There is no renewal. The $200 fee (if your application is approved) results in a permanent, irrevocable, blacklist of that name. Even YOU cannot use the.xxx name if you successfully get it blacklisted.
They also don't have a phone they direct-sell either. Don't know why you felt like taking the opportunity to blast WP7 but not Windows Tablet Edition, despite them both being essentially the same thing...
Just to point out, my personal approach is to violate the iTunes Terms of Service and use a USA-based iTunes account despite that I am not in that territory. I have no qualms about violating the territorial restrictions in order to pay real money to get media legally. I do not, in fact, pirate any TV shows, software, movies or music.
Notably though, Game of Thrones is not available on iTunes either - meaning I would indeed have to wait for the DVDs, or wait until November when our Pay TV monopoly brings out their $10/month HBO channel, then continue to wait until it finally plays (even though it will still be 6 months+ behind).
Actually, the law had a little known rider that allowed copyright owners to start collecting infringements from August 11th. In theory, they could have collected up a few thousand and scheduled them to be sent at midnight.
Some folks have already started using Parliament's internet connections to download torrents. Theoretically, if they can get three notices sent to Lockwood Smith (the Speaker of the House), the entire New Zealand government disconnected from the internet (save the Crown Entities who operate independently and get their own connections).
Can I just point out that here in New Zealand we can't get any episode of Game of Thrones at all. THAT is why piracy continues in New Zealand, because there is literally no way to legally acquire some media!
Bear in mind that subject to Shareholder approval, very soon that becomes one backbone (Chorus) which has no retail arm - Telecom becomes a whole separate company. Hopefully this improves competition, but I don't see that being all that likely anytime soon (whip out the Southern Cross Cable as a reason we pay too much and I beat you with it - SCC has proven time and time again that their cable isn't even running at capacity, and they've dropped prices quite a lot over the years - our ISPs are just greedy mofos).
Well, no actually. Basically, GSM and CDMA from which pretty much everything derives are both standards composed of patented technologies from tons of vendors. All of these vendors pay into the patent pool and promise never to sue other pool members or anyone that licenses them (though they do not promise that there are no other patents owned by vendors that will sue), and they include clauses that revoke these agreements should one vendor sue another. What happened in this instance is that Apple came along and decided they shouldn't have to pay, and that their rabid fan-base would protect them if any of the patent holders sued. The fact that the reason all the vendors end up paying net zero into the pool is because the cross-licensing of their own patents tends to cancel out any money changing hands. Basically, a company pays in $20m and gets back $20m - much like text messaging interconnects in countries with an MTR. Apple, of course had no essential patents to contribute, so were expected to either pay cash or contribute other patents of use - multi-touch for example. Ultimately, this would work out great for everyone involved, even consumers. However, Apple didn't like this. So when Apple decided to sue Samsung for making a rectangular fucking tablet with a screen, Samsung naturally retaliated in the way that any patent pool member would do - with a countersuit for their own patents.
Personally, I hope Apple gets hit with a judgement the size of a small country's GDP. A (design) patent on a rectangle with a screen and button should not be allowed to stand.
Apple is honestly convinced that the rules really don't apply to them because they are soooo cooool. They are ALWAYS the victim...even when they aren't.
Yup. It's a repeat of the Cisco iPhone fiasco aaaaaaall over again.
Uh, no? Microsoft's deal with the Office formats was "it's free(*), as long as you comply with the standard exactly". The fact that Microsoft Office itself didn't comply with the standard exactly was completely besides the point.
Ah, righto. I was not aware of that campaign (in this country, Apple historically hasn't bothered advertising, they don't even have a store here). Windows Media Player still predates that for the functionality, but it's never really been a selling point for Windows itself. Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft really gets what people use computers for to be honest.
Ah, picking and choosing the bits that are most favourable to your point are you?
Yeah no. The letter means sod all. My point is also not that Microsoft was some sort of golden hero, but simply that Apple aren't either. In fact, neither company cares about being some sort of poster-child for openness, and I guarantee Apple really didn't "intentionally use the weakest DRM possible" as some kind of stance against it.
