The use of the DMCA in this case appears incorrect since he's not using any copyrighted materials.
I think a DMCA notice is correct if you are the copyright holder or have the right to act for the copyright holder (for details ask a lawyer), and you believe that someone is infringing on your copyright. If the person accused disagrees, they can very easily file a counter notice. That, of course, means that the gloves are off and we now have a real fight.
So as long as these guys wrote to Google "we own the copyright on Pacman, and this game infringes on our copyright", the DMCA notice in itself would be correct. If they didn't put all the required details into the DMCA notice then Google can and should ignore it (like forgetting to give a contact number). If they claimed a trademark violation then I think Google could and should ignore that because it isn't covered by DMCA, but I might be wrong. If they lied about owning the copyright, that would be criminal. But if they are just wrong about there being an infringement, that doesn't make the notice incorrect, it just means they would lose if it went to court. The DMCA basically says "Google, we want a fight, get out of the way". A counterclaim says "Google, there will be a fight, but it has nothing to do with you".
The DMCA has been ripe for abuse since before it was signed. Since then it's been used illegally many many times with little or no repercussions to those who abuse it.
The way I see it, without the DMCA the guy would have been sued for copyright infringement. Maybe he would have received a letter first "Please withdraw your app or we will sue you for copyright infringement". This way, there is a good chance that he gets away undamaged.
First, what is a DMCA notice for: There are three parties involved; you, Bandai, and Google. The DMCA notice says: Google can either throw you out or be part of the copyright infringement. Google wants nothing to do with any copyright infringement, so they throw you out. You, on the other hand, can send a latter to Google claiming that you didn't commit any copyright infringement. Google will then reinstate you - they played by the rules of the DMCA act, and they will not be liable for any copyright infringement. And Bandai _will_ take you to court. Guaranteed. If you do nothing, then Bandai may be happy that they achieved their goal, or take you to court.
Now examine your situation. First, did you commit their copyright or not? Copying the game play is most likely copyright infringement. If you did commit copyright infringement, then the best you can do is hope you don't get sued. If you didn't commit copyright infringement, the situation is roughly the same unless you have lots of money to defend yourself. One iron rule: Don't talk to them without a lawyer. Anything you say will be used against you. If you can't afford a lawyer, don't talk to them unless you have to. And if you have to, get a lawyer whether you can afford it or not.
I'm surprised the iPad plan isn't more expensive - anyone who can afford an iPad obviously has money to spare, while those on tighter budgets waited for cheaper tablets to become available.
On the contrary; anyone who can afford an iPad probably has a well-paying job that they didn't get for being stupid. Or is really looking after his or her money and not wasting it on useless stuff, which is why they can afford an iPad. That kind of person doesn't waste their money on an overly expensive contract. You seem to be in that lower middle part of the IQ distribution where you think you have to be stupid to buy a product that is easy to use. Other people realise that buying a product that is easy to use is actually clever.
What the geeks here don't understand: When you buy "up to 3 GB per month", as an example, you do not pay for 3 GB. You pay for the average usage of all users of that plan. If owners of device A on a 3 GB plan use 2 GB on average, and owners of device B use 1 GB on average, then the same "up to 3 GB" can be sold a lot cheaper to owners of device B.
Why is it illegal to legally purchase items, do something with them, then resell? (If the car industry worked this way, I know at least a couple of car companies that would go out of business.) And even more ridiculous: why is this a criminal offence opposed to a civil matter?
Let's say Ford offered you a contract where you can buy a brand new car at half the normal price, but you have to sign that you can only fill up the car at a Ford garage with special and expensive Ford fuel. And there is something on the fuel tank that serves to enforce this. You are in no way forced to accept this contract, you can buy a Ford at normal price with no such contract, or any other car.
All in all it is good if such a contract is possible, and if Ford offers you that kind of contract, because it gives you more choice. Now if people can buy cars at half price and somehow get around these obligations, then Ford will stop selling these cars which is bad all around. So we can see that laws that make this contract enforceable are a good thing (all under the assumption that nobody forces you into such a contract).
