Of course it's aimed at Google, Google will be the death of the iPhone. Apple can not keep up with 10+ manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month. The only thing they have now over Android is "polish". That's going to erode over time and at that point the only reason to own an iPhone is because you don't know any better.
Lies. If you had read the article, the complaint was that other search-type providers were finding their results lower in the ranking than they should be.
The comparison sites reportedly complained to the EC that Google’s search algorithm demotes their sites in searches as they compete with Google’s own services.
Microsoft can't prevent anybody from competing in the market either - they're always free to use Linux or any of the other dozen viable OS's or other less common OS's.
Google is the dominant search provider by a long shot. The argument is that they are abusing that monopoly to unfairly promote other services they provide. The same whiny argument used against Microsoft.
I actually don't think Google is a monopoly, but neither is Microsoft.
Your point is silly and nonsensical. My Samsung Moment phone has exactly 1 (one) search provider: Google. I can't change it. If I want another provider, I get off my lazy ass and visit it in the web browser.
The regulators got a complaint from some Google customers about their advertisements being ranked low.
The regulators then started an investigation and asked Microsoft for a laundry list of competitive issues they see from Google. What they described is a competitive issue, just like someone saying "Microsoft controls the API for Windows and can optimize it for their OS". Well, sure. It's an issue, and I doubt anyone will do anything about it but you still mention it just as a point of fact.
That said, going after Google for a "monopoly" is bullshit, just like it is going after MS.
Not sure if you can read, but the problem was actually Google placing certain search/comparison providers who advertise lower in the ranking. The regulators then asked MS "how can Google harm competition". Microsoft answered. Then some neckbeard thought this meant Microsoft was out crying to the regulators instigating an investigation.
In short, the article summary and 90% of the comments for it are completely false.
Asinine. You're changing the rules to suit your needs, and using those rules to indict Microsoft and let Google off the hook. So apparently in your universe the only evil is trying to lock out your competitors?
Rape Defendent: But your honor, did I brutally murder a 12 year old child senselessly like the case in the news recently?
Judge: I find your argument compelling. Case dismissed.
They're claiming it will cost $187 million to replace. Bullshit. If the hardware is more than 15 years old, which it sounds like it is, it's impossible to conceive how they could spend more than $100k on hardware to replace it and still give 100x the performance and capacity. OK, let's splurge - spend 5 million on hardware.
These jackoffs would have us believe it's going to cost $180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that's 20 years old? Complete bullshit. Instead of the mythical $500 government hammer, now we've got the $180 million dollar software package that should cost
If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.
Who didn't know that? Seriously who doesn't understand that the legal system has provisions to force _any_ company to release _any_ data they have about you?
I did read it. The document is copyrighted, the guy has no right to publish it period. His legal sounding blatherings, if you read them, do not address this simple fact.
You neckbeards can wax righteous about the evils of copyright and mod me down all you want, and I do agree Copyright law been perverted from its original purpose but in this case the guy is publishing something he has no right to publish. He's going to get squished.
You don't misunderstand, you're completely right. Some scumbag is posting copyrighted material and thinks he's righteous. It's no different than if a screener gets a copy of a movie before release and posts it online, or if someone steals the design documents for a chip from a semiconductor company and posts it on his blog. It's a copyrighted document, Microsoft owns the copyright, and this little douche has no legal right to distribute it.
The fact that it's Microsoft and that the document is of little importance has no real bearing on the issue. I hope they squash this little worm.
Umm, because Perens wrote the article? Why shouldn't his name be there, he created the content we are all reading. I don't see how that detracts from what Jacobsen did.
Ding ding ding, you win the dumbest post of the thread award so far!
A few things.
a) It doesn't.
b) Why would anyone care that it does? Updating the OS is an OS function, if they choose to use IE to do it that's not depriving you of "choice" any more than if they wrote a custom GUI app to do it.
Ahh, the code of the corrupt bureaucrat. I agree, they could certainly use that one though since an OEM sells a product and doesn't manufacture one, it might be hard for them to come up with the appropriately sophist argument legitimizing this arbitrary rule.
Of course they should! Linux dweebs will help them with friendly, free online advise like "You're an idiot" and "Duuh, you don't know how to peruse/proc to find out which revision of your chipset you're using, you numbskull noob!?".
Be interesting to see if this has any effect on browser usage statistics. Would be hilariously funny if IE actually gains traction. I doubt it though, I don't think IE8 is bad at all but even I use Firefox.