Oh really? Go look up Bolivia, that country that as part of the conditions of a World Bank bailout was forced to privatise its water (since the World Bank, being a United States of America Corporation subsidiary, insists on "free market" solving every problem) and the prices went up by 35% instantly and the service sucked so much that it caused actual protests and the government eventually ended up nationalising it again [edit: notable flaw is that the prices didn't go up 10 times, but the poor ended up paying 10 times as much as the rich. Yup, that sounds like privatisation]. By contrast though, employing private sector companies to manage the publicly owned water assets seems to be more common, and in fact seems to work OK - but personally I don't call that privatisation.
The problem is there will always be self-entitled dickheads. Digital distribution? Pirates will copy it (and sure as hell won't donate some cash back to support the author if they like it). Ad revenue? People will remove the ads and republish it, or block the ads if on the internet. Patronage? Very few people will be willing to stump up thousands of dollars for something they may not even like. Merchandising? What's the point in signing a merchandising agreement if XingHao Zheng Trading Co. will knock off the merchandise and sell it for pennies on the dollar (no copyright to prevent this, remember?) Donations? Don't make me laugh - I've done software that I released for free before, I got lots of support requests and people saying "ooh, this is cool" and nary a cent in donations.
This is why noone likes GPL Zealots you know. You guys show up in every discussion about a product using another OSS license (in this case Apache) and rant like only GPL is acceptable.
For a start, you know that Microsoft Legal would never allow a Visual Studio Plugin to be released under a viral license like GPL, since you know it would infect the host application.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't even work, browsers would reject that as invalid.
Add-Ins are a bit deeper into the IDE than Extensions. However, they could try using Visual Studio Shell rather than Visual Studio Express.
There is no renewal. The $200 fee (if your application is approved) results in a permanent, irrevocable, blacklist of that name. Even YOU cannot use the .xxx name if you successfully get it blacklisted.
PSN? Fantastic? As a Playstation 3 owner, I have to object to that statement - it feels like an afterthought bolted on at the last minute.
They also don't have a phone they direct-sell either. Don't know why you felt like taking the opportunity to blast WP7 but not Windows Tablet Edition, despite them both being essentially the same thing...
Nice cherry-picking. The very next paragraph talks about how they then refuted that statement with evidence it is indeed using Azure and S3.
Files are served by servers underneath blob.core.windows.net - that's Microsoft's Windows Azure, not an appliance.
It's amazing that, after all these years, people still think Microsoft swooped in to "save" Apple.
Including Steve Jobs. And actually, Microsoft first saved Apple in 1989 when they launched Office for Mac (before Office for Windows even).
Just to point out, my personal approach is to violate the iTunes Terms of Service and use a USA-based iTunes account despite that I am not in that territory. I have no qualms about violating the territorial restrictions in order to pay real money to get media legally. I do not, in fact, pirate any TV shows, software, movies or music.
Notably though, Game of Thrones is not available on iTunes either - meaning I would indeed have to wait for the DVDs, or wait until November when our Pay TV monopoly brings out their $10/month HBO channel, then continue to wait until it finally plays (even though it will still be 6 months+ behind).
Actually, the law had a little known rider that allowed copyright owners to start collecting infringements from August 11th. In theory, they could have collected up a few thousand and scheduled them to be sent at midnight.
The New Zealand law does not give the rights owners authority to compel ISPs to hand over account details, so your idea doesn't work.
Some folks have already started using Parliament's internet connections to download torrents. Theoretically, if they can get three notices sent to Lockwood Smith (the Speaker of the House), the entire New Zealand government disconnected from the internet (save the Crown Entities who operate independently and get their own connections).
Can I just point out that here in New Zealand we can't get any episode of Game of Thrones at all. THAT is why piracy continues in New Zealand, because there is literally no way to legally acquire some media!
Bear in mind that subject to Shareholder approval, very soon that becomes one backbone (Chorus) which has no retail arm - Telecom becomes a whole separate company. Hopefully this improves competition, but I don't see that being all that likely anytime soon (whip out the Southern Cross Cable as a reason we pay too much and I beat you with it - SCC has proven time and time again that their cable isn't even running at capacity, and they've dropped prices quite a lot over the years - our ISPs are just greedy mofos).
