"The Linux Geek" provided a source saying you're wrong, on a Microsoft owned domain, written by a member of the Xbox engineering team, and they're the one spreading the bullshit? Your source by comparison is as credible as The Enquirer.
And I'm sure you'll be able to whip out your MBA which proves conclusively that you know what you're talking about? No? Well then. You can't go saying this clause for Nvidia is bad, I'm sure that if it was Apple who had the clause you'd be saying that it's the smartest business sense in the world. Here's a hint: you don't know jack about business in multi-billion dollar corporations. It might be bad. It might be good. Hell, it might even be a shrewd tactic to get the best price on the market when they do decide to bow out. None of us know, not even you. But hey, don't let logic get in the way of your irrational Microsoft hatred.
I swear, you take logic lessons from twitter (the slashdot user, not the shitty microblogging site).
Skype is Peer to Peer. It hardly needs to have something installed to allow eavesdropping, all it needs is the feds to put up a Skype client with sufficient bandwidth to pretty much guarantee a Supernode assignment - which is fairly trivial for a government.
I believe the problem they face is that if the client protocol is understood, any monkey can implement that client protocol in a program which dials millions of Skype users per second offering to sell them half-off auto warranties or telling them about that $15,000,000 they need to smuggle out of Zambia, effectively destroying the trust in Skype, potentially resulting in an exodus of customers. Their perspective is not entirely unjustified.
However, they don't appear to be spending much time working on a mitigation technique for when some jerk-off in the middle of nowhere (i.e. Nigeria) manages to achieve the same goal - because no legal threat will work on those fuckers.
Tried Office 2011 for Mac? It actually seems pretty good - all the apps are in/Applications, doesn't seem to install arbitrary extra crap, and no longer runs on top of an emulation layer.
Your signature tries to claim that Apple is responsible for that browser being on your phone. This is incorrect, as Apple did not write it, merely enhanced it. The bulk of the credit still belongs to the people who wrote the damn thing.
Stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something. Noone is deprived of anything in the described behaviour. Therefore, this is not stealing. And since the customers doing the clicking consented to Microsoft collecting the information, it's not privacy infringement either. In Google's "trap", they explicitly installed the Bing toolbar, agreeing to those very same terms and then voluntarily sent the information that was allegedly "stolen" to Microsoft. Therefore, no crime nor civil violation occurred.
Unless you're dense enough to be claiming that Google can own your click patterns, or even excerpts from other people's web sites, in which case- hi Mr Schmidt! How are things going at the Googleplex today?
Good point - and as a reminder to our Aussie friends, Amazon.co.uk is currently offering free shipping to Australia and NZ as well for anything above 25GBP - could be even cheaper in some instances than GoG!
Paradox are pretty much pioneers at scummy regional pricing (e.g. $1USD=$3NZD, and $1USD=$1EUR, despite the exchange rates being nothing like that) - when they even deign to sell to you at all, so they can shove it too.
I thought that we'd all finally managed to drill it into you people...
It's not stealing if you have permission (and people did give their permission, when they agreed to the terms of the toolbar). It wasn't Google's data to claim ownership of, and besides - to have stolen it, they'd have to have deprived someone of something, which did not occur. Therefore, no theft occurred, and as the users doing the clicking consented to their click data being collected, no other infringement occurred either.
Ah, Honeycomb. On my Froyo phone, you tap and hold, and a menu opens with only one option in it (Select), then you choose that option, then you can - er, I don't know, I've given up long before this point in all my time with it.
They're taking exactly ZERO hit. Gamestop never gave the money given to them by the customers to the publisher, that's not how it works. Customer pays Gamestop. Gamestop counts it as a confirmed purchase, and alters their orders as appropriate. Supplier delivers. Gamestop pays invoice for supply (30 days later, generally).
As I said, Gamestop's the one making on this if anything. They've been collecting interest on the pre-order deposits for up to ten years. They've just found a way to get good PR off something that costs them less than nothing.
I'm in New Zealand, a tiny couple of islands just north of Antarctica, and we can transfer money like that (overnight, no cost - if to an account within the same bank, it's instant).
Actually, the whole point of trade secrets is that they don't run out, and they don't require publishing. However, unlike patents the catch is that if someone else independently creates it, they do not infringe upon it and you have no basis to file suit. Trade secrets are protected in the same way as patents, other than that one specific case.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Linux Geek" provided a source saying you're wrong, on a Microsoft owned domain, written by a member of the Xbox engineering team, and they're the one spreading the bullshit? Your source by comparison is as credible as The Enquirer.
Or he's a representative of the Chinese government, who might actually have that much.
And I'm sure you'll be able to whip out your MBA which proves conclusively that you know what you're talking about? No? Well then. You can't go saying this clause for Nvidia is bad, I'm sure that if it was Apple who had the clause you'd be saying that it's the smartest business sense in the world. Here's a hint: you don't know jack about business in multi-billion dollar corporations. It might be bad. It might be good. Hell, it might even be a shrewd tactic to get the best price on the market when they do decide to bow out. None of us know, not even you. But hey, don't let logic get in the way of your irrational Microsoft hatred.