In this case, the article claims tthat the phone company had a bad business model, and laws shouldn't enforce bad business models. But the business model is in fact good and beneficial for everyone provided that the law enforces the terms. That's what laws are for, to set rules that are ultimately beneficial for everyone. So a contract that would be good if protected by the law, but bad if not enforceable, is a good contract.
you forgot year zero (or are you born having 1 year already under your belt?)
He was talking about years and centuries, not about age.
We started counting centuries with the first century (year 1 to 100), then the second century (year 101 to 200) and so on. The twentieth century was from 1901 to 2000. The 21st century is 2001 to 2100, the 3rd millenium (see how we count millenia starting with 1 as well) is 2001 to 3000. The same rules are used for years, centuries, millenia. They all start with 1.
Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Ignorance of facts can very much be a defense, depending on the situation. Like in this case, where it actually makes a difference whether you know that something is under copyright or whether you mistakenly believe that it isn't. This is a case where the law actually says that ignorance is a defense.
Odd, I see the exact opposite happen. When my wife was still in college, she decided that she wanted an iPod. I got her a $40 RCA mp3 player (with an sd card slot) instead.
Well, my wife thinks that buying a laptop that is not a Macintosh is a reason for divorce.
You think THAT was something, wait till they release iPad nano. It's gonna blow you away.
When you think about it, the portable music player market is now close to saturated. The reason why Apple still sells tons of iPods is because people with three year old iPods buy a new one. So it is good for Apple to have a _different_ product from time to time, to give existing iPod owners something new to buy.
Again? Why has slashdot become a marketing platform for apple? They sell overpriced, inferior products to idiots that don't know any better.
Steve Jobs really, really hopes that you get a top job at any of its competitors.
In reality, the clueless idiot is you. Apple products are more expensive than crap products that match them in the superficial check list of the under average geek; they compare very well in price with any quality product. And they are far superior where it counts; to make it possible for average people who actually have a life to _use_ the product.
I sometimes think that the under average geek is someone who feels proud to be able to use products that are hard to use; the worst of them like you look down on people who don't fall for that stupidity. The above average geek is someone who feels proud to make products that are easy to use.
No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.
Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that. The cost to them is not caused by Syfert, it is caused by the defendants defending themselves, and that is just what you have to expect when you sue someone; they will try to defend themselves. Perfectly legal and expected.
My girlfriend (yes, really!;) ) was asking me this morning if I knew where she could buy an as-new MacBook from circa 2007.
On eBay, MacBooks get sold but at ridiculously high prices. Tell her to check out the Apple Store www.apple.com/ukstore and check under "Special Deals/Refurbished Mac" regularly. Sometimes you'll find a MacBook for slightly over £700. And it is brand new; better deal than anything you find on eBay.
The iMac made no measurable difference in the adoption of USB as a standard. Can't believe how common the myth that it did seems to be here. iMac sales were good compared to other Apple computers, but it's laughable to think they sold enough units to mandate the adoption of *anything* in the mainstream computer market.
So how come I couldn't find an external CD writer that didn't come in shiny iMac-coloured plastic?
Sure why not. I've seen MANY H1B workers (from India) that have done this sort of thing. We have sent several packing home because of it. They would go out, take code from an open source project and rip out the copyright then put their name to it and try to commit it to our SVN.
Our company rule is: No outside code gets checked in unless our lawyers have checked the license. Since having our lawyers checking the license is more expensive and more of a pain than writing the code yourself, it is very very very rare that this would happen. With GPL code at least the company has the benefit that it isn't copyright infringement until they distribute the code, so they are legally fine if they catch it and remove the code before shipping.
The first option is to simply contact IBM and ask them how their patent is novel or different or disjoint from your work. This could result in one of two things: no response or a response. If you are satisfied with the response, you might change your mind about your situation and congratulate them on putting some novel innovations on HeapCheck, patenting it and listing you in the claim references (do you own any patents related to it?). Now, assuming that it does not satisfy you as an explanation, you could indicate that you are going to pursue legal action (the I in IBM stands for International) but you are willing to settle and sign away your rights for some relatively nominal fee. You could choose to reveal you're not interested in a lengthy expensive court battle with them or you could make it sound like you are angry and this is all you have to do with 100% of your time. Either mentality will send them a message, that's up to you.
