It's much worse than that, it means that I can't buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own non-Apple hardware without violating their EULA which is now legally enforceable. What's more the court chose to look the other way as the software was being advertised as being sold when really it's being licensed and as a matter of course stripping a significant amount of consumer rights in the process.
I'm sure this will make those free market morons happy that consumers have even less choice than they previously did if they wanted to use OSX as this ruling effectively bans Hackentoshes as well.
AFAIK this is the first instance where a court has backed Apple's ridiculous claims that they can tie the use of their OS to their hardware by simply adding a clause to their EULA. In the past it wasn't possible for the simple reason that they were using an incompatible architecture.
I'll interpret this as I should, evidence that the justice system in the US is broken and desperately in need of reform.
I'm sure it does depend upon other factors. It's just been my observation that AT&T seems to be the only carrier that's not able to get towers installed within the city limits. T-Mobile, for instance, has almost that many towers in my neighborhood alone. (OK, a bit of an exaggeration, but still)
Which is why in some countries they have actual professionals that sit on the jury in addition to lay people. Of course that doesn't necessarily solve the problem as evidenced by Italy's positively medieval justice system, but it probably does somewhat help with that problem.
Personally, I think the existence of the Alford plea and plea bargaining is an embarrassment to the US. Not having a good attorney shouldn't result in one having to give up their day in court to avoid being sent to prison for the rest of their natural life.
No, it doesn't. It implies a long period of time during which Mac users couldn't use those programs without owning a separate machine. And as for your assertion that they couldn't run the OS until January 2006, that's not true at all. For many years MS released a version of their OS which would run on Power Macs. Granted it couldn't be used in this fashion, but the option was there for years.
Yes, but there are other issues with that. For instance there are Linux or Mac only applications that one might want to use. From time to time, I'll be searching for an application only to find that the only good one works for Linux or OSX even though it's a significant headache to boot into Linux for just that step in what's otherwise a Windows only chain of events. Or worse with OSX where I can't use it at all because I didn't overpay for Apple hardware.
No, it isn't. You can't copyright data, especially data that's derived from actual events. Theoretically they could copyright the presentation, but Mint and services like that are there to display the data in a different way than just displaying all the other sites.
That's how child porn charges work and that's why this area of law desperately needs reform. You're guilty of possession of child porn if somebody sends you a photo whether or not you see it and worse whether or not you solicit the image. Child porn charges without a mens rea requirement are just an incredibly easy way to frame somebody for a felony if you've got some reason for wanting them sent to prison.
Supposedly, if you accidentally download some, you should report it to the FBI, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that.
The first offense would be $60 and 8 hours of community service. Subsequent offenses would continue to misdemeanor and finally felony if the particular teen kept sexting.
It's not a stupid charge, it was a stupid penalty. The current penalty is still too much, but you're ignoring the fact that naked pictures have a way of being liberated by an angry ex or lost when a phone is either lost or stolen. Not to mention the fact that the only way to prevent naked photos of one being naked is to prevent them from being taken. There are going to be times when there's a covert camera in a restroom, but taking the pictures oneself is a really bad idea.
Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults, if they were adults they wouldn't need an exemption from the normal child porn charges that would result from dealing in these types of photos.
That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.
If they vary significantly enough to cause problems then they either aren't standards compliant or the standard needs to be fixed. Suggesting that it's somehow inevitable demands some evidence that it's the case. MS can't ignore the standards without risking another costly antitrust probe, and everybody else needs it in order to have a viable product.
It's been my observation that a lot of the trouble with wireless seems to stem from a smaller number of high powered towers. Last I checked AT&T had like eight or so of them for Seattle, but the big problem was that they had four of them up north and four of them down south and none that I could find within the city limits. The problems are that one that doesn't handle geography very well at all, particularly for cities that have major hills. And second that it means you have a huge number of devices trying to talk to the same tower using the same frequencies.
A set of smaller lower powered towers would have fewer devices per tower and a much reduced need to transmit through hills.
That being said, I'm not sure how much of an advantage that would be in places like the midwest that don't have hills.
They were semi right. They could have in the same way that everybody else doesn't seem to be having that trouble, they just chose not to to use a compatible namespace. The folks over at MS could easily have picked up the phone or sent an email to the other projects and informally agree upon some sort of namespace that would be compatible. Or, they could always just issue an RFC and do something about it ad hoc until the next revision came out.
What I've read about the issue sounds more like attorneys justifying something in a post hoc fashion than a legitimate problem with the spec. They could have done something about it, but ultimately opted not to. The lack of a specific standard namespace should have been a huge neon sign saying that they were about to implement something that wouldn't interoperate.
