101 posts • joined Wednesday 29th June 2011 02:04 GMT
Re: Have you noticed they're hiding the screen...
I decided to check this.
I went to nokia.com - it referred me to my local version of it.
I clicked on the nokai 925 links (noting that the first picture on the main site was a 920 with winpho proudly displayed).
On the 925 page I got pictures, able to scroll through them, and the first didn't show winpho, but later in the series it was visible.
Going down I got some assorted pictures on the screen, and finally I got to (rougly translated): "Powered by Windows Phone 8 and Nokia Lumia 925 is filled with powerful smart-phone functionalities. [...]" Along with photos clearly showing the operating system.
Now granted, they aren't flaunting it on the very first image of the phone - but that might also relate to them trying to sell the phone on the camera, which was the topic of the first few sections.
Since no one seems to like Microsoft, I'd think there'd be enough stories to go around, without having to invent new ones?
Re: The scum fleecing the dumb
We could just refer to the honourable Judge in the discussion of whether or not they did much actual prosecution:
"5. For defendants that refused to settle, the Principals engaged in vexatious
litigation designed to coerce settlement. These lawsuits were filed using boilerplate
complaints based on a modicum of evidence, calculated to maximize settlement
profits by minimizing costs and effort.
6. The Principals have shown little desire to proceed in these lawsuits when
faced with a determined defendant. Instead of litigating, they dismiss the case. When
pressed for discovery, the Principals offer only disinformation—even to the Court.
10. The Principals ordered Gibbs to commit the following acts before this
Court: file copyright-infringement complaints based on a single snapshot of Internet
activity; name individuals as defendants based on a statistical guess; and assert a
copyright assignment with a fraudulent signature. The Principals also instructed
Gibbs to prosecute these lawsuits only if they remained profitable; and to dismiss
So yeah - they'd threaten with lawsuits until you paid up, or the balance tipped to the point of it becoming a waste of their time.
Also not that they did not conduct sufficient investigations before threatening a lawsuit and - for those of you seeking infaaarmation on copyright issues in general the good judge includes this nugget:
"Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires
substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to
properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video."
Make of it what you will.
First part of this message will be directed at Disney:
You were the chosen one. It was said that you'd destroy the shit, not deal with them. Bring balance to the franchise, not leave it with darkness.
Second part of this message is directed at EA:
Execute Order 66? At least have fun dragging Star Wars through the mud.
Final note to anyone else reading this:
I realise I've used quotes from the prequels in the above. This is done as a indication that I believe those films will be shown to be of higher quality than anything EA can get out of the Star Wars franchise.
Re: Half a dozen of one, but only six of the other. @Eguro @Eddy Ito
That is quite right.
While I think there are certainly ways for government to affect equality through other means that weapons - various restrictions or demands to be met for aid (this of course has two sides), support for international efforts through the UN, support simply for schools in countries to allow girls to attend - there are of course other players who are active and should be. NGOs are a good thing in this regard.
My original point - which you seem to have gotten :) - was of course more general. Targeting only the way two separate issues seem to be attempted to be bunched together.
All in all I agree with you, and just thought I would say so in a very winded way.
Re: Half a dozen of one, but only six of the other.
Well I for one called the republican proposal rubbish.
When reading through the bill text I have to say that although its language seems to be well intentioned (whereasses not included - sheesh), and it does point to some factors like the UN and actual real events, the fact that they try to somehow link this to Global Warming seems idiotic.
The subtext of the bill seems to me to scream that "although women do a lot of stuff really well out in the world, they are at heart quite fragile and we should totally protect them because we - men - are good at that stuff".
It might be well intentioned, but instead of trying to link global warming to the hardship of women, why don't they just get on with promoting equal rights everywhere, and - separately! - attempt to fight global warming.
