According to this guy it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.
Yep this is just a trick. Microsoft has released a veiled "Jailbreak" and by the time you're done coding your application for your Jailbroke Windows 7 Phone, you'll realize that you just coded a WinCE application for a mobile phone! Even worse, you purchased one thinking you could jailbreak it!
In reality this is probably just an annoyed Apple lawyer with too much time on his hand muscling a little guy into submission. They're foreign and can be made to look like leeches, I'm sure. The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this, is Apple making a competing figurine that they're losing sales on? Is the figurine somehow damaging to Mr. Jobs? If it's a parody of Steve Jobs doesn't that fall under fair use? So many questions but the answer will always be "Who has the most money and lawyers?" And that's Apple.
Then Comcast would be forced to stop banning netflix, else risk losing customers.
Uh, that's not how I see it going down. That would be like a staring contest and I'd bet that Netflix would blink first.
Customer: Hello, Netflix, I can't stream your movies anymore. Netflix: Uh, well, that's your ISP's fault for not coordinating with our CDN. Customer: But the rest of the internet is working fine. Netflix: Yes, well, you need to get a different internet provider. Customer: Comcast is the only broadband provider in my area. Netflix: Well, write them an angry letter because it's not our fault.
So do you think the user is going to quit using Comcast or do you think they'll have no choice but to stop subscribing to Netflix since they can no longer stream movies? I think the latter is more likely what would happen. It's different because Fox and NBC provide a lot of free content and can easily tell the customer that their ISP is blocking the news. With Comcast, they know that Netflix is pulling down tons of money (look at their stock value) and they know that if they hold out they can wring more money out of L3 and, eventually, Netflix. And since in most of Comcast's realm there's a complete lack of a competitor. That's the real issue here, that Comcast customers often have no choice and there's a barrier of a cost to entry for anyone else to enter in as competition with them. Fix that and you solve this whole problem because then your scenario might work if users are really upset enough to change ISPs when Netflix doesn't work because their current ISP is trying to negotiate for more cash.
Basically, look at the lowest price you can find on a reputable AR-15, then take 10-20% off of that to estimate what the government is paying.
Sounds like you two know a hell of a lot more about pricing on assault rifles than I ever will.
Basically, I treated it like everything else the government buys for me with my money: I googled it, found the highest price and then added about 100-200% for an estimate. Guess it doesn't transfer well to all military expenditures.
You always have to hope that an improvement like this actually does allow the soldiers to better target the real bad guys and not civilians as well as protect themselves from compromising situations. I'm not impressed with the distance the bullet can travel, it's my understanding that in Iraq and cities of Afghanistan, the battles are complex urban battles in buildings and areas that are high in civilian population and also human made nooks and crannies. It's not a question of being able to pick your assailant off from a distance of 8 football fields but rather being able to successfully target multiple combatants who are firing sporadically from housing windows in complex structures down on you and then disappearing deep far back into the structure. At least that's how video games and news stories portray it: urban guerrilla warfare.
I'm also a little cautious on the Fox News reporting. It sounds too good to be true. The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths. I fear that there may be more serious hidden costs like this little gem:
Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile
Computer chips are cheap but if you're putting clip after clip of bullets out during an intense firefight, I'm going to guess that on that last clip or magazine you wished that you had opted for more 'dumb bullets' versus less chipped bullets. I guess the proposed scenario makes it sound like only select fighters will have this weapon in each unit.
A patrol encounters an enemy combatant in a walled Afghan village who fires an AK-47 intermittently from behind cover, exposing himself only for a brief second to fire.
Again, that's assuming that you have the correct wall, the combatant hasn't fallen back into another building waiting to ambush you on the inside and also hoping they're not housed with women and children, as I've heard is often the case.
Sounds like a really great and innovative improvement for select uses but I really gotta question the 'game-changer' assertion. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that deployment of this weapon allowed the precise termination of all combatants with no civilian casualties and the war was basically over, I'd be happy for being wrong.
We have discussed this many times. I debated writing out a lengthy post espousing the many problems with Kurzweil's predictions. Of course I (and Slashdot stories) have done thisbefore. But you know after reading this article, I have this sort of urge to read more of Kurzweil's writings in an attempt to develop an equivalent process for identifying something we could call "Technological Stock Spiel." To some of you Sagan nuts and skeptics, you might recognize the phrase "stock spiel" as something used to designate parlor tricks and underhanded wording to get people to believe that you're a psychic. It's also been called cold reading strategy and you've seen shows from Family Guy to South Park parody it.
Basically I suspect that Kurzweil is adept at standing up in front of a group of people and employing this same sort of strategy that preys on people's understanding of technology instead of their emotions. But both of those things have in common the fact that people want to believe great things. If he's talking to computer scientists, he'll extrapolate on biology. If he's talking to biologists he'll extrapolate on computer science and so on and so forth. And he probably knows exactly what to say so that more than enough people gobble that up. Because of the things that I have studied extensively through college, this man is very capable of talking like he knows just enough and using vague analogies to get people going "Yup, yeah, uh huh I see now, I want to believe!"
As Walter Sobchak might say, "Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!"
That is, of course, unless he's talking to a group of futurists. Then he's just preaching to the overly optimistic choir.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. But you've got a few options. All or none of which you can pursue.
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.
The second option is to get litigious. Judging by your ccTLD (and awesome name), I'm guessing you are from Greece. Which means that you would probably have to hire a patent lawyer in your home country who can work with the Greek or European Patent Office in order to discuss your options. There should be channels through the WIPO that allow things like these to be resolved almost exactly like they're on a local level. I'm guessing your options are going to amount to two things. Either pursuing your own patent on the technology in order to invalidate IBM's patent or presenting your evidence of prior art to invalidate IBM's patent. The former probably more expensive than the latter.
Normally patents are only valid in the country they are granted but lately there have been intellectual property laws that have tried to extend patents on a global scale. Normally on this site people seem to be against this, often applying the logic of following their local laws when it suits them. Example: Pirate Party. But now we're so concerned if suddenly this is American company gets an American patent on a foreigner's work.
cursing patent trolls
Um, that phrase has a particular meaning, one that I cannot find in your story. Who did IBM sue with your patent? Did they sue you? Did they wait for everyone to adopt HeapCheck and then sue them? If anyone in this story is considered the patent troll, it's going to be you if you waited a decade before ligating against IBM.
