Whenever privacy is discussed around here, we say "wouldn't it be great if we could retain personal control over our data, and could willingly decide whom to sell our data to?"
I think you're misconstruing my argument a little. I'm not saying that competition always produces good results - in fact, the major part of my argument is that the type of competition within Microsoft actually produces terrible results. What I was saying is that under the right conditions both competition and cooperation can create good results. But the major thrust of my argument is that both are useless without good leadership and vision.
The pop-up box thing doesn't seem to me a that bad idea, given that your hand-written letters will be much bigger those already on the screen. (But of course I haven't seen it, so I can't be sure.)
But why enter numbers into a spreadsheet with handwriting? Surely some kind of pop-up numeric pad would have been better, or maybe something like the iPhone's scrolly number wheels, or a simple +/- digit increment button?
And cooperation would make Microsoft more competitive? This is a clear example of how competition doesn't produce excellence, cooperation does.
That depends. Cooperation is all well and good if you're cooperating towards a decent goal. But if you're cooperating towards a flawed goal, then that only increases the rate of your failure. Ultimately, you need vision to choose what goal you want to work towards. I think that is what has been lacking at Microsoft - lately they've just been taking a shotgun approach, just try whatever and see if it works.
With regards to the competitive aspect - competition can produce good results. But it has to be worthwhile competition, not corrupt backbiting as illustrated by the article. From reading the article, it seems that Microsoft has become a collection of fiefdoms. A bunch of "vice presidents" of various areas protecting their own turf - not people who are trying to achieve a goal other than self-preservation. Management culture gone awry.
Well, you are obviously familiar with the Xbox Live system. There's no shortage of annoying tards, is there? In fact, the online experience is mostly composed of annoying tards. So why would you assume that paying a subscription fee would reduce the number of annoying tards, when a pay-only system is mostly populated by them?
No, there's no statistics on this, as "annoying tards" is entirely subjective, and gaming companies don't tend to keep records on this kind of thing. However, my gut instinct is that it isn't Rhodes Scholars who typically pay for online gaming.
A CD check determines whether an original copy of game media is present, to ensure that the game has not been distributed illegally. Would you agree that, had the game failed a CD check, that it "impose[s] limitations on the usage of digital content"?
The "management" in DRM implies that the rights can be managed - in other words, the publisher can recall those rights after the release. A CD check doesn't do this - it is purely a local mechanism. However, with DRM, a company can recall your key, and prevent you from using the game after you have already started using it.
Also, if you read your own link, it says: "The term generally doesn't refer to other forms of copy protection which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles." (not that wikipedia is an authoritative source in the first place, but you provided the link).
Do you really believe that charging a subscription fee is going to reduce the number of annoying tards? Just think about that for a second. Which is the most likely demographic to pay for online gaming subscriptions? That's right. Annoying tards.
Uh, the same could be said for Apple. Other than beating their chest for analysts and the faithful, I haven't heard of Apple going after Palm or Google. Perhaps they don't think their hand is all that strong, either.
Well, maybe not. But how does that prove that Palm's patents are valid?
I never said it was simple. Just that it's disingenuous to claim that it's a "whole new browser" since obviously a significant part of the browser was already developed by others. So it's a partially new browser, not a wholly new one.
The point he was making is that WebKit (a rendering engine, NOT a browser)
How can you have a browser without a rendering engine? What would be the point?
Unlike Apple (for example), who took the BSD licensed WebKit, did significantly less with it when they built Safari, and kept the result locked up.
What? WebKit is LGPL licensed, not BSD licensed. And it wasn't called WebKit when Apple started using it, it was called KHTML. WebKit is Apple's name for their fork of the KHTML project. And Apple didn't "do significantly less with it" - they basically made the whole thing over, and turned a rendering engine that was going nowhere and not used very widely into a modern, high performance and widely adopted engine.
WebKit is far more significant than Chromium, which is little more than a GUI wrapper round WebKit.
Quite possibly they could - but until it gets decided by the courts, this is all just speculation. Which is what I have a problem with - stating speculation as facts. Had the poster said that Apple is potentially violating, or is accused of violating, that would be a different matter.
The double-standards around here are interesting, too. When SCO accused Linux of violating its patents, did slashdotters immediately start stating that Linux users are patent violators as fact? Or did they go on about how patents are evil and should be stopped?
Palm has US Patent #7,268,775 [google.com] for dymanic screen brightness and #7,231,208 [google.com] for managing a phone call. Those are from the article that tacroy mentioned.
