacturer by marketshare (roughly 20% second to Samsung's 30%).
Its no surprise that you've only seen Hynix brand fail in Dells, chances are they are in 90%+ of Dell (and HP and Apple) boxes because they primarily buy from Hynix in the first place. Its selection bias.
The default policy is that you may not install programs on a public computer. You need specific permission to install software on a computer you don't own.
That's ridiculous. There is no such "default policy" - and common usage is to the contrary.
I suppose if you don't have a sign on your front door saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted", I can infer that I have implicit permission to enter your home at any time.
Don't be silly. There is no mention of unauthorized access - clearly it was a machine intended for common use.
He received no authorization to install it, and therefore it was "unauthorized". The description "installed an unauthorized program" sounds right on to me.
Unless there was a policy forbidding the installation and use of any and all software by users at that site, then it sounds like it was authorized to me.
Having been around such sites before, I think that it is more than likely that there was no such policy, or if there was, it wasn't enforced with any sort of regularity or uniformity thus rendering it moot.
I imagine that outsourcing to 3rd-world countries increases the risk because the payoff is much higher relative to the local currency (more purchasing power) and it's much more difficult to prosecute across the ocean.
Apparently you do imagine that quite strongly since the fine article and even the fine summary here on slashdot said:
The article dispels one assumption that might commonly be made about such insider fraud: "Interestingly, it's not the stereotypical offshore or outsourced employee who's most risky to their organizations..."
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever, freetard. You're the one defending a defunct enterprise.
See how easily you are manipulated?
First I made you start using profanity.
Then I made you apply your own personal bogeyman to myself, when I haven't said one single statement in support of 'freetards.'
Classic schizoid reaction to having your own logic challenged.
Cognitive dissonance kicks in and anyone who doesn't fit in your comfort zone is a member of the same group of enemies.
There there, little broken head, it will be OK, you'll get well one day... well, probably not.
It would be like dialing a 10-XXX prefix and then a number. In this way, Google Voice is *exactly* like a 10-XXX long distance provider.
Except that google's outgoing calls are carried by an actual long distance provider, google does not have any 'peering' equivalents with local telcos, if they did then they would be subject to the same tarifs that actual long distance carriers are.
You're right. Sun's doing great now.
See how that blind spot in your defective head works? Isn't it grand that you think you proved something - when all you did was express your own personal mental defect once again.
What's important is that Sun drank the koolaid that morons like you dish out and that's a massive enterprise gone. They got taken for everything they're worth, and no shit eating freetard argument is going to change that.
Sun died because their largest customers went away - most died in the dotcombomb, many of the remaining went to linux companies like redhat and novel. That you think they "got taken for everything they're worth" by 'freetards' is just another expression of your mental defect.
That's the problem. AT&T has to pay the fees because they are a phone company and a phone company *has* to connect those calls. Google is setting itself up as a phone company, but is excluding itself from the rules that phone companies have to play by.
No, Google is not "setting itself up as a phone company" any more than having answering machine makers are phone companies either.
Google provides a set of services that is layered on top of POTS, without POTS, google voice would be just as useful as an answering machine without a phone line.
You don't really understand how google voice works do you?
Here's a sarter -- there is nothing about google voice that will ever enable free phone calls on a cellphone unless the cellphone service independently allows free phone calls.
Right. So, Sun did not build their technology platform and market position around Java?
That is precisely what they did.
What part of halo product do you fail to understand? It did not require monetizing java itself. Sure they tried some piddly licensing revenue stuff early on with Microsoft, it didn't work out too well and they dropped it long ago. Java sold services and hardware around java, that's where java made them money and open-sourcing java did not hurt that revenue one bit.
Again, if you really disagree, put up or shut the fuck up, child.
I am not arguing with you anymore. You're dense as shit.
Oh really? Here's a clue, when you go around using terms like "freetard" its like waving a big fucking flag that says "poster is mentally defective" - some people just mod you troll. Some people call you out and then stick their fingers right in the middle of your obvious mental defect and mush it around some more knowing that your self-identified blind-spot will cause you to spin your wheels and grind your gears jousting at windmills. The fact that you even tried to defend an obviously indefensible position by ignoring your own claim from the get go just made it that much funnier. Don't like it? Then don't wave the banner that says you love it.
Java was Sun's biggest most profitable venture.
Lol. Not. It was a halo product all along. If I'm wrong, let's see some numbers. Put up or shut up.
Listen, dumbass - they're not marketing the product as GNU Linux, they're not pushing the GPL first, they're not presenting that as the main selling point.