And then they can cut out the whole "women aren't as good as men at surviving global warming"
Here's a quote from the bill, which I think shows quite well that the issue of "women can't cope with global warming" is idiotic, and that the real issues are global warming & women's rights:
"Whereas the ability of women to adapt to climate change is constrained by a lack of economic freedoms, property and inheritance rights, as well as access to financial resources, education, family planning and reproductive health, and new tools, equipment, and technology;"
Women are constrained by inequality - lets just accept that and work from there?
Of course I could just be projecting my own self-righteous semi-feminist views onto it - in turn making me the anti-feminist asshole, and the bill an awesome piece of work (although I would suggest that at least the latter of those two cannot be true)
Re: American credibility?
You are correct, they do offer funding for some degree of international research.
I would like to point out that I didn't - at least I don't think I did - come up with any ideas or preferred consequences. I was merely stating that if the US government were to scrap peer-review and pretty much the entire scientific method, then that research would have issues with believability. If the international funding done would surely also be subject to the same criteria for "science", and thus would likely suffer as well. So not just American research would be devalued, but any research affiliated with the NSF. I'll admit that my use of the word "ban" might have been too harsh, but I can't see research done for the US congress without peer review or a desire to retest to be valued highly by anyone in the science community.
I think we can all agree the proposal is rubbish (at least if it's intended to further science, and not Lamars own agenda)
Also - 2 thumbs down for making a pre-emptive grammar-nazi post?
Re: American credibility?
"Your paper [...]"
There I fixed it for myself
Surely - in some ludicrous world where this passes - the consequence would be the ban of any references to American scientific research from that point on, in any other scientific research?
"You paper presents some great ideas, and you seem to have done good work. However you referenced to Parker & Thompson 2014. Please review this problem with your paper and return once corrections have been made"
I presume the American scientists would find a way around this stuff, but the very process would tar any contributions they might try to make to science. I guess it could mean a flight of scientists from America - but that of course might be what the good Mr. Smith is counting on.
Re: What is the point
I admit my phrasing was too hasty. Allow me to rephrase a paragraph:
"The problem comes IF they begin using that search engine to give their own other products an edge over competitors. [...]"
I guess that's what the entire thing is about no? Whether the EU determines that Google has indeed used it's search dominance anti-competitively? It's also about whether they used their search dominance back when those services were perhaps not the most used services.
I wont presume to know one way or the other, and thankfully that's not my job. So I apologize for my post indicating otherwise.
Re: What is the point
It's not really a matter of winning or losing though is it?
At least one would hope it was about promoting competition that would end up giving customers (consumers) the best product.
Google has the best search engine - fine. They've "won", because they currently hold a huge majority of online searches.
The problem comes when they begin using that search engine to give their own other products an edge over competitors. This means that the product they're peddling might not be the best, yet it'll still out compete the others, because it has an advantage (Google's superior search engine).
That's what we need to find a way to balance. Some would argue that Google should be free to display any search results they like - it's their search engine. And to large degree I concur.
However because Google control such a huge share of internet searches them displaying any search results they like does create anti-competitive circumstances.
I am interested in a few things when I search the web. I want an answer to my question, but I also have an interest in the company that provides the best answer to that question to be allowed to outcompete it's competition.
If Google simply funnels people to their own services, then those services can survive on a bare minimum, without having to actually compete, because their competition has no chance of gaining a customer base.
Let me attempt an analogy (which is surely bound to fail).
I have a company that has gained a huge market share in the competitive business of city-planning. I have proven myself good at creating flowing streets and easy to understand traffic situations.
Recently I have started a store selling cheese. There's already quite a few shops similar to mine, so competition is rather fierce. However instead of trying to compete with the other shops on an equal footing, I simply replan the city slightly, so as to maximise the traffic going to my shop, whilst making it harder and more bothersome to get to the other shops. The cheese is pretty much the same, but the knowledge of the staff, the quality control and other things are better in my competitions stores (or at least it might be), however that doesn't matter because now it's a lot simpler to simply drive to my shop, than take the extra detour to get to the other shops.
