Some laptops like yours still have odd hardware chipsets, and quite often the Intel-based ones. If it weren't for their very crummy graphics chipsets all probably would be well. These issues aren't as prevalent in AMD or nVidia based mobile chipsets.
It's absolutely the incorrect move. Putting Unity in place as the default shell dumbs down things far too much and confuses experienced users. What Shuttleworth should do is put it as an option during the install with gnome as the default and Unity as a choice, then ask for feedback at the end of the install about why one or the other was chosen with the option to skip the feedback.
Personally I find Unity to suck and I don't think it is pretty at all, in fact it is very ugly and destroys what the community has been fighting for--a full fledged easy to use desktop manager. Unity is just a menuing program akin to the days of DOS when they were trying to give a consistent interface to machines for launching programs.
Stop blaming the president and start acting in an adult manner and deal with this issue as if you are an adult capable of understanding it.
The issues associated with this obviously vastly outweigh your ability to understand them. The right to a free press is one issue. The hot news doctrine is another. Both have involved legal and business stand points that have to be addressed here.
This has nothing to do with the president. And get it through you head, he's your president too.
Run for president yourself and make the changes or at lest try to be up on the issues that you so blatantly attack him about.
You don't understand Linux repositories. You also don't seem to understand that you can still install apps in other ways besides the repository, such as double clicking on a downloaded.deb file. Also, you don't seem to understand that Linux machines can have many many repositories active all at once.
Absolutely correct. This is the precursor to lock down. And, people thinking about purchasing Macs should be very careful about buying something so spendy.
I think of a scenario where I post something, it receives a DMCA. I tell the ISP that it was fraudulently claimed as copyrighted material. The ISP fails to put it up. I hire a lawyer and tell him to get it put back up. The lawyer then begins racking up charges. I then take them to court out of principle. We win. They pay a good sum to the lawyer.
That's pretty pathetic. Since there's little loss to anyone to make a false claim then maybe we should all be issuing DMCAs--that might stop some of the patent trolls--meaning I'm sure some people could be pretty creative.
No, I had it right. The picture in the postcard (in your example) of whatever object is copyrighted. This has been firmly entrenched. The actual object in the picture is not. If you take a picture of the same object then your picture is copyrighted. That's it. If I take a picture of sheet music that picture is copyrighted but not the sheet music represented in it.
Generally seems like an Apple slide--pie charts with a healthy topping of reality distortion and totally out of context.
Jobs is a fool. A ridiculous fool. For the few choices one has with the iPhone that product is remarkably fragmented. The original iPhone doesn't run iOS 4 neither does the 3G. The 3GS maybe and the 4 but in the next release expect the 3GS to be outmoded.
One company with a relatively narrow marketed item is more fragmented than the whole of the Android market combined.
I sure it is the case, but I have not heard of a device refusing to run Android 2.2--aside from it maybe not being released. Many find they can get it installed without the vendor's sanction.
Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.
There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.
The purpose of the monopoly ownership of these types of works of art was to encourage creativity. They were granted monopoly over these works for a limited time knowing it would be put into the public domain afterwards.
Back then the content creator's claim were that if they didn't have monopoly rights and all things went to the public domain there'd be no reason to create. So, the government, in an effort to ensure everything went to the public domain to help ensure culture survived, granted them this right, not the other way round.
The video that was DMCA'd down was the 2nd half of a 20/20 news segment about the issues befalling the music industry back in the 1980s.
There's enough time between the "failure of the music industry's disdain for the player piano and the radio" as to make points on both sides moot.
But, a DMCA notice to take down something that occurred in the 80s which pinpoints the exact same reasoning we have today for the alleged destruction of the music industry is telling. This segment wasn't even owned by the music industry, it was owned by 20/20 the news magazine. The content within clearly falls within the fair use doctrine, which, should be considered the default rather than the exception--meaning we should make them prove that it isn't fair use before they can prevail with a DMCA or in court, rather than the way it is now where fair use has to prove itself.
I really can't see people having an interest in this. Even those uneducated masses. There's nothing remarkable about it and certainly no extra raison d'etre.
My guess is that Ballmer will loose some of his 2010 bonus also.
It just strikes me as odd that anyone would be purchasing (or even selling) this device. If they are making it it is due to legal threats and guarantees of indemnification against their Android handsets.
Ballmer is methane based. His statement is stupid and meant for untrained ears. Who cares if there will be a Win7 based tablet. By then there'll be 20 Android based tablets.
