1828 posts • joined 18 Aug 2008
Translation: "Globalisation and market forces mean that we are losing our iron grip of the market."
Any company that has an active and flourishing market for their equipment and seeks to shit on it really needs take a good hard look in the mirror.
Re: More like accessories market...
Agreed. I predict that the watch market will expand for a while as Applistas buy the new iThingie and then it will rapidly deflate, probably after a year.
There are some great use cases for this kind of device. I just think that they are very narrow and I think it will remain that way unless someone can come up with a more compelling use case.
> Asked whether she was concerned by the BBC's own polling that suggested one in five "wouldn't miss the BBC" and one in four don't think it's value for money, Fairhead responded by telling MPs they should look at the full part of the glass.
So, erm Fairhead's response is, in actual fact, "Ignore them.".
He'll fit right in.
I must admit to being a bit puzzled by the claim by Getty images.
What is the widget doing that Google or Bing image search doesn't do?
> I guess all the designers worth their salt are already working at Apple, but why can't they make the interface look good?
It's funny but we used to be an Apple shop where I work and I can't stand the look of OSX and I do prefer simple, basic, consistent interfaces. Nothing is where I intuitively think it would be and every application seems to use an entirely different script as to look and feel.
Re: Too bad there is no such thing as a total perspective vortex
> Sadly that's what makes it all the remarkable. Huge, mind-f**king amount of exciting stuff out there to find and look at, yet the idiots jacking-off over their bits of metal that make bang-bang noises just seem intent in trying to keep the human race a smidge below the mental capacity of pond scum.
I can't second that enough.
Just a couple of years ago, the tin foil hatters would have been shouting about the NSA and government snooping surrounding an incident like this and everyone else would be ignoring them.
Somehow, it doesn't seem that weird to be seriously wondering if something a bit fishy is going on.
If the government wants to reduce the national debt, why don't they just, erm, spend less money?
I know it's a bit naive, but that's kinda what you have to do.
They could stop giving so friggin' much of it to the EU and squiffing it away on foreign misguided military interventions. That would save a few quid.
> What I am saying that in the long run, it is a business model that makes people lose out, if you factor in all the aspects. It's just a business model designed to lure people by the appeal of lower prices.
This, IMHO, is a distortion of the reality for most people. If you have a high disposable income and carry around an iPhone, it might seem that way.
But the reality for most people is that taxis are way too expensive to use at any time for any reason.
There is room in the market for a range of options. Cheap and cheerful to deluxe. You pay your money, you take your chance.
I'm not saying that Lyft or Uber are necessarily the right answer here but daily transport really is a commodity service. It has just never been able to reach a stable state in a lot of places because of extreme over-regulation. A middle ground is surely what is required.
Like the commenter above though, I think the real disruption will come with self-driving cars which are much closer than most people realise.
Marketing in action.
I suppose it's better than "Arseholes Inc".
Re: Sock gnomes
> And, of course, there's the other phenomena of searching high and low for your car keys, then after a while discovering that they are in a place you have already searched.
This of course also applies to cutlery in the cutlery drawer, most commonly the tongs and the can opener.
Re: Does a lack of search=lack of interest?
> Don't forget BitTorrent, I haven't used a distro's mirror for ages so by your metric I would not be counted.
Same here. BitTorrent for all distro downloads for ages now.
> I favour an alternative explanation: that the British police now truly believe they have the right to state that something's illegal even when that's not the case: "So what if it's not against the law, you shouldn't be doing it anyway."
I believe that this is likely the truth.
Too many top brass in the police service are effectively politicians. They should not be making public pronouncements of this type *at all*. It is their role to keep the law, not act as the moral guardians of the public good.
Could I second this?
Maybe it's an American thing but if we overheard anything like that coming from a guy with us, if they worked for me, they wouldn't for much longer.
No company needs that kinds of publicity or have that kind of impression created at a conference.
In my entire career working with many women, I have never seen this kind of thing and I hope never to have to witness it.
Re: Hello pot, this is kettle...
> It does have a standard framework for updates (never used WSUS?)
These are for Windows core principally.
As far as I'm aware, there is no standard facility for applications.
Is there a way for an application to have a dependency on a particular version of Pythin without having to enclose it specifically and install it by hand? What if two applications have the same Python requirements? Do you get two copies of Python or does it all fall flat on its face?
> did you ever write a Linux package?