Other than city-planning obviously not being an open market venture (at least not to the degree it is in the analogy) I reckon you can see my point? You could argue that because they've gained a majority of the city-planning business (totally a legit thing), they get to plan the city however they like. And again, I would agree to some extent. And again it is clear that there's a real opportunity to create anti-competitive circumstances.
Re-reading what I've written, I think I'll just stop now, because this response and spun out of control, and now there's cheese everywhere. Please do tear down my analogy, I wager it isn't that good at all.
End note: I do not like Google. (The only services of their I use is translation, because that's simply the best I've found for that job (anyone have alternatives?)). This post is probably skewed because of this.
I would just like to ask, if we could all perhaps agree to something?
IF Google does in fact have a dominant (monopolistic) position in internet search
THEN they might be abusing that position in anti-competitive ways (by artificially placing their own products above similar [better?] alternatives)
I'm not saying they do or they don't - just that IF -> THEN.
And IF the above is true, then it is true irrespective of Microsoft being involved in complaining about it (even if Microsoft was in a similar situation). You're not allowed to steal, even if you're stealing from a known thief.
Now feel free to answer my initial question. If you feel the urge to tell me I'm a moron, please explain why, so I can at least learn from it.
Re: XBOX not a disaster
While I agree that the 720 looks be a horrible "always online" disaster, I haven't had issues playing a movie from a USB on my xbox (provided it's in one of like 3 formats). If yours does require an internet connecting for USB movies, then I was lucky, or you were not. (Unless you're talking about the 720 in all the things mentioned, then yes - it's all a disaster)
If you install PS3 Media Server (or a similar product) you also don't need an internet connection, but simply a network between your xbox and the computer running the server. That'll also enable more formats and subtitles.
Except someone hung himself over the current laws being threatened against him. I think the laws are already strict enough?
If you merely want laws to act as a deterrent, why not simply implement the death-penalty for everything?
To be fair though - you did say "Part of setting sentences" - so I'll admit that I'm of course misrepresenting you...
on the internet...
dammit, that's like 2 years in prison right? :)
The other part of sentencing (watch out for a false dichotomy - who says there's only two parts to it), is rehabilitating. Giving some computer criminal 50 years in prison is likely to not only rehabilitate him, but in-habilitate him. When he gets out there'll be holographic wrist computers and think-web. At least then he can't commit more crimes. Of course he'll never contribute to society again either.
So Google has to act, in order to retain their trademark under US law (although demanding that the meaning and usage of the word, comply with their desired definition is idiotic)
The language council simply wants to post the list of new (interesting?) words that have been tossed around. Rather than spend time and budget on a silly fight with Google, they simply scratch the word and go "meh, the word will survive not being on our list"
And the fact that this is news-worthy means that the word will already be getting a lot more attention than it probably would have otherwise.
Language council wins by TKO.
They've also claimed victory:
"If Google knew how language works, they would've known that they don't get to define the language, and the word will spread as a result of this debate. The word wins, not Google" (taken from: http://www.svt.se/kultur/amne/sprakradet-stoppar-ogooglebar-1 )
I thought the central point was, that whilst it might be illegal to advertise using the trademarks of others, it is not illegal for the vehicle for such ads (in this case Google).
But yeah, I'm also totally for this being the death of Google - which sadly it wont be :)
Re: 9 out of 10 Llamas refused to comment
Though I have merely been an advisor to a friend playing it (as I have a boycott on EA) I have noticed quite a few things about the game that really shouldn't be accepted, even disregarding the server stability issues (which I haven't seen and my friend hasn't complained about either).
As you yourself mention the routing for anything basically doesn't exist. Shortest route to whatever thing you're doing that's available. People get new jobs, new homes, new children, new partners every single day because of this. I hardly understand why emergency vehicles even have sirens, it's not like they appear to have a function other than auditory. Most problems (that don't relate to the game's apparent lack of depth) seem related to the routing issues (all the more reason for you to be looking forward to the improvements).
There are some basic city building tools that are missing - and which could provide a useful tool in sorting out the inevitable traffic jams at the entrance to your city. One-Way-Streets is one thing that should, I think, be in the game.