That's not what I said. I said they can't grow their market share by demanding people upgrade their browser, hence their OS, hence more hardware.
We must ensure people world wide understand there are other choices and that those choices should lead them to their purchases, regardless of what Microsoft thinks they know.
Microsoft told us that IE7 was wonderful and necessary to fix all their malware woes. Then they told us that Vista was wonderful and would fix all their malware woes. One of their VPs actually claimed you'd not need a malware scanner on your computer. Then IE8 came out, and not long ago at that. They claimed it was so much better than all the others and that it would solve all their malware woes.
During this time they were pushing their search engine. They pushed Windows Live Search hard and complained at every single share point that they didn't gain, claiming Google was nefarious.
When Bing came out they pushed it and a new browser. IE8 came about around the time that Bing was out and gaining press.
It seems to me that Microsoft has seen that browser market share isn't as important as search market share. They know they no longer have control over whether the web replaces the OS (which was their major concern in the late 80s and through the 90s). Their plan was to kill Netscape because they felt that it, and other technologies such as Java, could replace the OS completely. But we are beyond that at this point. Microsoft has realized there's a point of no return and that we've passed it, at least as far as browsers killing development for the Microsoft OSes.
What they see now is that the only way to get people to even try their products (such as silverlight, bing, whatever) is to do those drive by installs and configurations, similar to the way some malware is distributed (as a bundle with another package). Most of the people today wouldn't have Safari on their computers if Apple hadn't done drive by installs of it with iTunes.
Microsoft learned that if they keep their browser updating, even if they are loosing market share, because the browser is central to the OS, they'll have a good chance of getting penetration with their other products such as Silverlight or even Bing. If you install IE9 then you'll likely get Bing set up with all the accelerators to boot, even if you removed them prior to installing IE9.
The more people see a product the more they recognize it. When Microsoft was gaining ground in the software world they learned that they needed to repeat their name over and over and over, almost to the point of nausium. This meant that people would recognize them as a household word. Now we have the same with Bing. Since the browser isn't responsible for funding Microsoft, yet Bing is supposed to, they need to get the word "Bing" out there as much as possible. They do this with these installs, configurations, etc. By putting Bing everywhere on their web site, by promoting Bing on MSN, by reconfiguring Bing every time they do a browser update, they gain market share for something they can monetize rather than for a product that was meant to stem the tide of competition that might kill their OS.
So, even though their browser market share is declining their search share is increasing because they have been pointing those in search of updates to install products such as Silverlight and to set up bing via the browser updates.
The fact that IE9 won't run on XP will most certainly reduce their market share by many more share points. XP is still predominantly used in the world. Though I have several Vista boxes I rarely use them and though I have a couple Win7 boxes I use them sparingly. My OS of choice is Linux. It's the better OS in my mind as I have taken the time to learn it. I realized a few years ago that I wasn't giving the OS its due without actually learning it and using it over the long haul. It does everything I need it to do. I'm impressed. And the software available for it is tremendous.
Microsoft thinks they can grow Win7 market share by demanding people update to it in order to use the browser features of IE9 but people won't do that. We'll tell them to go to Google's browser or Firefox, or to even go to a different OS (Mac OS X or Linux). Why stay with a company that keeps trying to manipulate the customers into outlays of cash that are beyond their best interests?
I don't want to seem facetious, and I'm very happy that the browser market share is shifting. What went through my mind when I started reading this is that if you took the statistics from Microsoft's website hits the share would be strikingly higher for IE.
What I'm saying is that when you get stats from sites such as English language sites you would expect English to be seen as the predominant language. If you hit Linux sites you would expect to see Linux as dominant there. If you don't seek foreign sites in your stats you will never see them represented as those people most certainly account for a higher percentage of non-Microsoft products such as Linux.
Unless you can accurately account world-wide you'll never get a real picture of the market share and unless you can represent to those foreign countries the bad about a specific company they'll never know to try some other OS or browser.
It is not. But when suits fly to and from those proposing this sort of change then certainly they have ideas beyond what you think the benefit is. This will make it easier for Microsoft to sue other, believe it or not, because they have more money. In cases where preponderance of evidence comes into play it is historically the money side that wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Some laptops like yours still have odd hardware chipsets, and quite often the Intel-based ones. If it weren't for their very crummy graphics chipsets all probably would be well. These issues aren't as prevalent in AMD or nVidia based mobile chipsets.
