This is all too common and it's a good argument against allowing companies to buy lots of other companies out. They made similar mistakes with Saturn. They had a good thing going, but failed to make the investments necessary to keep the brand viable, then after a period of time gave up on it and sold it off. Except in this case due to the prolonged period of neglect it appears to have had to kill it completely.
I don't think the fact that it's being outright killed ought to be a shocker to anybody, these cars have been pretty much dead for the last 2 decades, very few garages around here service them, I think that Pugeot might be the only brand that's harder to find a mechanic for around here. I realize that they're still quite popular amongst Saab owners, but if you're not managing to get new people interested, eventually the brand has to go the way of the Packard.
A couple of reasons, for one thing when you're talking about sub $200 computers you're talking about commodity pricing. The average profit margins on computers in that range are tiny, they make up for it by making a huge number of computers.
Additionally adding to that problem is that a thin client really requires components that are more similar to laptop components than to desktop components. Admittedly you don't have to, but otherwise you're going to have to put up with the heat dissipation, noise and size problems that come with desktop components. They've gotten better, but they're still not anywhere near the efficiency of laptops in general.
Not to mention that there's a lot of engineering work which doesn't generally need to be redone for desktops. But over all, there isn't really any reason why one couldn't use a netbook as a thin client, it just isn't likely to drive a monitor of that sort of size.
It isn't real competition right now, but it's hard to say how long that'll last. It's not just AMD and nVidia that stand to gain, don't forget that TI also is in the business of making chips, and while they aren't competing with Intel right now, they do sell chips that are useful in netbooks.
Actually, Apple doesn't have the right to determine what it is you do with the product after you buy it, so long as you don't produce more copies of it than you've bought. In fact once you've bought it you own the copy, and they don't get to say much about what you do with it, including reselling the copy to somebody else.
Apple has the copy right, as in the right to create new copies. The ability to insert language into the EULA is not the same thing as having the right to enforce.
Additionally, in cases like this where it's clear that the consumer is being harmed by the practice, it's not necessarily so cut and dry that Apple is within it's rights to behave in this fashion. The refusal to allow people to get a refund on the OS if they just want the hardware is definitely an abuse of licensing.
So, then where can I buy this 30 year old technology built into a take home player? It's asinine to suggest that it's 30 year old technology when pretty much the only thing that hasn't yet changed about it is the tendency to use the red/blue filters. There's been a huge amount of change in how the technology is recorded. The fact that anybody is even trying to do football in 3d technology is a good example of that change.
In the long run it's going to be going 3d for most things, the idea that because there's been so little film made which utilizes the effect as anything other than a gimmick is not a fair way of assessing the technology. The new technology here is building it into a player that most people have and presumably also being able to cram a regular copy of the moving onto the same disc.
If Apple chooses to go that route, they're going to have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of the US' antitrust regulations dealing with this sort of vendor lockout. Especially if it harms the customers or damages competitors. Just because Apple was able to get away with this sort of crap under the previous DoJ doesn't make it a guarantee that there anti-competitive behaviors will be allowed into the future.
That's some nice FUD you've got there. There are some valid points, but the basis for the page is inaccurate. SPF is really meant to be used in conjunction with some other technology like DKIM. SPF is just meant to ensure that one aspect of the process, that the machine sending the email is allowed to do so. DKIM for instance is meant to verify the contents of the email hasn't been tampered with.
Unless something has changed in the last few years, DKID doesn't verify that the server is allowed to send email for that particular domain, just that the email itself wasn't tampered with which has its own issues. For instance, while it does verify that the message hasn't been tampered with, it does not help people that are sending legitimate cold emails to a server of say the sales rep for the company.
My point here being that any technology has issues when one tries to use it in a way for which it isn't designed, but saying that because it can be used improperly that it's therefore dangerous is an argument which lacks merit.
Well, who was it that demanded less regulation and fewer measures of oversight to the telecoms? I don't seem to recall deregulation of the telecoms as a huge Democratic cause in the last decade. The largest cause of that sort of problem has been the conglomeration of telecoms into ones which only cover areas of the country which are profit rich and to do so in the most minimal fashion possible.
