I applaud all efforts to migrate people away from using Microsoft software or services. There are, after all, many better bits of software freely available without paying money to Microsoft.
I even more applaud Microsoft's efforts to achieve this same result.:o)
> Microsoft has announced that the forthcoming Windows 7 > operating system will contain a number of piracy 'tweaks' > it says are designed to protect the interests of customers.
I fail to see how a mechanism designed to prevent people from installing proprietary closed-source software is in any way something to protect the interests of people who use that software.
What I do see is that it is something designed to protect Microsoft's revenue stream.
This announcement from Microsoft is nothing other than more of Microsoft's duplicitous propaganda and should be read and understood in that context.
> Microsoft has a new tactic in the browser wars. They're > having the 'critical' IE8 update make IE the default > browser without asking.
From my perspective, that was not unexpected - not least because Microsoft is not interested in taking into account how its customers want to use their own computer(s); but also because Microsoft has a history of nasty business tactics, not delivering what it promises, and even lying to its own staff.
Do you in all seriousness think that Microsoft is trustworthy?
> It is also completely inactive and irrelevant until > somebody's code calls the necessary APIs.
That is so not true!
The reason why MS Windows Vista is so very slow at copying documents is because it is checking multiple times a second to see if a user is attempting to copying, or an application is otherwise attempting to access, any high definition media, and if it is it will either act to prevent it, or will only permit that access by means of specifically encrypted data paths.
MS windows Vista is essentially paranoid re preventing users from copying HD material. This is one of the reasons why the OS still uses a considerable amount of CPU time even when it is ostensibly idle.
DRM is fundamentally built into MS Windows Vista in such a way that the performance of the OS has suffered as a result.
> Vista never had any DRM of any kind built-in, other than > the DRM support in WMP that was in XP.
Actually, it does.
It is otherwise known as Intel's "High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection", and implemented by Microsoft as "Protected Video" and Protected Audio" Paths.
> Vista RTM had some copy performance issues but SP1 fixed > those, and during Win7 there was a significant focus on > improving copy / move / delete performance.
Basically, MS Windows Vista (service pak 0) was released on the unsuspecting plebs before it was finished because MS was under pressure from the Blogisphere to finally release what was originally supposed to be Longhorn.
Vista had Digital Restrictions Management built into the core of the OS. That massively affected performance of even basic things such as copy/move/delete.
I am led to believe that the primary difference between MS "Windows 7" and MS Windows Vista is that the DRM was removed, and this is why the performance of core OS functions is said to have improved.
Personally, I won't be buying any new version of MS Windows - each new release has consistently performed slower than previous releases, altho' ostensibly performing the same fundamental OS functions.
I may revise my view of MS Windows if MS releases two successive major version (ie x.0) releases that are each more efficient (in terms of all hardware resources, and no not as a percentage of increased minimum hardware specs, I mean in actual CPU/GPU cycles) and thus leaving more CPU/GPU resources for applications.
> I love the way slashdot gets more upset about a trial over > music and copyright as it does over guantanomo bay. > Hint: > Gitmo is bigger threat to your liberty than whether or not > kids get to take music without paying
What rubbish! I am not a citizen of the USA or of any country presently experiencing hostile aggression from the USA, and so Guantanomo Bay is not a threat to my liberty.
It is only a threat to that of USian citizens and other people that their rulers illegally detain.
Genuine democratic countries do not have this feature of the USA legal system.
> The graphics designer at my workplace came over to my office to > tweek a web design we'd been working on. I opened up the GIMP and > started editing a bunch of images. He actually said, "wow, that's > some nice software... what is it?" This guy, who uses Photoshop > non-stop. Yeah, it may not have all the features of Photoshop, but > I was still able to do more with the GIMP than he could with Photoshop
Sorry - can't agree with that.
I've used both extensively, and for serious commercial purposes Photoshop still comes out on top - because it has Pantone support and because its GUI is better set up for the sorts of repetitive processes that are commonly used on a regular basis.
If The Gimp improved its GUI from a process point of view, and if it had Pantone support then The Gimp would become the killer app it so very nearly is.
Until then, Photoshop still rules.
I say this as a person who has been using Linux on the desktop for more than 7 years.