As long as it's a one way trip you shouldn't have much trouble. The main reason that office files are such a mess is that they maintain backwards compatibility more or less to version 1.0. But the problem tends to be that not everybody uses the same version of Office which can and does lead to problems.
I've personally seen it myself where formatting and all that goes to hell because I'm not using the correct version of Word. And good luck if you don't want to upgrade your copy to match everybody else' copy.
Re:While working on the spreadsheet format...
on
ODF 1.2 Is Approved
·
· Score: 2
You really should move over to Libreoffice, despite the stupid name that's where all the developers are, and it works a lot better than OpenOffice does in my experience. But then again, based upon your post, I have a feeling that it might be up to IT to switch over.
Anybody that cares about the documents functioning properly in the future or when exchanged with random other people doesn't use the MS Office formats. MS does go to lengths to maintain backwards compatibility, but ultimately it's still risky to use different versions to work on a file.
That's a BS argument because MS tried to get into a lot of markets after the anti-trust agreement like Xbox, Zune, Bing; and they haven't done very well not because of the supervision but because they sucked at selling directly to consumers.
It's not BS, they did try, but they had to take into account the restrictions and scrutiny that came with being supervised. The Xbox, is a poor argument to make, they did well with that one in large part because it was separated enough from their monopoly that they had room to maneuver.
Again BS. Apple didn't have DoJ supervision because they weren't convicted of monopoly abuse. Being a monopoly is not what got MS in trouble. Abusing that monopoly was their problem. Apple by all accounts has the highest marketshare of MP3 players. They never got in trouble with the DoU because they didn't strong-arm their partners against their competitors like MS did.
Strong-arm their partners? You mean like how Apple refused to license Fairplay to any other hardware manufacturer so that anybody wanting to use the ITMS had to either buy an iPod or had to go through the inconvenience of burning and ripping a disc, hence getting a lesser quality of product.
But, no, it's not like Apple would ever strong arm the competition like that, no siree.
As for the lack of conviction, it's hard to get convicted when you're never put on trial. It might be that Apple engaged in perfectly legal behavior, I doubt it, but it somewhat waters down the point when the DoJ isn't enforcing the law.
Yes and if we didn't already have a viable alternative you'd have a point. Nothing is 100% effective, but something like this is just laughable. You're not going to ever have it get the degree of accuracy necessary for it to be useful without a hell of a lot more technology than a game console has. And certainly not with just a Kinect.
I was wondering how they intend to handle problems related to individuals that look young. The current hardware is just not good enough for this to work, but even in the future if they manage to get it to see the people, I can't imagine it coping with teens that are heavyset with beards or people that look like they're teens even though they're adults.
Ultimately, if even bouncers and police officers sometimes get it wrong, I'm not sure how we can hope that an electronic device is going to do any better.
Yeah, but what do they charge for going over the cap? 40gb total per month is not that much, especially when you consider that it's split between peak and non-peak.
Just out of curiosity, what precisely does that have to do with anything? Are individuals that were involved with the company back then still running it? Is there even a single employee working there that was employed by IBM at the time?
It's about as relevant to IBMs continuing operations as Henry Ford's known support of the Nazis.
I don't recall people using that metric previously. MS was the largest company as much by market cap as by install base. The latter being of great concern to most folks that cared about it at all. Market cap is just how much you can convince people you're company is worth and unless you're buying or selling your own shares it's a meaningless metric.
I thought about getting a Mac last time I needed a new laptop. Their cheapest model was nearly 3x as expensive as an inexpensive Thinkpad and the one I ended up with was fully upgraded for much less than the Mac. I ended up spending a bit over $600 for the Thinkpad and I would have had to pay $999 for the MacBook air and I would have had only 2GB of RAM rather than the 4GB I ended up with.
They do include some nice touches, but I couldn't personally justify spending an additional $400 for what was basically just style.
Part of that is that neither IBM nor Apple have been under DoJ supervision for the last decade, which tends to put them at a bit of a competitive advantage when it comes to pushing for growth. MS got slapped for going for other markets beyond Windows and Word. Granted they were going at it in an anti-competitive manner, but MS historically has only known how to grow via those sorts of sleazeball tactics.
That being said, Apple did have the good fortune of having a decade where the DoJ didn't believe in antitrust regulation where they were allowed to engage in questionable tactics to grow their business.