What you're forgetting is that these same rural voters go crazy for corporatism and for the misguided deregulation that leads them to not have decent access to quality broadband at reasonable prices.
That's not entirely true. Chemical patents are process or molecule, not both. And in this case you couldn't patent the gene sequence to begin with since it's a matter of discovery rather than creation.
I think it's implied that Windows would fall under similar regulation. A lot of the instability of Windows comes from architectural mistakes and the efforts by MS to make decisions for the end user that turn out to be based upon faulty assumptions. Most applications would be better run sandboxed in some sort, there are a few that need interaction between various programs, but most run better and more reliably when sandboxed.
I have very, very few of those sorts of interoperability problems on FreeBSD, if it installs for the most part it runs, every once in a while there's a bug that only occurs when running, but most of the time it just doesn't compile when broken. The idea that it's necessarily that hard to do is silly, it's just that MS and a few of the vendors want to do things which run directly counter to maintaining a stable operating environment. What this legislation would do more than anything else is cut down on the unreliable DRM that causes so many head aches.
Because he can't go private with it. The only code he has access to is under the GPL, having sold the copyright, which prevents him from taking it closed source.
Because Treaties are the only thing that are of higher authority than our constitution. The same constitution that has been amended 27 times. Additionally, the mistake we make is if anything being too willing to sign treaties. There's definitely treaties out there that we should never have ratified, let alone signed. The WTO is a good example of a horrible mistake that somebody should've seen coming. It's not that bad, but good luck punishing the Chinese or Japanese for currency manipulation, and good luck getting to set your own environmental regulations. These are problems not just for the US, but all the other nations stupid enough to sign and ratify that treaty.
That's because the GP is a troll. We wouldn't have a national rail system, national highways, freeways or communication system if we let the free market do it on its own. When you let the free market do it, you get the areas where there's high profit serviced to the minimal extent possible to exploit the profit and most parts of the country get no service at all.
I realize that there's a lot of idiots out there that claim to know something of economics who believe this fairy tale, spontaneous generation of wealth bullshit, but in real life there is no free lunch. Consequently, you can't just allow the free market build up an orderly, well maintained cost effective infrastructure without setting most of the rules for those doing the building. It just doesn't work.
You haven't seen me use it then. You'd be right, except that most of the time these articles are posted before they've been properly peer reviewed leaving one with a possibly incorrect view of the issue. Ever notice how certain substances like alcohol and chocolate seem to go back and forth and back and forth in terms of health benefits?
In this case, there isn't any particular reason for believing that this is any different than immunizations. Poor people in the US are also more likely to have their kids vaccinated than the upper classes. Mainly because the government pays for the vaccination and the poorer parents are less likely to decline the mandatory vaccinations.
It's also been the case for some time that more affluent patients would be less likely to get a diagnosis even if the rates of treatment were the same and to have better access to alternatives like therapy.
As for tobacco and correlation, that's incredibly ignorant. Correlation is not causation is something that people rightly use in cases like this where people are assuming that the statistical analysis has proven something. Statistics doesn't prove anything ever, that's not what statistics is for. If you want to prove that smoking causes cancer then you have to do the lab work and find the thing in cigarettes which is causing the cancer. You can't just say that something causes cancer and then say that people shouldn't use it because it's a carcinogen, that's not how these things work and most of the time the result is wrong in a rather spectacular fashion. Smokers do a lot of other things which aren't healthy, pinning it definitively on the smoking requires justification. If the evidence were there like for emphysema and heart disease, that would be a totally different matter.
Umm, in this scenario there'd have to be some engineering to start. So they just add an additional mirror to the set up and things are then looking the right direction for the driver.
If they're really concerned about deafness, they'd ban companies like Apple from including those crappy ear buds that everybody seems to have to wear. The poor fit and low quality virtually assure that the volume gets bumped up way higher than it needs to be.