Nonsense. A corporation derives its "free speech" rights because it is _composed_ of a _group of people_, not because of its fictional pseudo-personhood. Me and two of my buddies can go and buy a commercial or post a billboard saying anything we like. So can me and 50 of my buddies. In fact, I can find a group of 50,000 people (let's call it.. IdeaCo Corp.) and go buy a billboard.
I know the crybaby anti-corporate crowd loves to make a big deal about how terrible that SC decision was, but it was fundamentally impossible for them to come to another decision. Entirely apart for the fictional personhood of a corporation, a corporation consists of a group of people who each (and in aggregate) have a right to speech.
A corporation does not realize profit. Its shareholders realize profits. Those shareholders pay taxes. By all means we should crack down on fraud (people using corporate funds to effectively buy themselves shit like jets and houses), but otherwise a corporation's money goes to either shareholders (taxed) or back into hiring people and buying items necessary for the corporation to exist.
Jesus Christ. Where does a "corporation's" money go? Where does your money go?
All money is taxed before it goes to a real person. Corporate "profit" goes to reinvestment or paying off debt.
Corporations aren't people. They have some of the same rights as people, but pretending they earn money and spend it the same way as people is just sophistry.
Profits go to people. Those people pay taxes. Whining about "corporate fat cats" not paying taxes is just something stupid people do.
You care, you're just not aware that you care. I stare at a computer screen for hours on end too. This is not the same as traditional reading. You're moving your eyes around a lot when you do day to day computer stuff (web browing, writing a paper, programming, gaming, whatever). You pretty much move your eyes at a fixed rate at a fairly slow pace (compared to jumping around looking at different parts of the screen) when you read.
So nobody is going to stop with the e-ink is better for the eyes "FUD" any more than they're going to stop with the "saturated fat is bad for you in large quantities" "FUD".
What's your point? All that matters is price/performance. If processor A can get the job done more cheaply with twice the processors, why would I care?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's aimed at Google, Google will be the death of the iPhone. Apple can not keep up with 10+ manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month. The only thing they have now over Android is "polish". That's going to erode over time and at that point the only reason to own an iPhone is because you don't know any better.
Lies. If you had read the article, the complaint was that other search-type providers were finding their results lower in the ranking than they should be.
The comparison sites reportedly complained to the EC that Google’s search algorithm demotes their sites in searches as they compete with Google’s own services.
Microsoft can't prevent anybody from competing in the market either - they're always free to use Linux or any of the other dozen viable OS's or other less common OS's.
Google is the dominant search provider by a long shot. The argument is that they are abusing that monopoly to unfairly promote other services they provide. The same whiny argument used against Microsoft.
I actually don't think Google is a monopoly, but neither is Microsoft.
Your point is silly and nonsensical. My Samsung Moment phone has exactly 1 (one) search provider: Google. I can't change it. If I want another provider, I get off my lazy ass and visit it in the web browser.
You're not following.
The regulators got a complaint from some Google customers about their advertisements being ranked low.
The regulators then started an investigation and asked Microsoft for a laundry list of competitive issues they see from Google. What they described is a competitive issue, just like someone saying "Microsoft controls the API for Windows and can optimize it for their OS". Well, sure. It's an issue, and I doubt anyone will do anything about it but you still mention it just as a point of fact.
That said, going after Google for a "monopoly" is bullshit, just like it is going after MS.
Not sure if you can read, but the problem was actually Google placing certain search/comparison providers who advertise lower in the ranking. The regulators then asked MS "how can Google harm competition". Microsoft answered. Then some neckbeard thought this meant Microsoft was out crying to the regulators instigating an investigation.
In short, the article summary and 90% of the comments for it are completely false.
Asinine. You're changing the rules to suit your needs, and using those rules to indict Microsoft and let Google off the hook. So apparently in your universe the only evil is trying to lock out your competitors?
Rape Defendent: But your honor, did I brutally murder a 12 year old child senselessly like the case in the news recently?
Judge: I find your argument compelling. Case dismissed.
They're claiming it will cost $187 million to replace. Bullshit. If the hardware is more than 15 years old, which it sounds like it is, it's impossible to conceive how they could spend more than $100k on hardware to replace it and still give 100x the performance and capacity. OK, let's splurge - spend 5 million on hardware.
These jackoffs would have us believe it's going to cost $180 million to replace some bullshit law enforcement database software that's 20 years old? Complete bullshit. Instead of the mythical $500 government hammer, now we've got the $180 million dollar software package that should cost
If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.
