No, they deserve to be fired. The department deserves to pay a huge settlement. And this settlement will induce them to come up with a reasonable policy for how to restrain someone who is going berserk. The way they were doing it, they may as well have been pulling his fingernails or teeth out until he complied. It's like those assholes who actually wiped mace directly into the eyes of protesters at some rally a few years ago to get them to break their little stupid hippy circle.
I think you're missing something that seems obvious. They had him subdued. He was being held down by 3-4 cops while one of them jabbed the taser in his back or chest. He was subdued.
Just because someone is going all crazy ass nuts like that doesn't mean you get to torture them with a taser until they comply or...well, die. The fact is everyone involved in this should be fired, the department should be sued, and they should come up with reasonable policies and practices for forced restraint other than "durrr, let's taser him until he stops moving! (and breathing)!".
I do have knowledge of these matters. What do you think they do in a mental institution when someone goes batshit? They don't tase them, they do what's called a takedown and if necessary they use medication.
Hey Genius - did you notice that he was subdued and held down _while_ he was tased? The video's a little grainy, but any dipshit can see those cops are dirt shit stupid and should be immediately fired, and the whole department should have had the ever loving shit sued out of them. That would force some retraining.
Kind of fucking pathetic that many cops can't restrain one man without holding him down and tasing him to death. I'm not all against the taser, either, actually - it has valid uses when the cop is in moderate but non life-threatening danger. That many cops weren't in danger from one unarmed man unless they're idiots, which of course they are.
Good lord, what are you doing here? How dare you bring a spark of reason to this ridiculous den of filthy nerds?
You know what's fun? Try to find how many of these morons use some variation of the term "convicted monopolist". They're so dramatic about it, too, can't you just see them tilting their heads down a little, pausing for effect, raising their eyebrows, and saying "convicted monopolist"? It cracks me up.
1. What is the barrier to entry in the OS market? Oh, yeah. It's 0. A monopolist can do nothing to stop anyone from giving away a free OS, or for selling one that's cheaper than $500. What you people don't get is that an OS isn't oil. There isn't some fixed amount of it MS can hoard. Anyone can write an OS, and there are literally dozens and dozens of alternatives.
2. Again, how exactly can MS prevent a free OS from being distributed? Oh, wait - they can't.
In the end, you cannot have a monopoly when there is no physical product. You can have your uber-cool people who think only _they_ know a "free market" and whatnot, but no sane person can rationally argue that one can have a monopoly on something where there is a fully functional, competitive and __FREE_ alternative. Then again, since when is our legal system sane?
Ahh, the old chestnut about "true" capitalists really loving socialis...I mean "regulation" to "keep things fair". You know, that would make great sense if we were talking about something like, say, oil. Or power. Or food. Or maybe even copper laid partially at the taxpayer's expense. Or phones using public airwaves. You know, something that _exists_ and is limited and "important".
We're not. We're talking about intellectual property. Something Microsoft created and continues to create. People have chosen to buy MS's operating systems because they like them. That gave MS the power, in the past, to dictate terms to companies. That should have been fine, but if enough nerds and competitors whine it became an issue. Fine. Prove that Microsoft is still doing this and maybe somebody should look into it.
The simple fact, however, is that even if Microsoft instituted an across the board price with well defined bulk purchasing discounts and no "special deal" they would still dominate the OS market. The OS market is one that demands a monopoly, and no amount of hand-wringing or nerdish "n-glaven!" ranting will change that.
God, don't encourage them. Then we'll be hearing about how the "evil convicted monopolist" is hampering their sales and that people won't buy their cheaper PC's because the "convicted monopolist" is cheating by "bribing standards bodies" or whatever ridiculous shit these numbskulls rant and rave about on a daily basis.
And that's fine - Google will end up paying the price for hiring inexperienced employees. Not really a stock I'd want to hold long term, myself. In the end, though, the market works. Google should have every right to hire whoever they want, the market will punish them for their stupidity.