> You can easily write packages with missing dependencies, and I've seen a few.
If by missing, I assume that you mean not installed. If that is the case most installer front-ends will resolve them automatically. If you mean unresolvable, then you can still install it by hand which is no worse than the situation without package management. TBH, I can't remember the last time I had a situation like this. The most common situation is where a distribution does not support a required dependency version. I agree that this is a serious issue.
> Good Windows installers will take care of dependencies as well, and usually a Windows application has far less dependencies than a Linux one.
Yes. It is a shame that this has to be so. A key point about this though is that applications cannot share dependencies. In addition, as I mentioned previously, one of the key aspects that often doesn't work at all is dependencies on .Net frameworks which, as core Microsoft technologies, should never require manual installation. Sure, some installations may necessitate it (such as machines behind a firewall or not connected to the Internet) but this is not the case for the vast majority of situations.
Re: Hello pot, this is kettle...
> Sorry, but I have several applications running on Linux which are not updated from their repositories. Oracle, for example, or Polarion. Or our Napatech NICs drivers and software. Many commercial applications under Linux *are not* managed or updated through the repositories.
True but that is not the fault of the distribution, it is the fault of those suppliers. Windows has an "installer" but it provides no standard framework for update or dependency resolution. How many times have people installed and application to be told that some version of the .Net framework must be installed first? Why can't it happen automatically which would serve for the vast majority of people?
So instead we get a plethora of installer packages each of which have to provide their own custom approach, more to the point, *they cannot interact with each other*.
Re: Hello pot, this is kettle...
>Um, WTF does Windows need an 'app store' anyway? Are people so brainwashed?
Principally to make gatekeeper cash for Microsoft I would guess.
"You want to sell Windows software? You come to me!", in your best Godfather voice.
What Windows was always missing was a standardised management system for applications that everyone could get behind. It's one of the best aspects of using Linux I find and to be honest, I've never fully understood why such a thing doesn't exist in the Windows realm.
> If the person is an employee on salary or wages and uses equipment and media belonging to the company then regardless of who 'pushes the button' the copyright belongs to the company.
The fact that it is the company's equipment is irrelevent. The assistants agree to assign copyright as part of their contract of employment. This is a common arrangment.
In this case, the monkey has made no such agreement. It cannot legally do so. If it was a legal entity, it could also be prosecuted for theft.
The situation is a legal anomaly, and grey edge case that will likely be settled in court by precedent.
Re: Copyright aping nature.
> It says a lot about copyright in general when a monkey has more rights than the owner of the equipment.
As far as I'm aware, Mr Slater is free to do with the pictures whatever he wishes.
Pretty much all the legal arguments are that the monkey has no rights whatsoever.
In what sense do you think that the monkey has more rights than Mr Slater?
You have piqued my interest. I shall purchase a copy.
Re: This is not a clever decision...
The gist of the debate over this seem to be twofold:
1) the extent to which Slater contributed to the creation of the image, and
2) whether he should have a moral right to the image because it was his equipment and he'd spent lots of money getting to the location.
As to 1) it seems that what has been claimed consists of some kind of selection process and presentation to the public. I don't know if this is sufficient according to the law. Could an archaeologist claim copyright his his/her artistic discoveries as long as they were created within the time frame proscribed by the law?
2) is a difficult one for the law to touch on. Slater is making much of this aspect. Appealing to emotion in this respect is great for the publicity but I don't think it will avail him in the end.
Personally, I think this guy Slater is doing a great disservice to other photographers by this situation.
By asserting that he has sufficient creative input to this picture to be able to claim copyright (which in many jurisdictions is a requirement) he is insulting the work and art of real photography. The facts of the story have been pretty much clarified now and it would seem that the monkey stole the camera and took the pictures with no contribution from Slater.
I don't judge him as a photographer in other instances of his work which may well be of high quality and merit the acclaim of his peers, but in this instance he's not done any favours for himself.
If his only claim to creative input was the selection of the image from many, then anyone picking a picture from an image library would be able to claim, morally, at least a partial copyright over that image.
>>"No, but it does seem to put the monkey's image in the public domain."
> I suggest you read what the USCO actually says, not what you wished it said.
Why not tell us what it is about what the USCO says that contradicts this statement?
From your own article:
"Now, according to the Copyright Office, the matter is formally settled. The Office clearly says that unless a human took the image, it cannot be registered and thus Slater cannot claim US copyright on it."
