the media has been touting this as the next Y2K. Just think, a week from now, we'll be commenting on all the articles documenting the plans falling from the sky, governments folding, stock markets crashing and burning. Toasters and Microwave ovens slaughtering entire familys before they escape to live in cross breed sin near Three mile Island and Chernobyl.
My only regret was that I didn't milk that last consultant fee from a client before my router ran me over and stole my truck.
Either it isn't really from scratch, or it was a poor choice of money expenditure. For $50.00 you could do a lot more, picking up an old laptop, and reworking it, for for example.
It's a pretty cool project, non-the-less. And I suspect the battery life is phenominal, and cheap too, being able to use commodity Double-A's
I'm not convinced that the big, evil cell phone companys are really trying to kill WiFi. Nor do I think they will. But if the author does, where are the examples. Where is the smoking gun that some cell phone company or other has petitioned a municipality to kill the free WiFi in the community? An add that only shows that Sprint is trying to sell their product?
In all honesty, I think the author is having a slow news day and doesn't have anything else to whine (sorry, write) about. But then, I've not been a fan of his work for quite a while, and whining grates on my nerves.
Are you in need of corrective lenses? Why..... Yes, yes I do. However, I was wearing them when replying to your remark, which was in repose to:
The way I see it is this: Microsoft only has it's two cash cows. They've proven themselves unable to really improve on it at all. Therefore, they aren't really innovative, are they? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but patents are intended to protect innovative tech, right? Okay, so, if MS can't be innovative, they shouldn't have any new patents. Anyway, not sure where I was going with that, but I did see something in the article that sounded suspicious to me, a quote from Ginsburg: You COULD have been referring to cash cows, but the main point of the quote you responded to was "Innovation" and since you simply listed a bunch of ideas, it's pretty natural to assume that you were referring to the main point. But perhaps you focused on the money part of the remark, ignoring the main idea of the comment - a depressingly common habit with people, I've noticed.
What about games? They don't make any money from games? Hardware? Are you saying that Microsoft was the innovator for Windows, the Office suite, Games, and Hardware?
At the risk of being modded a troll, I want to ask a question that rattles through my head every time this subject come up. Why whine about the system?
A corporation exists to make money. The method of making money can vary, but in this case we are talking about catering to a consumer trading money for something. Ultimately, they don't particularly care about the consumer, just maximizing profits, granted, there are corporations who have found a business model where being customer friendly DOES maximize profit, but the point is still profit.
I never understand why this surprises people.
A corporation uses any method it can to garner the maximum income for the investments they make, the only real differences are how far the people controlling the corp are willing to go and what techniques they are willing to use to get there. But there is no difference between EMI, Sony, Microsoft, General Motors or anyone else.
That said, if you, as a creator, don't want to turn over your copyrights to some big corporation because you aren't interested in the way they do business, or their logo suck, or you want a bigger cut,then don't sign. You are under no obligation to market your work to them. There are other outlets that bypass that distribution system, and, with a lot of luck, you will make money on your work.
The other side of the coin is if anyone creates a work, it's theirs, not you the consumer. If you purchase a song, a book, a bit of art, or a software product, you understand you are purchasing it for your use under certain conditions of the sale. If you don't like those conditions, dont buy it. If enough people don't buy becasue of the conditions of the sale (Like they don't like the DRM restrictions, for example) the system will change. You have the right to NOT enter into an agreement with the owner of the work, simply don't purchase.
If we were talking about "Air", "Water", Medical services, Broadband, you know, the things that you HAVE to have to survive, it'd be different, you don't have a choice, but we are talking about music - you Have a choice, and frankly, the new stuff the major lables are churning out isn't worth buying anyway, if everyone would stop buying that crap, we'd fix it all in one shot, get good music and get it on the terms we want.
No, it isn't lazy users. It's social programming. It's behavior training. And that is MS's problem.
Sooner or later, if you offer a situation where the user needs to click okay for non-threat situations - you train them to click okay every time the message is presented. You are providing a pathway to encourage users to circumvent, not just allow it. Solves one problem by creating a new one.
Because:
A. File sharing has caused RIAA lawsuits
B. RIAA lawsuits have pissed off customers
C. Pissed off customers look for other things to buy instead of CD's.
A->B->C so A->C
On a more serious note.... This reminds me of the global warming debate.. First you have those that say it's happening and those that say it isn't. Then enough studies come out that Global warming happening becomes the prevailing idea. So the next debate is Well, humans are causing it/it's natural. and so forth.
So we've seen the Cd sales are diminishing debate, CD sales ARE going down, now we're looking at why, the debate is File shareing / not file shareing / impact of file shareing.
