Re: Arab Spring?
Not quite. In this case it would be
"Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss."
7611 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Yours is even worse.
All analogies fail at some point, but I'll try to improve on yours.
It's like having dropped off your clothes at the dry cleaners and the dry cleaner hung your bill on the backside of a window so only internal staff could see it. Only they missed a mirror on the back wall that no customer could read. And someone who was not a customer walked into the shop with a camera, took a picture of the mirror through the glass, developed the film, printed the picture, pilfered the details of your bill, and then posted it on the internet.
Even if the Beeb et al do that, it doesn't solve UKNova's fundamental problem: they don't have the money to defend themselves against the suit. Even a minimal IP case in the States will run you $20,000 if settled out of court and quickly. I don't imagine it would be any cheaper in the UK. What UKNova need is both explicit permission AND a defense fund. Although it might be worth them looking into organizing both.
I can't speak to UKNova from direct knowledge, but my own experience with groups walking the fine grey line of reproducing/reshowing things which are not commercially available in the region where they are being traded/shown is that IF the group makes a point of ONLY distributing copies of things which aren't commercially available they've made a philosophical decision that they are trying to promote the commercial sale of materials they want to see and it is in their best interests to make sure no such materials exist in whatever it is they are trying to promote. And since they've made that philosophical decision, they'll be more vigorous in enforcing it at their venue then any paid troll ever will. To the point of, when a release decision is announced, even if the group knows the announcement won't come to fruition for a year and has a 50/50 shot at never materializing, they will none the less immediately remove all related materials and prevent them from reappearing.
If they haven't made that philosophical decision, they won't make a point of publicizing it, and they won't give a rat's ass about what shows up on their site, including materials from companies that are known to strictly enforce their copyrights.
My experiences are on the American anime scene back when tape trading was the only practical means of distribution.
Apple had a religious cult following that denied they were a religious cult following way back in 1992 (and probably before). That was about the time I moved to take my second real job and a coworker was constantly going on about how they didn't understand why people bought PCs because Apple gave more bang for the buck than PCs did.
I think it is as erroneous to say Apple just copies as it is to say they took a risk with iPhone and iPad. They do improve, and patents do and should be issued for actual technical advancements. But they also have a fanatical base. So, as long as you don't over-extend your manufacturing, you are guaranteed to make a profit. Likewise if a product turns out to be more popular than they expect, they can quickly ramp up manufacturing production.
What bothers me about this whole affair is how broad and ridiculous the claims are. I never really compared an iPhone and the Samsung until I saw an article yesterday with the two side by side. Honestly, I like the Samsung appearance better. It is more open and pleasing to my eye than the crowded iPhone. But regardless of which one you prefer, the two are obviously different while using an obvious layout.
As I recall from my language classes way back when, Anglo-Saxon is still the base from which English derives and what gives us the rare characteristic of not having genders for our nouns. Apparently Anglo and Saxon were close enough in pronunciation that if you dropped the gender article from the word you could understand each other. French is the largest romantic language contributor at about 40%, but there's plenty of German, Spanish, and Italian thrown in.
If AT&T owned the app as well as the network, we'd all agree that it would be STUPID for them to limit the app if you didn't buy the higher bandwidth package, but it would be entirely LEGAL for them to do so. It wouldn't be legal for them to block a competitor's app on the same basis. But for now AT&T's stance is legally defensible. Still STUPID, but legally defensible.
Except it doesn't stand on its own. There are lots of other data points out there just like this one. Each of which has been denounced by the Warmists as at least a lone data point which proves nothing if not being denounced as outright heresy. And which when taken together indicate a political bias that overrides the scientific data.
No, in this instance you are a putz. I hate smart phones. Probably because the process for configuring the BB and iPhones at work is such a shambles. But the Droid I bought about a year back was painless to configure for email. And after I configured Facebook, picked up all those contacts too. Maybe 5 minutes a piece on them including synch time.