It's absolutely the incorrect move. Putting Unity in place as the default shell dumbs down things far too much and confuses experienced users. What Shuttleworth should do is put it as an option during the install with gnome as the default and Unity as a choice, then ask for feedback at the end of the install about why one or the other was chosen with the option to skip the feedback.
Personally I find Unity to suck and I don't think it is pretty at all, in fact it is very ugly and destroys what the community has been fighting for--a full fledged easy to use desktop manager. Unity is just a menuing program akin to the days of DOS when they were trying to give a consistent interface to machines for launching programs.
Have you asked him?
Stop blaming the president and start acting in an adult manner and deal with this issue as if you are an adult capable of understanding it.
The issues associated with this obviously vastly outweigh your ability to understand them. The right to a free press is one issue. The hot news doctrine is another. Both have involved legal and business stand points that have to be addressed here.
This has nothing to do with the president. And get it through you head, he's your president too.
Run for president yourself and make the changes or at lest try to be up on the issues that you so blatantly attack him about.
You don't understand Linux repositories. You also don't seem to understand that you can still install apps in other ways besides the repository, such as double clicking on a downloaded .deb file. Also, you don't seem to understand that Linux machines can have many many repositories active all at once.
Absolutely correct. This is the precursor to lock down. And, people thinking about purchasing Macs should be very careful about buying something so spendy.
We've just entered Fall, so to say that OS X Lion will be out this summer is saying that it's due a year from now.
That's why I put IMHO at the end of the sentence.
And, yes, serious penalties should be levied.
I think of a scenario where I post something, it receives a DMCA. I tell the ISP that it was fraudulently claimed as copyrighted material. The ISP fails to put it up. I hire a lawyer and tell him to get it put back up. The lawyer then begins racking up charges. I then take them to court out of principle. We win. They pay a good sum to the lawyer.
That's pretty pathetic. Since there's little loss to anyone to make a false claim then maybe we should all be issuing DMCAs--that might stop some of the patent trolls--meaning I'm sure some people could be pretty creative.
No, I had it right. The picture in the postcard (in your example) of whatever object is copyrighted. This has been firmly entrenched. The actual object in the picture is not. If you take a picture of the same object then your picture is copyrighted. That's it. If I take a picture of sheet music that picture is copyrighted but not the sheet music represented in it.
It's still the work whether it was written in Hebrew or Orchish/Goblin. The copyright has expired whether we can read the original or not.
Generally seems like an Apple slide--pie charts with a healthy topping of reality distortion and totally out of context.
Jobs is a fool. A ridiculous fool. For the few choices one has with the iPhone that product is remarkably fragmented. The original iPhone doesn't run iOS 4 neither does the 3G. The 3GS maybe and the 4 but in the next release expect the 3GS to be outmoded.
One company with a relatively narrow marketed item is more fragmented than the whole of the Android market combined.
I sure it is the case, but I have not heard of a device refusing to run Android 2.2--aside from it maybe not being released. Many find they can get it installed without the vendor's sanction.
The first part is not the part in question. It is the second part.
Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.
There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.
The purpose of the monopoly ownership of these types of works of art was to encourage creativity. They were granted monopoly over these works for a limited time knowing it would be put into the public domain afterwards.
Back then the content creator's claim were that if they didn't have monopoly rights and all things went to the public domain there'd be no reason to create. So, the government, in an effort to ensure everything went to the public domain to help ensure culture survived, granted them this right, not the other way round.
Absolutely not. Techdirt.com is a long standing news entity which critiques the dirt of our digital industry.
The video that was DMCA'd down was the 2nd half of a 20/20 news segment about the issues befalling the music industry back in the 1980s.
There's enough time between the "failure of the music industry's disdain for the player piano and the radio" as to make points on both sides moot.
But, a DMCA notice to take down something that occurred in the 80s which pinpoints the exact same reasoning we have today for the alleged destruction of the music industry is telling. This segment wasn't even owned by the music industry, it was owned by 20/20 the news magazine. The content within clearly falls within the fair use doctrine, which, should be considered the default rather than the exception--meaning we should make them prove that it isn't fair use before they can prevail with a DMCA or in court, rather than the way it is now where fair use has to prove itself.
I really can't see people having an interest in this. Even those uneducated masses. There's nothing remarkable about it and certainly no extra raison d'etre.
My guess is that Ballmer will loose some of his 2010 bonus also.
It just strikes me as odd that anyone would be purchasing (or even selling) this device. If they are making it it is due to legal threats and guarantees of indemnification against their Android handsets.
