Last reviewer missed the Tom Baker impression
Capaldi was doing Tom Baker's voice as the other side of the conversation where he was working things out for himself.
83 posts • joined 15 Nov 2010
Capaldi was doing Tom Baker's voice as the other side of the conversation where he was working things out for himself.
Remember when Open Source evangelists told us that the way that firms would make money creating open source software was through support?
I guess now "charging for support" is as evil as charging for software licenses.
Reddit is ultimately a company with assets that doesn't want to end up getting dragged through court for providing a forum for linking to pirated material. If you started posting links to pirated content in the Reg comments section, you'd similarly expect to see it deleted.
It's not like he'd spend the time he takes complaining about Microsoft to make an open source project better
The FSF like the EFF have marginalized themselves by advocating the piracy of intellectual property as a right as fundamental as that of free speech.
Glad someone else noticed this. Google is willing to chuck copyright over code and argue that instead we should use software patents?
According to his own admission, the material he was pinged for was infringing.
It's scorched earth pricing from all three vendors - subsidize cloud to ensure other vendors can't get a foothold in the market.
Bet DropBox is wishing they'd done their IPO a bit sooner.
That analogy isn't so much fun when we are the buggy whip manufacturers is it?
Given Google's Microsoftophobia ... guessing the only OS you'll be allowed to spin up in IaaS will be some Googly variant of Linux, Chrome OS, or Android.
The average Reg commentard's attitude to piracy:
- Price your app low - you're indicating that it's rubbish so it's okay to pirate it.
- Price your app high - you're ripping off the customer and it's okay to pirate it
- Price your app a bit higher than low - you're not competitive because most apps are around $1 so it's okay to pirate it
- Give it away for free and charge for in app purchases. You're too greedy and it's okay to pirate the full cracked version.
In the long run the average Reg commentard can find more "valid excuses to pirate content" than Eskimos have words for snow.
Silicon Valley hates regulation when it gets in the way of profits, but loves it when it comes to protecting its business model.
It's not about listening. As Henry Ford said, if you asked customers what they want, they would have replied "a faster horse". If you want to be innovative, you have to accept that you will fail occasionally.
Come out as a defender of net neutrality - and then abandon those principles. Decry patents, and then patent everything in sight.
The Google defenders around here seem to forget that Google themselves thought that the patents were worth at least 900 million bucks. What was Google going to do if they purchased them? Here's a hint. They weren't going to give them to the EFF and Linux - they were going to do exactly what this entity is doing to Google. Google was even invited into the consortium that purchased the patents - but wanted to go their own way.
Is a fat bearded 40 something guy dressed up as a Japanese schoolgirl.
Now that HP has jumped off Windows, I'm assuming that by Enterprise Management she means Android or Linux.
For the EFF - "electronic rights" seem to come down to being able to pirate content without consequence. They've been muted to the point of whispering about all the NSA stuff and our right to privacy. You don't see them shouting from the rooftops about that - the only thing that gets them excited is if someone suggests stopping the torrenting of Game of Thrones.
Azure includes the Server OS license in the subscription price. I'm guessing if you want to run Windows Server in VMware's cloud, you (or VMware) will need to cough up licensing dosh to MS.
Google could release their own app for both Windows 8 and Windows Phone. Just like they have on other platforms.
So this guy leverages Nintendo's intellectual property to make some coin, and then gets upset when the revenue stream what he considers his own intellectual property gets diverted?
You mean WindowsToGo which already exists?
If the EFF wins this round, the trickle of content off the web and into specific apps becomes a flood. Content distribution can occur directly to people's tablets, phones and PCs directly via apps written for that purpose. In the long run, good content thrives where there is revenue and the web so far has turned out to be a really rubbish medium when it comes to ensuring that the people who create the content get paid for it.
If you've ever taken a course with a good instructor, what you're really paying for is access to their time over the course of a couple of days to have them answer any question you have about a specific technology. MOOCs may provide you with the basic content - but you can pretty much pick that up by looking at the product documentation if you've got the time. If you take an instructor led course on Exchange, the value is in being in the room with an expert on Exchange for a week.
You can figure out if the person presenting the course isn't an expert pretty quickly. If you do, you ask for a refund. If you sit on a course where you know the instructor is a muppet, you're wasting your time and whoever paid for the course's money.
Original post says his kids have one. Want to bet that's the "corp supplied" Surface RT and the one he's selling is one he purchased?
Patents predate the Renaissance and the scientific revolution, and there is some evidence that a similar idea was present in ancient Greece.
But sure - get rid of the system so really big companies like Google and Microsoft can copy novel technical ideas without paying the person that came up with that idea - or allow that person to sell the rights to that idea to anyone who finds it valuable (rather than forcing them only to be able to sell them to the big companies).
It's also possible to side-load your own apps on RT anyway - you just install the sideloading product key.