I will be quite happy when the debate turns to "Your artists are CRAP, CD sales is dropping because the consumer is moving to buy independent artists' work, where they can find decent music."
The Article indicates that Google has apparently accepted that those ads were a bad thing, and stated they would take steps to correct the situation.
I'm curious as to why they would knuckle under. Either the article was mistaken, Google was paying lip service, or the income was much lower than the quoted amounts. I can't believe that Google would take steps to remove a multi-million dollar income stream.
That is only true if Apple supporters are doing so. Something I didn't read in TFA (or the comments for that matter). I'm an Apple supporter, yet I don't apply this reasoning to either the DRM or the OS comparison. I haven't seen a lot of Apple supporters, much less ALL of them, comment in any form on the closed nature of Fairplay, or even commenting on DRM much at all. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that most "Apple Supporters" have no idea what Fairplay is, even.
Your remark, as far as I can see, is not only unsupported, it's erroneous. Just the musings of a fanboi troll looking to start "Yet Another MS v Apple thread" as if there weren't enough of those around/. already to amuse anyone for years of reading.
While you are remembering, you might also remember that the Dev's (Kazaa and Skype) were not behind the delivery mechanism. in other words, the people writing the software were not the people delivering spyware, they were working for the people delivering spyware.
well, that depends on how you spin the numbers....
In the years released, each of her books outsold the bible
All of her books outsold the bible in average yearly sales (total units and total sales)
if you divide the number of estimated units sold by the number of (Human) Authors (20+ something for the Bible), and do the same For the HP books, She becomes more successful than any given Author.
Seems like the only thing the Bible beats the HP books in is total copies distributed (over 400 or so years).
Is she the most successful author of all time? In terms of total wealth derived from her work (the 'Common' definition of success). She's close enough that the 7th volume and the 5th movie coming out this year should put so much space between her and any other author. As of March 2006 she was worth 1 billion USD, making her the most wealthy Author of all time, 100% of that wealth derived from her works. Forbes magazine listed here as the wealthiest career author, and the second wealthiest woman in entertainment (behind Oprah). Ultimately, I'd have to say yes, she's the most successful author in history, in any Genre she is categorized in (Childrens Books, normally - but SF/F would apply as well) and as a total.
In terms of total copies of all books, I think that Agatha Christie still has sold more total copies than any other author, though.
Is there anything else left to DRM? Tons of stuff... they are only getting started. Lets see... Pop tarts, pens and pencils, coffee mugs... OHMYGAWD! Thy're going to be going after the coffee next! Nonono!
I'm not sure that this situation is covered as a theft of trade secrets. No one was trying to convert a trade secret. This was a news item that covered a trade secret Apple wanted to be kept secret. I would think the only violation would be the NDA, and a civil, not a criminal, matter. However, IANAL, etc,etc,ad nausium.
Besides, I heard from a friend of the girlfriend of her agents brother that she was "Doing Kermit"...... So I'm sure that's the real story..... And I'm sticking to it.
The people either favoring Vista or arguing against the "Vista is the reason the MS monopoly is over, by forcing people to move to XXXX" (be it Linux, MacOSX, Free BSD, pad and paper....) frequently state "Well, VISTA will be pre-installed on new machines." And that is correct, Vista will begin, almost immediately, to be installed on new machines. Dell, for example, is shipping Vista now.
The article states:
For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights." For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software." If this really is in the license (I don't know) can it possibly be binding? For that matter, can ANY software license pre-installed on a computer be binding? IANAL But I think I smell a very expensive class action on the way... And I can't possibly imagine that MicroSoft doesn't see it coming... Either MS is so incredibly arrogant about what they can do to/with the end user, they think the delay between introduction/litigation/appeal is worth the potential losses, or they think it's actually enforceable. I honestly can't figure out which it is. I remeber the IE/Netscape case from a few years ago, and some of the stuff MicroSoft did in the courtroom was beyond stupid, seemed as if they really didn't care if they won or lost, because the outcome didn't matter (I'm not sure it did, come to think of it).
I'm also curious as to what form of punitive reaction occurs when the tools to work around the problematic portions of the OS are widely available, and users start to utilize them.
Will my computer call MS (or other agancy) and report me for a DMCA violation?
Does my license get expired and my machine refuse to boot? (One could HOPE!, A Vista machine that refuses to boot sounds like a Linux machine about to happen)
I suspect that we're going to see a lot of fireworks following the general release tomorrow. It occurs to me that, just looking at the level of piracy the RIAA quotes, there would be a significant percentage of Vista machines with those tools utilized very quickly. and ANY punitive reaction to using a workaround is going to generate a level of outrage the likes of which we probably haven't seen yet. Or maybe not, maybe people really are the lemmings that some of the major players in this market think we are.