Your "point" begs the question. You place exactly what value you want to place on double blind tests of anything. If I like a piece of art that a double blind test rated poorly, and I find the price OK, I'll still buy it. In the case of art, a double blind test is just a name you've tried to apply to what's really a "popularity contest", and the quality of music or art is extremely subjective
The taste of wine is less, though still quite, subjective. More importantly, you get wine snob idiots who made up this whole ridiculous vocabulary to explain all these fancy subtleties of wine. The funny thing about wine double blind tests is when these same wine snobs can't tell the difference between a $30 bottle of wine and a $200 bottle of wine. So double-blind wine tests performed by random people? Not extremely useful, though still interesting. Double blind wine tests performed by wine snobs? Priceless.
Same with audiophile double blinds. These assholes make the most ridiculous claims full of complete crap nonsense terms they've made up. If they can't pass a double-blind test and prove that their silly theories can defy science, they deserve to be laughed at.
Wow, I read all the replies to this and was amazed people can't comprehend what she actually was saying. She was saying that downloading from the Internet is stealing. Copying a song from a friend's CD is also stealing, even if it's only one copy.
So she wasn't saying what you all seem to want her to have been saying.
Huh? That makes 0 sense. If you steal my car and I can prove you've done it, you've broken the law. Prove Novell or Microsoft have broken a law or even a contract - put up or shut up.
Skulltrail and 4x4 are for bragging rights only - pretty much nobody will buy either except a few uber-rich people who don't care about money. That said - the numbers will belie your impression. Skulltrail will score almost identically to 4x4 because it's all about SLI/Crossfire. In terms of raw computing power, Skulltrail will be superior to Barcelona simply because Barcelona, which is a good core, will only ship at 2.0GHz or _maybe_ 2.5GHz this year.
This really isn't a good time to be an AMD fanboy, I'm afraid - not like a few years ago when their products were better in pretty much every way than Intel's.
Your petty moralizing is boring me. Novell is a corporation. Their only goal is to make money, within the law. Now you can wave your hands wildly and use the Chewbaccah offense and claim someone's breaking some kind of law or is susceptible to a lawsuit here, like Groklaw is, but the fact remains that Novell isn't beholden to open source fanbois.
Becasue though we are to some degree a theocracy what with halfwit envangelicals having so much power in this country, we're nowhere near as crazy as Iran. We don't have established ties with radical Islamic terrorists. We don't advocate genocide of any particular race or country. More importantly, the cat is out of the bag already - we have them. Some people thought your question was legitimate and didn't deserve to be modded down, but you are properly modded - your question is absolutely fucking stupid.
I think they should take it to court. There's a good chance the results may not be pleasant to all the obsessive FOSS nutjobs. I _especially_ hope they try to take MS to court over the Novell thing sometime in the near future, that out to be hilariously amusing.
It's not obviously false. The GPLv3 is a more restrictive license, the copyright holder, if he wishes to enforce this higher level of requirements for distribution, must distribute his code under it. It's rather silly to say that since the person wishing to make use of the license can choose a more restrictive (Gplv3) license - what's the point?
The whole point of Gplv3 is that the FSF and several assorted righteous nutjobs thought they would "get one over" on Microsoft. They didn't, but Groklaw and other assorted retards really think they were quite smart about it. Regardless, for a company to be bound by Gplv3 the software they distribute must be explicitly licensed under Gplv3. The "or later" clause only makes sense if the "or later" version is _less_ restrictive, in which case a distributor can point to that clause and the newer, less restrictive version of the GPL as a defense if accused of copyright infringement.
Complicated, I know, and I'm sure you just don't get it.
How will you know, before purchase, that whatever DRM is in place will deliberately degrade the output quality when you get it home? I'll know because I'm an informed consumer. More importantly, I'm using AnyDVD so it wont affect me, it will strip off any image constraint token, which is what triggers downgraded quality. More importantly, by the time they enable ICT (if they do), damn near everyone will have HDMI with HDCP.
