Posts by Oninoshiko 1937 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2008
Why is it ridiculous that you might be a shareholder? MS's share price is between 34-35 USD at the moment. A small number of shares are probably within your reach, if you where interested in purchasing them.
Frankly, I have skills covering Linux, UNIX, and Windows, so I really don't care much who wins. The only thing I'll really miss if MS where to fail would be AD, but it wouldn't be that great of a loss.
Crypto boffin Bruce Schneier recently endorsed a comment made by the Electronic Privacy Information Centre's founder Marc Rotenberg, who noted that Google Glass would be "a lot less scary" if the device was sold by a consumer goods company like Brookstone, rather than a creepy advertising mammoth.
If this is an accurate statement, both are idiots. I device is scary because of it's potential, and it has the same potential no matter who sells it. I would go so far as to say brookstone would BECOME as scary as good, just for virtue of selling this piece of kit.
Actually the origin of mothers day is in the US civil war. After the war had ended, there were many families which where torn apart from being on different sides. Ann Jarvis worked to establish a holiday to promote the reunification of these torn families (c 1868). Her attempts did not catch on, until her daughter Anna took up the cause to honor her mother after her death in 1907. Even then it would not receive national acceptance until 1914.
The holiday wouldn't be commercialized extensively for another nine years, and Anna would go to her death-bed regretting the commercial mockery the holiday she had promoted became.
Those academics should know: they're spending more than £11m in government cash, along with private sponsorship, to find out what technologies will dominate the future iterations of wireless connectivity.
Good to know the government contenues to fund the Department of Divinology, Psychic, and Paranormal Research!
So, how do they make their predictions? I'm going with either Tarot or a Ouija Board. Gotta love the tried and "true" approches.
This guy is doing this as a matter of principle. He wanted to get it on the internet and copied to the point it can't be taken down to force the issue and start the discussion by proving the ineffectiveness of these types of export laws.
It's on torrents and we are talking about it. Ergo, he's already accomplished his primary goal.
If you are working with a defense lawyer, I woud assume you know exactly what a default judgement is:
One party shows up, the other doesn't. The one that showed up automatically wins.
When the other party DID show up, they dropped the suit. That sounds EXACTLY like: "I believe that once a defendant started to put up a defence, they backed off."
yes, there where declared guilty, but decided to drop when there was even a whiff of a defense. In that case Prenda would have been in a BETTER position, because they already had a default judgement. I've never heard of a judge allowing a case to be re-opened after a default judgement exempting cases where notice was improperly (not)given or possibly some kind of act of god.
USC 17 Ch. 1 Sec 107 (my comments are in italics):
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism no, comment no, news reporting no, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) no, scholarship no, or research no, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Google is a for-profit entity using this to drive advertisement sales. No commentary is being made on the work itself, nor is the work being used to make a point of some kind. Fail on that point
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work; I assume most of these are non-fiction works, which I would expect to work in Google's favor on this point
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and Are we talking about a full duplication of the work, or just a section? While google only SHOWs a small section, they did have to make a full unauthorized copy for searching purposes. Fail on this point
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. This is subjective, but If being able to read a section of a technical work online means I dont have to get the book itself, the argument could be made that it damages the market for the work. Others would say it grows the market by increasing exposure. Neither statement can be proven before the damage is done, but if it really does grow the market then Google should just be able to explain this to the authors and they'll jump on board (doing so would avoid wasting the courts time)!
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
----
It is interesting that Google wants hundrads of little suits, rather then keeping it all together in one class action suit. One would almost think that Google thinks that by making the authors each come after them individually they can increase the costs to the individual author to the point that it's cost-prohibitive to come after them.
That doesn't sound evil at all.
Whatever the outcome of the fair use defense, I think it is obvious that is is appropriate for this to be a class action suit.
How exactly did that turn out again?
Oh right the library was a central depository for all the world's information, meaning noone felt the need to independently keep track of it, and when it burned it set humanity back a century.
Remind me to thank the Egyptians for that one.
If our favorite caped ballon-riding blogger wants to give away his original works, that's great for him, but that is and should be HIS CHOICE. He has the copyright (which is to say, the right to make copies). Neither you nor google should be able to make copies without his permission. That he grants it is irrelevant to the fact that granting is is his sole right.