Slashdot Mirror
the media has been touting this as the next Y2K. Just think, a week from now, we'll be commenting on all the articles documenting the plans falling from the sky, governments folding, stock markets crashing and burning. Toasters and Microwave ovens slaughtering entire familys before they escape to live in cross breed sin near Three mile Island and Chernobyl.
My only regret was that I didn't milk that last consultant fee from a client before my router ran me over and stole my truck.
Why yes, the "undocumented if-you-look-at-it-hard-warranty-void" jumper....
Either it isn't really from scratch, or it was a poor choice of money expenditure. For $50.00 you could do a lot more, picking up an old laptop, and reworking it, for for example.
It's a pretty cool project, non-the-less. And I suspect the battery life is phenominal, and cheap too, being able to use commodity Double-A's
I'm not convinced that the big, evil cell phone companys are really trying to kill WiFi. Nor do I think they will. But if the author does, where are the examples. Where is the smoking gun that some cell phone company or other has petitioned a municipality to kill the free WiFi in the community? An add that only shows that Sprint is trying to sell their product?
In all honesty, I think the author is having a slow news day and doesn't have anything else to whine (sorry, write) about. But then, I've not been a fan of his work for quite a while, and whining grates on my nerves.
Me Too!
And pleeeeee send me the latest warez links and nekkid photos of the current hot starlet, and serial numbers for maya as well......
What about games? They don't make any money from games? Hardware? Are you saying that Microsoft was the innovator for Windows, the Office suite, Games, and Hardware?
Are you in need of a history lesson?
At the risk of being modded a troll, I want to ask a question that rattles through my head every time this subject come up. Why whine about the system?
A corporation exists to make money. The method of making money can vary, but in this case we are talking about catering to a consumer trading money for something. Ultimately, they don't particularly care about the consumer, just maximizing profits, granted, there are corporations who have found a business model where being customer friendly DOES maximize profit, but the point is still profit.
I never understand why this surprises people.
A corporation uses any method it can to garner the maximum income for the investments they make, the only real differences are how far the people controlling the corp are willing to go and what techniques they are willing to use to get there. But there is no difference between EMI, Sony, Microsoft, General Motors or anyone else.
That said, if you, as a creator, don't want to turn over your copyrights to some big corporation because you aren't interested in the way they do business, or their logo suck, or you want a bigger cut,then don't sign. You are under no obligation to market your work to them. There are other outlets that bypass that distribution system, and, with a lot of luck, you will make money on your work.
The other side of the coin is if anyone creates a work, it's theirs, not you the consumer. If you purchase a song, a book, a bit of art, or a software product, you understand you are purchasing it for your use under certain conditions of the sale. If you don't like those conditions, dont buy it. If enough people don't buy becasue of the conditions of the sale (Like they don't like the DRM restrictions, for example) the system will change. You have the right to NOT enter into an agreement with the owner of the work, simply don't purchase.
If we were talking about "Air", "Water", Medical services, Broadband, you know, the things that you HAVE to have to survive, it'd be different, you don't have a choice, but we are talking about music - you Have a choice, and frankly, the new stuff the major lables are churning out isn't worth buying anyway, if everyone would stop buying that crap, we'd fix it all in one shot, get good music and get it on the terms we want.
No, it's chocolate!
The graphic clearly says "gooie" with the strawberry and chocolate being the "i"
Now, I can finally get a google No-Prize.
No, it isn't lazy users. It's social programming. It's behavior training. And that is MS's problem.
Sooner or later, if you offer a situation where the user needs to click okay for non-threat situations - you train them to click okay every time the message is presented. You are providing a pathway to encourage users to circumvent, not just allow it. Solves one problem by creating a new one.
I hope someone with mod points mods this funny, it's one of the best laughs I've had in a while, the coffee in my nose is still stinging.
Isn't that why I read Slashdot?
Not exactly a new idea, is it?
Filesharing HAS caused a drop in CD sales.
Because:
A. File sharing has caused RIAA lawsuits
B. RIAA lawsuits have pissed off customers
C. Pissed off customers look for other things to buy instead of CD's.
A->B->C so A->C
On a more serious note.... This reminds me of the global warming debate.. First you have those that say it's happening and those that say it isn't. Then enough studies come out that Global warming happening becomes the prevailing idea. So the next debate is Well, humans are causing it/it's natural. and so forth.
So we've seen the Cd sales are diminishing debate, CD sales ARE going down, now we're looking at why, the debate is File shareing / not file shareing / impact of file shareing.