My broader point is that this isn't a Vista issue. If you want to play BluRay/HDDVD in perpetuity on any device, you need HDCP and a protected path. It's just the way it works, and they've been very clear about it.
Of course it's a triviality. You didn't know about this ages ago? This has been the case with BluRay/HDDVD since their inception. It's nothing new, and nothing to even worry about yet. The worst think that could happen is they piss me off with onerous DRM and I don't buy their shit content. Big deal.
The problem is there wouldn't be one single cause on any significant number of them. With FDIV, it was one well known issue. With this, you've got say 500000 tri-core CPUs and 350000 different issues, some of which are completely fatal.
Umm, huh? Why do you think they're doing it? If I see a long stinky turd flowing out of my dog, then 30 seconds later I see a wet turd behind the dog, I don't need a "reference or link" to prove it's my dog's shit. It's called "logic", look into it sometime. Of course they're doing it because they can't sell the chip as a (more profitable) quad core for whatever reason. Your questions really make absolutely no sense to me.
Yeah, because if you can't buy "Not Without My Daughter: A Lifetime Special" or "Norbitt" you will literally DIE or at the very least suffer great hardship.
Don't you get that Vista and DRM are boring to everyone but you bitter geeky dweeb nerds? I'm running Vista on my HTPC. Works like a charm, can rip HDDVD movies to hard drive and play them back, play them directly from my 360 HDDVD drive, etc... In fact, I've had absolutely no issues with DRM in Vista. If I did, I wouldn't purchase DRM content. But here comes the nerd brigade!
Vista has DRM, nothing will play!
Vista will DRM our free music!
Vista will downrez any video you ever play unless you have HDMI!
Vista will downrez BluRay/HDDVD if you don't have HDMI!
Of course, in the end all of these are pathetic lies and FUD made up by a bunch of geeky dweebs. Not one bit of it is true, and in fact 99.9% of the stuff you people's drivel about DRM in Vista are simply lies, and the other.1% are just unfortunate truths - the content providers won't allow their property to be played without a trusted path. If you don't like that, don't buy their media. I don't - if I can't crack DRM or if it doesn't suit my needs, I won't buy it. Sure beats coming on SlashDot and crying like a little bitch about every article with the words "Vista", "Microsoft", or "DRM" in it.
That's because Gutmann's "work" is idiotic, and is widely known to be so. I was surprised to see this article, I thought everyone knew he was chicken littling. Go look around on www.avsforum.com at all the "DRM" trouble with Vista people are having. Oh, wait, the number of issues people are having with Vista re: DRM approaches 0. It was a bunch of sound and fury (and ridiculous untruths) and anyone who knows anything about Vista, HDDVD/BluRay, or DRM immediately saw it as such.
The simple fact is that if you don't purchase DRM content, the DRM support in Vista is of no consequence. If you _do_ purchase DRM content, then you know you're purchasing DRM content and in fact said content wouldn't work on Vista without the DRM. In fact, any OS that plays protected content must implement the same shit Vista does. So in the end, Gutmann was just trying to rile up all the DRM nerds but his point was absolutely meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they deserve to be fired. The department deserves to pay a huge settlement. And this settlement will induce them to come up with a reasonable policy for how to restrain someone who is going berserk. The way they were doing it, they may as well have been pulling his fingernails or teeth out until he complied. It's like those assholes who actually wiped mace directly into the eyes of protesters at some rally a few years ago to get them to break their little stupid hippy circle.
Just because someone is going all crazy ass nuts like that doesn't mean you get to torture them with a taser until they comply or...well, die. The fact is everyone involved in this should be fired, the department should be sued, and they should come up with reasonable policies and practices for forced restraint other than "durrr, let's taser him until he stops moving! (and breathing)!".