If Slater cannot claim copyright on the image and USCO says that an animal cannot claim copyright over it, exactly who do you think *can* claim copyright over it? That which is not under copyright is in the public domain, unless you know of some other legal state in which a creative work can exist that is neither one nor the other.
Well what did they expect using a library called "Slapdash SSL"?
Asking for trouble if you ask me.
Re: ...that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
> Still, it fits with the article author's own partisanship, using derogatory terms like "climate denier" with apparently no concern or shame whatsoever.
Yeah it's really weird.
I've never met anyone that denied the existence of a climate.
Re: Good article.
> If I use the time delay feature that has been standard in cameras for decades, the camera takes the picture (usually with me in it), but I set it up. No-one in the last few decades has seriously attempted to claim that I don't have copyright in that picture.
I really think some of the commentators here should take a look at the facts of the article.
The picture was not "set up". The photographer contributed absolutely nothing to the taking of this picture:
"British nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 attempting to get the perfect image of a crested black macaque when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies.
Many of them were blurry and some were pointed at the jungle floor, but among them were a handful of fantastic images - including a selfie taken by a grinning female macaque which made headlines around the world and brought Mr Slater his 15 minutes of fame.
"They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button," he said at the time. "The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.
He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet."
What the photographer is arguing about is not his moral rights. He is not even asserting that he took the picture or contributed to it in a creative capacity.
He is arguing that it was his camera so it should be his copyright:
If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me, that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realise is that it needs a court to decide that,” he said.
His main argument seems to be that his trip was expensive, the equipment is expensive and it's his so he deserves to get copyright of the snaps.
As a legal argument, I think that's pretty thin.
Re: Good article.
> Well, that explains a lot. You don't understand how copyright works.
The distinction is subtle and I think there is a confusion of semantics here.
Copyright is granted by law. If it is not, in any specific case, then public domain is what is left, by default. I think that is what most people would assume that the comment means.
I don't think that anyone is arguing about the legal situation of the automatic granting of copyright to creators.
In this particular situation, there is the suggestion of a grey area where a creative work could be created without it being possible to bestow copyright on the creator because they don't have sufficient legal status. In that situation, public domain is therefore the only alternative, even though it is not mandated specifically by statute.
Re: Good article.
> If you own a monkey and the monkey takes a photo, do you own the photo in that case?
That's an interesting legal question.
Others have quoted the common situation of a photographer's assistant taking a picture but copyright being conferred on the photographer rather than an assistant. I suspect that this is resolved a "common practice" or by some legal contractual undertaking related to the terms of employment of the assistant. Certainly as a programmer, I cannot claim copyright over code I write while working for my employer: my employment contract says so.
Personally, I think the legal situation involved where you own an animal that takes a picture is a difficult one. There is no contractual arrangement and I think it is fair to say that there is little legal precedence to draw on here so it may be that it could be argued that no copyright ownership exists.
Re: Hold on! What about the legal rights of Simians??
> Those are prohibitions that apply to humans in contact with the animals, not rights that are conferred on the animals as individuals. What's next, healthcare and free bus passes for Grade II listed buildings? Or maybe housing benefit would be more appropriate...
Most rights conferred by law on humans are actually prohibitions set against others. Laws relating to theft, assault are not privileges afforded to people, but prohibitions set against others.
A "right to a private life" is actually a prohibition against others to interfere with your privacy.
Since the law has little enforcement provision other than to punish others in this area, I wouldn't be so contrite about what is and isn't a right.
Re: Doesn't intent have any sway?
> On the whole I agree with the idea of sharing information, but there is a big difference between sharing and taking.
What is under debate here is not anything to do with sharing or taking. That is a purely moral argument.
What is under debate is whether or not the photograph is copyrighted by the photographer or if it slips into the public domain because of some grey area in the law.
If the photograph is in the public domain, then moral judgement just doesn't come into it. Anyone can do whatever they want with it for whatever purpose since nobody has a copyright privilege over it. It's as simple as that.
The other arguments that I have seen prior regarding snaps taken by a passer-by do in fact suggest that there is some scope of ambiguity here. Since copyright assignment almost never enters into those kinds of practical situations then they're never tested in law. That doesn't mean that those situations don't fit into that same grey area though.
Re: Good article.
