it was the Christmas display that violated copyright if the music wasn't licensed for broadcast (and I opined that it was licensed), not me.
Are you sure that's the case? Let's consider that you made advertising money on the video, would the makers of the Christmas display still be considered at fault and liable to pay the publisher/author based on how much money you made?
My question is serious, I don't know, but I suspect that 1) the end user is ultimately at fault... although they may have recourse if the product was sold under a false claim and 2) the fact of infringement does not consider whether profit was made (but damages may bring that into consideration)
True, but what incentive do they have? There would potentially be a huge backlash from customers whose favorite sites suddenly started sucking (even if for only a few months until things got settled). And many ISPs such as cable also have to compete with DSL or fiber, so customers would flock away.
Plus something I haven't thought of before now... consider net neutrality, and the fact that customers may start filing complaints that their favorite service is being throttled by their ISP. That service is working fine for other ISPs (which are still using IPv4). This appears like a classic net neutrality violation, but in reality the ISP is not throttling anyone, it's the site or backbone provider that has something screwed up.
Even if the FCC sides with the ISP, plenty of damage to reputation will be done.
What you mentioned is what I was talking about, that it would only apply to open Wi-Fi networks with web-based authentication (as opposed to encrypted connections).
I doubt that will be the catalyst. I think websites will start the charge. Probably the easiest way forward is to begin reducing the number of nodes that respond to IPv4 (effectively slowing down that traffic). IPv6 should become more stable and used more frequently, and that will allow the sites to reduce even more nodes. Repeat until all clients use IPv6, then shut down IPv4 (both on sites and ISPs).
My cell phone has been on IPv6 for years. Everything I have is ready for the conversion. What is holding it up?
Suckage.
I recently disabled IPv6 on my router because too many sites were slow loading. It was particularly bad with Wikipedia, which usually just timed out after a few minutes. OTOH, IPv4 works fine for the same sites.
I don't know where the trouble is, Wikipedia or my ISP (U-Verse) or somewhere in between or some problem with my computer... but in its current state, I can't endorse switching.
Well, I agree that it's a solution looking for a problem. Really the only time I could see that being useful is if you go to a restaurant or coffee shop and want to get on their Wi-Fi, and a friend has already been there before and logged in.
And I didn't mean to downplay how big of a problem this may be for the many people who have a password-protected open network for guest access.
I'm just keeping in mind, though, that guest networks are typically isolated from the main network and the guest network would only be shared with friends-of-friends*... probably not an actual issue for the vast majority of people, so much as a theoretical one.
* Actually, come to think of it, would the password also go to friends-of-friends-of-friends? Friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends? How deep can this go? The whole six-degrees-of-separation thing comes to mind... could this end up pushing almost everyone's network passwords to the entire connected internet? Yeah, I'd like more info, and the sooner the better.
The FAQ seems to imply that it is only applicable to open routers:
What does Wi-Fi Sense do?
Wi-Fi Sense connects you to Wi-Fi networks around you to help you save cellular data. It can do these things for you to get you Internet access:
Automatically connect you to open Wi-Fi networks it knows about by crowdsourcing networks that other Windows Phone users have connected to. These are typically open Wi-Fi hotspots you see when you're out and about.
Still very questionable, but perhaps not nearly as pervasive. I'd think it would mostly apply to hotels, restaurants, and other places of business.
And to be extremely clear, I never said "Google was being racist", in any form or fashion at all. Let's nip that in the bud before someone argues against that straw man.
This is kind of like being hit in the arm by a baseball as you are walking by your neighbor's yard. It's probably no big deal, probably didn't hurt much and is unlikely to have caused permanent damage of any kind. But it's still respectful for your neighbor to apologize.
but helps society
Remember that Google gets money from this, primarily indirectly through advertising. Anything they do to help society also lines their wallets (which is pretty much the definition of how capitalism is supposed to work).
Don't fall into the trap of thinking Google's intentions are completely selfless. I'm beyond certain that they meant no harm, but considering they are getting something out of it, it would be very disrespectful for Google to brush it off.
In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft finally kills windows phone.
In the future? Perhaps if the situation doesn't improve. Right now? Very doubtful... they just recently made a huge investment on making Windows 10 run on Windows Phone and the Universal Windows Platform capable of running the same binaries (with responsive UI) on all devices from phone to IoT to tablet to Xbox to PC to HoloLens and whatever else they dream up.
Also consider that in most markets, Windows Phone is closer in phone marketshare to iOS than iOS is to Android. That's not saying a lot. But WP is definitely at the #3 spot, and the way this market is... if they can find that itch to scratch, things could change within the course of two or three years.
The obvious solution is to just make sure they never go out of business. Too big to fail.
The company gets to keep profiting off of you, and you get to keep providing them with data that will help further their profiting off of you. Win-win!
For that matter, at 1g for the entire duration of the ride (1g acceleration halfway, 1g deceleration the other half) it would only take a bit over 21 minutes.
And if we want to talk about human survivability, Wikipedia tells me that humans can generally tolerate up to 5g before blacking out. At that rate it would take about 9.5 minutes one way.