I do have knowledge of these matters. What do you think they do in a mental institution when someone goes batshit? They don't tase them, they do what's called a takedown and if necessary they use medication.
Kind of fucking pathetic that many cops can't restrain one man without holding him down and tasing him to death. I'm not all against the taser, either, actually - it has valid uses when the cop is in moderate but non life-threatening danger. That many cops weren't in danger from one unarmed man unless they're idiots, which of course they are.
Good lord, what are you doing here? How dare you bring a spark of reason to this ridiculous den of filthy nerds?
You know what's fun? Try to find how many of these morons use some variation of the term "convicted monopolist". They're so dramatic about it, too, can't you just see them tilting their heads down a little, pausing for effect, raising their eyebrows, and saying "convicted monopolist"? It cracks me up.
Wow. Let's see.
1. What is the barrier to entry in the OS market? Oh, yeah. It's 0. A monopolist can do nothing to stop anyone from giving away a free OS, or for selling one that's cheaper than $500. What you people don't get is that an OS isn't oil. There isn't some fixed amount of it MS can hoard. Anyone can write an OS, and there are literally dozens and dozens of alternatives.
2. Again, how exactly can MS prevent a free OS from being distributed? Oh, wait - they can't.
In the end, you cannot have a monopoly when there is no physical product. You can have your uber-cool people who think only _they_ know a "free market" and whatnot, but no sane person can rationally argue that one can have a monopoly on something where there is a fully functional, competitive and __FREE_ alternative. Then again, since when is our legal system sane?
Ahh, the old chestnut about "true" capitalists really loving socialis...I mean "regulation" to "keep things fair". You know, that would make great sense if we were talking about something like, say, oil. Or power. Or food. Or maybe even copper laid partially at the taxpayer's expense. Or phones using public airwaves. You know, something that _exists_ and is limited and "important".
We're not. We're talking about intellectual property. Something Microsoft created and continues to create. People have chosen to buy MS's operating systems because they like them. That gave MS the power, in the past, to dictate terms to companies. That should have been fine, but if enough nerds and competitors whine it became an issue. Fine. Prove that Microsoft is still doing this and maybe somebody should look into it.
The simple fact, however, is that even if Microsoft instituted an across the board price with well defined bulk purchasing discounts and no "special deal" they would still dominate the OS market. The OS market is one that demands a monopoly, and no amount of hand-wringing or nerdish "n-glaven!" ranting will change that.
God, don't encourage them. Then we'll be hearing about how the "evil convicted monopolist" is hampering their sales and that people won't buy their cheaper PC's because the "convicted monopolist" is cheating by "bribing standards bodies" or whatever ridiculous shit these numbskulls rant and rave about on a daily basis.
And that's fine - Google will end up paying the price for hiring inexperienced employees. Not really a stock I'd want to hold long term, myself. In the end, though, the market works. Google should have every right to hire whoever they want, the market will punish them for their stupidity.
The taste of wine is less, though still quite, subjective. More importantly, you get wine snob idiots who made up this whole ridiculous vocabulary to explain all these fancy subtleties of wine. The funny thing about wine double blind tests is when these same wine snobs can't tell the difference between a $30 bottle of wine and a $200 bottle of wine. So double-blind wine tests performed by random people? Not extremely useful, though still interesting. Double blind wine tests performed by wine snobs? Priceless.
Same with audiophile double blinds. These assholes make the most ridiculous claims full of complete crap nonsense terms they've made up. If they can't pass a double-blind test and prove that their silly theories can defy science, they deserve to be laughed at.
So she wasn't saying what you all seem to want her to have been saying.
That's what people don't get. In the end, it's the market leader who sets the "standards", not bodies of people who claim to set standards.
Huh? That makes 0 sense. If you steal my car and I can prove you've done it, you've broken the law. Prove Novell or Microsoft have broken a law or even a contract - put up or shut up.
This really isn't a good time to be an AMD fanboy, I'm afraid - not like a few years ago when their products were better in pretty much every way than Intel's.