> On the other hand, if a monkey cannot hold copyright, then surely it should be taken down as nobody rightfully holds copyright? The rules are that something is not public domain unless the creator says otherwise.... Well? Who said otherwise, Jimmy?
No, it's actually the other way around.
Something that is not copyrighted is public domain by default.
Copyright is granted by law. Public domain is what applies for anything else.
You can certainly give something to the public domain that you hold a copyright on, however, which is what I think you mean.
When copyright expires (which may never happen in the US if Disney manage to get yet another extension for Steamboat Willy) public domain is what the work falls into. The copyright holder has no choice in the matter.
It is further confused by the fact that all creative works are granted automatic copyright in many countries now.
Personally, I think that the monkey has a good case for ownership of this picture. Inasmuch as the photographer must prove that the photo is his creation, he clearly can't. Therefore, he cannot claim copyright over it.
> You can't get much more service-y than subscription services to hosted & managed enterprise systems.
By subscription services, I assume you mean online software licensing. If you mean hosting services like Azure, then I would agree.
Adobe have made this mistake and they will pay for it long term. They dress their offering up as a service, but in point of fact it is software rental.
If it involves running a substantial amount of software on your machine, then you're licensing, not consuming a service.
> "Success requires moving to monetization through enterprise subscriptions, hardware gross margins, and advertising revenues," Ballmer helpfully suggested. "You must drive that." Translation: Selling software is 2000 and late.
It most certainly is not and idiotic statements like this are the reason that he's not at the helm now.
The future for Microsoft and their ilk is most certainly not in selling software, but in selling services.
Re: It's unlikely to improve
> Porting a game from Windows to Linux is a large undertaking.
That's becoming less and less of the case.
Many games these days are using standard engines. If they support Linux as a target then a lot of the heavy lifting has been done.
Valve's efforts to get their titles to Linux will accelerate as Source become more mature and consistent on the Linux platform. I think this is likely to be true for a lot of games as general stability and engine support becomes more mature.
Re: Never gonna replace windows
> You are spot on however, that it's a chicken and egg scenario - if they don't make games for it, no-one will use it. If they don't use it, no-one will make games for it!
And also the next Unreal tech.
Re: A question for our British friends...
> The Americans seem to have some weird cinnamon fetish - it is next to impossible to get any sort of apple dish that hasn't been spoiled by the addition of that horrible spice.
Same in Canada.
I think it stems from the same issue as the reason why the food here has so much salt and sugar in it and the preference for very spicy sauces added to it. Historically, food has been utter shite and the only way to eat it without gagging is to heavily spice it. Now food is generally better with the advent of better refrigeration and faster transport, the habits continue. As meat used to be very heavily salted for preservation, salting continues to satisfy that habitual expectation.
Whereas in the likes of Italy where the climate promotes fresh, tasty food, the habits are very different.
Re: A question for our British friends...
> ...and a lot easier than the British way of doing a slightly whitened sunny-side-up fried egg by splashing the top with hot oil.
This is the only way to have enough runny yoke to stick your soldiers into.
It's the dog's :D
Re: So basiclly, @Dalek Dave
> I'm afraid you sir, are mistaken.... if you buy your sausages from a proper butcher they are indeed mostly made of meat... the same cannot be said of value supermarket sossies though.
Although I cannot speak for the US, but in Canada it is *possible* to buy decent bangers but you do have to go to a butcher or independent shop. All the sausages sold in supermarkets here (mainly spiced Italian style ones) are utter shite. Some I tried actually made me gag there was so much gristle in.
As for bacon, you *can* get proper back bacon (what they call "Canadian bacon" here) but the vast majority of bacon available is streaky, and very fatty streaky bacon at that. The only possible way to eat it is to grill it to within an inch of its life into what amounts to a long, thin pork scratching. They cleverly pack it offset so that all you can see is the small meaty bit that it does have, and the fat is hidden.
Black pudding is indeed the food of the Gods.
Re: wrong on two counts
> It is an understandable and rational response to the myriad atrocities and injustices perpetrated in the name of God. On the other side, atheists have done no better.
Well, I'm an atheist and I don't remember ever committing any atrocities. As a non-theist, I cannot think of a single reason why I or anyone else would want to. It takes the suspension of rational common sense and personal responsibility to commit atrocities in the name of religion and we see the worst examples of people being total jerks to each other only in those places where religion or a quasi religious form (hero worship, dogmatic obedience: so yes, naziism and the Russian form of "communism" does count) are predominant.