Who didn't know that? Seriously who doesn't understand that the legal system has provisions to force _any_ company to release _any_ data they have about you?
I did read it. The document is copyrighted, the guy has no right to publish it period. His legal sounding blatherings, if you read them, do not address this simple fact.
You neckbeards can wax righteous about the evils of copyright and mod me down all you want, and I do agree Copyright law been perverted from its original purpose but in this case the guy is publishing something he has no right to publish. He's going to get squished.
You don't misunderstand, you're completely right. Some scumbag is posting copyrighted material and thinks he's righteous. It's no different than if a screener gets a copy of a movie before release and posts it online, or if someone steals the design documents for a chip from a semiconductor company and posts it on his blog. It's a copyrighted document, Microsoft owns the copyright, and this little douche has no legal right to distribute it.
The fact that it's Microsoft and that the document is of little importance has no real bearing on the issue. I hope they squash this little worm.
Umm, because Perens wrote the article? Why shouldn't his name be there, he created the content we are all reading. I don't see how that detracts from what Jacobsen did.
Ding ding ding, you win the dumbest post of the thread award so far!
A few things.
a) It doesn't.
b) Why would anyone care that it does? Updating the OS is an OS function, if they choose to use IE to do it that's not depriving you of "choice" any more than if they wrote a custom GUI app to do it.
Ahh, the code of the corrupt bureaucrat. I agree, they could certainly use that one though since an OEM sells a product and doesn't manufacture one, it might be hard for them to come up with the appropriately sophist argument legitimizing this arbitrary rule.
Of course they should! Linux dweebs will help them with friendly, free online advise like "You're an idiot" and "Duuh, you don't know how to peruse /proc to find out which revision of your chipset you're using, you numbskull noob!?".
Lol. "Forced" huh? Based on what moral or legal code besides the "I'm angry!" code?
Be interesting to see if this has any effect on browser usage statistics. Would be hilariously funny if IE actually gains traction. I doubt it though, I don't think IE8 is bad at all but even I use Firefox.
Everywhere. This is a licensing requirement to be able to play protected content, not a US regulatory requirement.
Nonsense. A corporation derives its "free speech" rights because it is _composed_ of a _group of people_, not because of its fictional pseudo-personhood. Me and two of my buddies can go and buy a commercial or post a billboard saying anything we like. So can me and 50 of my buddies. In fact, I can find a group of 50,000 people (let's call it.. IdeaCo Corp.) and go buy a billboard.
I know the crybaby anti-corporate crowd loves to make a big deal about how terrible that SC decision was, but it was fundamentally impossible for them to come to another decision. Entirely apart for the fictional personhood of a corporation, a corporation consists of a group of people who each (and in aggregate) have a right to speech.
A corporation is not an individual. Not even legally. Comparing the two is nonsensical.
A corporation does not realize profit. Its shareholders realize profits. Those shareholders pay taxes. By all means we should crack down on fraud (people using corporate funds to effectively buy themselves shit like jets and houses), but otherwise a corporation's money goes to either shareholders (taxed) or back into hiring people and buying items necessary for the corporation to exist.
Jesus Christ. Where does a "corporation's" money go? Where does your money go?
All money is taxed before it goes to a real person. Corporate "profit" goes to reinvestment or paying off debt.
Corporations aren't people. They have some of the same rights as people, but pretending they earn money and spend it the same way as people is just sophistry.
Profits go to people. Those people pay taxes. Whining about "corporate fat cats" not paying taxes is just something stupid people do.
You care, you're just not aware that you care. I stare at a computer screen for hours on end too. This is not the same as traditional reading. You're moving your eyes around a lot when you do day to day computer stuff (web browing, writing a paper, programming, gaming, whatever). You pretty much move your eyes at a fixed rate at a fairly slow pace (compared to jumping around looking at different parts of the screen) when you read.
So nobody is going to stop with the e-ink is better for the eyes "FUD" any more than they're going to stop with the "saturated fat is bad for you in large quantities" "FUD".
Thank god you bolded the first letters, or I never would have known what you were trying to do there.
Wow! I might have been abducted by aliens last night and taught how to break the laws of thermodynamics.
I'd tell you how, but they made me sign an NDA. Just take my word for it, though, I'm Some Guy on SlashDot, after all!
What's your point? All that matters is price/performance. If processor A can get the job done more cheaply with twice the processors, why would I care?