Posts by Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT) 137 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Sep 2011
Because this looks like a move right out of Apples marketing playbook:
"Quick! There's not many available!! Buy it now whilst you still can!!! In fact, queue round the block for it!!!! Camp out for 3 days even!!!!! But you need this phone now and potentially you wont be able to get it!!1!!!one!!"
What is the benefit to any of the competing companies that people use THEIR web browser?
I sort of get Google wanting Chrome to be a success; if I ran a company reliant on know exactly how people get around the internet, then I'd want my browser everywhere too, and I'd make sure it captured that data. But why does Microsoft want everyone to use IE? I don't see how they make money off it, I just don't see any actual benefit which would cause MS and others to get in such a tizzy over getting people to use their browser.
Am I the only person here thinking that the investigators have been intentionally rubbish here? They seem to have spent more time trying to ruin his character than investigating who killed him.
Maybe they already know?
Maybe the investigators have been categorically told that they wont find out who killed him, if you take my meaning?
Sod beating about the bush: maybe, for reasons as yet unknown, MI6 had him killed?
You actually hold out hope that the price will drop??
Definitely this. Anyone who thinks this will lead to a price drop is very, very naive indeed. If anything, this will encourage prices upwards AND keep them higher for longer. I mean, why would they want to drop prices when there is no other way of getting the product? Take away the second hand market, you take away the directly competing products with the lower prices, you take away any incentive the publisher has to bring their prices down.
In the long run, this will benefit no-one, not even the publishers, see my previous point about getting in to a gaming series on the cheap and paying full price for later episodes.
How has no-one mentioned this yet? Like the 1984 room of the same denomination, Prison 101 sees you locked away with your all time worst fear. When the prisoner gets desensitised to it, move on to their second worst, until they are a gibbering shell of human wreckage.
With this in mind, I should like to take the opportunity to publicly and candidly announce that I am terrified of naked, large-breasted women. Terrified.
Looking at the websites for these initiatives, I'd say MLF needs to take some of her own advice and get some decent IT skills in, rather than a bunch of unimaginative, lazy feckers who rip off the last website they looked at.
There is nothing engaging, original or (in my opinion anyway) graphically pleasing about any of it. And the cookie control feature, whilst required by EU law and supported by the ICO, has been taken wholesale from somewhere else. I know this because I found the original last week and discounted it as ugly and overly intrusive.
So this is what all these companies are donating money towards, is it? They should rename the campaign to "Lets make every website on the internet look the same!" Sure, the usability goes through the roof, but lets face it, it will be boring as hell.
I can see that actually. It says they only posted an extract of the conversation, so is it so unlikely that the conversation went something like:
Voice 1: "Why has that phone been left off the hook?"
Voice 2: "We have been subjected to a barrage of calls from a group called Team Poison, we have had about 700 calls over the last couple of nights."
...which is why the PFY was surprised to find he had his passport in his pocket, when he awoke on the 747 bound for America. What he was less amused by was the worryingly new looking stamps for Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria contained therein. And it would be a full 4 hours before he found out the soles of his shoes had been stuffed with suspicious-looking plasticine"
My Desire HD does it too, all of which are Android devices. it would be a shocking move to say the least if Google decided to start suing the people who make phones using its operating system for using the features of its operating system.
Anyway, from using this on the Desire HD, I have to say it is a very useful system which I now wouldn't be without
I already stated that Motorola have behaved less than perfectly, having said that, if they wish to withdraw licences from 3rd parties, (whilst not something I necessarily agree with) that's between them and the 3rd parties.
This raises the situation where Apple are required to licence things they previously didn't have to. Unfortunately, there is no specific calculation for FRAND, it being based on things such as degrees of importance and other such fuzzy issues, meaning that there is not a specific price noted.
Apple don't like it because they feel Motorola are trying to charge too much, and have appealed to the court for exemption.
Regardless of what else is in the document, as I said before, Apple are still bound to come to an agreement with Motorola over the use of their technology, and to say that it doesn't matter because that's the only claim upheld, or bemoan the fact it was upheld on a technicality is entirely wrong. It is in fact, as far as this discussion goes anyway, the ONLY part of the document which matters.
So yes, for my argument, I would say it entirely matches my claims.