But I wont be surprised if it becomes available as part of a "Transportation Heaven" DLC. Now with all new one-way-streets, intersections that use turn-arrows to alleviate pressure on the busiest roads, and the all new - never seen before - busses that wont go around in a circle to pick up passengers from the same bus stop 10 times in a row!
It'll be an amazing DLC! And for only £15 - I mean that's not even close to a night out!
I can see the appeal of the game - it can be fun. But on reflection I think it's more fun in a Angry Birds kind of way, rather than a Sim City kind of way.
It's more about beating the challenges that the game set (as in how do I make traffic work with this horrific system), than about making a city that's plausible or desirable.
Re: Message and beancounters
Well - it being silly wont stop them though. I mean it is EA. (but you are quite right)
Seems Apple - even when winning - are quite good at irritating and displeasing Judges.
One of these days it'll bite them in the behind with a vengeance, surely
Re: Problems in the 3rd-party chain
Surely the cascading would only apply to the data being held by the "IT website".
Thus the data that the leccy supplier has attained from said website is to be deleted, but any other dealings you have with the supplier will have their own set of data, so to speak.
I mean, that's how I interpret the intent - the feasibility of this actually being done I shall refrain from commenting on.
Re: A paperwork delight
If it becomes too hard/expensive to store all this data on users and to keep it somewhat confined, then maybe the problem isn't these rules, but that you are storing too much information?
If you can't keep track of the information you're colleccting, then what good is it and why then collect it?
Where can I get it on the action of getting $2.7m for failing to fulfill a contract?
I get that they have spent a lot of money trying to fulfill the contract, but if they haven't, why are they paid anything?
If I steal from a shop (or anywhere else), does that mean that it's now no longer illegal to steal from me?
Even if I get caught and get punished.
Just wondering, cause that's what a lot of the previous comments seem to imply.
(And now, bring the downvotes. There goes my up/down ratio)
Re: Dangerous plan...
Surely this is already monitored, otherwise ISPs couldn't actually enforce their caps.
We just need an easy way for consumers to access that data. A simple page offered by the ISP which shows data spent/left for the last/coming XX days.
Of course you could argue that you need 3rd party people to fairly monitor your usage, but then you'd have the ISP/consumer and the 3rd party disagreeing, which could just as well be simply the ISP and the consumer disagreeing.
My take on the thing
Clearly this planet has long held life.
Their first probe was nuclear powered and landed on our tiny planet long ago. Sadly it spun out of control shortly before impact, and - because of it's massive size (coming from a planet 5 times bigger than ours) - wiped out the dinosaurs (and much of everything else).
Now we've become that planet that they never visit, because they feel a bit guilty about the whole world-wide-destruction they caused. A bit like that friend you have, where you once broke a vase, and now feel a bit guilty everytime you go to visit.
Official Message to Aliens:
It's okay! We don't mind you killing the dinosaurs, they were taking up our lebensraum! Come visit - and bring space-babes
Oh - forgot to add that I'm fairly sure the use mentioned in the article counts as one where the depicted person can reasonably feel "put on display, exploited, or violated".
I'm sorry to see the horrible state of the UK legal system.
I am, it seems, lucky to be an inhabitant of Denmark then.
Your reply prompted me to actually look up the law, and I found the rules - not for the UK so you are quite possibly right there.
In DK it is not stated to be illegal to upload pictures without consent, however it is defined as 'electronic handling of person-information' ("elektronisk behandling af personoplysninger").
As it stands there have been cases to deal with grey area.
There is a distinction drawn between situation and portrait pictures.
Situation: a concert, children playing, a zoo - those kinds of things. Essentially pictures where the purpose it to convey a certain situation.
Portait: This is the opposite. The pictures meant to portray a person or persons.
Now obviously one could argue that pornographic photos are portraying a situation rather than a person.