Slashdot Mirror
It's much worse than that, it means that I can't buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own non-Apple hardware without violating their EULA which is now legally enforceable. What's more the court chose to look the other way as the software was being advertised as being sold when really it's being licensed and as a matter of course stripping a significant amount of consumer rights in the process.
I'm sure this will make those free market morons happy that consumers have even less choice than they previously did if they wanted to use OSX as this ruling effectively bans Hackentoshes as well.
AFAIK this is the first instance where a court has backed Apple's ridiculous claims that they can tie the use of their OS to their hardware by simply adding a clause to their EULA. In the past it wasn't possible for the simple reason that they were using an incompatible architecture.
I'll interpret this as I should, evidence that the justice system in the US is broken and desperately in need of reform.
I'm sure it does depend upon other factors. It's just been my observation that AT&T seems to be the only carrier that's not able to get towers installed within the city limits. T-Mobile, for instance, has almost that many towers in my neighborhood alone. (OK, a bit of an exaggeration, but still)
Which is why in some countries they have actual professionals that sit on the jury in addition to lay people. Of course that doesn't necessarily solve the problem as evidenced by Italy's positively medieval justice system, but it probably does somewhat help with that problem.
Personally, I think the existence of the Alford plea and plea bargaining is an embarrassment to the US. Not having a good attorney shouldn't result in one having to give up their day in court to avoid being sent to prison for the rest of their natural life.
No, it doesn't. It implies a long period of time during which Mac users couldn't use those programs without owning a separate machine. And as for your assertion that they couldn't run the OS until January 2006, that's not true at all. For many years MS released a version of their OS which would run on Power Macs. Granted it couldn't be used in this fashion, but the option was there for years.
Yes, but there are other issues with that. For instance there are Linux or Mac only applications that one might want to use. From time to time, I'll be searching for an application only to find that the only good one works for Linux or OSX even though it's a significant headache to boot into Linux for just that step in what's otherwise a Windows only chain of events. Or worse with OSX where I can't use it at all because I didn't overpay for Apple hardware.
No, it isn't. You can't copyright data, especially data that's derived from actual events. Theoretically they could copyright the presentation, but Mint and services like that are there to display the data in a different way than just displaying all the other sites.
That's how child porn charges work and that's why this area of law desperately needs reform. You're guilty of possession of child porn if somebody sends you a photo whether or not you see it and worse whether or not you solicit the image. Child porn charges without a mens rea requirement are just an incredibly easy way to frame somebody for a felony if you've got some reason for wanting them sent to prison.
Supposedly, if you accidentally download some, you should report it to the FBI, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that.
The first offense would be $60 and 8 hours of community service. Subsequent offenses would continue to misdemeanor and finally felony if the particular teen kept sexting.
It's not a stupid charge, it was a stupid penalty. The current penalty is still too much, but you're ignoring the fact that naked pictures have a way of being liberated by an angry ex or lost when a phone is either lost or stolen. Not to mention the fact that the only way to prevent naked photos of one being naked is to prevent them from being taken. There are going to be times when there's a covert camera in a restroom, but taking the pictures oneself is a really bad idea.
Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults, if they were adults they wouldn't need an exemption from the normal child porn charges that would result from dealing in these types of photos.
That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.
If they vary significantly enough to cause problems then they either aren't standards compliant or the standard needs to be fixed. Suggesting that it's somehow inevitable demands some evidence that it's the case. MS can't ignore the standards without risking another costly antitrust probe, and everybody else needs it in order to have a viable product.
It's been my observation that a lot of the trouble with wireless seems to stem from a smaller number of high powered towers. Last I checked AT&T had like eight or so of them for Seattle, but the big problem was that they had four of them up north and four of them down south and none that I could find within the city limits. The problems are that one that doesn't handle geography very well at all, particularly for cities that have major hills. And second that it means you have a huge number of devices trying to talk to the same tower using the same frequencies.
A set of smaller lower powered towers would have fewer devices per tower and a much reduced need to transmit through hills.
That being said, I'm not sure how much of an advantage that would be in places like the midwest that don't have hills.
They were semi right. They could have in the same way that everybody else doesn't seem to be having that trouble, they just chose not to to use a compatible namespace. The folks over at MS could easily have picked up the phone or sent an email to the other projects and informally agree upon some sort of namespace that would be compatible. Or, they could always just issue an RFC and do something about it ad hoc until the next revision came out.
What I've read about the issue sounds more like attorneys justifying something in a post hoc fashion than a legitimate problem with the spec. They could have done something about it, but ultimately opted not to. The lack of a specific standard namespace should have been a huge neon sign saying that they were about to implement something that wouldn't interoperate.