So what exactly did I say in my initial post that was so incorrect? Apple are whining that FRAND agreements shouldn't apply, and while Motorola may have behaved less than perfectly, THE FRAND AGREEMENT AS OF RIGHT NOW STILL APPLIES TO APPLE.
Jeez, I've seen Plankton which catch on quicker than Apple fans.
Mr Anonymous Coward, did you actually read that link you posted? Did you even bother to read the order? Because that is about Motorola applying to have Apples calls for exemption from FRAND dismissed (Dkt #33 in the document) and that application being upheld (page 38) since Apple don't have a valid claim for waiver. The document even states categorically "Plaintiff’s (Apple) claim of waiver is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted"
Care to post something less wrong?
Apple are coming over as their own worst enemy at the moment. Suing everyone in sight, whilst simultaneously whining that FRAND licencing agreements (which countless others have happily agreed to) shouldn't apply to them is making the entire company look like the spoiled brat in the supermarket screaming at the top of their voice because Mummy wont let them have a trolley load of sweets.
The worst part is that I really no longer care if Apples claims are valid. You simply cant go round complaining that the law shouldn't apply to you, whilst suing everyone else for the slightest thing.
And before everyone downvotes, please note that I've not said their claims aren't valid, just that I don't care. If you want to downvote on that basis, feel free.
The problem for me as far as HTC are concerned is that none of their new phones are enough of an upgrade for me to want to replace my Desire HD. I love this phone, but since my contract is up soon, I am keeping an eye out for potential upgrades, and nothing HTC have released has really made me want it. Whilst the Sensation range is generally better, not one of them is better enough for me to go through the hassle.
I am hoping that the rumoured HTC Edge will change this, because if the specs floating around the internet are correct, it will be awesome.
I appreciate what you are saying, but in this instance, I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. This would be worthy of study, if it was general practice to make people work in large cardboard boxes, and, at least in the offices I've seen anyway, it is not.
If the aim is to prove the creativity-limiting factor of cube-farms, then test these people in proper office cubes, not cardboard boxes.
It's like trying to determine if it is depressing to live in the desert, and test people in a room with sand thrown on the floor and a tanning bulb.
Whilst I agree with the principal of the original point, I feel that the proper process here should be that the Trust takes the fine, and subsequently sues the subcontractor for breach of contract, plus whatever else is applicable and recover the cost of the fine.
As I see it, the trust is responsible for the data, as it was the organisation the data was given to, and the subcontractor is responsible for keeping to their agreed contract. Therefore the Trust has to take the hit for the data breach and should recover losses from the subcontractor for the contract breach.
However, IANAL.
"Is there any question that the iPhone is his invention set"
Er, yes. Put simply, Jobs was the figure-head, all the hard work was, and is done by Wozniak and the engineers. To be honest, I'd be surprised if his input went beyond "No, I want it to be four icons across!" and "can we make this in white as well as black?"
"that it is demonstrably better"
If it's so much better, then why 1) dont they let the much better product perform in the market, instead of using ridiculous patents, and 2) why, even at the premium end of the market, does Android sell so well?
" that the public has paid for it as such"
The public has paid for it? I didn't realise Apple was a government owned company
"and that he had every right to protect his inventions"
Genuinely new inventions, yes, absolutely. However, email clients have been doing this highlight types of data for years, as have phones, picking numbers out of text messages.
"Do you commentors doubt that there are not tens or hundreds of other patents that could yet be asserted?"
No, don't doubt this at all, and I expect they are all as petty and stupid as this.
"Do you not value the protection of invention, when you see it?"
See above.
The gales the other week told me all I needed to know about the folly of wind farms. We all knew that when the wind doesn't blow, they don't work. Well, it turns out that when the wind blows too much, they fall over, catch fire or throw their component parts in all directions.
Brilliant.
Given such a narrow operating window which we don't control, how exactly do wind farms justify their cost?
UK.gov, please build some new nuclear plants!
C-IQ: Ok guys here how it works
<explanation>
FTC: We don't get it that still sounds like snooping
C-IQ: Ah, well you've not seen the supplementary handy-sized notes yet, here they're written on these small pieces of paper which look remarkably like $100 bills. Keep taking these notes until you feel you understand our position.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