There is a problem here. The only situation where his code would affect IBM's patent is if he has published prior art that would genuinely make their patent invalid. But in this case he has no rights that he could sign away. Patents are not like copyright. If you illegally copied my code, I could say "give me $100,000 and I give you the rights to this code", and maybe you accept and we are both happy. If you use my patent without a license, I could say "give me $100,000 and I'll give you a license". If he has prior art that makes their patent valid, then it is out of his hands. _Anybody_ can invalidate the patent. He could say to IBM "give me $100,000 and I'll forget about my prior art". But even if IBM pays, I could then say to IBM "give me $100,000 and I'll forget about this guy's prior art". What makes it prior art is that it has been published. If this guy can prove that it has been published, then so can I, and everybody else. He doesn't get any rights from having created the prior art. The right to invalidate the patent is something that _everybody_ has.
Of course he can spend a lot of money to invalidate IBM's patent, but even if he wins, at an enormous cost, all he gets is that IBM's patent is invalid. There is no money to be had from this. The only way to make money is to carefully collect evidence for the prior art (collect evidence that the invention was available to the public), and if he hears that IBM sues anybody for patent infringement, then he can go to the defendant and say "give me $100,000 and I give you clear documentation that proves beyond any doubt that their patent should be invalid".
If Apple started using open source'd classes for things like strings and could focus their internal development on things that interact more directly with hardware (especially graphics), that would be a win for everyone.
1. Have a good look at all the open source stuff that you can download from Apple. You'll be surprised. Especially with string handling, Apple has always been one of the driving forces behind Unicode.
2. "Everyone" I think excludes Apples.
Limewire's great if you haven't been infected by a computer virus lately. Why use these things? Get with your friends, combine your music on an external drive that you pass around to other friends. If you're going to pirate, pirate with people you trust.
That's what I find hilarious. I would have told my grandkids (it's not my place to teach them morals, but I will try to keep them safe) that the safest way to share music with their friends is to borrow CDs, load them on their computer, and return the CDs, if I wasn't so afraid of the RIAA. And I would have told them that iTunes lets you make a backup of your music onto CDs, which you can borrow to your friends, which can then load them onto their computers, if I wasn't so afraid of the RIAA. If I had done so, they would have just stared at me, the idea of physical CDs involved would have seemed quite counter-intuitive and repulsive to them.
To the parent poster: Your suggestion requires an IQ higher of that of a banana.
According to the article, one very large cargo ship produces as much pollution as 50 million cars driving 9,000 miles per year. So let's do the maths.
CO2 emissions of 125 gram per kilometer are considered to be very good for a car - in the UK, that level of CO2 emission means your car tax is dramatically reduced. 125 gram per kilometer equals 200 grams per mile, or 1.8 tons per 9,000 miles. A very large cargo ship supposedly produces the same pollution per year as 50 million cars. That would be 50 million times 1.8 tons or 90 million tons. That would be 250,000 tons of CO2 emissions per day, assuming the vessel is in operation 360 days per year. Excuse me, but this number is nonsense.
On the other hand, a car typically transports maybe 100 kg on average (usually one, sometimes two passengers). One container = 24,000 kg, that is say the same as 240 cars. Large, but not extremely large, container ships carry 7,000 containers, that is the same freight transported as 1.7 million cars. A container ship can move at 20 knots, that would be 500 miles per day. Obviously it is not moving 360 days per year, 24 hours per day, but it should be more than 90,000 miles, ten times as much as the car in the calculation. So the freight transported is about the same as 17 million cars.
Greenpeace recently (a year-ish ago) admitted that they picked on Apple, despite there being significantly more egregious examples of companies manufacturing products that weren't friendly to the environment because they knew that talking about Apple would get their name mentioned in the news.
There isn't anything particularly brain twisting here, and I'm not sure what mistaken impression the revisions discussed in the article are supposed to create (before the revisions, the quarterly net income for the entire company is $5.4 billion on revenues of $16.2 billion, after the revisions it is exactly the same, most businesses would kill to be that profitable, and they would kill their mothers to have the 'billion' in those numbers).