> I don't think it's a case of Linux being unable to win the > desktop. I think it's just that, while we may have superiority > on the desktop and under the hood, we still need to gain ground > in the area of software. This does not necessarily mean that we > have to get Photoshop ported, IMHO building a following behind > The Gimp, Inkscape, Blender, KinoDV and other open source apps > on both Windows and Linux will help the war effort generally.
While I personally use The Gimp extensively on the Linux platform I do not consider it to be as easy to use - it is still missing several usability features and the GUI is still clumsy from a process perspective.
Nor is it as commercially useful as Photoshop. For one thing Photoshop has Pantone built in - something that cannot be built in without paying for a license to use that technology.
These two points make The Gimp (even as good as it is) an insufficient replacement for Photoshop in a graphic design shop.
> My gf knows that Linux is on her computer, but even so, she > can't understand why she can't go to BestBuy and get > software. Or why she can't download Silverlight.
Why on earth would anyone actually want Microsoft Silverlight when:
a/ Adpbe/Macromedia Flash is available for all major platforms, and
b/ Flash is not actually needed in the first place given that AJAX solutions are perfectly good open standards based alternatives.
" If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for > up to a month before they're obligated to move their > asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't > even mean they will."
Of all western nations, only in the USA - the land of the free - could the state get away with doing this sort of undemocratic stuff.
In other nations there would need to be a valid search warrant issued first, and it would need to specify what they are looking for and where they want to search. They can't just confiscate machinery without just cause.
? Anyone comparing this to Apple doesn't understand the > problem. With Apple there was one hardware standard > and only one, since 1984.
This is because Apple developed the OS in conjunction with the hardware it was to run on.
MS only developed an application (Windows) to run on top of an OS (MS-DOS, originally called QDOS and purchased from a third party) that was itself a plagiarized from CP/M, which was a system that was customized for every multifarious hardware platform it was released for.
Thus, you have from the beginning on the one hand a unified hardware and software platform, and on the other hand an OS that was originally designed to have a part of it customized for each hardware platform it was put on.
MS-DOS/WIN9x was from the beginning bound to suffer from the diversity of non-standard hardware that MS knew manufacturers were selling.
MS Windows assumes that the Administrator is an idiot.
That sort of [apply][OK][Are you sure][OK] mentality is insanity that assumes the Administrator is an incompetent moron.
The administrator should be a highly competent analyst well capable of administering the machine to a high level of efficiency and excellence.
Are you sure?[click-yes] Are you Really Sure?[click-yes] You've been asked this twice before, but to be trebbly sure that you want this click "yes"[hurls MS Windows machine at effigy of Bill Gates _YES I'M SURE!!!_]
> If this guy is right and UAC can be disabled without user input, then the entire > UAC system instantly becomes pointless. Saying that you shouldn't be running as > administrator is stupid; UAC's purpose was to make it safe to use administrator > accounts. If you can't do that, then UAC has failed. Anyway, Administrator > accounts are the default and therefore what 99% of users are going to be using.
I agree, that people should not be logged into Windows boxes as if they were the Administrator of that system (This, of course, is well understood and practised by the vast majority of people who have access to Unix boxes)
User Access Control is utterly pointless. People should only be using the Admin account if they want to administer their system, such as applying updates, installing software... oh wait. - where did they get that software from in the first place!!!
Essentially if you're talking about ordinary people using MS Windows in their home, there is no way you can protect those PCs from malware or viruses. They will just download more of that crap from another source.
The enterprise, however, that permits untested software to go onto ANY desktop computer should have their CIO's testicles removed so that sort of stupidity can't spread further in the gene pool.
Not abrupt. Merely nothing other than what WinNT6.0 should have been when first released. It's really just Longhorn but yet another year later.
I agree that what they're marketing as "Windows 7" is really just what would have otherwise been released as WinNT6.1 if Vista had been a marketing success.
vista is a POS, and unless they remove all that DRM rubbish, and the other hideous anti-user stuff that they've shoved under the bonnet, "Windows 7" will be a dismal DRM-disabled failure just like WinNT6, and a pariah just like WIN4.9 (aka WindowsME).
Lets face it. Why _should_ anyone use "Windows 7" instead of "Windows XP"? Where is the advantage to the user?