Personally, I like my shure e2c, sure they're expensive, but you don't need to spend a lot of money, just get a earbud that provides for a proper seal in the ear. I can have my volume turned down pretty much all the way on the bus, and I can still barely hear the noise from the rest of the bus.
Actually paid == payed. Payed is an archaic form of paid, which is obsolete in most circumstances. Apparently it's still correct in the nautical use as well as for payed subscriptions. Hell even the spell check in Firefox accepts it as legimit.
If you're going to be one of those annoying grammar nazi pricks, the least you could do is be right.
Probably because you don't take immigration and naturalization as seriously as we do. Not that that's necessarily wrong, but it does take significantly less time to get naturalized in Canada than it does in the US. It's actually quicker to become a Canadian citizen then an American citizen than it is to become an American citizen directly in many cases. Unless that's changed in recent years.
Or better still, quit voting for the guys that promise to implement tougher immigration policies and prevent you from getting universal health care. Hint: It's not generally the Democrats that are advocating for extremist measure to protect the "Homeland."
That's true, which is why you hear about assault AND battery far more often than just battery. It gets complicated to understand sometimes like the difference between criminal trespass, burglary and breaking and entering. But the distinctions tend to be important as they give at least some ability to differentiate between crimes.
The GPL doesn't require the source to be included, just that it be available in the same place. Which one would assume in this case would require that Palm provide that code in their store. I forget about cases where the code is itself completely unmodified from the originals are dealt with specifically.
In this case if Palm is dynamically linking rather than statically linking the software and isn't modifying the GPL software, they have a legitimate argument as to whether or not they have to comply with the more onerous licensing terms. Meaning that they don't have to license their application as GPL. This is a legitimate interpretation of the licensing terms and it's one which is accepted by many projects that use GPL code.
It would be a bullshit license if they required that code that uses dynamic linking had to be GPLed as well.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all too common and it's a good argument against allowing companies to buy lots of other companies out. They made similar mistakes with Saturn. They had a good thing going, but failed to make the investments necessary to keep the brand viable, then after a period of time gave up on it and sold it off. Except in this case due to the prolonged period of neglect it appears to have had to kill it completely.
I don't think the fact that it's being outright killed ought to be a shocker to anybody, these cars have been pretty much dead for the last 2 decades, very few garages around here service them, I think that Pugeot might be the only brand that's harder to find a mechanic for around here. I realize that they're still quite popular amongst Saab owners, but if you're not managing to get new people interested, eventually the brand has to go the way of the Packard.
A couple of reasons, for one thing when you're talking about sub $200 computers you're talking about commodity pricing. The average profit margins on computers in that range are tiny, they make up for it by making a huge number of computers.
Additionally adding to that problem is that a thin client really requires components that are more similar to laptop components than to desktop components. Admittedly you don't have to, but otherwise you're going to have to put up with the heat dissipation, noise and size problems that come with desktop components. They've gotten better, but they're still not anywhere near the efficiency of laptops in general.
Not to mention that there's a lot of engineering work which doesn't generally need to be redone for desktops. But over all, there isn't really any reason why one couldn't use a netbook as a thin client, it just isn't likely to drive a monitor of that sort of size.
Isn't that how things work in the real world? Your faucet is broken so you burn down the house. Seems like the logical way of dealing with it to me.
It isn't real competition right now, but it's hard to say how long that'll last. It's not just AMD and nVidia that stand to gain, don't forget that TI also is in the business of making chips, and while they aren't competing with Intel right now, they do sell chips that are useful in netbooks.
Actually, Apple doesn't have the right to determine what it is you do with the product after you buy it, so long as you don't produce more copies of it than you've bought. In fact once you've bought it you own the copy, and they don't get to say much about what you do with it, including reselling the copy to somebody else.
Apple has the copy right, as in the right to create new copies. The ability to insert language into the EULA is not the same thing as having the right to enforce.