Here's what you are missing: Everyone expects Microsoft to be highly profitable in their core business, and investors are used to the sad fact that Microsoft wastes a billion here and there on things like buying revenue for Ping. So if the losses in the online division grow, or XBox doesn't as well as expected, nobody cares much because the main business is safe as ever. All those losses in online can be stopped any second by just leaving that business area, if Microsoft wants, so it's nothing to worry about.
But if Microsoft makes less money in Windows, Office, or Server, or if it is found out that it props up its main business by moving money from other areas, that is a very, very bad sign and investors would be quite unhappy.
I see. And you're an attorney, and you're familiar with all the jurisdictions involved. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that his activities are, in fact, illegal under U.S. law. Any lawyers in the crowd care to comment upon that?
I am not a lawyer either. I suspect that there are no laws broken by the vandalism itself; depending on what he or she posts that might be breaking the laws in some countries. However, if you check the contract between you and your ISP (Verizon in that case), Verizon might be able to hold you financially for any damage that you do intentionally to their network, and if Wikipedia takes some reasonable action, and that action costs Verizon lots of money, then you might be held responsible for the cost.
Giving everyone an iPad doesn't strike me like a policy implementation in response to a specific need, but rather as trying to win an influential group with shiny presents.
Outside of Slashdot's event horizon, many companies have already issued large number of iPads to their employees for specific purposes, and very successfully so. Very often with purpose written applications that don't go through Apple's app store (shell out a little bit more than the usual $99 for an "enterprise" developer account and you can install iPhone and iPad apps from your own servers). I don't make lists of this stuff, just use Google, but I remember Daimler Benz issuing iPads to their sales people very successfully.
Exactly, that is what I don't understand. I have to use a Mac at work, but I've never tried Time Machine since I use rsync on everything
That's why you don't understand. Time Machine keeps historical data around, so you can have say a laptop with a 250 GB drive, a 2 TB backup drive, and everything that was ever on your laptop drive will be on your backup drive. Like the OP said: 19 months of historical data. Time Machine is basically backup for the current state, plus history.
Slashdot Mirror
The use of the DMCA in this case appears incorrect since he's not using any copyrighted materials.
I think a DMCA notice is correct if you are the copyright holder or have the right to act for the copyright holder (for details ask a lawyer), and you believe that someone is infringing on your copyright. If the person accused disagrees, they can very easily file a counter notice. That, of course, means that the gloves are off and we now have a real fight.
So as long as these guys wrote to Google "we own the copyright on Pacman, and this game infringes on our copyright", the DMCA notice in itself would be correct. If they didn't put all the required details into the DMCA notice then Google can and should ignore it (like forgetting to give a contact number). If they claimed a trademark violation then I think Google could and should ignore that because it isn't covered by DMCA, but I might be wrong. If they lied about owning the copyright, that would be criminal. But if they are just wrong about there being an infringement, that doesn't make the notice incorrect, it just means they would lose if it went to court. The DMCA basically says "Google, we want a fight, get out of the way". A counterclaim says "Google, there will be a fight, but it has nothing to do with you".
The DMCA has been ripe for abuse since before it was signed. Since then it's been used illegally many many times with little or no repercussions to those who abuse it.
The way I see it, without the DMCA the guy would have been sued for copyright infringement. Maybe he would have received a letter first "Please withdraw your app or we will sue you for copyright infringement". This way, there is a good chance that he gets away undamaged.
First, what is a DMCA notice for: There are three parties involved; you, Bandai, and Google. The DMCA notice says: Google can either throw you out or be part of the copyright infringement. Google wants nothing to do with any copyright infringement, so they throw you out. You, on the other hand, can send a latter to Google claiming that you didn't commit any copyright infringement. Google will then reinstate you - they played by the rules of the DMCA act, and they will not be liable for any copyright infringement. And Bandai _will_ take you to court. Guaranteed. If you do nothing, then Bandai may be happy that they achieved their goal, or take you to court.
Now examine your situation. First, did you commit their copyright or not? Copying the game play is most likely copyright infringement. If you did commit copyright infringement, then the best you can do is hope you don't get sued. If you didn't commit copyright infringement, the situation is roughly the same unless you have lots of money to defend yourself. One iron rule: Don't talk to them without a lawyer. Anything you say will be used against you. If you can't afford a lawyer, don't talk to them unless you have to. And if you have to, get a lawyer whether you can afford it or not.