However it is stated that: 'The decisive criteria is, that the depicted person cannot reasonably feel put on display, exploited, or violated, e.g., for marketing or other commercial purpose. The pictures must thus be harmless' ("Det afgørende kriterium er, at den afbildede ikke med rimelighed må kunne føle sig udstillet, udnyttet eller krænket, f.eks. i markedsførings eller andet kommercielt øjemed. Billederne skal således være harmløse.")
Note: Datatilsynet is a government authority in charge the "persondatalov" (personal data law)
Well I'm fairly sure that publishing photographs of (almost) any nature of a person without permission is in fact against the law.
Whilst there might be exception to the rule, something ala the press or authorities, I'm quite sure this is not one such case.
The partners who uploaded these photographs are also unlikely to have the right to publish these pictures, as most of these picture I imagine come with a "your eyes only" deal attached, and if not explicitly, then I'm fairly certain anyone would say that unless explicitly stated as "Also feel free to share these nudies with your friends or whoever", such pictures are implicitly private.
Furthermore not taking down pictures after being contacted about the issue, is also not permitted.
I therefore sincerely doubt that the "only possible illegal area would be if he linked to the wrong account".
As for the stupidity or not of sharing such photos with partners, I think you would be surprised. It might be some spicy up of the bedroom, or it might stem from having to travel a lot, but I think there are more people doing it than you'd think - but thankfully also more people not being dicks about it after a relationship ends, than you'd think :)
Re: Oh dear
Thank you for the wonderful reply - one upped. (I assume the #4 and #6 was directed at me? I really just made up those steps to disable it)
It's seems from this thread alone, that there is a mixed bag type situation.
On one hand they seem up front about it all, and try to respect people.
On the other, signing up = tracking, and possibly in other ways.
Well I shall hold off on it for now.
I like your data - it comforts me.
However I would like to have some sort of source with it.
I'll even say please!
I really hope this is from people who either allow or hasn't turned off (but have been asked about) some version of
"To ensure a great user experience, and to continually improve upon this experience, you can choose to send anonymous data to Microsoft." yata yata yata...
But I'd hardly be surprised if it's on by default, and turning it off is something along the lines of:
- Open Control Panel
- Click User Options
- Click Experience Management
- Slide Management Slider to Custom
- Open Microsoft Feedback Service Center
- Click User Experience Improvement Customizer
- Untick box marked "Really helpful feature that only bad people would turn off"
Of course the above is simply me venting hot air, as I've yet to try Win8 at all.
Take it a sign of my trust in corporations if you like.
Re: And regarding the "Revelation" rant...
While I agree with you on most points, I wouldn't put it past some people to deem the US as the Beast, and what the school is doing as an attempt to force the children into worshipping said beast. (of course that'd be a strange mix of Christianity and non-patriotism, which from what I can tell is quite rare.
If it's essentially a necklace thing, what's to stop me from... say... taking it off? Unless it's more of a collar design.
Re: Not to nit-pick but ..
I'm running 1920*1080 as well - have to zoom to 80% to see it.
Granted I had to zoom to 60 or 50 before to see it...
Re: Another solution
I see your points. And yes - thousands of new companies would probably happen.
Oh well, thinking caps on - the optimist in me still believes the consumers can be raised to action.
The pessimist just wants to submit already - he's quite lazy.
One way to try and work around this problem would be to make a brand for products.
Say a "UK Sticker" (UKS).
Business would carry on as usual, however corporations with revenue higher than a certain point - say 1,000,000 annually (to be assessed) - would then have the option of opening up their books and being checked by the HMRC. If they are found to not be shipping taxes - although it's legal - to a foreign affiliate (or in other ways dodge tax payment) they'd be allowed to place the UKS on their products or web-site or similar.
For business with a smaller revenue, who might get shafted cause consumers think they are dodging taxes, there would be a regular sticker that could be used to indicate that the company does not qualify for applying for the UKS.
Consumers would then be able to make an informed choice as to whether they wish to do business with corps paying taxes in the UK, or whether to simply not care about it.
Granted there are sure to be kinks to even out, but it's an idea.