I've known about it for a couple years. Never used it. Never really thought about it because I always used the web based yellow/white pages.
Ballmer is methane based. His statement is stupid and meant for untrained ears. Who cares if there will be a Win7 based tablet. By then there'll be 20 Android based tablets.
That's not what I said. I said they can't grow their market share by demanding people upgrade their browser, hence their OS, hence more hardware.
We must ensure people world wide understand there are other choices and that those choices should lead them to their purchases, regardless of what Microsoft thinks they know.
IE6 likely is used more due to companies still being latched onto Win2K.
Microsoft told us that IE7 was wonderful and necessary to fix all their malware woes. Then they told us that Vista was wonderful and would fix all their malware woes. One of their VPs actually claimed you'd not need a malware scanner on your computer. Then IE8 came out, and not long ago at that. They claimed it was so much better than all the others and that it would solve all their malware woes.
During this time they were pushing their search engine. They pushed Windows Live Search hard and complained at every single share point that they didn't gain, claiming Google was nefarious.
When Bing came out they pushed it and a new browser. IE8 came about around the time that Bing was out and gaining press.
It seems to me that Microsoft has seen that browser market share isn't as important as search market share. They know they no longer have control over whether the web replaces the OS (which was their major concern in the late 80s and through the 90s). Their plan was to kill Netscape because they felt that it, and other technologies such as Java, could replace the OS completely. But we are beyond that at this point. Microsoft has realized there's a point of no return and that we've passed it, at least as far as browsers killing development for the Microsoft OSes.
What they see now is that the only way to get people to even try their products (such as silverlight, bing, whatever) is to do those drive by installs and configurations, similar to the way some malware is distributed (as a bundle with another package). Most of the people today wouldn't have Safari on their computers if Apple hadn't done drive by installs of it with iTunes.
Microsoft learned that if they keep their browser updating, even if they are loosing market share, because the browser is central to the OS, they'll have a good chance of getting penetration with their other products such as Silverlight or even Bing. If you install IE9 then you'll likely get Bing set up with all the accelerators to boot, even if you removed them prior to installing IE9.
The more people see a product the more they recognize it. When Microsoft was gaining ground in the software world they learned that they needed to repeat their name over and over and over, almost to the point of nausium. This meant that people would recognize them as a household word. Now we have the same with Bing. Since the browser isn't responsible for funding Microsoft, yet Bing is supposed to, they need to get the word "Bing" out there as much as possible. They do this with these installs, configurations, etc. By putting Bing everywhere on their web site, by promoting Bing on MSN, by reconfiguring Bing every time they do a browser update, they gain market share for something they can monetize rather than for a product that was meant to stem the tide of competition that might kill their OS.
So, even though their browser market share is declining their search share is increasing because they have been pointing those in search of updates to install products such as Silverlight and to set up bing via the browser updates.
I think he meant bing'ier.
The fact that IE9 won't run on XP will most certainly reduce their market share by many more share points. XP is still predominantly used in the world. Though I have several Vista boxes I rarely use them and though I have a couple Win7 boxes I use them sparingly. My OS of choice is Linux. It's the better OS in my mind as I have taken the time to learn it. I realized a few years ago that I wasn't giving the OS its due without actually learning it and using it over the long haul. It does everything I need it to do. I'm impressed. And the software available for it is tremendous.
Microsoft thinks they can grow Win7 market share by demanding people update to it in order to use the browser features of IE9 but people won't do that. We'll tell them to go to Google's browser or Firefox, or to even go to a different OS (Mac OS X or Linux). Why stay with a company that keeps trying to manipulate the customers into outlays of cash that are beyond their best interests?
I don't want to seem facetious, and I'm very happy that the browser market share is shifting. What went through my mind when I started reading this is that if you took the statistics from Microsoft's website hits the share would be strikingly higher for IE.
What I'm saying is that when you get stats from sites such as English language sites you would expect English to be seen as the predominant language. If you hit Linux sites you would expect to see Linux as dominant there. If you don't seek foreign sites in your stats you will never see them represented as those people most certainly account for a higher percentage of non-Microsoft products such as Linux.
Unless you can accurately account world-wide you'll never get a real picture of the market share and unless you can represent to those foreign countries the bad about a specific company they'll never know to try some other OS or browser.
It is not. But when suits fly to and from those proposing this sort of change then certainly they have ideas beyond what you think the benefit is. This will make it easier for Microsoft to sue other, believe it or not, because they have more money. In cases where preponderance of evidence comes into play it is historically the money side that wins.