I'm sure this will make many atheists happy to here (despite the fact that this is coming from the University of Grenada...I mean, c'mon!?)
Actually, it is Granada. A few thousand miles and the Atlantic Ocean are between Grenada and Granada.
I'm surprised the iPad plan isn't more expensive - anyone who can afford an iPad obviously has money to spare, while those on tighter budgets waited for cheaper tablets to become available.
On the contrary; anyone who can afford an iPad probably has a well-paying job that they didn't get for being stupid. Or is really looking after his or her money and not wasting it on useless stuff, which is why they can afford an iPad. That kind of person doesn't waste their money on an overly expensive contract. You seem to be in that lower middle part of the IQ distribution where you think you have to be stupid to buy a product that is easy to use. Other people realise that buying a product that is easy to use is actually clever.
What the geeks here don't understand: When you buy "up to 3 GB per month", as an example, you do not pay for 3 GB. You pay for the average usage of all users of that plan. If owners of device A on a 3 GB plan use 2 GB on average, and owners of device B use 1 GB on average, then the same "up to 3 GB" can be sold a lot cheaper to owners of device B.
Why is it illegal to legally purchase items, do something with them, then resell? (If the car industry worked this way, I know at least a couple of car companies that would go out of business.) And even more ridiculous: why is this a criminal offence opposed to a civil matter?
Let's say Ford offered you a contract where you can buy a brand new car at half the normal price, but you have to sign that you can only fill up the car at a Ford garage with special and expensive Ford fuel. And there is something on the fuel tank that serves to enforce this. You are in no way forced to accept this contract, you can buy a Ford at normal price with no such contract, or any other car.
All in all it is good if such a contract is possible, and if Ford offers you that kind of contract, because it gives you more choice. Now if people can buy cars at half price and somehow get around these obligations, then Ford will stop selling these cars which is bad all around. So we can see that laws that make this contract enforceable are a good thing (all under the assumption that nobody forces you into such a contract).
In this case, the article claims tthat the phone company had a bad business model, and laws shouldn't enforce bad business models. But the business model is in fact good and beneficial for everyone provided that the law enforces the terms. That's what laws are for, to set rules that are ultimately beneficial for everyone. So a contract that would be good if protected by the law, but bad if not enforceable, is a good contract.
you forgot year zero (or are you born having 1 year already under your belt?)
He was talking about years and centuries, not about age.
We started counting centuries with the first century (year 1 to 100), then the second century (year 101 to 200) and so on. The twentieth century was from 1901 to 2000. The 21st century is 2001 to 2100, the 3rd millenium (see how we count millenia starting with 1 as well) is 2001 to 3000. The same rules are used for years, centuries, millenia. They all start with 1.
Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Ignorance of facts can very much be a defense, depending on the situation. Like in this case, where it actually makes a difference whether you know that something is under copyright or whether you mistakenly believe that it isn't. This is a case where the law actually says that ignorance is a defense.
Odd, I see the exact opposite happen. When my wife was still in college, she decided that she wanted an iPod. I got her a $40 RCA mp3 player (with an sd card slot) instead.
Well, my wife thinks that buying a laptop that is not a Macintosh is a reason for divorce.
You think THAT was something, wait till they release iPad nano. It's gonna blow you away.
When you think about it, the portable music player market is now close to saturated. The reason why Apple still sells tons of iPods is because people with three year old iPods buy a new one. So it is good for Apple to have a _different_ product from time to time, to give existing iPod owners something new to buy.
Again? Why has slashdot become a marketing platform for apple? They sell overpriced, inferior products to idiots that don't know any better.
Steve Jobs really, really hopes that you get a top job at any of its competitors.
In reality, the clueless idiot is you. Apple products are more expensive than crap products that match them in the superficial check list of the under average geek; they compare very well in price with any quality product. And they are far superior where it counts; to make it possible for average people who actually have a life to _use_ the product.
I sometimes think that the under average geek is someone who feels proud to be able to use products that are hard to use; the worst of them like you look down on people who don't fall for that stupidity. The above average geek is someone who feels proud to make products that are easy to use.
No, that would be ludicrous. The USCG is suing Syfert for costing them money which is not criminal but a civil matter. Unfortunately, you can sue for anything. The USCG has shown that they are a litigious group. Really this doesn't surprise me at all.
Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that. The cost to them is not caused by Syfert, it is caused by the defendants defending themselves, and that is just what you have to expect when you sue someone; they will try to defend themselves. Perfectly legal and expected.
My girlfriend (yes, really! ;) ) was asking me this morning if I knew where she could buy an as-new MacBook from circa 2007.
On eBay, MacBooks get sold but at ridiculously high prices. Tell her to check out the Apple Store www.apple.com/ukstore and check under "Special Deals/Refurbished Mac" regularly. Sometimes you'll find a MacBook for slightly over £700. And it is brand new; better deal than anything you find on eBay.
The iMac made no measurable difference in the adoption of USB as a standard. Can't believe how common the myth that it did seems to be here. iMac sales were good compared to other Apple computers, but it's laughable to think they sold enough units to mandate the adoption of *anything* in the mainstream computer market.
So how come I couldn't find an external CD writer that didn't come in shiny iMac-coloured plastic?
Sure why not. I've seen MANY H1B workers (from India) that have done this sort of thing. We have sent several packing home because of it. They would go out, take code from an open source project and rip out the copyright then put their name to it and try to commit it to our SVN.
Our company rule is: No outside code gets checked in unless our lawyers have checked the license. Since having our lawyers checking the license is more expensive and more of a pain than writing the code yourself, it is very very very rare that this would happen. With GPL code at least the company has the benefit that it isn't copyright infringement until they distribute the code, so they are legally fine if they catch it and remove the code before shipping.
The first option is to simply contact IBM and ask them how their patent is novel or different or disjoint from your work. This could result in one of two things: no response or a response. If you are satisfied with the response, you might change your mind about your situation and congratulate them on putting some novel innovations on HeapCheck, patenting it and listing you in the claim references (do you own any patents related to it?). Now, assuming that it does not satisfy you as an explanation, you could indicate that you are going to pursue legal action (the I in IBM stands for International) but you are willing to settle and sign away your rights for some relatively nominal fee. You could choose to reveal you're not interested in a lengthy expensive court battle with them or you could make it sound like you are angry and this is all you have to do with 100% of your time. Either mentality will send them a message, that's up to you.
There is a problem here. The only situation where his code would affect IBM's patent is if he has published prior art that would genuinely make their patent invalid. But in this case he has no rights that he could sign away. Patents are not like copyright. If you illegally copied my code, I could say "give me $100,000 and I give you the rights to this code", and maybe you accept and we are both happy. If you use my patent without a license, I could say "give me $100,000 and I'll give you a license". If he has prior art that makes their patent valid, then it is out of his hands. _Anybody_ can invalidate the patent. He could say to IBM "give me $100,000 and I'll forget about my prior art". But even if IBM pays, I could then say to IBM "give me $100,000 and I'll forget about this guy's prior art". What makes it prior art is that it has been published. If this guy can prove that it has been published, then so can I, and everybody else. He doesn't get any rights from having created the prior art. The right to invalidate the patent is something that _everybody_ has.
Of course he can spend a lot of money to invalidate IBM's patent, but even if he wins, at an enormous cost, all he gets is that IBM's patent is invalid. There is no money to be had from this. The only way to make money is to carefully collect evidence for the prior art (collect evidence that the invention was available to the public), and if he hears that IBM sues anybody for patent infringement, then he can go to the defendant and say "give me $100,000 and I give you clear documentation that proves beyond any doubt that their patent should be invalid".
If Apple started using open source'd classes for things like strings and could focus their internal development on things that interact more directly with hardware (especially graphics), that would be a win for everyone.
1. Have a good look at all the open source stuff that you can download from Apple. You'll be surprised. Especially with string handling, Apple has always been one of the driving forces behind Unicode. 2. "Everyone" I think excludes Apples.
Limewire's great if you haven't been infected by a computer virus lately. Why use these things? Get with your friends, combine your music on an external drive that you pass around to other friends. If you're going to pirate, pirate with people you trust.