I would take Bruce Perens' approach and try working with IBM first. It's the cheapest, most sensible way to resolve this. You're angry but you just said you had forgotten about that work for seven years. Was your intention to leave that concept in the graveyard until you died, getting angry should anyone try to profit from it or license it?
Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".
Okay with this sort of logic, you're not going to see any company willing to invest into R&D more than four years of return from that innovation.
It's fine if you want to draw the line at four years or four decades or four days, I don't care. But you have to realize that this will severely affect R&D if it's your own fault that you failed to improve past what you just innovated. Justifying someone using your patents to directly compete with you is only unfair when you were granted those patents assuming a longer time to recoup the money you invested into those patents.
I'm not arguing for or against patents and I'm not arguing to lengthen or shorten the time they are in effect. What I'm trying to do is get you to understand the repercussions of doing any of the above.
Corruption, lax pollution laws and questionable labor practices make China very difficult to compete with. We've exported so much manufacturing there because of this. Is it a bad thing? Only when you're a company that's facing brutal competition because you engaged in "technology transfer." If you're telling those companies it's "their fault" for not out-innovating the Chinese, I would argue that the Chinese could pay someone 1/10 to manufacture the technology and bribe a local official to ignore that excess acidic precipitate from the mine making the rail and come out underbidding you on any contract the world over. Regardless of whether they improved on your design or not.
In my opinion, pure unbridled capitalism is a very devastating force and responsible IP laws are a good thing. IP infringement is Chinese culture. They play by their rules and if you're not prepared for it, do not engage in business with them.
Let me ask you this: if China sends the above companies a big "F U" in response to their desire for justice, what are the chances that any more technology transfer is going to be allowed into China by anybody when four years after you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements? Being a sovereign nation is fine and dandy but if China wants any part in maintaining their image as a just sovereign nation, then they better see this court case through.
I don't know why we are relying on a Google translated article when Xinhua News Agency (state run) offers their own English translations (second copy) of this exact news release. And they're much more readable. Such news sites often offer me periodic enjoyment.
And before you call it outright theft, consider the history of the "technology transfer" program that seeded all this. It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason. I wonder how this is going to affect future "technology transfer" programs to China. Also, one last bit of praise: NPR's radio coverage of this has been top notch.
Money would be better spent making a few places secure for winter time emergencies. Unlike California, if we're without power or housing, we die.
If you look at the map, you'll see that the New Madrid fault line is mostly in Missouri and will affect several states further south. It won't even touch Minnesota. Serious earthquakes are pretty rare, even historically in Minnesota.
I don't know what the winters are like in Missouri and I don't know if many people die from them down there. The threats from poor driving on the road are probably their biggest problems and I don't know if any amount of money will fix that sort of behavior. I grew up near Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota and there were a couple of earthquakes I remember but they didn't leave any visible damage. But yeah there were several ice storms and snowstorms that left us snowbound... my mom would fill the bathtub full of potable water in case the pipes froze to our well. We had a fireplace as our only heat until I was fifteen when we got a gas heater. Yes, I woke up some mornings to see my breath had frozen to frost on my pillow in front of my face. And there were more than a few nights when I opt to sleep next to the fireplace rather than my bed which seemed to be the furthest away in the house.
Knowing how to survive a bad winter or a hot summer in Minnesota is important but if you look at the area these earthquakes could affect, the area is staggering. I don't know if it would hit quite the population that the San Andreas could but you're talking about a potential large area without utilities, increased lawlessness and a logistical nightmare for support/rescue. It might be worth risking billions to inform people of how to prepare and handle this sort of disaster. I guess that's up to the geologists and seismologists to recommend though.
When we look at faults around the world, we see them storing up that energy. So when we first put markers in the ground and measured the position of the Midwestern fault lines we were surprised that we didn’t see any motion at New Madrid. We concluded that there’s no sign that a big earthquake is on the way.
I'm not a geologist so I'm very confused, if something is 'storing up energy' how does moving around equate to that? I mean, if the moving of the ground in violent ways is the releasing of that 'stored energy' then how is small movements indications that it's storing up energy? I would assume that the worse earthquake areas are those when there's a lot of movement going on deep underground but nothing on the surface releasing that energy until a very devastating movement.
So from the Wikipedia article:
The lack of apparent land movement along the New Madrid fault system has long puzzled scientists. In 2009 two studies based on eight years of GPS measurements indicated that the faults were moving at no more than 0.2 millimetres (0.0079 in) a year. This contrasts to the rate of slippage on the San Andreas Fault which averages up to 37 millimetres (1.5 in) a year across California.
Can somebody who knows a lot about this stuff explain to me why we are so sure that a lack of movement in GPS measurements indicate no potential earthquake? My intuition would guess that no movement is not a good indicator either way unless we've figured out how to drive GPS receivers down into the faults themselves and retrieve that information. I think they're just ground stations that are taking these GPS measurements, right?
What about the northern earthquakes? Do GPS stations up there report tiny movements in the crusts leading up to those earthquakes? I'm just curious if it's possible that you're dealing with different kinds of faults when comparing the San Andreas fault line versus the Ramapo fault line versus the New Madrid fault line.
What we’re learning is that faults switch on and off. They will be active for a thousand years or so, and then inactive for several thousand years. And then other faults may become active. From a scientific standpoint, that’s the really exciting thing we’ve learned from New Madrid. It has been the key to the door that opened up a whole new understanding about how faults inside continents work.
This sounds, at best, questionable or highly fitted to very recent events that we've had the privilege to watch. It's difficult to look over long swaths of time historically when our precision instruments for measuring are a very recent thing compared to the age of the crust. I'm not arguing for the spending of billions in the mid-west but I'm not sold on a single expert's opinion, is this consensus in the geological community?
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
I've had two friends go through DUIs. They didn't hit anyone or cause an accident yet were given DUIs for driving while intoxicated. The reason being that their reflexes were slowed due to the alcohol in their system. Distractions like handheld devices can cause just as much of a distraction and liability while driving.