I swear, you take logic lessons from twitter (the slashdot user, not the shitty microblogging site).
Skype is Peer to Peer. It hardly needs to have something installed to allow eavesdropping, all it needs is the feds to put up a Skype client with sufficient bandwidth to pretty much guarantee a Supernode assignment - which is fairly trivial for a government.
I believe the problem they face is that if the client protocol is understood, any monkey can implement that client protocol in a program which dials millions of Skype users per second offering to sell them half-off auto warranties or telling them about that $15,000,000 they need to smuggle out of Zambia, effectively destroying the trust in Skype, potentially resulting in an exodus of customers. Their perspective is not entirely unjustified.
However, they don't appear to be spending much time working on a mitigation technique for when some jerk-off in the middle of nowhere (i.e. Nigeria) manages to achieve the same goal - because no legal threat will work on those fuckers.
From what I recall, one library actually did that. They got smacked down, if I recall correctly.
Tried Office 2011 for Mac? It actually seems pretty good - all the apps are in /Applications, doesn't seem to install arbitrary extra crap, and no longer runs on top of an emulation layer.
Considering their developers are being threatened too, I find that highly unlikely.
Your signature tries to claim that Apple is responsible for that browser being on your phone. This is incorrect, as Apple did not write it, merely enhanced it. The bulk of the credit still belongs to the people who wrote the damn thing.
Stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something. Noone is deprived of anything in the described behaviour. Therefore, this is not stealing. And since the customers doing the clicking consented to Microsoft collecting the information, it's not privacy infringement either. In Google's "trap", they explicitly installed the Bing toolbar, agreeing to those very same terms and then voluntarily sent the information that was allegedly "stolen" to Microsoft. Therefore, no crime nor civil violation occurred.
Unless you're dense enough to be claiming that Google can own your click patterns, or even excerpts from other people's web sites, in which case- hi Mr Schmidt! How are things going at the Googleplex today?
Good point - and as a reminder to our Aussie friends, Amazon.co.uk is currently offering free shipping to Australia and NZ as well for anything above 25GBP - could be even cheaper in some instances than GoG!
Paradox are pretty much pioneers at scummy regional pricing (e.g. $1USD=$3NZD, and $1USD=$1EUR, despite the exchange rates being nothing like that) - when they even deign to sell to you at all, so they can shove it too.
You know your signature is flawed right? WebKit is a fork of KHTML. So your statement should read...
WebKit. You can thank KDE for producing KHTML under a license that forced Apple to open their improvements when using the browser on your phone.
I thought that we'd all finally managed to drill it into you people...
It's not stealing if you have permission (and people did give their permission, when they agreed to the terms of the toolbar). It wasn't Google's data to claim ownership of, and besides - to have stolen it, they'd have to have deprived someone of something, which did not occur. Therefore, no theft occurred, and as the users doing the clicking consented to their click data being collected, no other infringement occurred either.
That also means it could be running NT 4 though. Wouldn't that be a lark?
Ah, Honeycomb. On my Froyo phone, you tap and hold, and a menu opens with only one option in it (Select), then you choose that option, then you can - er, I don't know, I've given up long before this point in all my time with it.
No, you're right - I wasn't very specific was I? Though I suspect it's a bit more painful when it's not docked?
Tablet or phone? It's bloody awkward on my IDEOS X5 (Swype IME - possible maybe that it's easier with the stock Froyo keyboard?)
They're taking exactly ZERO hit. Gamestop never gave the money given to them by the customers to the publisher, that's not how it works. Customer pays Gamestop. Gamestop counts it as a confirmed purchase, and alters their orders as appropriate. Supplier delivers. Gamestop pays invoice for supply (30 days later, generally).
As I said, Gamestop's the one making on this if anything. They've been collecting interest on the pre-order deposits for up to ten years. They've just found a way to get good PR off something that costs them less than nothing.
What are you talking about? The retail store always keeps the deposits - why would they be eating anything?
If anything, the people who pre-ordered should have the ten years interest that Gamestop's been earning on their deposit credited to the purchase!
I'm in New Zealand, a tiny couple of islands just north of Antarctica, and we can transfer money like that (overnight, no cost - if to an account within the same bank, it's instant).
The nice people at XDA, who cook the ROMs being advocated, and obviously know far more than you or I on this topic, say so.
However, this is not Wikipedia, and you're more than capable of using Google to find the multitudes of citations.
On non-locked-bootloader models, you have that option with Android too.
Under Froyo (2.2), Advanced Task Killer will actually drain your battery even faster and you should not run it or apps like it.
Actually, the whole point of trade secrets is that they don't run out, and they don't require publishing. However, unlike patents the catch is that if someone else independently creates it, they do not infringe upon it and you have no basis to file suit. Trade secrets are protected in the same way as patents, other than that one specific case.