Most of my pirating was when I was too young to have a job on my C64. Not sure how many I might have copied back then, but now that I have a job I pay for my PC games. Not that I buy many. I'm more of a strategy turn by turn player than an MMO or FPS player. I don't much care for twitch games, even when they have great graphics. One of the few twitch games I liked had a crappy engine (fantasy RPG Win98 game) that I put up with because I like the plot and character building, but even at that it was NOT an MMO. I guess the crap engine killed it because nobody ever did a remake or sequel. At the moment, I can't remember the name of it.
I haven't tried Nanite yet, but after reading this I'll at least give it a good look. Secunia makes a good product to keep the software updated after it is installed (it's what I use on my personal machines and wherever I'm the family tech support guy). Where it sounds like Nanite has a slight edge is in finding apps you want to install but haven't yet.
Article doesn't say what kind of targeted messages. It could be along either line. Moreover, companies don't generally defend employees, that's not what makes them money. They defend their reputation, which at least contributes to making money. In the process of defending their reputation, they may wind up defending their employees. And the PR flack knows it goes over better to say they are defending employees than the company.
Having said that, a company should have the same right to defend themselves against defamation as a person does. And that involves being able to face your accuser. At the same time, I don't want companies to be able to squash criticism simply by claiming defamation. It's a difficult line to walk, but one our courts are allegedly setup and equipped to handle (and if they aren't, that's the bit that needs fixing, not granting free license to either side).
In that case, you definitely want it going to court, with both AP and company being identified, because you've really got only two options:
1) AP has knowingly defamed the CEO.
2) AP has exposed a serious crime against the company and its employees.
Either way, somebody has to go to jail, it's just a matter of whom.
I'm sure you'd be the first one bitching if it was your company, you knew you were delivering good service, and yet anonymous posters were defaming you.
Neither the company nor the defendants should be held to have the proven case until it has actually been proven.
Because you either failed to read the article, or failed miserably at reading comprehension. This bit at the end is very, very telling:
Oracle did not mention any relationships with industry trade groups in its own statement, and Judge Alsup has not asked it to resubmit.
First, I don't trust Google and I don't trust Oracle. Both they both need to be held to the same standard. If Google said they haven't paid anyone directly, which is the only stuff Oracle submitted, Google complied with the Judge's directive to the same extent Oracle did.
Second, requiring either side to submit lists of all trade organizations to which either side has provided financial support, is going on a fishing trip without probable cause. The implication is that the trade group, regardless of size or independent reason for submitting comment, is somehow corrupt and attempting to corrupt the court process.
Third, because the judge is holding Oracle and Google to different standards, this needlessly opens the case to appeal. There are enough loopholes already in place without this kind of malarkey.
I've had a similar conversation with someone claiming to be from one of the big banks (one of the American/International banks that is still on the 'too big to fail' list). I'm reasonably sure he was legitimate*, but I still wouldn't give him the info. I don't actually blame him; he was just the phone monkey. The people I do blame are the people who make the decisions about the scripts the phone monkey's read. Yes, I recognize the problem of a bank needing to identify itself to a user, it is still a problem which needs to be solved. I think the first step is recognizing that whoever initiates the call is the one responsible for confirming their ID to the recipient of the call.
*Because I wouldn't confirm my ID, he wouldn't even tell me vaguely what it was about. And when I first called the main number, they couldn't help me because I had no idea what I was calling about so they had issues getting me to the right department. But eventually I managed to figure out what it was and get it straightened out. I think it was verifying an international internet purchase.
OS/2 died because the twitterati of the time landed on it like a ton of bricks because IBM was the unconvicted monopolist of the age and MS was the underdog fighting to take them down.
I still remember OS/2 reviews balking at the 2x floppy disk count. Six months later MS released 95 and it was 2x +4 floppy disks and nary a word was spoken. CD version came about 6 months later.
As I recall reading about those very early days (I only got into computing around the time DOS 3.0 came out) This one goes down to a "failure" of the vision thing. IBM didn't see a big space for small computers. So they gave their Boca Raton office a meager budget and said "build us a micro so we have something in that market space." Because they didn't see a big market, they didn't see a need to be all IBMy and have locked in, expensive proprietary stuff. With no real R&D budget, they did what good engineers everywhere do: looked for the cheapest off the shelf options they thought could be cobbled together to make a working system at a reasonable (YMMV as to what constitutes reasonable) price. The IBM PC was the result. Because it had IBM's name on it, it could be put in offices everywhere.