Keep on moving those goalposts shitfucker. Redhat buys into all of that GNU stuff, they buy into it 10x more than Sun ever did. And now Redhat is "hiding" things on their site out in the open in their "about us" page and their marketing magazines and employee blogs. Rrrright.
Sun spent all the time and money developing, designing, and maintaining it while Red Hat is merely able to draw profit from selling the platform.
Right. Redhat doesn't spend any significant money on any free software at all. Forest for the trees now that you are fixated on Java. Keep on pitching those slowballs.
Not only are you failing to grasp the most basic foundation of what I am saying,
No, I get what you are saying. Your problem is, it has zilch to do with the premise you promoted and I disputed - that Sun markets to 'freetards' and Redhat doesn't. You make up bullshit about the original point and you muddy the waters with random unsupported assertions and blatant opinion on tertiary points that you desperately want to focus on in order to avoid admitting defeat on your original claim.
Admit it, you've utterly failed to answer this:
Red Hat markets to enterprises, not freetards. Freetards do not purchase RHEL.
And how is that different from Sun?
Then why open source Java?
Why not? There wasn't any revenue being generated from java licensing anyway.
Sun open sourced things that rendered their company pointless. Why drop money on Open Office? Even Red Hat had the sense not to initially open source RHN.
Wait, wait, wait. So now Redhat is catering to the 'freetards' because they changed their mind about RHN? You can't have it both ways. EVERYTHING Redhat makes or buys is FREE and that's not catering to 'freetards' but when Sun does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and it is catering to freetards. Yeah, that's really complex dude.
What are these links? What is your point? Red Hat has all sorts of open/free bullshit hidden deep in their site, but their marketing material says Red Hat before it says "open" or GPL or anything useless like that. It's not a selling point.
Oh, so now you move the goal posts, if the marketing material says the name of the company before it says anything about being free, then it doesn't qualify as marketing to 'freetards.' Yeah, that's so obviously what you really meant when you said, "try to find this on redhat's website"
Funny thing in this conversation, you toss slowballs, I hit them outta the park and you just keep making up brand new ones and pretending you haven't given up more than enough homeruns to have lost the game three posts ago.
Isn't this the visual equivalent of a mashup?
Aren't mashups already in a copyright gray area?
In the US we have this really fucked up way of dealing with derivative works - the more complicated the work, the less of it needs to be incorporated into another work before it is considered an infringement. Yes, that's right the more information in the original the smaller the percentage of that information is required to disqualify any fair use defense.
So you can quote a couple of lines of a short poem in a book or even have a character speak them in a movie and that's generally OK. But sample just 3 notes of another song and you are in deep doodoo. Similarly, any background artwork in a movie - simply just pictures hanging on the wall in the background of a scene and thus mostly out of focus and of very low effective resolution require clearance and licensing fees, frequently absurdly high fees and of course just about any clip of video used in another movie or show - even on a television in the background of a scene - is going to require licensing too.
Most hollywood studies have an entire division devoted just handling these clearances (look in the credits for most movies and you'll see at least one person credited as head of the clearances group). This practice has the effect of keeping the "little guys" out of the motion picture business similar to the way patent pools are used to squash tech start-ups - all the studios have large "pools" of our culture under their copyright and the independent artist can't afford to license any of it for his work while the other studios can make each other sweetheart deals that guarantee cheap and easy access to each studio's "pool" of culture.
So no, mash-ups, since they generally are 100% composed of samples of other songs, aren't anywhere near being gray in the USA.
Red Hat is NOT MARKETING TO OPEN SOURCE ENTHUSIASTS.
And neither was Sun. Duh.
Its funny how you keep trying to pull netgear back in to support applying you 'freetard' theory to Sun. I never said one thing about netgear meanwhile you are the one who started the whole discussion about Sun. I guess you must have realized how silly that was since you keep trying to drop the point under debate and make it about something else. You want to fight about netgear? Get the fuck back up the thread and reply to the people talking about netgear.
Oh, all it seems to talk about is how "free" the software makes you. Try to find this on Red Hat's website.
Oh hell, I'll humor you anyway:
http://sources.redhat.com/mission.html "Red Hat believes that software infrastructure should be free"
http://truthhappens.redhat.com/author/tcolin/ "A Better Commons Builds a Better Society"
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/014dec05/features/fedora/ "The community conversation led us to the four Fedora ideals [Fedora is open, free, innovative, and forward-looking]"
There are thousands more where those came from, I just picked a couple from the top of the google search results. So, in summary, FOUND.