Two patents isn't a "ton" and they have not been proven to be infringing.
But also, remember that Palm has been making mobile devices since 1992. I'm sure they've got patents on quite a few things that Apple is using.
That may very well be, but what I object to is people making statements as if they are outright facts, when no actual proof has been discovered.
The cited article was basically based on Palm trash-talking Apple. If Palm believes their patents are so strong, why didn't they just go ahead and sue?
The way these non-facts are presented as facts on slashdot is pretty annoying. It would be like if Steve Ballmer stated that using Linux caused cancer, and the next day posters on slashdot were stating that Linux causes cancer as a fact, just because Ballmer said it.
Are you aware the Chromium browser code is BSD released, right? It wasn't like they just wanted to build upon some GPL project and then were required to stick with GPL. They build a whole new browser, and opened it up BSD so anyone can use the code however they want.
Uh, Chromium is based on WebKit, so no, they didn't build a whole new browser.
Because DRM uses encryption and keys to deny access. A CD check is just crude copy protection. And if you're calling serial numbers DRM, then you've just made the term utterly useless and meaningless.
Also, don't attempt to insult me just because you can't refute what you think is an argument.
Your "argument" is perfectly refutable. Do you really think that Woz contacted the receptionist at Toyota, rather than a technical support line?
Furthermore, I'll insult you just because you are such a douchebag. The irony of you talking about respect for fellow human beings is hilarious. Did you even read your own post about Wozniak?
huh... he had enough warning to spend the time writing out no carrier, and wait for the preview and submit...
That's because Windows 7 has this great feature, where it completes slashdot posts for you. It also automatically browses porn for you, so you don't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever privacy is discussed around here, we say "wouldn't it be great if we could retain personal control over our data, and could willingly decide whom to sell our data to?"
I don't say that.
I think you're misconstruing my argument a little. I'm not saying that competition always produces good results - in fact, the major part of my argument is that the type of competition within Microsoft actually produces terrible results. What I was saying is that under the right conditions both competition and cooperation can create good results. But the major thrust of my argument is that both are useless without good leadership and vision.
I wasn't aware that Microsoft even sold laptops.
The pop-up box thing doesn't seem to me a that bad idea, given that your hand-written letters will be much bigger those already on the screen. (But of course I haven't seen it, so I can't be sure.)
But why enter numbers into a spreadsheet with handwriting? Surely some kind of pop-up numeric pad would have been better, or maybe something like the iPhone's scrolly number wheels, or a simple +/- digit increment button?
And cooperation would make Microsoft more competitive? This is a clear example of how competition doesn't produce excellence, cooperation does.
That depends. Cooperation is all well and good if you're cooperating towards a decent goal. But if you're cooperating towards a flawed goal, then that only increases the rate of your failure. Ultimately, you need vision to choose what goal you want to work towards. I think that is what has been lacking at Microsoft - lately they've just been taking a shotgun approach, just try whatever and see if it works.
With regards to the competitive aspect - competition can produce good results. But it has to be worthwhile competition, not corrupt backbiting as illustrated by the article. From reading the article, it seems that Microsoft has become a collection of fiefdoms. A bunch of "vice presidents" of various areas protecting their own turf - not people who are trying to achieve a goal other than self-preservation. Management culture gone awry.
Well, you are obviously familiar with the Xbox Live system. There's no shortage of annoying tards, is there? In fact, the online experience is mostly composed of annoying tards. So why would you assume that paying a subscription fee would reduce the number of annoying tards, when a pay-only system is mostly populated by them?
No, there's no statistics on this, as "annoying tards" is entirely subjective, and gaming companies don't tend to keep records on this kind of thing. However, my gut instinct is that it isn't Rhodes Scholars who typically pay for online gaming.
A CD check determines whether an original copy of game media is present, to ensure that the game has not been distributed illegally. Would you agree that, had the game failed a CD check, that it "impose[s] limitations on the usage of digital content"?
The "management" in DRM implies that the rights can be managed - in other words, the publisher can recall those rights after the release. A CD check doesn't do this - it is purely a local mechanism. However, with DRM, a company can recall your key, and prevent you from using the game after you have already started using it.
Also, if you read your own link, it says: "The term generally doesn't refer to other forms of copy protection which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles." (not that wikipedia is an authoritative source in the first place, but you provided the link).
