Personally I'd be interested to see whether Microsoft bails them out again IF things go south when Jobs finally leaves. If I'm not mistaken, Apple was at one point the one thing preventing Microsoft from being declared a total monopoly.
True, but I gotta say, do they really drop everything for us and put all their effort into fixing stuff for us? And to be honest, are you sure "have you tried rebuilding the switch ports and changing the VLAN" (fictional) isn't their equivalent of "have you tried turniong it off and on again?"
You might note it's a facetious plural;) Which is to say doesn't exist. I'll be sure to equate it to the island in Tasmania, Australia, whenever I see it on Slashdot now. Hah!
Just a note that Multiplicity is unfortunately Windows only. Much as I'd like one, I can't afford to drop a Mac in my pool of machines so that's never been a problem for me - but if you've actually got one you might be put off by the lack of OS X support.
This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop. Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That.... But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something.
So, essentially, this patent is... "Something that's already happened for hundreds of years... on the internet"
Section 92A is the one which everyone is getting all up in arms about, and straight from the actual law, section 92A is GONE. No replacement, the whole thing about ISP disconnection DOES NOT EXIST.
As a Kiwi I'm very embarrased by this legislation. I did write a submission against the more egregious bits but was ignored. If it helps any, the guilt by accusation bit was added at the last minute before the final vote and some NZ Internet people have pointed out the problems to Judith Tizard, the then minister responsible and she was rather chastened.
The submissions succeeded. Section 92A (what all this hoo-hah is about does not exist in the current in-force law.
What bill? I just searched for it, and no bill exists (except a modification to the commissioning/work for hire section, and a provision requiring royalty payments for resale of artworks - what the fuck is with that?). The Copyright Act itself has already been amended with the New Technologies Amendment Act, except that Section 92A has mysteriously disappeared. This whole story is a non-story.
So, why not just send notices for every government IP, music company and others accusing them of infringement. By law they would lose access immediately.
No, they wouldn't. BECAUSE SECTION 92A DOESN'T EXIST.
Tip of the day: this article is based off absolutely ancient information. The "cut off" clause you're all up in arms about is section 92A, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
iTunes is offering me the ability to upgrade my purchased music here in the UK, but is unable to do so at the moment (times out - I think everyone and his dog is hitting the store server right now), so it is international.
Still nothing in the pacific region. Everything is still locked up tight.
Now if only Amazon would remember that there is a "rest of the fucking planet". I've had a go at them four times this week alone for trying to sell me Amazon Prime (only benefit is free shipping to USA), trying to sell me an Amazon Visa (USA bank wont issue to me), trying to extend me an Amazon Credit Line (USA bank wont issue to me) and sending me an email about a sale on Amazon MP3 (wont sell to anyone outside USA).
Actually, the cost should have dropped, IMO. Short reason: there's no physical thing to produce, package, ship, display, etc. You make one set of MP3s, and you can sell it 100,000 times for the same production cost. Bits have near-infinite reproducibility. CDs are tied to things like the plastics commodity market, manufacturing costs, paper and fuel prices, etc. The cost to produce them over time varies, and trends upwards. MP3s just get cheaper and cheaper the more copies you sell since you're amortizing them into an increasingly infinitesimal state each time you make a sale.
I think Level3, GlobalCrossing, Internode, Peer Networks and Savvis would like a word with you, about this expense called "bandwidth". Apparently, it isn't free!
You can claim the price should have dropped when you actually see Apple's bandwidth bill (Akamai isn't cheap), royalty payments, and revenue sheets. I imagine they aren't making near as much as you think.
That said, this new tiered pricing is bullshit. The old $1.79 (I'm in NZ, not USA) was pretty ridiculous since there was a store that used to sell for $1.50, but now with the $1.99 on iTunes, every other music store will just ramp up their prices like when iTunes showed up in the first place.
I tried using Synergy once, it drove me insane with it's nice collection of bugs and pitfalls. I especially hated how if you remote desktop connected to a Synergy managed machine, and then moved the mouse too close to the edge of the screen, you couldn't use the machine until you went back to the physical console. I don't have this problem with Multiplicity, but then again it isn't free. Get what you pay for I guess.
They're actually introducing variable pricing. As such, new tracks will all be $1.29 (what, you actually believe that scum like Sony will ever use that $0.69 bracket?). To be honest, it's the music publishers who've won here, they've managed to strongarm Apple into giving up fixed prices in exchange for what they gave Amazon for free (everything DRM-free)
Or (radical, I know) maybe have they finally managed to utilise some of those core enhancements to actually make Vista faster, which aren't available in the XP source tree?
By your logic, every single Ubuntu upgrade should be slower than the last, or they're being benchmarked wrong. This isn't the case, sometimes performance CAN be enhanced.
Slashdot Mirror
...burn down the building?
Personally I'd be interested to see whether Microsoft bails them out again IF things go south when Jobs finally leaves. If I'm not mistaken, Apple was at one point the one thing preventing Microsoft from being declared a total monopoly.
True, but I gotta say, do they really drop everything for us and put all their effort into fixing stuff for us? And to be honest, are you sure "have you tried rebuilding the switch ports and changing the VLAN" (fictional) isn't their equivalent of "have you tried turniong it off and on again?"