And if we're just looking to get there in an hour, 1/8 g would do the trick.
Hello kids, today we present you with the logical fallacy known as a Strawman argument.
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Stay tuned, you're sure to discover some more logical fallacies below!
You seem to be under the impression that lowering consumer costs and increasing profits are mutually exclusive.
The reality is that advances in technology tend to do a little of both. Profits increase for a little while as an incentive to utilize the new technology. But competition eventually forces the prices lower until they stabilize, meaning lower costs.
If you don't see lower costs, it's probably because either the market has decided to utilize the tech to make products better rather than cheaper, or because there is no real competition in the market.
Windows has never required the use of a common installer platform. It was always possible for a developer to custom-build an installer to do whatever they wanted (within the constraints of security mechanisms like UAC). The installer could be a bunny hopping across your screen, opening Explorer, and pooing files into the install folders.
FWIW, Windows 10 is looking to improve that situation. Universal Windows Platform apps will only have one installer mechanism, AppX, which will highly restrict what the installer can do on the system. I believe it will also enforce a common application update strategy. This same installer mechanism will be available for all UWP apps, both on the Windows Store and sideloaded, and it will also be used for desktop apps on the Windows Store (Project Centennial).
I don't understand why anyone is talking about other countries; this topic is about our country. There is plenty of land available and plenty of rental properties, and plenty of opportunities to save money, to obtain loans, and to learn skills for all kinds of jobs that exist in all areas of the country.
The third world problem is different, and I tend to agree that it is a problem, but it doesn't pertain much to this conversation.
If they were being pushed out of land they owned, you might have a point.
We're talking about renting. There is no ownership, there is only contract. Most rental contracts do not provide any guarantee of future habitation. This benefits both the landlord and the renter, as both have the same right to terminate the relationship after contract expiration.
On the other hand, a land owner is required to pay taxes, and mortgage dues if applicable. Land owners are guaranteed habitation on the condition of such payments.
You can have your cake or eat it, but not both. You can have your house or the freedom to walk away with no obligations, but not both.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be a reasonable concern if this release of Edge was the final release, ever.
Even if you only see bug fixes between now and July 29, new features will come to some post-RTM release.
it was the Christmas display that violated copyright if the music wasn't licensed for broadcast (and I opined that it was licensed), not me.
Are you sure that's the case? Let's consider that you made advertising money on the video, would the makers of the Christmas display still be considered at fault and liable to pay the publisher/author based on how much money you made?
My question is serious, I don't know, but I suspect that
1) the end user is ultimately at fault... although they may have recourse if the product was sold under a false claim
and 2) the fact of infringement does not consider whether profit was made (but damages may bring that into consideration)
True, but what incentive do they have? There would potentially be a huge backlash from customers whose favorite sites suddenly started sucking (even if for only a few months until things got settled). And many ISPs such as cable also have to compete with DSL or fiber, so customers would flock away.
Plus something I haven't thought of before now... consider net neutrality, and the fact that customers may start filing complaints that their favorite service is being throttled by their ISP. That service is working fine for other ISPs (which are still using IPv4). This appears like a classic net neutrality violation, but in reality the ISP is not throttling anyone, it's the site or backbone provider that has something screwed up.
Even if the FCC sides with the ISP, plenty of damage to reputation will be done.
What you mentioned is what I was talking about, that it would only apply to open Wi-Fi networks with web-based authentication (as opposed to encrypted connections).
Perhaps, I don't know how those work. I've only used pay-by-the-day at hotels.
I'm talking about the open hotspots that are protected behind a password web page, such as many home guest networks, restaurants, and hotels.
I doubt that will be the catalyst. I think websites will start the charge. Probably the easiest way forward is to begin reducing the number of nodes that respond to IPv4 (effectively slowing down that traffic). IPv6 should become more stable and used more frequently, and that will allow the sites to reduce even more nodes. Repeat until all clients use IPv6, then shut down IPv4 (both on sites and ISPs).
My cell phone has been on IPv6 for years. Everything I have is ready for the conversion. What is holding it up?
Suckage.
I recently disabled IPv6 on my router because too many sites were slow loading. It was particularly bad with Wikipedia, which usually just timed out after a few minutes. OTOH, IPv4 works fine for the same sites.
I don't know where the trouble is, Wikipedia or my ISP (U-Verse) or somewhere in between or some problem with my computer... but in its current state, I can't endorse switching.
Well, I agree that it's a solution looking for a problem. Really the only time I could see that being useful is if you go to a restaurant or coffee shop and want to get on their Wi-Fi, and a friend has already been there before and logged in.
And I didn't mean to downplay how big of a problem this may be for the many people who have a password-protected open network for guest access.
I'm just keeping in mind, though, that guest networks are typically isolated from the main network and the guest network would only be shared with friends-of-friends*... probably not an actual issue for the vast majority of people, so much as a theoretical one.
* Actually, come to think of it, would the password also go to friends-of-friends-of-friends? Friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends? How deep can this go? The whole six-degrees-of-separation thing comes to mind... could this end up pushing almost everyone's network passwords to the entire connected internet? Yeah, I'd like more info, and the sooner the better.