So what do we do to people who have DUIs? It varies little state to state but in Virginia, they make you hire a lawyer and then you might have to spend a few days in jail and you might not be able to drive for a year and a number of other really awesome things. But if you want to drive, you have to get an Ignition Interlock (Car Breathalyzer) system installed on your dime. And pay for it to be calibrated.
Strangely, if you are pulled over for something else and are found to be using your phone (a secondary offense so you cannot be pulled over if the police see you doing it), you get hit with $200. Well, after the number of accidents caused by it, I don't understand why society doesn't treat it the same way. Give them the huge punishment like alcohol, make their insurance skyrocket and make them pay for the installation and maintenance of these systems on their own cars. And make it a primary offense so people can be pulled over. I mean stuff like this is funny but it's a serious threat to our safety.
I don't like what this man is proposing but I think this should be treated just like drinking and driving. I like how drinking and driving stats scare you. Well here's a pretty scary stat: talking on a cell phone causes 25% of all accidents! In this proposition's defense, I think reducing accidents by 25% supersedes the times when a passenger or driver would ever want or need take a phone call or dial 911 but I am all for making offenders go through the financially crippling proceedings that are affiliated with drinking and driving. That'll make people think twice!
That's not a bad thing. In a lot of the classic software development models, the "end" state of a software's life cycle was operations and maintenance (O&M). Which is to say you have no new requirements having fulfilled all the basic requirements. It's bad if you constantly need new features but sometimes it can be an indication that the software is mature or near complete. At this point the customer only ever pays you money to put it back into development or fix/improve something small.
I would agree that the 2.6 kernel series is very robust and something we will most likely use for quite sometime. But I would always shy from ever saying that an operating system has all the major features it could ever need. I mean, I know a lot of clients that are committed to some version of the 2.6 kernel in their server rooms and would only ever update if there was a necessary security flaw or performance feature that they could not live without. For a lot of them, Linux has provided all the web server or database hosting features they would ever need and the product of "Linux" is indeed in the final phase of its life cycle. The vast majority of their patches are to Apache, Postgres, etc.
there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.
And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.
I think it's important to be clear that you mean they simply can't be gotten from the Android Market. Not that all of them don't work.
There's a pretty simple method called sideloading that allows you to put non-market apps on your phone. Of course, this usually requires you to get Astro or Dropbox or some such app on your device first. Commonly you can do that from the Market App which you note is not on media players (PMPs).
But I think it's important to note that it's not the Android API's fault that this sort of app transfer doesn't work. It's not like there were bad decisions made in the programmer's interface with Android that prevents this. It's got more to do with the resources that the hardware offers you and less to do with the software's limitations. It also has to do with what the manufacturer of that device wants and does not want done with the hardware they sell you. It's unfortunate but the reality is that if they didn't allow the handset/media player manufacturer the ability to lock you out of doing certain things on your device then they would never have had those big names on board. You will see a lot of different members of the Open Handset Alliance launching a lot of different kinds of devices with Android. That's a good thing and hopefully in the future this manufacturer mentality of "I don't want cell phone apps on my users' home media player box" goes away. Because that's what's blocking this from occurring, not Android or Google.
Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
No it doesn't. That would certainly help but it's not necessary. If you read the very short article:
However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.
Emphasis mine. You're mostly right about Windows (I think marketing should be mentioned) but Android could fail on 5% of the phones that ship with it and I think it will still be okay if it can match iOS in the above categories. I think everyone knows that two or three years from now Android will be the clear winner. There would have to be earth shattering changes made on either Android or Apple's part in order to shake off course what has been set in motion. Even the market analysts have been saying this.
Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just the reality of targeting all the devices made by the Open Handset Alliance. That's a lot of devices. That's a lot of choices. They're doing the best they can but at some point you just can't magically give hardware support to a device that doesn't have the hardware. And I think that problem is inseparable from the choices Android wants to give consumers.
I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.
So you get a free pass with the law because you're a celebrity?
Justice is blind. Try not to forget that.
Hell, I would argue that people in power are often egomaniacs who think they can get away with murder, rape, fraud, cheating, mistresses, etc. If you are a popular football player or billionaire or web sensation, you're probably doing whatever you want. I think the opposite logic is more applicable than yours. But, again, justice is blind so I don't think that should even be taken into account. If the accuser is a shill, the court and lawyers should be able to figure that out. If the accuser is not a shill, however, you would basically be protecting a rapist because he runs a site you like. Let justice run its course and just try to have faith in the Swedish Justice system.
As someone who is not popular, I'm not too keen on your line of reasoning regardless of how much I like or dislike Julian Assange.
I know collection debt law Is hazy as it varies from state to state and sometimes even has caveats internal to cities themselves but I thought there was a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to protect consumers from crap just like this. I'm not a lawyer and Wikipedia's not exactly the foremost authority on the law but:
Communication with third parties: revealing or discussing the nature of debts with third parties (other than the consumer's spouse or attorney) (Collection agencies are allowed to contact neighbors or co-workers but only to obtain location information; disreputable agencies often harass debtors with a "block party" or "office party" where they contact multiple neighbors or co-workers telling them they need to reach the debtor on an urgent matter.)
And if they posted something on your wall, that could fall under a number of these laws. Hell, if you consider 'Facebook' an embarrassing media:
Contact by embarrassing media, such as communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card, or using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business
And if the debt collection's profile wasn't MARKONE DEBT COLLECTOR I'd be looking at that sort of shadiness as well.
Having been the subject of a mysterious $180 debt collection put on my credit report over six years after they allege it happened in 2003 with no attempts to contact me until two months ago, I implore this woman to seek more than just a court order against MarkOne but instead to get the law amended now that social network websites are prevalent. They are a new form of contact medium that exposes far more information than the phone book and the current laws should apply or be updated minimally to reflect this.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
Next we're going to be shocked that 8th grade history students try to memorize the material they think will be on their test rather than seeking a deep and insightful mastery of the subject and its modern societal implications.
Some things to consider: 1) I'm not doing business with the 8th grader. Nor am I relying on his understanding and memorization of history to run Javascript that I write for clients. 2) You are giving Microsoft a pass by building an analogy between their javascript engine and an 8th grade history student.