This is the criminal case. Anywhere else where there is a P2P related case, they are usually civil, like a record label suing for damages. Only in Japan would the cops take you away in cuffs based on a tip from Sony Records.
It is also interesting to note that, in Japan, the criminal conviction rate is 99.8%.
If discrimination itself is bad, then I shouldn't like any of it,
Never said you should LIKE any of it.
The GPL is not a brand, it's just a license.
Bingo! That's why saying something like, "Their marketing is just not freetard centric like anything GNU or the FSF puts their name on" is absolutely moronic.
I'll have to remember that quote next time someone complains they couldn't get the job because they're black?
Yes you will. You will also have to remember the rest of the context of that statement too. Although it seems like you probably won't since you couldn't even do it when the context was staring you in the face.
But, if it makes you feel better to make strawmen by selective quoting, then by all means go ahead, its a free country.
All your ranting says to me is that you've never been a significant commercial customer of Sun and are totally unfamiliar with the support services they provide. RHN? All commercial unix vendors have an equivalent.
Red Hat is just a completely inapplicable example of this. Their marketing is just not freetard centric like anything GNU or the FSF puts their name on.
Now you've got me LOLing on the floor - all RedHat software products, ALL of them, are GNU licensed. Seems to me that you know even less about Redhat than you do about Sun.
Sun blew their load and open sourced everything, even valuable things. They left almost no value in their platform. Red Hat made sure there was no supported free version of RHEL- CentOS being outside of their organization.
And how is that significantly different from Sun? The only way to get support on Solaris to purchase a support contract. And no "freetard" is going to be running other products like Oracle with a support contract on a box without an OS support contract either.
I believe their documentation was openly available, also. Red Hat makes sure to keep their documentation only usable by subscribers.
Nope. http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/
Red Hat simply has a better monetized business model. Sun died the death of a company that "truly believed" in open source while Red Hat kept it real.
That's funny. The real problem with sun is that they did not 'believe' - upper management's philosophy did not trickle down fast enough to the trenches, Sun was schizo instead of fully committed and thus had a lot of difficulty convincing customers that they were honest about their intentions. Red hat "keeps it real" by being fully open - the only thing they keep locked up is their trademarks.
You probably just mentioned the ones that you particularly dislike or feel are discriminated against/harassed (I could show you a lot of Christians/capitalists/conservatives/heterosexuals/moralists that are, though....), but it's an interesting bias? :)
Boohoo, poor little privileged majority members, life is so hard for them.
Buck up you whiner - discrimination is a fact of life, it will never go away because people are inherently tribal.
That it gets spread around a little more equally is the best realistic outcome.
Red Hat markets to enterprises, not freetards. Freetards do not purchase RHEL.
And how is that different from Sun?
Hint: repeatedly assfucking your customers does NOT a good reputation make.
Unless you are a gay gigolo or your customers have a strap-on fetish.
Then if you have any money left over, nothing says "I have arrived" like a porcelain fountain.
A bidet on your desktop?
Hyundai is Hynix and they are the second largest DRAM manufacturer by marketshare (roughly 20% second to Samsung's 30%).
Its no surprise that you've only seen Hynix brand fail in Dells, chances are they are in 90%+ of Dell (and HP and Apple) boxes because they primarily buy from Hynix in the first place. Its selection bias.
The default policy is that you may not install programs on a public computer.
You need specific permission to install software on a computer you don't own.
That's ridiculous. There is no such "default policy" - and common usage is to the contrary.
I suppose if you don't have a sign on your front door saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted", I can infer that I have implicit permission to enter your home at any time.
Don't be silly. There is no mention of unauthorized access - clearly it was a machine intended for common use.
He received no authorization to install it, and therefore it was "unauthorized". The description "installed an unauthorized program" sounds right on to me.
Unless there was a policy forbidding the installation and use of any and all software by users at that site, then it sounds like it was authorized to me.
Having been around such sites before, I think that it is more than likely that there was no such policy, or if there was, it wasn't enforced with any sort of regularity or uniformity thus rendering it moot.
I imagine that outsourcing to 3rd-world countries increases the risk because the payoff is much higher relative to the local currency (more purchasing power) and it's much more difficult to prosecute across the ocean.
Apparently you do imagine that quite strongly since the fine article and even the fine summary here on slashdot said:
The article dispels one assumption that might commonly be made about such insider fraud: "Interestingly, it's not the stereotypical offshore or outsourced employee who's most risky to their organizations..."