Additionally, in cases like this where it's clear that the consumer is being harmed by the practice, it's not necessarily so cut and dry that Apple is within it's rights to behave in this fashion. The refusal to allow people to get a refund on the OS if they just want the hardware is definitely an abuse of licensing.
You mean this yellow slicker I bought is going to be useless?
So, then where can I buy this 30 year old technology built into a take home player? It's asinine to suggest that it's 30 year old technology when pretty much the only thing that hasn't yet changed about it is the tendency to use the red/blue filters. There's been a huge amount of change in how the technology is recorded. The fact that anybody is even trying to do football in 3d technology is a good example of that change.
In the long run it's going to be going 3d for most things, the idea that because there's been so little film made which utilizes the effect as anything other than a gimmick is not a fair way of assessing the technology. The new technology here is building it into a player that most people have and presumably also being able to cram a regular copy of the moving onto the same disc.
If Apple chooses to go that route, they're going to have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of the US' antitrust regulations dealing with this sort of vendor lockout. Especially if it harms the customers or damages competitors. Just because Apple was able to get away with this sort of crap under the previous DoJ doesn't make it a guarantee that there anti-competitive behaviors will be allowed into the future.
That's some nice FUD you've got there. There are some valid points, but the basis for the page is inaccurate. SPF is really meant to be used in conjunction with some other technology like DKIM. SPF is just meant to ensure that one aspect of the process, that the machine sending the email is allowed to do so. DKIM for instance is meant to verify the contents of the email hasn't been tampered with.
Unless something has changed in the last few years, DKID doesn't verify that the server is allowed to send email for that particular domain, just that the email itself wasn't tampered with which has its own issues. For instance, while it does verify that the message hasn't been tampered with, it does not help people that are sending legitimate cold emails to a server of say the sales rep for the company.
My point here being that any technology has issues when one tries to use it in a way for which it isn't designed, but saying that because it can be used improperly that it's therefore dangerous is an argument which lacks merit.
Well, who was it that demanded less regulation and fewer measures of oversight to the telecoms? I don't seem to recall deregulation of the telecoms as a huge Democratic cause in the last decade. The largest cause of that sort of problem has been the conglomeration of telecoms into ones which only cover areas of the country which are profit rich and to do so in the most minimal fashion possible.
What you're forgetting is that these same rural voters go crazy for corporatism and for the misguided deregulation that leads them to not have decent access to quality broadband at reasonable prices.
That's not entirely true. Chemical patents are process or molecule, not both. And in this case you couldn't patent the gene sequence to begin with since it's a matter of discovery rather than creation.
I think it's implied that Windows would fall under similar regulation. A lot of the instability of Windows comes from architectural mistakes and the efforts by MS to make decisions for the end user that turn out to be based upon faulty assumptions. Most applications would be better run sandboxed in some sort, there are a few that need interaction between various programs, but most run better and more reliably when sandboxed.
I have very, very few of those sorts of interoperability problems on FreeBSD, if it installs for the most part it runs, every once in a while there's a bug that only occurs when running, but most of the time it just doesn't compile when broken. The idea that it's necessarily that hard to do is silly, it's just that MS and a few of the vendors want to do things which run directly counter to maintaining a stable operating environment. What this legislation would do more than anything else is cut down on the unreliable DRM that causes so many head aches.
Because he can't go private with it. The only code he has access to is under the GPL, having sold the copyright, which prevents him from taking it closed source.
Because Treaties are the only thing that are of higher authority than our constitution. The same constitution that has been amended 27 times. Additionally, the mistake we make is if anything being too willing to sign treaties. There's definitely treaties out there that we should never have ratified, let alone signed. The WTO is a good example of a horrible mistake that somebody should've seen coming. It's not that bad, but good luck punishing the Chinese or Japanese for currency manipulation, and good luck getting to set your own environmental regulations. These are problems not just for the US, but all the other nations stupid enough to sign and ratify that treaty.
That's because the GP is a troll. We wouldn't have a national rail system, national highways, freeways or communication system if we let the free market do it on its own. When you let the free market do it, you get the areas where there's high profit serviced to the minimal extent possible to exploit the profit and most parts of the country get no service at all.