Just something to consider when you say we shouldn't be shocked by this.
Look I think the lady jumped the gun but I really got a good laugh out of this guy's line of excuses before actually getting around to apologizing.
Its sad really. The problem is that I have been so overworked and stretched that when this woman -- Monica -- contacted me, I was on deadline and traveling at the rate of 200 mile a day for that week (over 900 in total for that week), which I actually told her, along with a few other "nice" things, which she hasnt written about.
We're all busy, man. I slept four hours last night after spending dinner out at a birthday party and coming home to try to write 2,000 words for NaNoWriMo. If I now build a spider that scrapes all of cookssource.com and I offer it up in a torrent, are you going to excuse me because I was too busy at the time to realize that I was infringing on your work? Do you think that Monica f rollicks through the flowers all day long?
She doesn't say that she was rude, she doesn't say that I agreed (and did) to pay her.
Isn't that weird how people get rude when they unexpectedly find their work being used to sell magazines? And then when you say that you'll negotiate a price later you think they'd just clam up and be happy they even got something! Well, that's how your excerpt sounded, anyway. Look she quoted you as saying:
But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it!
Yes after that statement, it's clear you totally meant to pay her. So if she's quoting you out of context, why didn't you include excerpts from her initial contact to show how rude or out of line she was?
leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida -- out of work
I am just sobbing with sympathy right now. Please, please take all my money and give it to this poor man who apparently made an imprudent relocation. Listen, my father has to go on unemployment from time to time... so can I go around using New York Times articles to sell my magazine?
... when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.
I don't care if she wanted the money for heroin! It's her work and you used it without her permission. You're exhibiting the attitude that cooks should not be reimbursed for their recipes! Then because she's using this money for college you hope to garner more sympathy because you live in a small town with high unemployment?! So by that logic, I guess Nigerian 419 scammers are saints?
The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. We have never been a great money-maker even with all the good we do for businesses.
Look, you just outlined how poorly your operation is being ran and used that as an excuse to use other people's work without permission. Maybe it is time for you to move on to something else. It's nice that you are guilt tripping everyone into thinking that they were 'the final straw' to kill you.
If you want to be in publishing, you should study copyright law. If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes and -- seemingly -- the internet, then you should become a lawyer and work to change that. You might want to take some business courses too if you think small magazines deserve to survive in this environment, maybe apply at Columbia University? br>
Your proposition that "every time someone has a bad day, it's okay for them to use anyone's material online" is laughable and would result in pure chaos. Enjoy your own self-created chaos. You did it. You. Take some responsibility and stop whining with long drawn out excuses and guilt trips.
Ah, yes, the glamorous life of the spotlight that is Slashdot. Always putting up with shit like "MrBabyMan of Slashdot." And then for this comment to be modded so highly just really sends that "go somewhere else" message I am so fond of. You write book reviews, you scout news articles and that's the kind of reward you get.
Perhaps I will go somewhere else if you and the moderators detest me so mightily.
P.S. If you think that it's just a splash logo that bothers me, you haven't been reading the news about Java, MYSQL and -- I'd wager -- LibreOffice problems (perhaps even lawsuits) that people are going to start facing as Oracle moves from Open Source to Turn A Profit motives with those software projects. If you think it's just a matter of not seeing the logo, you're MrNaiveRubeMan of Slashdot. But I'm sure I'm alone in my worries and it's just because I'm a celebrity that my bitching gets put up with.
Publishers are creating a monster – we are telling suppliers to stop using Steam in their games.
No, publishers are finding new innovative revenue streams that cater to the customer. The only reason it's a 'monster' is because you perceive it to be a threat to your business model and, surprise surprise, you're not a part of that revenue stream so it's the devil. And you don't understand it, that is painfully evident by the 'stop using Steam in their games' part of your statement. They don't use Steam in their games anymore than they use Wal-Mart in their games.
If you understood that this is increasing revenue and profits to the publishers, you might also start to see that it increases the number of copies sold. Now, if more people are buying the game it is possible that Steam will expand this market and leave some of the sales to the brick and mortar stores. It is, however, a possibility that you are correct in that your model will become obsolete -- such is the nature of business. You can either respond by being a jerk about it (although you're holding aces backed with eights as a large middle man), you can attempt to become part of that distribution model (have you thought about selling steam gift cards?) or you can do nothing. If you lose your business, well that's just some good old structural unemployment where the hostile market of capitalism violently guides you to better serve the consumer in a new and -- here's the scary word -- innovative ways. Seriously though, when is the last time you did something new and interesting aside from unboxing the latest game and paying some high school student minimum wage to set up the Halo display and cardboard cutouts?
Hey man, if you want to make me pick between you, the distributor, and the publishers that actually make the games I cherish... you aren't going to get very far in my book. I mean, Steam has DRM but it saves me gas and money and puts me a little closer to that little developer that spends countless nights slaving away over code. That's where I want the bulk of my money to go when I purchase a game -- to that guy.
You better bring something that no one else has. I'm still looking and waiting for something that WP7 devices are offering that isn't covered by Android and/or iOS. I understand that a hybrid is valuable when Android and iOS offer either extreme but... can someone tell me what WP7 does that makes it unique? What are its selling points? Because from what I've read, there are no unique aspects to it.
It's XBox all over again. They'll lose several billion on WP7 and write it off. WP8 will come out and after three years of shoving the platform down people's throats, they'll be a hard won 25% of the market. Don't get me wrong, I own an XBox 360 but how many years of mistakes did it take for them and how much did they lose on the original to come to that piece of market share?
Why flush money down a losing venture until it starts to see a return? Because they can. And one of the many faults of capitalism is that those with a ton of money can do the stupidest shit and still come out okay.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this guy it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.
Yep this is just a trick. Microsoft has released a veiled "Jailbreak" and by the time you're done coding your application for your Jailbroke Windows 7 Phone, you'll realize that you just coded a WinCE application for a mobile phone! Even worse, you purchased one thinking you could jailbreak it!
Sincerely,
Admiral Ackbar
It falls under personality rights which varies country to country but in the United States it is proving to be a very dynamically changing landscape.