> 'These work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to > retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American > workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn,'
Lets be clear about this.
The MSFT corporation is a large multinational corporation with no loyalty to any particular country. While it primarily pays taxes in the USA it nevertheless owes no loyalty to the USA.
Why should the USian government think it can expect otherwise from any large multinational corporation at this time?
And, more relevantly, given Microsoft's track record of circumventing the law at every opportunity, why should a corrupt bribe-taking (they all take "campaign contributions" from lobbying companies to some extent don't they?) senator think he can dictate who Microsoft will sack?
And besides, MSFT is a highly profitable corporation. I don't think it is doing this in order to remain highly profitable - there are other ways for a corporation with . I think it is using the economic downturn as an opportunity to cover its real motives which I don't think are clear.
A company the size (approx 90,000 employees) and profitability and ruthlessness of Microsoft doesn't need the beginnings of a depression in order to get rid of 5000 staff members over the next 18 months from the R&D division.
The better question is: What is the real reason behind the announced sackings of staff mostly from the R&D division.
> If you want to convert an asset into a liquid asset, I believe > "liquidate" is the correct form, as oppose to liquefy. That > aside, a liquid asset is not a monetized asset.
A Liquid asset is... cash.
He said that to "monetize" means to turn into money. To me that means to liquefy, or liquidate.
> Suppose you have a car. Liquidating the car would convert it > into cash or other liquid asset--ie. you'd sell it. Monetizing > the car means you've figured out how to make money using the car
So what you're saying is "monetizing" means "to make money".
Why don't you just say "make money" so instead of using the ungrammatical nonsense word "monetize"?
"Monetize" is as ungrammatical a word as "action" when people use it as a verb, or "brown" when used as a verb - both common grammatical errors used by Americans.
Perhaps it should be you who learns something about the English tongue.
> Many portals and CMS presentation engines can consume RSS feeds and > integrate them into a site. This is not at all uncommon. For a portal > or presentation engine to consume an RSS feed...
No RSS feed is "consumed" as it is not destroyed or otherwise wasted or used up.
From Dict.org:
Consume \Con*sume"\ (k[o^]n*s[=u]m"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Consumed (k[o^]n*s[=u]md"); p. pr. & vb. n. Consuming.]
[L. consumere to take wholly or completely, to consume; con-
+ sumere to take; sub + emere to buy. See Redeem.]
To destroy, as by decomposition, dissipation, waste, or fire;
to use up; to expend; to waste; to burn up; to eat up; to devour.
[1913 Webster]
> "A few hundred people", including off-site partners, is more broadly > distributed than many commercial and most private software projects. It > could, possibly, have been a malicious behavior by a Microsoft employee > or partner, but there is no compelling reason to think that it was > anything other than a simple theft of the code.
Again in my opinion I think you're wrong.
The reason why I think you're mistaken in your view is that it is not too big a leap, based on the known business practises of this dodgy corporation, to consider what underhand marketing ploys they would use, or continue to use.
Putting beta versions of its own OS up on bit torrent is not beyond the realm of what Microsoft would do if by doing so it gave a marketing advantage against its perceived opposition.
Secondly, Even IF someone at the NYT became aware of the content by means of an RSS feed pushed out to the Internet by Gatehouse, there is no reason why that same information could not be obtained merely by someone surfing to that website on a regular basis and getting the relevant quotes manually.
IMHO, Gatehouse simply doesn't want people viewing the content on its website. The bottom line is that it shouldn't have even bothered pushing it onto the WWW if it didn't want people looking at it or quoting it.
This is most definitely a question of fair use, and I think Gatehouse is barking.
Slashdot Mirror
This is excellent news.
I applaud all efforts to migrate people away from using Microsoft software or services. There are, after all, many better bits of software freely available without paying money to Microsoft.
I even more applaud Microsoft's efforts to achieve this same result. :o)
> Microsoft has announced that the forthcoming Windows 7
> operating system will contain a number of piracy 'tweaks'
> it says are designed to protect the interests of customers.
I fail to see how a mechanism designed to prevent people from installing proprietary closed-source software is in any way something to protect the interests of people who use that software.
What I do see is that it is something designed to protect Microsoft's revenue stream.
This announcement from Microsoft is nothing other than more of Microsoft's duplicitous propaganda and should be read and understood in that context.