The way I read it, they probably don't.
The FAQ seems to imply that it is only applicable to open routers:
What does Wi-Fi Sense do?
Wi-Fi Sense connects you to Wi-Fi networks around you to help you save cellular data. It can do these things for you to get you Internet access:
Automatically connect you to open Wi-Fi networks it knows about by crowdsourcing networks that other Windows Phone users have connected to. These are typically open Wi-Fi hotspots you see when you're out and about.
Still very questionable, but perhaps not nearly as pervasive. I'd think it would mostly apply to hotels, restaurants, and other places of business.
It might be, but it won't be an apology.
Unless you are Steve Jobs reincarnate, I doubt this position will get you as far in life.
And to be extremely clear, I never said "Google was being racist", in any form or fashion at all. Let's nip that in the bud before someone argues against that straw man.
This is kind of like being hit in the arm by a baseball as you are walking by your neighbor's yard. It's probably no big deal, probably didn't hurt much and is unlikely to have caused permanent damage of any kind. But it's still respectful for your neighbor to apologize.
but helps society
Remember that Google gets money from this, primarily indirectly through advertising. Anything they do to help society also lines their wallets (which is pretty much the definition of how capitalism is supposed to work).
Don't fall into the trap of thinking Google's intentions are completely selfless. I'm beyond certain that they meant no harm, but considering they are getting something out of it, it would be very disrespectful for Google to brush it off.
If they are storing their photos on facebook, they ARE storing them in the cloud.
It depends on what you mean "store". Dictionary.com provides this as a definition: "to accumulate or put away, for future use". (emphasis mine)
I don't think Facebook guarantees future retrieval, so it is probably not proper to classify it as storage.
In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft finally kills windows phone.
In the future? Perhaps if the situation doesn't improve. Right now? Very doubtful... they just recently made a huge investment on making Windows 10 run on Windows Phone and the Universal Windows Platform capable of running the same binaries (with responsive UI) on all devices from phone to IoT to tablet to Xbox to PC to HoloLens and whatever else they dream up.
Also consider that in most markets, Windows Phone is closer in phone marketshare to iOS than iOS is to Android. That's not saying a lot. But WP is definitely at the #3 spot, and the way this market is... if they can find that itch to scratch, things could change within the course of two or three years.
The obvious solution is to just make sure they never go out of business. Too big to fail.
The company gets to keep profiting off of you, and you get to keep providing them with data that will help further their profiting off of you. Win-win!
DLL Hell is a known problem and measures are usually taken to prevent breaking too much software in the wild.
This seems more like replacing a crying baby with one that looks about the same but doesn't cry as much, and saying "same thing".
For that matter, at 1g for the entire duration of the ride (1g acceleration halfway, 1g deceleration the other half) it would only take a bit over 21 minutes.
And if we want to talk about human survivability, Wikipedia tells me that humans can generally tolerate up to 5g before blacking out. At that rate it would take about 9.5 minutes one way.
And if we're just looking to get there in an hour, 1/8 g would do the trick.
Yes I did. I still don't see how it can tell whether the person using it is a pregnant woman.
While YOU might support racism and slavery
Hello kids, today we present you with the logical fallacy known as a Strawman argument.
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Stay tuned, you're sure to discover some more logical fallacies below!
You seem to be under the impression that lowering consumer costs and increasing profits are mutually exclusive.
The reality is that advances in technology tend to do a little of both. Profits increase for a little while as an incentive to utilize the new technology. But competition eventually forces the prices lower until they stabilize, meaning lower costs.
If you don't see lower costs, it's probably because either the market has decided to utilize the tech to make products better rather than cheaper, or because there is no real competition in the market.
Windows has never required the use of a common installer platform. It was always possible for a developer to custom-build an installer to do whatever they wanted (within the constraints of security mechanisms like UAC). The installer could be a bunny hopping across your screen, opening Explorer, and pooing files into the install folders.
FWIW, Windows 10 is looking to improve that situation. Universal Windows Platform apps will only have one installer mechanism, AppX, which will highly restrict what the installer can do on the system. I believe it will also enforce a common application update strategy. This same installer mechanism will be available for all UWP apps, both on the Windows Store and sideloaded, and it will also be used for desktop apps on the Windows Store (Project Centennial).
I don't understand why anyone is talking about other countries; this topic is about our country. There is plenty of land available and plenty of rental properties, and plenty of opportunities to save money, to obtain loans, and to learn skills for all kinds of jobs that exist in all areas of the country.
The third world problem is different, and I tend to agree that it is a problem, but it doesn't pertain much to this conversation.
If they were being pushed out of land they owned, you might have a point.
We're talking about renting. There is no ownership, there is only contract. Most rental contracts do not provide any guarantee of future habitation. This benefits both the landlord and the renter, as both have the same right to terminate the relationship after contract expiration.
On the other hand, a land owner is required to pay taxes, and mortgage dues if applicable. Land owners are guaranteed habitation on the condition of such payments.
You can have your cake or eat it, but not both. You can have your house or the freedom to walk away with no obligations, but not both.