In reality this is probably just an annoyed Apple lawyer with too much time on his hand muscling a little guy into submission. They're foreign and can be made to look like leeches, I'm sure. The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this, is Apple making a competing figurine that they're losing sales on? Is the figurine somehow damaging to Mr. Jobs? If it's a parody of Steve Jobs doesn't that fall under fair use? So many questions but the answer will always be "Who has the most money and lawyers?" And that's Apple.
Then Comcast would be forced to stop banning netflix, else risk losing customers.
Uh, that's not how I see it going down. That would be like a staring contest and I'd bet that Netflix would blink first.
Customer: Hello, Netflix, I can't stream your movies anymore.
Netflix: Uh, well, that's your ISP's fault for not coordinating with our CDN.
Customer: But the rest of the internet is working fine.
Netflix: Yes, well, you need to get a different internet provider.
Customer: Comcast is the only broadband provider in my area.
Netflix: Well, write them an angry letter because it's not our fault.
So do you think the user is going to quit using Comcast or do you think they'll have no choice but to stop subscribing to Netflix since they can no longer stream movies? I think the latter is more likely what would happen. It's different because Fox and NBC provide a lot of free content and can easily tell the customer that their ISP is blocking the news. With Comcast, they know that Netflix is pulling down tons of money (look at their stock value) and they know that if they hold out they can wring more money out of L3 and, eventually, Netflix. And since in most of Comcast's realm there's a complete lack of a competitor. That's the real issue here, that Comcast customers often have no choice and there's a barrier of a cost to entry for anyone else to enter in as competition with them. Fix that and you solve this whole problem because then your scenario might work if users are really upset enough to change ISPs when Netflix doesn't work because their current ISP is trying to negotiate for more cash.
Basically, look at the lowest price you can find on a reputable AR-15, then take 10-20% off of that to estimate what the government is paying.
Sounds like you two know a hell of a lot more about pricing on assault rifles than I ever will.
Basically, I treated it like everything else the government buys for me with my money: I googled it, found the highest price and then added about 100-200% for an estimate. Guess it doesn't transfer well to all military expenditures.
I'm also a little cautious on the Fox News reporting. It sounds too good to be true. The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths. I fear that there may be more serious hidden costs like this little gem:
Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile
Computer chips are cheap but if you're putting clip after clip of bullets out during an intense firefight, I'm going to guess that on that last clip or magazine you wished that you had opted for more 'dumb bullets' versus less chipped bullets. I guess the proposed scenario makes it sound like only select fighters will have this weapon in each unit.
A patrol encounters an enemy combatant in a walled Afghan village who fires an AK-47 intermittently from behind cover, exposing himself only for a brief second to fire.
Again, that's assuming that you have the correct wall, the combatant hasn't fallen back into another building waiting to ambush you on the inside and also hoping they're not housed with women and children, as I've heard is often the case.
Sounds like a really great and innovative improvement for select uses but I really gotta question the 'game-changer' assertion. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that deployment of this weapon allowed the precise termination of all combatants with no civilian casualties and the war was basically over, I'd be happy for being wrong.
We have discussed this many times. I debated writing out a lengthy post espousing the many problems with Kurzweil's predictions. Of course I (and Slashdot stories) have done this before. But you know after reading this article, I have this sort of urge to read more of Kurzweil's writings in an attempt to develop an equivalent process for identifying something we could call "Technological Stock Spiel." To some of you Sagan nuts and skeptics, you might recognize the phrase "stock spiel" as something used to designate parlor tricks and underhanded wording to get people to believe that you're a psychic. It's also been called cold reading strategy and you've seen shows from Family Guy to South Park parody it.
Basically I suspect that Kurzweil is adept at standing up in front of a group of people and employing this same sort of strategy that preys on people's understanding of technology instead of their emotions. But both of those things have in common the fact that people want to believe great things. If he's talking to computer scientists, he'll extrapolate on biology. If he's talking to biologists he'll extrapolate on computer science and so on and so forth. And he probably knows exactly what to say so that more than enough people gobble that up. Because of the things that I have studied extensively through college, this man is very capable of talking like he knows just enough and using vague analogies to get people going "Yup, yeah, uh huh I see now, I want to believe!"
As Walter Sobchak might say, "Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!"
That is, of course, unless he's talking to a group of futurists. Then he's just preaching to the overly optimistic choir.
what should I do about this?
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. But you've got a few options. All or none of which you can pursue.
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.
The second option is to get litigious. Judging by your ccTLD (and awesome name), I'm guessing you are from Greece. Which means that you would probably have to hire a patent lawyer in your home country who can work with the Greek or European Patent Office in order to discuss your options. There should be channels through the WIPO that allow things like these to be resolved almost exactly like they're on a local level. I'm guessing your options are going to amount to two things. Either pursuing your own patent on the technology in order to invalidate IBM's patent or presenting your evidence of prior art to invalidate IBM's patent. The former probably more expensive than the latter.
Normally patents are only valid in the country they are granted but lately there have been intellectual property laws that have tried to extend patents on a global scale. Normally on this site people seem to be against this, often applying the logic of following their local laws when it suits them. Example: Pirate Party. But now we're so concerned if suddenly this is American company gets an American patent on a foreigner's work.
cursing patent trolls
Um, that phrase has a particular meaning, one that I cannot find in your story. Who did IBM sue with your patent? Did they sue you? Did they wait for everyone to adopt HeapCheck and then sue them? If anyone in this story is considered the patent troll, it's going to be you if you waited a decade before ligating against IBM.
I would take Bruce Perens' approach and try working with IBM first. It's the cheapest, most sensible way to resolve this. You're angry but you just said you had forgotten about that work for seven years. Was your intention to leave that concept in the graveyard until you died, getting angry should anyone try to profit from it or license it?
Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".
Okay with this sort of logic, you're not going to see any company willing to invest into R&D more than four years of return from that innovation.
It's fine if you want to draw the line at four years or four decades or four days, I don't care. But you have to realize that this will severely affect R&D if it's your own fault that you failed to improve past what you just innovated. Justifying someone using your patents to directly compete with you is only unfair when you were granted those patents assuming a longer time to recoup the money you invested into those patents.