And as for paying for it. Let us assume that consumers actually will care about taxes being dodged, and will want to look for the UKS, this would mean more corps paying taxes, meaning more money for the gov - and hopefully that'll create more income than the cost of implementing the UKS.
Trust them untill
Well I guess they should get a chance - but I really hope there's some clear information about them specifically not using the information for other purposes than parking and the handling of fees with regards to that.
Of course "parking" might include "tailoring your parking experience, regardless of where you park. This will make your parking experience more enjoyable and relevant to you specifically" [READ: Advertisements, advertisements everywhere]
Well of course!
Don't you see how well and voluntarily they are deleting this? It's amazing how trustworthy Google is with data.
While I have the utmost respect for the laws of thermodynamics, there is one thing that I would point to, that might make it at least slightly plausible that a sufficiently advanced civilization could find a way to circumvent that law.
I would point to the universe itself. Whenever someone debates this topic, someone usually mentions the oddity of something coming from nothing - be it the universe coming from nothing, or some deity [who created the universe] coming from nothing.
There might be a perfectly good explanation to the universe - that doesn't involve something from nothing - but it is also plausible that there is some process or other that allows something to arise from nothing. If such a process is possible, then it is surely exploitable with sufficiently advanced tech.
So yes, in order to respond on a heavily debated topic with no chance of a sure answer, I am referring to another heavily debated topic with no chance of a sure answer [both being restrained only by our current tech development]
Re: I see no ad's
Obviously you've whitelisted a few of your favourite sites!? :)
This seems like a more legit comparison - although it is obviously - and not hiddenly so - done by Nokia-fans.
The difference isn't huge, but it's quite clear, especially when he's running.
I didn't spot a van in the windows of the building the were running near, but I think a nice touch would've been to flim into a mirror.
I doubt that the Iphone 5 will be banned, so what happens in 20XX when the court decision comes in that the Iphone 5 did infringe on Samsung patents?
Will Apple have to pay whatever profit they made from the Iphone 5 to Samsung, or what?
Do/Will the Winphones from Nokia provide Bing Maps or Nokias own maps?
I just tried Nokias maps, and they find the Apple Store in question easily - and located slightly to the correct side of the street (as in the indicator is almost directly in the middle of the street)
Could I get the source for that?
I wish to fling at a few of my friends!
Re: What hard work?
I imagine he meant, that if Nokia were to make it widespread and get people to request it, then they would've probably had to spend some bit of money making that happen.
The technology might've been in use previously, but it's not something I've heard much about before, and most people probably wont hear much about it, simply because the Lumia happens to have it.
"Microsoft are just trying to devalue Nokia so they can buy it - this phone is gonna be crap because of it"
This does look to be pretty interesting news.
A release in Q4 will be ideal for christmas, but I fear it might get caught in some sort of Apple-storm.
I hope Nokia does well.
Re: Apple Schmapple
When I first got an Ipod - '06 I believe - I fiddled with Itunes for a bit. It was, at that time at least, very eager to convert all my music to a new format and put it on the Ipod.
It was also being generally annoying - again at the time - wanting to start @ boot and all sorts of stuff that I could not agree to.
2 after acquiring my Ipod, I found that Winamp had decent functionality for throwing Mp3s on my Ipod, and I've never looked back (technically, I've just looked back, but you know)
DISCLAIMER: My Ipod is old. This might not work with newer models, and also Itunes might not be horrifyingly annoying any more
Thank you kind sir! (have an upvote)
I should have of course mentioned my browser - but you figured that out all on your own :)
So this exploit existing, doesn't automatically mean that all Java is suddenly a void of horrid death, right?
I mean - the java at my banks webpage isn't all of sudden a Chinese torture device, right?
Furthermore, so long as plug-ins are only activated when I activate them, then all those ghastly sites I visit on how to bake the perfect sponge-cake wont be able to run evil java code, right?
If the answer to all of the above is: "Right!", then I should be fine...
So is it?