As long as it's a one way trip you shouldn't have much trouble. The main reason that office files are such a mess is that they maintain backwards compatibility more or less to version 1.0. But the problem tends to be that not everybody uses the same version of Office which can and does lead to problems.
I've personally seen it myself where formatting and all that goes to hell because I'm not using the correct version of Word. And good luck if you don't want to upgrade your copy to match everybody else' copy.
You really should move over to Libreoffice, despite the stupid name that's where all the developers are, and it works a lot better than OpenOffice does in my experience. But then again, based upon your post, I have a feeling that it might be up to IT to switch over.
If you send it as an RTF they shouldn't have any trouble opening it. Chances are that they won't even notice that it isn't a DOC.
Ultimately, anybody that demands that they be sent a DOC deserves to receive a word macro virus infected document.
Anybody that cares about the documents functioning properly in the future or when exchanged with random other people doesn't use the MS Office formats. MS does go to lengths to maintain backwards compatibility, but ultimately it's still risky to use different versions to work on a file.
That's a BS argument because MS tried to get into a lot of markets after the anti-trust agreement like Xbox, Zune, Bing; and they haven't done very well not because of the supervision but because they sucked at selling directly to consumers.
It's not BS, they did try, but they had to take into account the restrictions and scrutiny that came with being supervised. The Xbox, is a poor argument to make, they did well with that one in large part because it was separated enough from their monopoly that they had room to maneuver.
Again BS. Apple didn't have DoJ supervision because they weren't convicted of monopoly abuse. Being a monopoly is not what got MS in trouble. Abusing that monopoly was their problem. Apple by all accounts has the highest marketshare of MP3 players. They never got in trouble with the DoU because they didn't strong-arm their partners against their competitors like MS did.
Strong-arm their partners? You mean like how Apple refused to license Fairplay to any other hardware manufacturer so that anybody wanting to use the ITMS had to either buy an iPod or had to go through the inconvenience of burning and ripping a disc, hence getting a lesser quality of product.
But, no, it's not like Apple would ever strong arm the competition like that, no siree.
As for the lack of conviction, it's hard to get convicted when you're never put on trial. It might be that Apple engaged in perfectly legal behavior, I doubt it, but it somewhat waters down the point when the DoJ isn't enforcing the law.
Yes and if we didn't already have a viable alternative you'd have a point. Nothing is 100% effective, but something like this is just laughable. You're not going to ever have it get the degree of accuracy necessary for it to be useful without a hell of a lot more technology than a game console has. And certainly not with just a Kinect.
I was wondering how they intend to handle problems related to individuals that look young. The current hardware is just not good enough for this to work, but even in the future if they manage to get it to see the people, I can't imagine it coping with teens that are heavyset with beards or people that look like they're teens even though they're adults.
Ultimately, if even bouncers and police officers sometimes get it wrong, I'm not sure how we can hope that an electronic device is going to do any better.
Yeah, but what do they charge for going over the cap? 40gb total per month is not that much, especially when you consider that it's split between peak and non-peak.
Just out of curiosity, what precisely does that have to do with anything? Are individuals that were involved with the company back then still running it? Is there even a single employee working there that was employed by IBM at the time?
It's about as relevant to IBMs continuing operations as Henry Ford's known support of the Nazis.
I don't recall people using that metric previously. MS was the largest company as much by market cap as by install base. The latter being of great concern to most folks that cared about it at all. Market cap is just how much you can convince people you're company is worth and unless you're buying or selling your own shares it's a meaningless metric.
I thought about getting a Mac last time I needed a new laptop. Their cheapest model was nearly 3x as expensive as an inexpensive Thinkpad and the one I ended up with was fully upgraded for much less than the Mac. I ended up spending a bit over $600 for the Thinkpad and I would have had to pay $999 for the MacBook air and I would have had only 2GB of RAM rather than the 4GB I ended up with.
They do include some nice touches, but I couldn't personally justify spending an additional $400 for what was basically just style.
Part of that is that neither IBM nor Apple have been under DoJ supervision for the last decade, which tends to put them at a bit of a competitive advantage when it comes to pushing for growth. MS got slapped for going for other markets beyond Windows and Word. Granted they were going at it in an anti-competitive manner, but MS historically has only known how to grow via those sorts of sleazeball tactics.
That being said, Apple did have the good fortune of having a decade where the DoJ didn't believe in antitrust regulation where they were allowed to engage in questionable tactics to grow their business.