I'm not arguing for or against patents and I'm not arguing to lengthen or shorten the time they are in effect. What I'm trying to do is get you to understand the repercussions of doing any of the above.
Corruption, lax pollution laws and questionable labor practices make China very difficult to compete with. We've exported so much manufacturing there because of this. Is it a bad thing? Only when you're a company that's facing brutal competition because you engaged in "technology transfer." If you're telling those companies it's "their fault" for not out-innovating the Chinese, I would argue that the Chinese could pay someone 1/10 to manufacture the technology and bribe a local official to ignore that excess acidic precipitate from the mine making the rail and come out underbidding you on any contract the world over. Regardless of whether they improved on your design or not.
In my opinion, pure unbridled capitalism is a very devastating force and responsible IP laws are a good thing. IP infringement is Chinese culture. They play by their rules and if you're not prepared for it, do not engage in business with them.
It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason.
They aren't going to collect. China is a sovereign nation and can as a result do whatever it wants. That trumps justice in this age.
You're right unless you upset another nation's technology on such a level that you jeopardize your status in some special group that gives you benefits with other nations. Also consider this fact (outlined in the above NPR interview): Siemens of Germany, Alstom of France, Bombardier of Canada and Kawasaki of Japan exported technology to China in order to ensure that third world peoples in Asia could benefit from it. Now, they did make money off of that export but those same companies are now are staring down Chinese competition everywhere in the world from Russia to Brazil to the United States! How are they going to compete with lax Chinese labor and pollution? I don't know what the license contracts read but I highly doubt these companies signed away complete rights to their bread and butter for a few hundred million.
Let me ask you this: if China sends the above companies a big "F U" in response to their desire for justice, what are the chances that any more technology transfer is going to be allowed into China by anybody when four years after you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements? Being a sovereign nation is fine and dandy but if China wants any part in maintaining their image as a just sovereign nation, then they better see this court case through.
I don't know why we are relying on a Google translated article when Xinhua News Agency (state run) offers their own English translations (second copy) of this exact news release. And they're much more readable. Such news sites often offer me periodic enjoyment.
Patent and innovation discourse aside, it should be noted there's an interesting piece comparing the locality of populations in the US vs China. Let's face it, China (and the Southeast Asia region this connects them with) have a higher population density and a greater need for this high speed lengthy rail. It's also going to bring much needed economic development via freight shipments to very poor areas that the United States probably wouldn't experience on a corresponding scale.
Oh, also, there's some pretty entertaining rail-envy springing up.
And before you call it outright theft, consider the history of the "technology transfer" program that seeded all this. It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason. I wonder how this is going to affect future "technology transfer" programs to China. Also, one last bit of praise: NPR's radio coverage of this has been top notch.
As opposed to what? Continuous sound card?
You know, do you need a sound card that doesn't let your roommate or neighbor know that you listen to porn all day?
Money would be better spent making a few places secure for winter time emergencies. Unlike California, if we're without power or housing, we die.
If you look at the map, you'll see that the New Madrid fault line is mostly in Missouri and will affect several states further south. It won't even touch Minnesota. Serious earthquakes are pretty rare, even historically in Minnesota.
... my mom would fill the bathtub full of potable water in case the pipes froze to our well. We had a fireplace as our only heat until I was fifteen when we got a gas heater. Yes, I woke up some mornings to see my breath had frozen to frost on my pillow in front of my face. And there were more than a few nights when I opt to sleep next to the fireplace rather than my bed which seemed to be the furthest away in the house.
I don't know what the winters are like in Missouri and I don't know if many people die from them down there. The threats from poor driving on the road are probably their biggest problems and I don't know if any amount of money will fix that sort of behavior. I grew up near Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota and there were a couple of earthquakes I remember but they didn't leave any visible damage. But yeah there were several ice storms and snowstorms that left us snowbound
Knowing how to survive a bad winter or a hot summer in Minnesota is important but if you look at the area these earthquakes could affect, the area is staggering. I don't know if it would hit quite the population that the San Andreas could but you're talking about a potential large area without utilities, increased lawlessness and a logistical nightmare for support/rescue. It might be worth risking billions to inform people of how to prepare and handle this sort of disaster. I guess that's up to the geologists and seismologists to recommend though.
When we look at faults around the world, we see them storing up that energy. So when we first put markers in the ground and measured the position of the Midwestern fault lines we were surprised that we didn’t see any motion at New Madrid. We concluded that there’s no sign that a big earthquake is on the way.
I'm not a geologist so I'm very confused, if something is 'storing up energy' how does moving around equate to that? I mean, if the moving of the ground in violent ways is the releasing of that 'stored energy' then how is small movements indications that it's storing up energy? I would assume that the worse earthquake areas are those when there's a lot of movement going on deep underground but nothing on the surface releasing that energy until a very devastating movement.
So from the Wikipedia article:
The lack of apparent land movement along the New Madrid fault system has long puzzled scientists. In 2009 two studies based on eight years of GPS measurements indicated that the faults were moving at no more than 0.2 millimetres (0.0079 in) a year. This contrasts to the rate of slippage on the San Andreas Fault which averages up to 37 millimetres (1.5 in) a year across California.
Can somebody who knows a lot about this stuff explain to me why we are so sure that a lack of movement in GPS measurements indicate no potential earthquake? My intuition would guess that no movement is not a good indicator either way unless we've figured out how to drive GPS receivers down into the faults themselves and retrieve that information. I think they're just ground stations that are taking these GPS measurements, right?
What about the northern earthquakes? Do GPS stations up there report tiny movements in the crusts leading up to those earthquakes? I'm just curious if it's possible that you're dealing with different kinds of faults when comparing the San Andreas fault line versus the Ramapo fault line versus the New Madrid fault line.
What we’re learning is that faults switch on and off. They will be active for a thousand years or so, and then inactive for several thousand years. And then other faults may become active. From a scientific standpoint, that’s the really exciting thing we’ve learned from New Madrid. It has been the key to the door that opened up a whole new understanding about how faults inside continents work.