> Microsoft has a new tactic in the browser wars. They're
> having the 'critical' IE8 update make IE the default
> browser without asking.
From my perspective, that was not unexpected - not least because Microsoft is not interested in taking into account how its customers want to use their own computer(s); but also because Microsoft has a history of nasty business tactics, not delivering what it promises, and even lying to its own staff.
Do you in all seriousness think that Microsoft is trustworthy?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
If you've reviewed the document above, then I think you'll have to acknowledge that this is a fundamental flaw to the kernel of MS Windows.
Oh, and BTW, You're correct on one point - I do not use Microsoft products (by choice based on past experience).
And, FYI, I was not discussing the functionality of a shell (graphical or otherwise).
> It is also completely inactive and irrelevant until
> somebody's code calls the necessary APIs.
That is so not true!
The reason why MS Windows Vista is so very slow at copying documents is because it is checking multiple times a second to see if a user is attempting to copying, or an application is otherwise attempting to access, any high definition media, and if it is it will either act to prevent it, or will only permit that access by means of specifically encrypted data paths.
MS windows Vista is essentially paranoid re preventing users from copying HD material. This is one of the reasons why the OS still uses a considerable amount of CPU time even when it is ostensibly idle.
DRM is fundamentally built into MS Windows Vista in such a way that the performance of the OS has suffered as a result.
> Vista never had any DRM of any kind built-in, other than
> the DRM support in WMP that was in XP.
Actually, it does.
It is otherwise known as Intel's "High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection", and implemented by Microsoft as "Protected Video" and
Protected Audio" Paths.
The following links may be of some use to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection
http://www.digital-cp.com/
Enjoy.
> Vista RTM had some copy performance issues but SP1 fixed
> those, and during Win7 there was a significant focus on
> improving copy / move / delete performance.
Basically, MS Windows Vista (service pak 0) was released on the unsuspecting plebs before it was finished because MS was under pressure from the Blogisphere to finally release what was originally supposed to be Longhorn.
Vista had Digital Restrictions Management built into the core of the OS. That massively affected performance of even basic things such as copy/move/delete.
I am led to believe that the primary difference between MS "Windows 7" and MS Windows Vista is that the DRM was removed, and this is why the performance of core OS functions is said to have improved.
Personally, I won't be buying any new version of MS Windows - each new release has consistently performed slower than previous releases, altho' ostensibly performing the same fundamental OS functions.
I may revise my view of MS Windows if MS releases two successive major version (ie x.0) releases that are each more efficient (in terms of all hardware resources, and no not as a percentage of increased minimum hardware specs, I mean in actual CPU/GPU cycles) and thus leaving more CPU/GPU resources for applications.
> I love the way slashdot gets more upset about a trial over
> music and copyright as it does over guantanomo bay.
> Hint:
> Gitmo is bigger threat to your liberty than whether or not
> kids get to take music without paying
What rubbish! I am not a citizen of the USA or of any country presently experiencing hostile aggression from the USA, and so Guantanomo Bay is not a threat to my liberty.
It is only a threat to that of USian citizens and other people that their rulers illegally detain.
Genuine democratic countries do not have this feature of the USA legal system.
> The graphics designer at my workplace came over to my office to
> tweek a web design we'd been working on. I opened up the GIMP and
> started editing a bunch of images. He actually said, "wow, that's
> some nice software... what is it?" This guy, who uses Photoshop
> non-stop. Yeah, it may not have all the features of Photoshop, but
> I was still able to do more with the GIMP than he could with Photoshop
Sorry - can't agree with that.
I've used both extensively, and for serious commercial purposes Photoshop still comes out on top - because it has Pantone support and because its GUI is better set up for the sorts of repetitive processes that are commonly used on a regular basis.
If The Gimp improved its GUI from a process point of view, and if it had Pantone support then The Gimp would become the killer app it so very nearly is.
Until then, Photoshop still rules.
I say this as a person who has been using Linux on the desktop for more than 7 years.
> I don't think it's a case of Linux being unable to win the
> desktop. I think it's just that, while we may have superiority
> on the desktop and under the hood, we still need to gain ground
> in the area of software. This does not necessarily mean that we
> have to get Photoshop ported, IMHO building a following behind
> The Gimp, Inkscape, Blender, KinoDV and other open source apps
> on both Windows and Linux will help the war effort generally.