Re: wrong on two counts
> And what, pray tell, does this have to do with the subject at hand?
I think he is saying that a still significant number of people are incapable of the clear and rational thought required for solving computing issues of this kind.
I do agree with one thing previously mentioned, that the fact that there is no clear distinction between what is operating system and what is application, and that which sits in some ambiguous area in the middle. Better, clearer segregation between the two is essential for good design.
There is a good argument in the microkernel world for the idea that a smaller kernel is better for security, but in some ways that has the additional problem of pushing the issue out into the wild west of user space.
A big, slightly-related, problem is also that of pocket calls from smartphones.
Our kids have this problem with the Android devices.
Some dickwad thought that it was a good idea for the phone to auto-dial 999/911 when a pin-code or pattern access code was activated based on the minimum number of touches. I'm told by the police that this is becoming a majorly serious problem for them.
My daughter tells me that more modern phones don't do this, which is a relief to me, but my son and I have these older phones and it is a constant annoyance for my son and his friends even now, and even more for the poor sods at the emergency call centres who have to deal with it.
Oi! Marissa! Sort out the bugs in your web mail!
> That's not what I understand as, "fisting." I read that headline and got all excited there for a moment.
I was anticipating a good read about the insertion of appendages into the vaginal opening of a woman for her sexual gratification. Imagine my embarrassment upon reading the article that it was no such thing.
Really ElReg, this sort of thing is just too much.
Can some economist type tell me why growth is the panacea for success?
I've never been able to quite grasp this concept. If you're selling a ton of stuff and making a decent profit, then what's there to complain about? As any fule kno, growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. It's impossible, yet market bods consistently tell us that if you do not have growth, you're in the shit. I don't get it.
Now, if your market is shrinking, that's surely cause for alarm.
>Likewise, the particle/wave explanation fits because light acts as both.
My suspicion is that the "wave" and "particle" concepts are inaccurate and insufficient to describe what is actually going on. In essence they are analogies, and neither is a very good fit and certainly in my case cause confusion rather than clarification.
I'd like to put it out there that I'm not a quantum physicist, but...
It seems to me that when physicists come out with such convoluted and brain mangling explanations for stuff that they clearly have no intuitive explanation for, I have to wonder if they are really heading down the wrong path here.
Remember the contorted explanations that the "earth at the centre of the universe and everything spins around us" troop had to bend themselves around to explain what they observed? The theories got stranger and unconvincing as time went on, until someone came along with something so much simpler that the complexity just sloughed off. I guess this is at least what the string theorists are trying to discover here: something more fundamentally true that makes everything that bit simpler and consistent.
When doing physics at school, the wave/particle duality explanation never really convinced me as a viable hypothesis. Some vital piece is clearly missing from our understanding here.
Re: Spanners Vs. Wrenches
As an ex-pat Brit living in Canada, it seems to me that everything mechanical here has to have a 2-stroke attached for extra noise. Other than the obvious that the country is big and there isn't often somewhere to plug anything electrical in, it seems to me that there is an addiction to noise here that is built into the psyche of the place, perhaps a US influence.
Oh and what is it about Harley Davidson bikes anyway? Why do some people feel that sitting on a mechanical fart machine is cool?
Re: Screws Vs. Bolts
> bolts with wrenches.
After all, this is a UK site. :D
Point of Order
The second picture does in fact depict a screw, more correctly a "set screw".
Bolts have a threadless stem.
Re: And yet...
> Why is it so hard for everyone else?
Because, particularly in the US, communications systems are so fragmented with bizarre peering agreements based on everything *but* the reality of how things really work make it terminally broken.
I see a great parallel with how health care is implemented. People whinge and whine about how expensive the NHS is, but you should see the waste and utter insanity of the equivalent in the US, all in the name of their version of the "free market". A typical tragedy of the commons scenario where no-one is even remotely concerned about the public good.
- 'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
- Review A SCORCHIO fatboy SSD: Samsung SSD850 PRO 3D V-NAND
- Was Earth once covered in HELLFIRE? No – more like a wet Sunday night in Iceland
- Every billionaire needs a PANZER TANK, right? STOP THERE, Paul Allen
- Breaking Fad 4K-ing excellent TV is on its way ... in its own sweet time, natch