Your petty moralizing is boring me. Novell is a corporation. Their only goal is to make money, within the law. Now you can wave your hands wildly and use the Chewbaccah offense and claim someone's breaking some kind of law or is susceptible to a lawsuit here, like Groklaw is, but the fact remains that Novell isn't beholden to open source fanbois.
Becasue though we are to some degree a theocracy what with halfwit envangelicals having so much power in this country, we're nowhere near as crazy as Iran. We don't have established ties with radical Islamic terrorists. We don't advocate genocide of any particular race or country. More importantly, the cat is out of the bag already - we have them. Some people thought your question was legitimate and didn't deserve to be modded down, but you are properly modded - your question is absolutely fucking stupid.
I think they should take it to court. There's a good chance the results may not be pleasant to all the obsessive FOSS nutjobs. I _especially_ hope they try to take MS to court over the Novell thing sometime in the near future, that out to be hilariously amusing.
The whole point of Gplv3 is that the FSF and several assorted righteous nutjobs thought they would "get one over" on Microsoft. They didn't, but Groklaw and other assorted retards really think they were quite smart about it. Regardless, for a company to be bound by Gplv3 the software they distribute must be explicitly licensed under Gplv3. The "or later" clause only makes sense if the "or later" version is _less_ restrictive, in which case a distributor can point to that clause and the newer, less restrictive version of the GPL as a defense if accused of copyright infringement.
Complicated, I know, and I'm sure you just don't get it.
Huh? .NET bone simple. AJAX, similarly simple. Silverlight is just .NET running in a web browser. Nothing really complicated about any of them.
My broader point is that this isn't a Vista issue. If you want to play BluRay/HDDVD in perpetuity on any device, you need HDCP and a protected path. It's just the way it works, and they've been very clear about it.
Of course it's a triviality. You didn't know about this ages ago? This has been the case with BluRay/HDDVD since their inception. It's nothing new, and nothing to even worry about yet. The worst think that could happen is they piss me off with onerous DRM and I don't buy their shit content. Big deal.
The problem is there wouldn't be one single cause on any significant number of them. With FDIV, it was one well known issue. With this, you've got say 500000 tri-core CPUs and 350000 different issues, some of which are completely fatal.
Umm, huh? Why do you think they're doing it? If I see a long stinky turd flowing out of my dog, then 30 seconds later I see a wet turd behind the dog, I don't need a "reference or link" to prove it's my dog's shit. It's called "logic", look into it sometime. Of course they're doing it because they can't sell the chip as a (more profitable) quad core for whatever reason. Your questions really make absolutely no sense to me.
Yeah, because if you can't buy "Not Without My Daughter: A Lifetime Special" or "Norbitt" you will literally DIE or at the very least suffer great hardship.
Vista has DRM, nothing will play!
Vista will DRM our free music!
Vista will downrez any video you ever play unless you have HDMI!
Vista will downrez BluRay/HDDVD if you don't have HDMI!
Of course, in the end all of these are pathetic lies and FUD made up by a bunch of geeky dweebs. Not one bit of it is true, and in fact 99.9% of the stuff you people's drivel about DRM in Vista are simply lies, and the other .1% are just unfortunate truths - the content providers won't allow their property to be played without a trusted path. If you don't like that, don't buy their media. I don't - if I can't crack DRM or if it doesn't suit my needs, I won't buy it. Sure beats coming on SlashDot and crying like a little bitch about every article with the words "Vista", "Microsoft", or "DRM" in it.
The simple fact is that if you don't purchase DRM content, the DRM support in Vista is of no consequence. If you _do_ purchase DRM content, then you know you're purchasing DRM content and in fact said content wouldn't work on Vista without the DRM. In fact, any OS that plays protected content must implement the same shit Vista does. So in the end, Gutmann was just trying to rile up all the DRM nerds but his point was absolutely meaningless.