You might note it's a facetious plural ;) Which is to say doesn't exist. I'll be sure to equate it to the island in Tasmania, Australia, whenever I see it on Slashdot now. Hah!
Just a note that Multiplicity is unfortunately Windows only. Much as I'd like one, I can't afford to drop a Mac in my pool of machines so that's never been a problem for me - but if you've actually got one you might be put off by the lack of OS X support.
This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop.
Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That....
But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something.
So, essentially, this patent is... "Something that's already happened for hundreds of years... on the internet"
Section 92A is the one which everyone is getting all up in arms about, and straight from the actual law, section 92A is GONE. No replacement, the whole thing about ISP disconnection DOES NOT EXIST.
Making this article a complete fabrication.
For bonus points, Section 92A which you quoted is not even present at all in the Copyright Act.
Actually, there's a penalty.
As a Kiwi I'm very embarrased by this legislation. I did write a submission against the more egregious bits but was ignored. If it helps any, the guilt by accusation bit was added at the last minute before the final vote and some NZ Internet people have pointed out the problems to Judith Tizard, the then minister responsible and she was rather chastened.
The submissions succeeded. Section 92A (what all this hoo-hah is about does not exist in the current in-force law.
Yeah, but here's a copy paste of the sections in force of the Copyright Act, with amendments included:
Notice how 92A is gone?
Actually, section 92A required a disconnection policy. Section 92A disappeared from the law when it was passed (as per the ACTUAL LAW: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html?search=ts_act_Copyright_resel&sr=1)
What bill? I just searched for it, and no bill exists (except a modification to the commissioning/work for hire section, and a provision requiring royalty payments for resale of artworks - what the fuck is with that?). The Copyright Act itself has already been amended with the New Technologies Amendment Act, except that Section 92A has mysteriously disappeared. This whole story is a non-story.
So, why not just send notices for every government IP, music company and others accusing them of infringement. By law they would lose access immediately.
No, they wouldn't. BECAUSE SECTION 92A DOESN'T EXIST.
Slashdot, as usual, is 4 months behind.
Actually, it no longer even requires that. Section 92A never passed, and that section is the one requiring this.
Tip of the day: this article is based off absolutely ancient information. The "cut off" clause you're all up in arms about is section 92A, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
iTunes is offering me the ability to upgrade my purchased music here in the UK, but is unable to do so at the moment (times out - I think everyone and his dog is hitting the store server right now), so it is international.
Still nothing in the pacific region. Everything is still locked up tight.
This was consumer level stuff. I expect this kind of treatment when I am calling people like Cisco for expensive enterprise stuff.
You do? Have you ever actually dealt with Cisco?
And now you're trying to justify wanting to give them more money. Brilliant.
Now if only Amazon would remember that there is a "rest of the fucking planet". I've had a go at them four times this week alone for trying to sell me Amazon Prime (only benefit is free shipping to USA), trying to sell me an Amazon Visa (USA bank wont issue to me), trying to extend me an Amazon Credit Line (USA bank wont issue to me) and sending me an email about a sale on Amazon MP3 (wont sell to anyone outside USA).
Actually, the cost should have dropped, IMO. Short reason: there's no physical thing to produce, package, ship, display, etc. You make one set of MP3s, and you can sell it 100,000 times for the same production cost. Bits have near-infinite reproducibility. CDs are tied to things like the plastics commodity market, manufacturing costs, paper and fuel prices, etc. The cost to produce them over time varies, and trends upwards. MP3s just get cheaper and cheaper the more copies you sell since you're amortizing them into an increasingly infinitesimal state each time you make a sale.
I think Level3, GlobalCrossing, Internode, Peer Networks and Savvis would like a word with you, about this expense called "bandwidth". Apparently, it isn't free!
You can claim the price should have dropped when you actually see Apple's bandwidth bill (Akamai isn't cheap), royalty payments, and revenue sheets. I imagine they aren't making near as much as you think.
That said, this new tiered pricing is bullshit. The old $1.79 (I'm in NZ, not USA) was pretty ridiculous since there was a store that used to sell for $1.50, but now with the $1.99 on iTunes, every other music store will just ramp up their prices like when iTunes showed up in the first place.
I tried using Synergy once, it drove me insane with it's nice collection of bugs and pitfalls. I especially hated how if you remote desktop connected to a Synergy managed machine, and then moved the mouse too close to the edge of the screen, you couldn't use the machine until you went back to the physical console. I don't have this problem with Multiplicity, but then again it isn't free. Get what you pay for I guess.
And what the fuck is a "boxen"?
Yes, theres a royalty for MP3, WMA, and AAC. It's a cost-benefit analysis, I assume, as to why all three aren't supported.
They're actually introducing variable pricing. As such, new tracks will all be $1.29 (what, you actually believe that scum like Sony will ever use that $0.69 bracket?). To be honest, it's the music publishers who've won here, they've managed to strongarm Apple into giving up fixed prices in exchange for what they gave Amazon for free (everything DRM-free)
Or do we have some bad benchmark data here?
Or (radical, I know) maybe have they finally managed to utilise some of those core enhancements to actually make Vista faster, which aren't available in the XP source tree?
By your logic, every single Ubuntu upgrade should be slower than the last, or they're being benchmarked wrong. This isn't the case, sometimes performance CAN be enhanced.
Why? Just find someone with an MSDN subscription, log in and download MS-DOS.