I think this is one of those great irony stories. If IBM had put the usual proper IBM R&D and proprietary stuff on it, it wouldn't have been cheap enough to be as successful as it became. If it hadn't had the IBM name on it, it wouldn't have been as successful as it became. So I'm not quite sure it is fair to call it either a 'cock-up' or a 'failure' but those seem to be the words we're stuck with in trying to describe it.
Note to El Reg: We need an old fart icon for postings like this. None of the ones here quite fits.
That would be true if it were a bit for bit copy. Not so much if you've gone in and mucked around a bit so you can claim it's yours.
Theoretically could still be innocent, it's just you haven't really proved that he is.
Did I manage to write that last bit and never loose the straight face?
Yeah I remember those days. I also remember Peter Norton had a tool that would recover the directory structure plus undelete the files for a while before M$ wrote the undelete command into DOS. When Win95 first came out, I figured M$ had finally figured out a way to permanently kill the Norton software (Windows isn't done 'till Lotus won't run). And I was right.
No, you could get it legitimately, and you just admitted as much:
"TV shows I wanted to watch were going for a couple hundered per series by splitting it up as 2 eps per dvd, even though it could easily hold several more."
Yeah, in my time I've watched some copied movies*. Of course, the ones I've watched I couldn't actually legitimately purchase: they weren't available in my area. Subsequently they have, and I've coughed up the dough for some of them. And that's the problem. You could probably get reasonable laws passed to cover stuff you can't actually legitimately obtain, but freetards like you insist they can't legitimately obtain stuff that is readily available, and pirate it instead. I could go out and pirate all the old Dr. Who episodes I'd love to have on DVD. And I'd pay a fair price for them too. But I don't pirate them because they are licensed in my area, just not at what I consider a fair price.
*Anime back when you had to be a tape trader to get it in the US. The one which most stands out in my mind was a very, very crappy copy of Castle in the Sky. When it was licensed to Disney I purchased a copy within a month or so of its release, just to make sure the artists got at least some money from me. No, I wasn't a tape trader, that was my friends, but I was still technically an accomplice after the fact.
I would too, but we're not likely to know because your second assumption is wrong.
Airlines at the very least tend to have razor thin margins. To the point that there's a standing joke that the best easiest way to become a millionaire is to invest a billion in an airline. Some airports do have competition. And I can imagine a few people who'd be willing to take an alternate for of transportation to a different airport to avoid the hacked one. I'm fortunate enough to have 3 readily accessible airports from my home. So you can bet if I knew it was any of them, that specific airport would be off my list for a long time.
Best not to argue with people who are familiar with that dog and why it doesn't hunt. You come off as a shill, especially when post anonymously.
The key phrase from the thread is "collaborate with outside offices using other formats." That means you have to be able to write in the other file formats while maintaining the document formats. And while they'll all let you read newer formats, they don't let you reliably save the format. Especially 12 revisions into the project, which is the worst time for the document to eat itself and when it usually does. And God help you if one of your collaborators is using a Mac version of Word. Because the Mac fanboi can't manage to send an MS file via email, he just keeps sending you the split binary file from the Mac.
Same thought struck me. And it also strikes me that Apple could have made a go of it, if only they had left off the MS agreement and treated them the same as Samsung.
Yes, the agreement makes sense in the direct confrontation, but here's the catch: the agreement opens them up to anti-trust charges. At some point someone/thing makes the argument that the agreement establishes a monopoly position for the two giants, one that wouldn't exist without the collusion of the agreement. Since the key point in US law is not the monopoly itself but the illegal acquisition or extension of one, it is a perfect case. Particularly if it is a US governmental agency or consumer protection group, they don't necessarily have to win in court for it to damage both Apple and Microsoft. Just drag it out long enough, demand enough documents, and get access to some that the groups would like to protect, e.g. the specifics of the agreements referred to in this trial but which were shielded by the judge with the consent of all involved.
After slogging through the replies to your post, I've come to the conclusion that the proper Solution to the Problem is to use all the Lawyers for Reactor shielding.
Joke alert just so even the lawyers know this isn't intended to be defamatory.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019