Well, no actually. Basically, GSM and CDMA from which pretty much everything derives are both standards composed of patented technologies from tons of vendors. All of these vendors pay into the patent pool and promise never to sue other pool members or anyone that licenses them (though they do not promise that there are no other patents owned by vendors that will sue), and they include clauses that revoke these agreements should one vendor sue another. What happened in this instance is that Apple came along and decided they shouldn't have to pay, and that their rabid fan-base would protect them if any of the patent holders sued. The fact that the reason all the vendors end up paying net zero into the pool is because the cross-licensing of their own patents tends to cancel out any money changing hands. Basically, a company pays in $20m and gets back $20m - much like text messaging interconnects in countries with an MTR. Apple, of course had no essential patents to contribute, so were expected to either pay cash or contribute other patents of use - multi-touch for example. Ultimately, this would work out great for everyone involved, even consumers. However, Apple didn't like this. So when Apple decided to sue Samsung for making a rectangular fucking tablet with a screen, Samsung naturally retaliated in the way that any patent pool member would do - with a countersuit for their own patents.
Personally, I hope Apple gets hit with a judgement the size of a small country's GDP. A (design) patent on a rectangle with a screen and button should not be allowed to stand.
I hear what you are saying, and the answer is NO!
Apple is honestly convinced that the rules really don't apply to them because they are soooo cooool. They are ALWAYS the victim...even when they aren't.
Yup. It's a repeat of the Cisco iPhone fiasco aaaaaaall over again.
Uh, no? Microsoft's deal with the Office formats was "it's free(*), as long as you comply with the standard exactly". The fact that Microsoft Office itself didn't comply with the standard exactly was completely besides the point.
(*) as in beer.
Now off you go to find an unbiased source. Roughly Drafted is as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Ah, righto. I was not aware of that campaign (in this country, Apple historically hasn't bothered advertising, they don't even have a store here). Windows Media Player still predates that for the functionality, but it's never really been a selling point for Windows itself. Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft really gets what people use computers for to be honest.
Where did I say "install"? At no point did I say that. I specifically said that I've showed her Linux, and she's declared it too confusing.
Ah, picking and choosing the bits that are most favourable to your point are you?
Yeah no. The letter means sod all. My point is also not that Microsoft was some sort of golden hero, but simply that Apple aren't either. In fact, neither company cares about being some sort of poster-child for openness, and I guarantee Apple really didn't "intentionally use the weakest DRM possible" as some kind of stance against it.
Oh really? Go look up Bolivia, that country that as part of the conditions of a World Bank bailout was forced to privatise its water (since the World Bank, being a United States of America Corporation subsidiary, insists on "free market" solving every problem) and the prices went up by 35% instantly and the service sucked so much that it caused actual protests and the government eventually ended up nationalising it again [edit: notable flaw is that the prices didn't go up 10 times, but the poor ended up paying 10 times as much as the rich. Yup, that sounds like privatisation]. By contrast though, employing private sector companies to manage the publicly owned water assets seems to be more common, and in fact seems to work OK - but personally I don't call that privatisation.
The problem is there will always be self-entitled dickheads. Digital distribution? Pirates will copy it (and sure as hell won't donate some cash back to support the author if they like it). Ad revenue? People will remove the ads and republish it, or block the ads if on the internet. Patronage? Very few people will be willing to stump up thousands of dollars for something they may not even like. Merchandising? What's the point in signing a merchandising agreement if XingHao Zheng Trading Co. will knock off the merchandise and sell it for pennies on the dollar (no copyright to prevent this, remember?) Donations? Don't make me laugh - I've done software that I released for free before, I got lots of support requests and people saying "ooh, this is cool" and nary a cent in donations.
This is why noone likes GPL Zealots you know. You guys show up in every discussion about a product using another OSS license (in this case Apache) and rant like only GPL is acceptable.
For a start, you know that Microsoft Legal would never allow a Visual Studio Plugin to be released under a viral license like GPL, since you know it would infect the host application.