Yes I have, and nowhere in there do I read a requirement for company A to distribute a competitor's products via a service owned and operated by company A.
I do not disagree that Microsoft holds a monopoly, nor do I disagree that they use that monopoly to limit competition. What I do have an issue with is the idea that the only way for them to comply with the law is to offer to download and install Adobe Photoshop via Windows Update.
If you think that constitutes astroturfing I would recommend you report immediately to your local veterinarian for a rabies shot.
I don't recall reading in any of the anti-trust judgements against Microsoft a requirement that Microsoft serve up any and all competitive applications via an update service owned and controlled by Microsoft. It takes a significant stretch of logic to go from actively discouraging alternatives directly to being forced to distribute them. And an even further stretch to require them to finance alternatives simply because those alternatives run on their OS.
As for the clarity of legal status of this move, if it is as clear as you assert and you have an idea of what you are talking about, I expect to see Adobe and Mozilla and Apple band together to get quick action from the courts to bring a stop to it.
On my Vista machine Firefox informs me when a new version is available. So does iTunes, and Photoshop, and Acrobat, and some other applications I am forgetting.
So I think it is more a case of Microsoft never having prevented anyone from rolling out updates.
I don't know of any people who buy official versions of Windows in China
China contains more than a billion people. I don't know how many of them you know, but you might be basing your assertions on a sample size that does not adequately represent that population.
You do realize that the word 'clever' appears twice in the original sentence, right? I mean, the same words that appeared on my screen appeared on yours, available for you to read?
Maybe not, so I'll spell it out with my suggestions:
If you're not white enough to figure out how to cast your ballot, you're not white enough to be deciding who should run the country.
So there it is. Maybe you did read it that way before you posted though, and you just can't quite get your brain around my meaning. Or maybe you are way out there on the literalness interpretation scale and you don't have any comprehension of sarcasm, or subtlety, or wit or irony or art or innuendo or context unless false HTML tags are used to guide you.
But I'm here to help you out on this one. Step back and take a deep breath and put all thoughts of maligning my username and touchscreens and disestablishmentarianism out of your head.
Here we go.
The contextual point of the above corrected sentence is that many people seem to want to draw arbitrary distinctions about who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. There was a time when conventional wisdom in the USA held the idea that women did not possess the qualities necessary to exercise the right to vote. There was also a time when people who were not white could not vote. Today we have people, like the original poster, who will make the case that if you cannot understand a voting machine or ballot interface that the accusation maker has more than likely never seen, you should not be allowed to vote. This is where the post-correction portion of my post comes into play, by reinforcing the sarcasm with "see how it reads." The idea being that by reading the sentence with corrections the original poster might realize the error of "randomly drawing lines along the cleverness scale", it now having been compared with the largely agreed upon banished of the practice of drawing similar lines along boundaries of race.
I hope you have been following along, and while we haven't really covered that much information I'm sure paying attention is an arduous task for you.
Touchsreens replaced massive panels of Allen Bradley pushbuttons and thumbwheels and switches a long time ago. If these things couldn't be made reliable enough to run for months at a time without maintenance that would never have happened.
Replace 'clever' with 'white' and see how it reads.
I don't see how randomly drawing lines along the cleverness scale helps us out in any way. But then I don't see how voting at all helps, so I'm probably shouldn't bother commenting anyway.
Touchscreens are used extensively in the manufacturing industry for operator/machine interfaces. Some of the better HMI packages even have built in drivers and calibration.
These screens are used by people of widely varying height, vision, mental bandwidth, sometimes wearing gloves and sometimes not. They are also exposed to dust and sand and solvents and grease.
While I agree that people have a hard time knowing what to push I wouldn't blame the screens. If someone can't cobble together a reliable touch interface that doesn't need to be calibrated in the field, for a system will run only one application, they are either incompetent or purposely screwing up. The latter would be my guess.
And oddly enough, despite our collective superiority, they are running the show while the most influential thing we can do is get modded +5 Insightful for insulting them on Slashdot.
When I was 13 I thought my particular taste in music was better than everyone else's and that if you weren't listening to Black Flag or Minor Threat you were an insufferable poser.
Then I grew up and realized that taste in music isn't a contest that can be won, so I no longer busy myself with telling people what complete jackasses they are because they don't like what I like.
Thank you for your parenthetical expression, without it I would never have realized that you were commenting on my assertion that privacy is not binary.
That out of the way, a person does have some reasonable expectation of privacy when on a public street, at least in the US. Amendment IV covers "...persons, houses, papers, and effects..." and if it were stricly limited to anywhere other than public streets it would have specifically stated that. An excellent example is the fact that infrared waves emitted from your home pass from your property into public streets but a law enforcement officer may not capture them as evidence to convict you of a crime. Are waves in the visible spectrum different?