While I personally use The Gimp extensively on the Linux platform I do not consider it to be as easy to use - it is still missing several usability features and the GUI is still clumsy from a process perspective.
Nor is it as commercially useful as Photoshop. For one thing Photoshop has Pantone built in - something that cannot be built in without paying for a license to use that technology.
These two points make The Gimp (even as good as it is) an insufficient replacement for Photoshop in a graphic design shop.
> My gf knows that Linux is on her computer, but even so, she
> can't understand why she can't go to BestBuy and get
> software. Or why she can't download Silverlight.
Why on earth would anyone actually want Microsoft Silverlight when:
a/ Adpbe/Macromedia Flash is available for all major platforms, and
b/ Flash is not actually needed in the first place given that AJAX solutions are perfectly good open standards based alternatives.
" If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for
> up to a month before they're obligated to move their
> asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't
> even mean they will."
Of all western nations, only in the USA - the land of the free - could the state get away with doing this sort of undemocratic stuff.
In other nations there would need to be a valid search warrant issued first, and it would need to specify what they are looking for and where they want to search. They can't just confiscate machinery without just cause.
? Anyone comparing this to Apple doesn't understand the
> problem. With Apple there was one hardware standard
> and only one, since 1984.
This is because Apple developed the OS in conjunction with the hardware it was to run on.
MS only developed an application (Windows) to run on top of an OS (MS-DOS, originally called QDOS and purchased from a third party) that was itself a plagiarized from CP/M, which was a system that was customized for every multifarious hardware platform it was released for.
Thus, you have from the beginning on the one hand a unified hardware and software platform, and on the other hand an OS that was originally designed to have a part of it customized for each hardware platform it was put on.
MS-DOS/WIN9x was from the beginning bound to suffer from the diversity of non-standard hardware that MS knew manufacturers were selling.
This was a problem of MS's own making.
MS Windows assumes that the Administrator is an idiot.
That sort of [apply][OK][Are you sure][OK] mentality is insanity that assumes the Administrator is an incompetent moron.
The administrator should be a highly competent analyst well capable of administering the machine to a high level of efficiency and excellence.
Are you sure?[click-yes] Are you Really Sure?[click-yes] You've been asked this twice before, but to be trebbly sure that you want this click "yes"[hurls MS Windows machine at effigy of Bill Gates _YES I'M SURE!!!_]
> If this guy is right and UAC can be disabled without user input, then the entire
> UAC system instantly becomes pointless. Saying that you shouldn't be running as
> administrator is stupid; UAC's purpose was to make it safe to use administrator
> accounts. If you can't do that, then UAC has failed. Anyway, Administrator
> accounts are the default and therefore what 99% of users are going to be using.
I agree, that people should not be logged into Windows boxes as if they were the Administrator of that system (This, of course, is well understood and practised by the vast majority of people who have access to Unix boxes)
User Access Control is utterly pointless. People should only be using the Admin account if they want to administer their system, such as applying updates, installing software... oh wait. - where did they get that software from in the first place!!!
Essentially if you're talking about ordinary people using MS Windows in their home, there is no way you can protect those PCs from malware or viruses. They will just download more of that crap from another source.
The enterprise, however, that permits untested software to go onto ANY desktop computer should have their CIO's testicles removed so that sort of stupidity can't spread further in the gene pool.
Not abrupt. Merely nothing other than what WinNT6.0 should have been when first released. It's really just Longhorn but yet another year later.
I agree that what they're marketing as "Windows 7" is really just what would have otherwise been released as WinNT6.1 if Vista had been a marketing success.
vista is a POS, and unless they remove all that DRM rubbish, and the other hideous anti-user stuff that they've shoved under the bonnet, "Windows 7" will be a dismal DRM-disabled failure just like WinNT6, and a pariah just like WIN4.9 (aka WindowsME).
Lets face it. Why _should_ anyone use "Windows 7" instead of "Windows XP"? Where is the advantage to the user?
> 'These work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to
> retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American
> workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn,'
Lets be clear about this.