Do you really believe that charging a subscription fee is going to reduce the number of annoying tards? Just think about that for a second. Which is the most likely demographic to pay for online gaming subscriptions? That's right. Annoying tards.
Uh, the same could be said for Apple. Other than beating their chest for analysts and the faithful, I haven't heard of Apple going after Palm or Google. Perhaps they don't think their hand is all that strong, either.
Well, maybe not. But how does that prove that Palm's patents are valid?
I never said it was simple. Just that it's disingenuous to claim that it's a "whole new browser" since obviously a significant part of the browser was already developed by others. So it's a partially new browser, not a wholly new one.
The point he was making is that WebKit (a rendering engine, NOT a browser)
How can you have a browser without a rendering engine? What would be the point?
Unlike Apple (for example), who took the BSD licensed WebKit, did significantly less with it when they built Safari, and kept the result locked up.
What? WebKit is LGPL licensed, not BSD licensed. And it wasn't called WebKit when Apple started using it, it was called KHTML. WebKit is Apple's name for their fork of the KHTML project. And Apple didn't "do significantly less with it" - they basically made the whole thing over, and turned a rendering engine that was going nowhere and not used very widely into a modern, high performance and widely adopted engine.
WebKit is far more significant than Chromium, which is little more than a GUI wrapper round WebKit.
What is the most significant component of a web browser? The rendering engine. Chromium wouldn't work very well without it.
This had NOTHING to do with steven conroy.
Who said that it did?
Quite possibly they could - but until it gets decided by the courts, this is all just speculation. Which is what I have a problem with - stating speculation as facts. Had the poster said that Apple is potentially violating, or is accused of violating, that would be a different matter.
The double-standards around here are interesting, too. When SCO accused Linux of violating its patents, did slashdotters immediately start stating that Linux users are patent violators as fact? Or did they go on about how patents are evil and should be stopped?
Palm has US Patent #7,268,775 [google.com] for dymanic screen brightness and #7,231,208 [google.com] for managing a phone call. Those are from the article that tacroy mentioned.
Two patents isn't a "ton" and they have not been proven to be infringing.
But also, remember that Palm has been making mobile devices since 1992. I'm sure they've got patents on quite a few things that Apple is using.
That may very well be, but what I object to is people making statements as if they are outright facts, when no actual proof has been discovered.
The cited article was basically based on Palm trash-talking Apple. If Palm believes their patents are so strong, why didn't they just go ahead and sue?
The way these non-facts are presented as facts on slashdot is pretty annoying. It would be like if Steve Ballmer stated that using Linux caused cancer, and the next day posters on slashdot were stating that Linux causes cancer as a fact, just because Ballmer said it.
Are you aware the Chromium browser code is BSD released, right? It wasn't like they just wanted to build upon some GPL project and then were required to stick with GPL. They build a whole new browser, and opened it up BSD so anyone can use the code however they want.
Uh, Chromium is based on WebKit, so no, they didn't build a whole new browser.
Apparently Google employees have mod points today.
Well, duh. Google employees always have mod-points. Where do you think slashdot gets them from in the first place?
Mainly because Apple is violating tons of Palms patents and they don't want to wake that (IP) giant.
And your evidence of that is... what?
Because DRM uses encryption and keys to deny access. A CD check is just crude copy protection. And if you're calling serial numbers DRM, then you've just made the term utterly useless and meaningless.
Right, your opinion is more credible. Sorry about that.
Thanks for the apology.
I’ll just go tell the national news media outlets that they have had it all wrong for all these years.
I think they're already well aware of that, they just keep up the masquerade for the few remaining readers/viewers/listeners.
You take a phone poll as evidence?
Also, don't attempt to insult me just because you can't refute what you think is an argument.
Your "argument" is perfectly refutable. Do you really think that Woz contacted the receptionist at Toyota, rather than a technical support line?
Furthermore, I'll insult you just because you are such a douchebag. The irony of you talking about respect for fellow human beings is hilarious. Did you even read your own post about Wozniak?
I would call that DRM.
Except that it's not.
but it's still restriction on use of software you've bought.
The definition of DRM is not "restriction on use of software you've bought," so that's a meaningless statement.
huh... he had enough warning to spend the time writing out no carrier, and wait for the preview and submit...
That's because Windows 7 has this great feature, where it completes slashdot posts for you. It also automatically browses porn for you, so you don't have to.
Windows 7 - RIDE THE WALRUS!!!