Privacy is not a binary thing, so cameras feeding video to a PC that decides whether or not I am doing something wrong does indeed represent a change in privacy.
I successfully procrastinated installing iTunes 7 until a couple days ago, and have done nothing more than use it to fill up a new iPod, so I wasn't aware.
What I was thinking though, was that your newly-purchased-via-wireless-at-Starbucks file would already be sitting on your HD at home without the need to sync. I don't know what the need for that might be, but that has never stopped Apple before.
Google has earned every dollar they've made, when earned means that the market gave it to them, which is how money is earned in a capitalist economy.
I think you mean that their value is not backed up by capital equipment. While that is true the majority of the investor market does not seem to mind much, and I suspect it puts Google's ROI up there pretty well.
But I do enjoy the irony of the 'information wants to be free' crowd loving a company with a value based almost entirely on intellectual assets.
how do you retain the pc-ipod relationship if the ipod is out at starbucks buying music
If you have broadband, and if you are using iTMS you probably do, I don't see why you wouldn't have the option to have iTMS send a copy of anything you download via wireless to your hard drive as well.
You sit at Starbucks downloading My War directly to your iPod, you and your fellow iPodders bandwidthally challenging Starbucks' WRT54G. Meanhile, back at the ranch, iTMS, having secured your permission to do so, places My War on your hard drive without needing you to click any Oks or reboot or otherwise get up from your double espresso which was tragically served to you in a paper cup.
Yeah, because Apple should document every possible thing someone might do with one of their devices on every possible operating system anyone might use.
I want to know how to do the same thing you do only on Plan 9 using my homemade iPod to RS485 cable, but of course stupid Apple doesn't put that in their manual.
This is just a circular argument. On the other side of it it will just be noted that, regardless of what the GPLv3 requires, you can still write any code you want.
Code up all the DRM you want, you just can't use any code who's author doesn't want it included in such a thing.
I don't really write much code any more, so I doubt I'll be impacted one way or the other. Based on what I have read I would probably stick with GPLv2 because I think DRM is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I have, and nowhere in there do I read a requirement for company A to distribute a competitor's products via a service owned and operated by company A.
I do not disagree that Microsoft holds a monopoly, nor do I disagree that they use that monopoly to limit competition. What I do have an issue with is the idea that the only way for them to comply with the law is to offer to download and install Adobe Photoshop via Windows Update.
If you think that constitutes astroturfing I would recommend you report immediately to your local veterinarian for a rabies shot.
I don't recall reading in any of the anti-trust judgements against Microsoft a requirement that Microsoft serve up any and all competitive applications via an update service owned and controlled by Microsoft. It takes a significant stretch of logic to go from actively discouraging alternatives directly to being forced to distribute them. And an even further stretch to require them to finance alternatives simply because those alternatives run on their OS.
As for the clarity of legal status of this move, if it is as clear as you assert and you have an idea of what you are talking about, I expect to see Adobe and Mozilla and Apple band together to get quick action from the courts to bring a stop to it.
On my Vista machine Firefox informs me when a new version is available. So does iTunes, and Photoshop, and Acrobat, and some other applications I am forgetting.
So I think it is more a case of Microsoft never having prevented anyone from rolling out updates.
I'm sure that will be the case, because the web has shown time and time again that it is all about nicely made subtlety and irony.
That is some tasty irony.
China contains more than a billion people. I don't know how many of them you know, but you might be basing your assertions on a sample size that does not adequately represent that population.
Turning a phrase I suspect you and your code writing think-alike below will understand: Your saving throw failed.
Maybe not, so I'll spell it out with my suggestions:
If you're not white enough to figure out how to cast your ballot, you're not white enough to be deciding who should run the country.
So there it is. Maybe you did read it that way before you posted though, and you just can't quite get your brain around my meaning. Or maybe you are way out there on the literalness interpretation scale and you don't have any comprehension of sarcasm, or subtlety, or wit or irony or art or innuendo or context unless false HTML tags are used to guide you.
But I'm here to help you out on this one. Step back and take a deep breath and put all thoughts of maligning my username and touchscreens and disestablishmentarianism out of your head.
Here we go.