This sounds, at best, questionable or highly fitted to very recent events that we've had the privilege to watch. It's difficult to look over long swaths of time historically when our precision instruments for measuring are a very recent thing compared to the age of the crust. I'm not arguing for the spending of billions in the mid-west but I'm not sold on a single expert's opinion, is this consensus in the geological community?
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
I've had two friends go through DUIs. They didn't hit anyone or cause an accident yet were given DUIs for driving while intoxicated. The reason being that their reflexes were slowed due to the alcohol in their system. Distractions like handheld devices can cause just as much of a distraction and liability while driving.
So what do we do to people who have DUIs? It varies little state to state but in Virginia, they make you hire a lawyer and then you might have to spend a few days in jail and you might not be able to drive for a year and a number of other really awesome things. But if you want to drive, you have to get an Ignition Interlock (Car Breathalyzer) system installed on your dime. And pay for it to be calibrated.
Strangely, if you are pulled over for something else and are found to be using your phone (a secondary offense so you cannot be pulled over if the police see you doing it), you get hit with $200. Well, after the number of accidents caused by it, I don't understand why society doesn't treat it the same way. Give them the huge punishment like alcohol, make their insurance skyrocket and make them pay for the installation and maintenance of these systems on their own cars. And make it a primary offense so people can be pulled over. I mean stuff like this is funny but it's a serious threat to our safety.
I don't like what this man is proposing but I think this should be treated just like drinking and driving. I like how drinking and driving stats scare you. Well here's a pretty scary stat: talking on a cell phone causes 25% of all accidents! In this proposition's defense, I think reducing accidents by 25% supersedes the times when a passenger or driver would ever want or need take a phone call or dial 911 but I am all for making offenders go through the financially crippling proceedings that are affiliated with drinking and driving. That'll make people think twice!
is at the end of its life cycle
That's not a bad thing. In a lot of the classic software development models, the "end" state of a software's life cycle was operations and maintenance (O&M). Which is to say you have no new requirements having fulfilled all the basic requirements. It's bad if you constantly need new features but sometimes it can be an indication that the software is mature or near complete. At this point the customer only ever pays you money to put it back into development or fix/improve something small.
I would agree that the 2.6 kernel series is very robust and something we will most likely use for quite sometime. But I would always shy from ever saying that an operating system has all the major features it could ever need. I mean, I know a lot of clients that are committed to some version of the 2.6 kernel in their server rooms and would only ever update if there was a necessary security flaw or performance feature that they could not live without. For a lot of them, Linux has provided all the web server or database hosting features they would ever need and the product of "Linux" is indeed in the final phase of its life cycle. The vast majority of their patches are to Apache, Postgres, etc.
there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.
And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.
I think it's important to be clear that you mean they simply can't be gotten from the Android Market. Not that all of them don't work.
There's a pretty simple method called sideloading that allows you to put non-market apps on your phone. Of course, this usually requires you to get Astro or Dropbox or some such app on your device first. Commonly you can do that from the Market App which you note is not on media players (PMPs).
But I think it's important to note that it's not the Android API's fault that this sort of app transfer doesn't work. It's not like there were bad decisions made in the programmer's interface with Android that prevents this. It's got more to do with the resources that the hardware offers you and less to do with the software's limitations. It also has to do with what the manufacturer of that device wants and does not want done with the hardware they sell you. It's unfortunate but the reality is that if they didn't allow the handset/media player manufacturer the ability to lock you out of doing certain things on your device then they would never have had those big names on board. You will see a lot of different members of the Open Handset Alliance launching a lot of different kinds of devices with Android. That's a good thing and hopefully in the future this manufacturer mentality of "I don't want cell phone apps on my users' home media player box" goes away. Because that's what's blocking this from occurring, not Android or Google.
Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
No it doesn't. That would certainly help but it's not necessary. If you read the very short article:
However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.
Emphasis mine. You're mostly right about Windows (I think marketing should be mentioned) but Android could fail on 5% of the phones that ship with it and I think it will still be okay if it can match iOS in the above categories. I think everyone knows that two or three years from now Android will be the clear winner. There would have to be earth shattering changes made on either Android or Apple's part in order to shake off course what has been set in motion. Even the market analysts have been saying this.
Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just the reality of targeting all the devices made by the Open Handset Alliance. That's a lot of devices. That's a lot of choices. They're doing the best they can but at some point you just can't magically give hardware support to a device that doesn't have the hardware. And I think that problem is inseparable from the choices Android wants to give consumers.
I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.
So you get a free pass with the law because you're a celebrity?
Justice is blind. Try not to forget that.
Hell, I would argue that people in power are often egomaniacs who think they can get away with murder, rape, fraud, cheating, mistresses, etc. If you are a popular football player or billionaire or web sensation, you're probably doing whatever you want. I think the opposite logic is more applicable than yours. But, again, justice is blind so I don't think that should even be taken into account. If the accuser is a shill, the court and lawyers should be able to figure that out. If the accuser is not a shill, however, you would basically be protecting a rapist because he runs a site you like. Let justice run its course and just try to have faith in the Swedish Justice system.
As someone who is not popular, I'm not too keen on your line of reasoning regardless of how much I like or dislike Julian Assange.
Communication with third parties: revealing or discussing the nature of debts with third parties (other than the consumer's spouse or attorney) (Collection agencies are allowed to contact neighbors or co-workers but only to obtain location information; disreputable agencies often harass debtors with a "block party" or "office party" where they contact multiple neighbors or co-workers telling them they need to reach the debtor on an urgent matter.)
And if they posted something on your wall, that could fall under a number of these laws. Hell, if you consider 'Facebook' an embarrassing media:
Contact by embarrassing media, such as communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card, or using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business
And if the debt collection's profile wasn't MARKONE DEBT COLLECTOR I'd be looking at that sort of shadiness as well.
Having been the subject of a mysterious $180 debt collection put on my credit report over six years after they allege it happened in 2003 with no attempts to contact me until two months ago, I implore this woman to seek more than just a court order against MarkOne but instead to get the law amended now that social network websites are prevalent. They are a new form of contact medium that exposes far more information than the phone book and the current laws should apply or be updated minimally to reflect this.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
Next we're going to be shocked that 8th grade history students try to memorize the material they think will be on their test rather than seeking a deep and insightful mastery of the subject and its modern societal implications.