The MSFT corporation is a large multinational corporation with no loyalty to any particular country. While it primarily pays taxes in the USA it nevertheless owes no loyalty to the USA.
Why should the USian government think it can expect otherwise from any large multinational corporation at this time?
And, more relevantly, given Microsoft's track record of circumventing the law at every opportunity, why should a corrupt bribe-taking (they all take "campaign contributions" from lobbying companies to some extent don't they?) senator think he can dictate who Microsoft will sack?
And besides, MSFT is a highly profitable corporation. I don't think it is doing this in order to remain highly profitable - there are other ways for a corporation with . I think it is using the economic downturn as an opportunity to cover its real motives which I don't think are clear.
A company the size (approx 90,000 employees) and profitability and ruthlessness of Microsoft doesn't need the beginnings of a depression in order to get rid of 5000 staff members over the next 18 months from the R&D division.
The better question is: What is the real reason behind the announced sackings of staff mostly from the R&D division.
> If you want to convert an asset into a liquid asset, I believe
> "liquidate" is the correct form, as oppose to liquefy. That
> aside, a liquid asset is not a monetized asset.
A Liquid asset is... cash.
He said that to "monetize" means to turn into money. To me that means to liquefy, or liquidate.
> Suppose you have a car. Liquidating the car would convert it
> into cash or other liquid asset--ie. you'd sell it. Monetizing
> the car means you've figured out how to make money using the car
So what you're saying is "monetizing" means "to make money".
Why don't you just say "make money" so instead of using the ungrammatical nonsense word "monetize"?
> The term dates back to 1879 the usage has just been adapted
> but the underlying theme is the same. To convert into money.
You mean, like, to liquefy that asset?
Why don't they just say "liquefy" instead of the ungrammatical use of "monetize"?
Are you American by any chance?
"Monetize" is as ungrammatical a word as "action" when people use it as a verb, or "brown" when used as a verb - both common grammatical errors used by Americans.
Perhaps it should be you who learns something about the English tongue.
How about avoiding all nonsense words, and not only "monetize"?
> Seems like they're working on improving the results in that area,
> but these other services just couldn't be monetized properly.
"Monetized"??? Monetization? Monetizing? To monetize? Monetizability?
I presume that what you're saying is that Google isn't making a huge profit on those experiments.
> Many portals and CMS presentation engines can consume RSS feeds and
> integrate them into a site. This is not at all uncommon. For a portal
> or presentation engine to consume an RSS feed...
No RSS feed is "consumed" as it is not destroyed or otherwise wasted or used up.
From Dict.org:
Consume \Con*sume"\ (k[o^]n*s[=u]m"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Consumed (k[o^]n*s[=u]md"); p. pr. & vb. n. Consuming.]
[L. consumere to take wholly or completely, to consume; con-
+ sumere to take; sub + emere to buy. See Redeem.]
To destroy, as by decomposition, dissipation, waste, or fire;
to use up; to expend; to waste; to burn up; to eat up; to devour.
[1913 Webster]
Syn: To destroy; swallow up; ingulf; absorb; waste; exhaust;
spend; expend; squander; lavish; dissipate.
[1913 Webster]
> "A few hundred people", including off-site partners, is more broadly
> distributed than many commercial and most private software projects. It
> could, possibly, have been a malicious behavior by a Microsoft employee
> or partner, but there is no compelling reason to think that it was
> anything other than a simple theft of the code.
Again in my opinion I think you're wrong.
The reason why I think you're mistaken in your view is that it is not too big a leap, based on the known business practises of this dodgy corporation, to consider what underhand marketing ploys they would use, or continue to use.
Putting beta versions of its own OS up on bit torrent is not beyond the realm of what Microsoft would do if by doing so it gave a marketing advantage against its perceived opposition.
First off:
Nothing is being "consumed".
Secondly,
Even IF someone at the NYT became aware of the content by means of an RSS feed pushed out to the Internet by Gatehouse, there is no reason why that same information could not be obtained merely by someone surfing to that website on a regular basis and getting the relevant quotes manually.
IMHO, Gatehouse simply doesn't want people viewing the content on its website. The bottom line is that it shouldn't have even bothered pushing it onto the WWW if it didn't want people looking at it or quoting it.
This is most definitely a question of fair use, and I think Gatehouse is barking.