I will be quite happy when the debate turns to "Your artists are CRAP, CD sales is dropping because the consumer is moving to buy independent artists' work, where they can find decent music."
The Article indicates that Google has apparently accepted that those ads were a bad thing, and stated they would take steps to correct the situation.
I'm curious as to why they would knuckle under. Either the article was mistaken, Google was paying lip service, or the income was much lower than the quoted amounts. I can't believe that Google would take steps to remove a multi-million dollar income stream.
That is only true if Apple supporters are doing so. Something I didn't read in TFA (or the comments for that matter). I'm an Apple supporter, yet I don't apply this reasoning to either the DRM or the OS comparison. I haven't seen a lot of Apple supporters, much less ALL of them, comment in any form on the closed nature of Fairplay, or even commenting on DRM much at all. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that most "Apple Supporters" have no idea what Fairplay is, even.
/. already to amuse anyone for years of reading.
Your remark, as far as I can see, is not only unsupported, it's erroneous. Just the musings of a fanboi troll looking to start "Yet Another MS v Apple thread" as if there weren't enough of those around
Test the outlet.
The hot and neutral leads on the outlet being reversed can cause this.
--
While you are remembering, you might also remember that the Dev's (Kazaa and Skype) were not behind the delivery mechanism. in other words, the people writing the software were not the people delivering spyware, they were working for the people delivering spyware.
No way this is expected to fly as a patent.
/. to drive a concept test data collection. We'll see a product or not depending on the survey.
I expect that a manufacturer is using
--
well, that depends on how you spin the numbers....
In the years released, each of her books outsold the bible
All of her books outsold the bible in average yearly sales (total units and total sales)
if you divide the number of estimated units sold by the number of (Human) Authors (20+ something for the Bible), and do the same For the HP books, She becomes more successful than any given Author.
Seems like the only thing the Bible beats the HP books in is total copies distributed (over 400 or so years).
Is she the most successful author of all time? In terms of total wealth derived from her work (the 'Common' definition of success). She's close enough that the 7th volume and the 5th movie coming out this year should put so much space between her and any other author. As of March 2006 she was worth 1 billion USD, making her the most wealthy Author of all time, 100% of that wealth derived from her works. Forbes magazine listed here as the wealthiest career author, and the second wealthiest woman in entertainment (behind Oprah). Ultimately, I'd have to say yes, she's the most successful author in history, in any Genre she is categorized in (Childrens Books, normally - but SF/F would apply as well) and as a total.
In terms of total copies of all books, I think that Agatha Christie still has sold more total copies than any other author, though.
I read it before the Authors cut came out, Dumbledor shot first!
Well, Since it's an AP site, I'd expect it to me Copyright AP.... I have no idea why you thought it was Routers.....
I'm not sure that this situation is covered as a theft of trade secrets. No one was trying to convert a trade secret. This was a news item that covered a trade secret Apple wanted to be kept secret. I would think the only violation would be the NDA, and a civil, not a criminal, matter. However, IANAL, etc,etc,ad nausium.
Isn't being stoned a much simpler explanation?
Besides, I heard from a friend of the girlfriend of her agents brother that she was "Doing Kermit"...... So I'm sure that's the real story..... And I'm sticking to it.
The article states: For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights." For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software." If this really is in the license (I don't know) can it possibly be binding? For that matter, can ANY software license pre-installed on a computer be binding? IANAL But I think I smell a very expensive class action on the way... And I can't possibly imagine that MicroSoft doesn't see it coming... Either MS is so incredibly arrogant about what they can do to/with the end user, they think the delay between introduction/litigation/appeal is worth the potential losses, or they think it's actually enforceable. I honestly can't figure out which it is. I remeber the IE/Netscape case from a few years ago, and some of the stuff MicroSoft did in the courtroom was beyond stupid, seemed as if they really didn't care if they won or lost, because the outcome didn't matter (I'm not sure it did, come to think of it).
I'm also curious as to what form of punitive reaction occurs when the tools to work around the problematic portions of the OS are widely available, and users start to utilize them.
Will my computer call MS (or other agancy) and report me for a DMCA violation?
Does my license get expired and my machine refuse to boot? (One could HOPE!, A Vista machine that refuses to boot sounds like a Linux machine about to happen)
I suspect that we're going to see a lot of fireworks following the general release tomorrow. It occurs to me that, just looking at the level of piracy the RIAA quotes, there would be a significant percentage of Vista machines with those tools utilized very quickly. and ANY punitive reaction to using a workaround is going to generate a level of outrage the likes of which we probably haven't seen yet. Or maybe not, maybe people really are the lemmings that some of the major players in this market think we are.