I realize that there's a lot of idiots out there that claim to know something of economics who believe this fairy tale, spontaneous generation of wealth bullshit, but in real life there is no free lunch. Consequently, you can't just allow the free market build up an orderly, well maintained cost effective infrastructure without setting most of the rules for those doing the building. It just doesn't work.
You haven't seen me use it then. You'd be right, except that most of the time these articles are posted before they've been properly peer reviewed leaving one with a possibly incorrect view of the issue. Ever notice how certain substances like alcohol and chocolate seem to go back and forth and back and forth in terms of health benefits?
In this case, there isn't any particular reason for believing that this is any different than immunizations. Poor people in the US are also more likely to have their kids vaccinated than the upper classes. Mainly because the government pays for the vaccination and the poorer parents are less likely to decline the mandatory vaccinations.
It's also been the case for some time that more affluent patients would be less likely to get a diagnosis even if the rates of treatment were the same and to have better access to alternatives like therapy.
As for tobacco and correlation, that's incredibly ignorant. Correlation is not causation is something that people rightly use in cases like this where people are assuming that the statistical analysis has proven something. Statistics doesn't prove anything ever, that's not what statistics is for. If you want to prove that smoking causes cancer then you have to do the lab work and find the thing in cigarettes which is causing the cancer. You can't just say that something causes cancer and then say that people shouldn't use it because it's a carcinogen, that's not how these things work and most of the time the result is wrong in a rather spectacular fashion. Smokers do a lot of other things which aren't healthy, pinning it definitively on the smoking requires justification. If the evidence were there like for emphysema and heart disease, that would be a totally different matter.
Umm, in this scenario there'd have to be some engineering to start. So they just add an additional mirror to the set up and things are then looking the right direction for the driver.
If they're really concerned about deafness, they'd ban companies like Apple from including those crappy ear buds that everybody seems to have to wear. The poor fit and low quality virtually assure that the volume gets bumped up way higher than it needs to be.
Personally, I like my shure e2c, sure they're expensive, but you don't need to spend a lot of money, just get a earbud that provides for a proper seal in the ear. I can have my volume turned down pretty much all the way on the bus, and I can still barely hear the noise from the rest of the bus.
Actually paid == payed. Payed is an archaic form of paid, which is obsolete in most circumstances. Apparently it's still correct in the nautical use as well as for payed subscriptions. Hell even the spell check in Firefox accepts it as legimit.
If you're going to be one of those annoying grammar nazi pricks, the least you could do is be right.
Probably because you don't take immigration and naturalization as seriously as we do. Not that that's necessarily wrong, but it does take significantly less time to get naturalized in Canada than it does in the US. It's actually quicker to become a Canadian citizen then an American citizen than it is to become an American citizen directly in many cases. Unless that's changed in recent years.
Or better still, quit voting for the guys that promise to implement tougher immigration policies and prevent you from getting universal health care. Hint: It's not generally the Democrats that are advocating for extremist measure to protect the "Homeland."
That's true, which is why you hear about assault AND battery far more often than just battery. It gets complicated to understand sometimes like the difference between criminal trespass, burglary and breaking and entering. But the distinctions tend to be important as they give at least some ability to differentiate between crimes.
But I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of orders for Viagra that you got made up for the outage.
The GPL doesn't require the source to be included, just that it be available in the same place. Which one would assume in this case would require that Palm provide that code in their store. I forget about cases where the code is itself completely unmodified from the originals are dealt with specifically.
In this case if Palm is dynamically linking rather than statically linking the software and isn't modifying the GPL software, they have a legitimate argument as to whether or not they have to comply with the more onerous licensing terms. Meaning that they don't have to license their application as GPL. This is a legitimate interpretation of the licensing terms and it's one which is accepted by many projects that use GPL code.
It would be a bullshit license if they required that code that uses dynamic linking had to be GPLed as well.
Some of us are CDDL trolls, you insensitive clod!