That's what I find hilarious. I would have told my grandkids (it's not my place to teach them morals, but I will try to keep them safe) that the safest way to share music with their friends is to borrow CDs, load them on their computer, and return the CDs, if I wasn't so afraid of the RIAA. And I would have told them that iTunes lets you make a backup of your music onto CDs, which you can borrow to your friends, which can then load them onto their computers, if I wasn't so afraid of the RIAA. If I had done so, they would have just stared at me, the idea of physical CDs involved would have seemed quite counter-intuitive and repulsive to them.
To the parent poster: Your suggestion requires an IQ higher of that of a banana.
According to the article, one very large cargo ship produces as much pollution as 50 million cars driving 9,000 miles per year. So let's do the maths.
CO2 emissions of 125 gram per kilometer are considered to be very good for a car - in the UK, that level of CO2 emission means your car tax is dramatically reduced. 125 gram per kilometer equals 200 grams per mile, or 1.8 tons per 9,000 miles. A very large cargo ship supposedly produces the same pollution per year as 50 million cars. That would be 50 million times 1.8 tons or 90 million tons. That would be 250,000 tons of CO2 emissions per day, assuming the vessel is in operation 360 days per year. Excuse me, but this number is nonsense.
On the other hand, a car typically transports maybe 100 kg on average (usually one, sometimes two passengers). One container = 24,000 kg, that is say the same as 240 cars. Large, but not extremely large, container ships carry 7,000 containers, that is the same freight transported as 1.7 million cars. A container ship can move at 20 knots, that would be 500 miles per day. Obviously it is not moving 360 days per year, 24 hours per day, but it should be more than 90,000 miles, ten times as much as the car in the calculation. So the freight transported is about the same as 17 million cars.
Greenpeace recently (a year-ish ago) admitted that they picked on Apple, despite there being significantly more egregious examples of companies manufacturing products that weren't friendly to the environment because they knew that talking about Apple would get their name mentioned in the news.
Out of interest, could you post a link for that?
There isn't anything particularly brain twisting here, and I'm not sure what mistaken impression the revisions discussed in the article are supposed to create (before the revisions, the quarterly net income for the entire company is $5.4 billion on revenues of $16.2 billion, after the revisions it is exactly the same, most businesses would kill to be that profitable, and they would kill their mothers to have the 'billion' in those numbers).
Here's what you are missing: Everyone expects Microsoft to be highly profitable in their core business, and investors are used to the sad fact that Microsoft wastes a billion here and there on things like buying revenue for Ping. So if the losses in the online division grow, or XBox doesn't as well as expected, nobody cares much because the main business is safe as ever. All those losses in online can be stopped any second by just leaving that business area, if Microsoft wants, so it's nothing to worry about.
But if Microsoft makes less money in Windows, Office, or Server, or if it is found out that it props up its main business by moving money from other areas, that is a very, very bad sign and investors would be quite unhappy.
I see. And you're an attorney, and you're familiar with all the jurisdictions involved. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that his activities are, in fact, illegal under U.S. law. Any lawyers in the crowd care to comment upon that?
I am not a lawyer either. I suspect that there are no laws broken by the vandalism itself; depending on what he or she posts that might be breaking the laws in some countries. However, if you check the contract between you and your ISP (Verizon in that case), Verizon might be able to hold you financially for any damage that you do intentionally to their network, and if Wikipedia takes some reasonable action, and that action costs Verizon lots of money, then you might be held responsible for the cost.
Giving everyone an iPad doesn't strike me like a policy implementation in response to a specific need, but rather as trying to win an influential group with shiny presents.
Outside of Slashdot's event horizon, many companies have already issued large number of iPads to their employees for specific purposes, and very successfully so. Very often with purpose written applications that don't go through Apple's app store (shell out a little bit more than the usual $99 for an "enterprise" developer account and you can install iPhone and iPad apps from your own servers). I don't make lists of this stuff, just use Google, but I remember Daimler Benz issuing iPads to their sales people very successfully.
Exactly, that is what I don't understand. I have to use a Mac at work, but I've never tried Time Machine since I use rsync on everything
That's why you don't understand. Time Machine keeps historical data around, so you can have say a laptop with a 250 GB drive, a 2 TB backup drive, and everything that was ever on your laptop drive will be on your backup drive. Like the OP said: 19 months of historical data. Time Machine is basically backup for the current state, plus history.