Last time I checked, Google's crawler honored this little bugger. Don't want your book indexed? Fine, restrict it with robots.txt.
Where do I put that in the printed publication sold at a bookseller?
Please tell me this was a joke, this is about books, not web sites (the clue on this was the fact we where using the word "book" not the phrase "web page").
"As to name association, I am a master at sullying my own name and, all things considered, being associated with the worst software on the planet ranks way down the pole... It's barely a blip in the ocean of associations – madman, paranoid, child molester, murderer, drug addict, unstable, liar, to name but a few."
Wow... Just wow.
Anyone else read this in the voice of Robert Downy Jr. (as Stark)?
Am I the only one who is always a little more hesitant to buy software now that it's delivered online?
I mean, back in the day I got a nice shiny box, with a stack of 5.25 floppies, and a manual in it. The box was about the size of a ream of paper. While I may understand that the important bit was the bits on those disks, when I gave them my money, I got something I would walk out with. I could hold, I could touch (just not the magnetic part in the window of the disk!). Buying software delivered online just doesn't feel like I'm really getting my money's worth the same way.
I'm starting to warm up to it, I just signed up to Chris Robert's Star Citizen for digital delivery, but still, I'm much more hesitant.
You are missing the point, It's profitable. In the US, it's profitable. To EA (I'm starting to get to the point where I'm wondering if there need to be three categories, "EA", "other-AAA", & "indie") every 2nd hand sale is lost profit (as insane as that is, that is what they believe). That means there is a push to squash 2nd hand sales from largest incumbent players. We have seen it already, Diablo 3, Ubisoft's fling with it, (and of course the most recent poster-boy for why it's a bad idea) Simcity (which has been so hacked around it, there can be no question that this was only about DRM. Anyone saying otherwise at this point is either lying or an idiot.).
I have the right of first sale. I never use it, but I have it morally reprehensible that the major publishers are trying to strip me (and yes, those kids too. Just because they have not reached a certain age and/or choose to exercise them more often does not mean they should not have basic property rights) of my rights.
I think you should propose this thesis to Gamestop. 2nd (and sometimes even 3rd) hand sales are where they make the VAST majority of their profit (yes, in the US). I have heard-tell the Best Buy has even started the practice after seeing how profitable it is for Gamestop (they have to do something to stop the hemorrhaging).
I have bought games second hand, I dont think I have ever sold one back though.
You can't predict future performance from the past.
I agree with this completely, but I'm not sure that's what's happening in this projection. In fact, I'm completely sure that's not whats happening in this projection because if it where, Android would not stagnate at 45%, combined with apple recent LOSS of marketshare, this is in no way, shape, or form a projection of past performance.
What I think happened was they took their "brand loyalty" stats and used the assumption that would equal sales, which is almost as bad. Twice over, I question the methodology of the survey because on apple the brand is the platform. On Android, Samsung or HTC is the brand, but Android is the platform. I wonder if people thought "yeah, I might get a different phone, I have an HTC, but a Samsung might be nice"
IMHO their biggest crime is establishing unethical behaviour as a default attitude for non-banking corporations, and considering fines for breaking the law as the cost of doing business instead of a reason to correct behaviour.
I think you'll find this was already the case before MS came along. Look to any of the captains of industry from when the sherman anti-trust act was passed in the US (around 1890). Then add IBMs behavior via the subsidiary Deutsche Hollerith-Maschinen Gesellschaft mbH. Makes Microsoft look like a damned saint. (And yes, that probably counts as the Goodwin)
NOONE describes all networks as "ethernet." Ethernet networks are ethernet. Token Ring networks are token ring. It just happens that the vast majority of LANs actually ARE ethernet.
If you happen to come across a token ring network (and if you do, can I barrow your flux capacitor, mine's shot), I'm fairly sure the users of it will not call it ethernet.
the families and the victims.
If there was a complaint against someone for beating someone for protesting a funeral, and I was on the jury, I think I would vote to nullify.
One more thing, it's anonymous... by definition they can't have an official communication channel, as that would mean someone is actually in charge. So all channels of communication are as official as all others.
Devoid of use? The cesspool is the classic source of saltpeter, vital in the creation of black powder. Furthermore, the quality of excrement for fertilization is well documented.
I demand you cease the slanderous comparisons of windows 8 to comparatively useful human excrement forthwith!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