Would like to see Orlowski interview Jaron Lanier about these issues - which seem to be canvassed in Lanier's new book http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/What-Turned-Jaron-Lanier-Against-the-Web-183832741.html
Given how much a good UNIX/Linux admin costs on an hourly basis, this needs to be turnkey to the point of pressing a single button to beat the cost advantage of purchasing a Windows license. Good UNIX/Linux admins can cost 2 to 3 times per hour what a Windows admin costs.
That would be those hundreds of millions of Linux users torrenting stuff. Torrentfreak.com has a nice tracker of the most frequently torrented files. Pirate Bay has a list of the top 100
Go to that site and find the first item on that list of the top 100 that is legit. (to save you some time, all of the files are rips of copyrighted materials)
If you are going to write about copyright infringement - at least do it honestly.
Incorrectly configured web applications are a vector. Just because you're managing a Linux box doesn't mean that the developers who coded the web applications on the server haven't done something stupid. Those web applications don't come from repositories - they are likely developed either in house, or your organization has paid someone to develop them.
Don't you love these guys who rail against the "evils" of intellectual property law - until they suddenly decide that they like it.
I know that Gavin from Cuptertino isn't all about getting his facts straight - but Thurrott is on the record as saying that his comments have been taken completely out of context.
This objection seems to apply to most technical conferences, and especially those of the open source variety. All someone has to do now is claim that conference X doesn't have a "representative quota of minorities" on the speaker schedule where "representative quota" is a malleable value (looks like Susser was going for 1/3rd of all speakers - so good luck with that guys)
While there are some bad actors, a lot of the screaming about Patent Trolls is coming out of the PR departments of very well funded companies that simply don't want to pay to license technology. For something that supposedly "stifles innovation" - we seem to have had an unprecedented level of innovation in the last 30 years.
It's sort of like how conservatives always go on about how regulation is harming their business when their real aim is to get rid of the very regulation that stops them from screwing over everyone else. The companies that go on the loudest about how bad patents are seem to be very successful already and don't appear to have been stifled to the point of choking. They just don't want to pay licensing fees and they are in the process of convincing enough people to go along with it to ensure that the next generation of people who come up with bright ideas - who might challenge the status quo - won't be able to benefit from those ideas and overthrow those that are currently at the top of the heap.
I often wonder if the byline of some Reg hacks as being "San Francisco" should instead be replaced with either "Mountain View" or "Cupertino".
ASUS EP 121 was a touch screen Windows 7 tablet. Windows 7 supported touch. It didn't do it as well as Windows 8 does, but it still did it.
They created Buzz. No one used it.
Looks like the TF infinity - which is a great bit of kit - but Win RT'd.
All it needs is a fracking start icon on the taskbar. The "wave the mouse in the corner" trick is going to be the operating system's downfall.
Love it around here - it's simply not possible that the figures might be fine - but that it must be some sort of insane black helicopter conspiracy to make Microsoft look good.
In the long run China and India are going to do to Google what Google has done to everyone else. Bruce Sterling even had this in one of his novels - where China and India said "cool, IP doesn't matter" - and just steal it wholesale and wiped out the US economy as you can't have a knowledge economy without some sort of value on knowledge. Google doesn't believe that inventors should be rewarded financially for their effort and they are happy to destroy the emerging information economy pursuing the freetard jihad.
The question is, can Ubuntu match the market share of the current reigning champion of the "Cloud is the Computer" - the Chromebook. We all know that the Chromebook can kick more buttock than a millipede with a headache, which is why it clearly dominates the client operating system market share stats.
Can an Ubuntu cloud computer going to be able to compete with the monolithic success of the Chromebook?
So what you are saying is that for every infringing item on a search engine, the person who created the work needs to go to court.
It costs roughly 10K-20K to pursue one case of someone posting a work through the courts. That's one case. If you have hundreds of copies of your stuff posted online ...
To put that in perspective, the average advance on a book is between 5-10K and most don't earn their money back. Taking one takedown through court is likely to cost more than most works earn and the only one making a profit is the lawyers. (well that and the advertising company running adds against the pirated content)
What *is* the problem with someone listed as the copyright holder on the work contacting a search engine and saying "can you remove these links to my work please"?
(the reality is that people on the search engine end don't want to do the cursory validation of "yes that person seems to be the registered copyright holder of that work")
There needs to be a way for creators to get this sort of thing remediated without it costing them thousands in legal fees.
Yup - new app even allows you to map Skydrive as a library in Win 7
I've seen the argument that given that a competent hacker can strip the DRM from a file, that it's pointless. I wonder if these people also don't bother locking their house as a competant lock picker can open those locks in just a few moments.
The jury is out as to whether or not this will cause a jump, a slide, or make no difference to sales. What it will do is make it easier to locate this stuff posted on pirate sites because just like locks on house doors don't stop the skilled, DRM free means that the barrier to "sharing with all your mates on the Internet" is a lot lower.
Anything that doesn't suit Google's business model is tagged as "breaks the Internet"
Great satire is when you can't tell that the author is extracting the urine. Good job!
Ars Technica believes that Australian science should be funded by the sale of tshirts. Because to Ars, all intellectual property should be monetized through tshirt sales.