The contextual point of the above corrected sentence is that many people seem to want to draw arbitrary distinctions about who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. There was a time when conventional wisdom in the USA held the idea that women did not possess the qualities necessary to exercise the right to vote. There was also a time when people who were not white could not vote. Today we have people, like the original poster, who will make the case that if you cannot understand a voting machine or ballot interface that the accusation maker has more than likely never seen, you should not be allowed to vote. This is where the post-correction portion of my post comes into play, by reinforcing the sarcasm with "see how it reads." The idea being that by reading the sentence with corrections the original poster might realize the error of "randomly drawing lines along the cleverness scale", it now having been compared with the largely agreed upon banished of the practice of drawing similar lines along boundaries of race.
I hope you have been following along, and while we haven't really covered that much information I'm sure paying attention is an arduous task for you.
Absolutely.
Touchsreens replaced massive panels of Allen Bradley pushbuttons and thumbwheels and switches a long time ago. If these things couldn't be made reliable enough to run for months at a time without maintenance that would never have happened.
Replace 'clever' with 'white' and see how it reads.
I don't see how randomly drawing lines along the cleverness scale helps us out in any way. But then I don't see how voting at all helps, so I'm probably shouldn't bother commenting anyway.
Touchscreens are used extensively in the manufacturing industry for operator/machine interfaces. Some of the better HMI packages even have built in drivers and calibration.
These screens are used by people of widely varying height, vision, mental bandwidth, sometimes wearing gloves and sometimes not. They are also exposed to dust and sand and solvents and grease.
While I agree that people have a hard time knowing what to push I wouldn't blame the screens. If someone can't cobble together a reliable touch interface that doesn't need to be calibrated in the field, for a system will run only one application, they are either incompetent or purposely screwing up. The latter would be my guess.
And oddly enough, despite our collective superiority, they are running the show while the most influential thing we can do is get modded +5 Insightful for insulting them on Slashdot.
Something is amiss here.
And you definitely don't want a pissed off r. Dre knocking on your front door.
Oh no, both parties must be in on this together! I know my face sure is red.
Put me on your bandwagon too.
When I was 13 I thought my particular taste in music was better than everyone else's and that if you weren't listening to Black Flag or Minor Threat you were an insufferable poser.
Then I grew up and realized that taste in music isn't a contest that can be won, so I no longer busy myself with telling people what complete jackasses they are because they don't like what I like.
Thank you for your parenthetical expression, without it I would never have realized that you were commenting on my assertion that privacy is not binary.
That out of the way, a person does have some reasonable expectation of privacy when on a public street, at least in the US. Amendment IV covers "...persons, houses, papers, and effects..." and if it were stricly limited to anywhere other than public streets it would have specifically stated that. An excellent example is the fact that infrared waves emitted from your home pass from your property into public streets but a law enforcement officer may not capture them as evidence to convict you of a crime. Are waves in the visible spectrum different?
No.
Yes.
I would assume that means they have to be powered 100% of the time, which would keep them out of a whole lot of applications.
I successfully procrastinated installing iTunes 7 until a couple days ago, and have done nothing more than use it to fill up a new iPod, so I wasn't aware.
What I was thinking though, was that your newly-purchased-via-wireless-at-Starbucks file would already be sitting on your HD at home without the need to sync. I don't know what the need for that might be, but that has never stopped Apple before.
Google has earned every dollar they've made, when earned means that the market gave it to them, which is how money is earned in a capitalist economy.
I think you mean that their value is not backed up by capital equipment. While that is true the majority of the investor market does not seem to mind much, and I suspect it puts Google's ROI up there pretty well.
But I do enjoy the irony of the 'information wants to be free' crowd loving a company with a value based almost entirely on intellectual assets.
Are you under the impression that companies pitch only to outsiders?
If you are: They do not.
If you have broadband, and if you are using iTMS you probably do, I don't see why you wouldn't have the option to have iTMS send a copy of anything you download via wireless to your hard drive as well.
You sit at Starbucks downloading My War directly to your iPod, you and your fellow iPodders bandwidthally challenging Starbucks' WRT54G. Meanhile, back at the ranch, iTMS, having secured your permission to do so, places My War on your hard drive without needing you to click any Oks or reboot or otherwise get up from your double espresso which was tragically served to you in a paper cup.
Yeah, because Apple should document every possible thing someone might do with one of their devices on every possible operating system anyone might use.
I want to know how to do the same thing you do only on Plan 9 using my homemade iPod to RS485 cable, but of course stupid Apple doesn't put that in their manual.
Stupid Apple!
This is just a circular argument. On the other side of it it will just be noted that, regardless of what the GPLv3 requires, you can still write any code you want.
Code up all the DRM you want, you just can't use any code who's author doesn't want it included in such a thing.
I don't really write much code any more, so I doubt I'll be impacted one way or the other. Based on what I have read I would probably stick with GPLv2 because I think DRM is a good thing.