12 posts • joined Thursday 6th August 2009 01:58 GMT
The devil's in the details
(or small print)
***Warranty for the 200GB capacity point is 5 years or 3.7PB total write capacity, whichever occurs first.
You know, if El Reg reporters are going to turn product spec sheets into "articles", they should at least supply all of the facts (I'm not even going to bother pointing out the multiple inaccuracies in this article).
Re: Firefox already does what he asked
"...because if someone has got to my desktop it's too late anyway."
I keep hearing this and it keeps pissing me off. It's just another way of saying 'It's easier than it should be for people to break into a system when they have physical access, so I'll use that as an excuse to justify not doing anything at all to protect the system, regardless of whether the things that can be done would prevent that person from accessing my most sensitive data, or merely slow them down'.
If everyone stopped being lazy and started actively working on this level of security, we might actually get something that can make a system relatively secure from attackers with physical access to the machine.
This is why Googles response is bad.
Re: I'm sure Tim Cook needs another bonus
"... I'm guessing maybe Bill Gates will be there to great the newbies."
Umm, sad attempt at trolling, or do you honestly not know about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which spends Billions of dollars annually on grants and charitable donations, in order to combat things such as poverty, disease, poor education?
Re: Like PCs? - Help me out here
Market share covers more than just the number of people presently in the market, it also indicates how stable the market is and whether it is growing or shrinking.
If the market is showing strong signs of growth, then it is probably worthwhile investing in the market, because you know that you have a good chance to recover that investment (be it time, money, reputation, whatever), or even make it big. If the market share is falling, the time period for recovering the investment is shorter and the chance of making it big is reduced (if not gone already, when considering the platform argument). If the market share is crashing, sure you may make a bit of money out of the (shrinking) existing user base, but you'll never make it big and you may not even recover your investment.
Another choice would be to ban certain types of invention from patent protection and instead cover them under copyright. I think this method should be used for any software invention.
Patent protection should also be removed from individual components (such as the rounded corners of a screen) and can only be applied to the end product. Policing this would then involve a degree of infringement (the active ingredient in that drug is x, your drug only contains x, it is 100% in breach of the patent - Or, your tablet has rounded corners on its screen and everything else is different, it is 1% in breach of the patent)
It may still be contention. The same physical line connecting your residence to the street doesnt mean you arent going through different equipment at the exchange (which you probably are and even if you arent, your new provider may be paying for x guaranteed bandwidth with a lower user ratio), which is where the contention / congestion typically starts to take place.
A bit of an arse?
"If you're a whistleblower and you have material that is important, we will accept it, we will defend you, and we will publish it."
And how much have they donated to Bradley Mannings defence?
$15,000. Not exactly helpful in defending him.
Doesnt this give Oracle proof of wrong doing, which allows them to sue Google and hence use discovery processes to gain access to the full source code, in order to see how much wrong doing there has been for this project?
No, it really isnt a good argument.
Google has a history of doing whatever they want to do, regardless of whether it is morally, ethically or legally right to do so, though they do try to stay mostly in the grey regions. This is just another example of this sort of culture.
Google has no intention of destroying the patent system. If they could, I am sure they would hold patents on people breathing, in order to get the royalties such patents generate. Remember, they are a company that invests in pretty much anything and everything, especially if it can be linked to making money.
To say Google has almost no overheads is living in the past. These days they are a massive global organisation that has plenty of overheads.
This suit is going to be long, expensive and bloody, as both sides have very deep pockets and the litigant has a real grievance.
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support
- 'Big Data' analysis Think Amazon is CHEAP? Just take a look at these cloudy graphs...