Some things to consider: 1) I'm not doing business with the 8th grader. Nor am I relying on his understanding and memorization of history to run Javascript that I write for clients. 2) You are giving Microsoft a pass by building an analogy between their javascript engine and an 8th grade history student.
Just something to consider when you say we shouldn't be shocked by this.
Its sad really. The problem is that I have been so overworked and stretched that when this woman -- Monica -- contacted me, I was on deadline and traveling at the rate of 200 mile a day for that week (over 900 in total for that week), which I actually told her, along with a few other "nice" things, which she hasnt written about.
We're all busy, man. I slept four hours last night after spending dinner out at a birthday party and coming home to try to write 2,000 words for NaNoWriMo. If I now build a spider that scrapes all of cookssource.com and I offer it up in a torrent, are you going to excuse me because I was too busy at the time to realize that I was infringing on your work? Do you think that Monica f rollicks through the flowers all day long?
She doesn't say that she was rude, she doesn't say that I agreed (and did) to pay her.
Isn't that weird how people get rude when they unexpectedly find their work being used to sell magazines? And then when you say that you'll negotiate a price later you think they'd just clam up and be happy they even got something! Well, that's how your excerpt sounded, anyway. Look she quoted you as saying:
But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it!
Yes after that statement, it's clear you totally meant to pay her. So if she's quoting you out of context, why didn't you include excerpts from her initial contact to show how rude or out of line she was?
leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida -- out of work
I am just sobbing with sympathy right now. Please, please take all my money and give it to this poor man who apparently made an imprudent relocation. Listen, my father has to go on unemployment from time to time ... so can I go around using New York Times articles to sell my magazine?
... when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.
I don't care if she wanted the money for heroin! It's her work and you used it without her permission. You're exhibiting the attitude that cooks should not be reimbursed for their recipes! Then because she's using this money for college you hope to garner more sympathy because you live in a small town with high unemployment?! So by that logic, I guess Nigerian 419 scammers are saints?
The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. We have never been a great money-maker even with all the good we do for businesses.
Look, you just outlined how poorly your operation is being ran and used that as an excuse to use other people's work without permission. Maybe it is time for you to move on to something else. It's nice that you are guilt tripping everyone into thinking that they were 'the final straw' to kill you.
If you want to be in publishing, you should study copyright law. If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes and -- seemingly -- the internet, then you should become a lawyer and work to change that. You might want to take some business courses too if you think small magazines deserve to survive in this environment, maybe apply at Columbia University? br>
Your proposition that "every time someone has a bad day, it's okay for them to use anyone's material online" is laughable and would result in pure chaos. Enjoy your own self-created chaos. You did it. You. Take some responsibility and stop whining with long drawn out excuses and guilt trips.
The crazy thing is that this happened months ago, and nobody noticed.
Odd, Slashdot reported the day afterward: Chinese ISP Hijacks the Internet (Again).
+5 Insightful?
Slashdot celebrity?
Ah, yes, the glamorous life of the spotlight that is Slashdot. Always putting up with shit like "MrBabyMan of Slashdot." And then for this comment to be modded so highly just really sends that "go somewhere else" message I am so fond of. You write book reviews, you scout news articles and that's the kind of reward you get.
Perhaps I will go somewhere else if you and the moderators detest me so mightily.
P.S. If you think that it's just a splash logo that bothers me, you haven't been reading the news about Java, MYSQL and -- I'd wager -- LibreOffice problems (perhaps even lawsuits) that people are going to start facing as Oracle moves from Open Source to Turn A Profit motives with those software projects. If you think it's just a matter of not seeing the logo, you're MrNaiveRubeMan of Slashdot. But I'm sure I'm alone in my worries and it's just because I'm a celebrity that my bitching gets put up with.
Publishers are creating a monster – we are telling suppliers to stop using Steam in their games.
No, publishers are finding new innovative revenue streams that cater to the customer. The only reason it's a 'monster' is because you perceive it to be a threat to your business model and, surprise surprise, you're not a part of that revenue stream so it's the devil. And you don't understand it, that is painfully evident by the 'stop using Steam in their games' part of your statement. They don't use Steam in their games anymore than they use Wal-Mart in their games.
... you aren't going to get very far in my book. I mean, Steam has DRM but it saves me gas and money and puts me a little closer to that little developer that spends countless nights slaving away over code. That's where I want the bulk of my money to go when I purchase a game -- to that guy.
If you understood that this is increasing revenue and profits to the publishers, you might also start to see that it increases the number of copies sold. Now, if more people are buying the game it is possible that Steam will expand this market and leave some of the sales to the brick and mortar stores. It is, however, a possibility that you are correct in that your model will become obsolete -- such is the nature of business. You can either respond by being a jerk about it (although you're holding aces backed with eights as a large middle man), you can attempt to become part of that distribution model (have you thought about selling steam gift cards?) or you can do nothing. If you lose your business, well that's just some good old structural unemployment where the hostile market of capitalism violently guides you to better serve the consumer in a new and -- here's the scary word -- innovative ways. Seriously though, when is the last time you did something new and interesting aside from unboxing the latest game and paying some high school student minimum wage to set up the Halo display and cardboard cutouts?
Hey man, if you want to make me pick between you, the distributor, and the publishers that actually make the games I cherish
You better bring something that no one else has. I'm still looking and waiting for something that WP7 devices are offering that isn't covered by Android and/or iOS. I understand that a hybrid is valuable when Android and iOS offer either extreme but ... can someone tell me what WP7 does that makes it unique? What are its selling points? Because from what I've read, there are no unique aspects to it.
It's XBox all over again. They'll lose several billion on WP7 and write it off. WP8 will come out and after three years of shoving the platform down people's throats, they'll be a hard won 25% of the market. Don't get me wrong, I own an XBox 360 but how many years of mistakes did it take for them and how much did they lose on the original to come to that piece of market share?
Why flush money down a losing venture until it starts to see a return? Because they can. And one of the many faults of capitalism is that those with a ton of money can do the stupidest shit and still come out okay.