According to dictionary.com, a database is "a comprehensive collection of related data organized for convenient access, generally in a computer."
I think the best definition is near the bottom, under the Computing Dictionary:
1. One or more large structured sets of persistent data, usually associated with software to update and query the data. A simple database might be a single file containing many records, each of which contains the same set of fields where each field is a certain fixed width.
(First of all, I apologize... I hit the "report" button by accident when trying to reply. I hit it again and it said it was removed, so I'm hoping and praying you won't get in trouble with yourself.)
I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I knew I could download my songs from the Amazon cloud, but I had no idea I couldn't do the same thing with Google. That's kind of ridiculous... especially because I can't even download songs that I specifically uploaded from this computer. No wonder they offered me all those free songs right off the bat.
I've been spending a lot more time playing with Amazon's service anyway, so I guess I'll be sticking with them for some time. The only downside I've found is that I can't edit any song info (ID3) while it's on the cloud. I have to download it, edit it, and then re-upload it to the cloud. Google not only lets me edit the song info right there, but it even lets me change or add the album art.
Interesting. The "Dendrite" company from that ruling (now known as Cegedim Inc.) makes the claim on their website that it "respects privacy..."
This is so funny to me because when I saw this commercial last week, the first thing I thought of was "oh no, I don't think Apple's going to like that." It has nothing to do with worries about copycats, but just the visual of the iPad shattering like that gives an impression of it being fragile.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I agree with them, but given their history of trying so hard to portray a specific image and how aggressive they are at keeping everything so tightly locked down, this doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm pretty sure they only want people to think that their products are amazingly simple to use, they "just work," and they don't have any of the typical computer problems.
I'm sure they don't want people thinking the iPad smashes into pieces when it's dropped - regardless of whether or not we all know that's exactly what would happen. Even if the ad showed the screen cracking or breaking realistically (which would detract from the humor), I think Apple would still have problems with it.
It's completely understandable. I'm almost positive they referred to both of them as "the Google phone" - the G1 because it was the first Android-powered phone, and the N1 because it was the first phone released by Google themselves. You'd either have to have one of them or follow that stuff pretty closely to know.
I think you're right about the N1 being the first with it, but I don't think it was released with Froyo. I only mention that because I doubt that would have anything to do with the reason there's a lawsuit.
As someone who just got Froyo myself, I know how big of an update it was, but technically speaking, it was only a jump from 2.1 to 2.2. For any other OS, I doubt we would consider that such a significant update.
I'm glad you N1 owners are all chiming in with stories about how you like the phone because I've heard nothing but good things about it. I've never seen one in person, but I have a Droid. Even though it's not the same thing, it is pretty similar and I've read tons of posts from N1 owners who love bragging about their phone. I think the only reason I didn't upgrade to it is because I won't downgrade from Verizon to T-Mobile (or any other carrier).
I don't disagree with your view at all, but I have to point out that the Nexus One was definitely not the first phone with Android. I had my Droid for many months before it was released and I know that wasn't even the first one with it (just the first Android phone available on Verizon).
I believe the G1 on T-Mobile was the first phone with Android. I'm pretty sure that was referred to - or marketed as - the Google phone, so I can understand the confusion.
Admittedly, I've been away from techdirt for a little while, so I fear that I may be replying to someone who's a well-known anti-techdirt, waste-of-time troll, but I'll take that risk anyway.
You so ineloquently said: "then those fashion designers who want to keep working without copyright on their works can do so.
Those that want the copyright can do that,,, its called choice.
No one is forcing anyone to enforce copyright, just the right to do so if they wish."
Now, I don't know if you were being serious or not, but I have to comment on the absurdity of that statement as if you were. A copyright applies to everyone - not just those who are in favor of it. If I decide to create a new song and sample an older song (created by someone else) for the chorus, and then the music label behind that older song decides to sue me for copyright infringement, I cannot simply tell them "oh, I'm sorry you had to waste your time, but I don't actually agree with copyright laws." That just won't work. It doesn't matter if I disagree with them. I, as a new artist in this example, must succumb to copyright laws. That means I would have NO CHOICE.
Even if I was the other person in that example and it was the other artist who sampled my music for their song, my music label (despite my preference) would most likely go after that other artist for copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if I disagree with them. Again, I must succumb to copyright laws. That means I would have NO CHOICE.
It's not that you're (noticed how I spelled that?) stupid, it's just that haven't thought this through. Although, if that's a recurring problem for you, that could actually be the issue. If I confused you at all, you may want to ask your mom to help you with the big words.
I'm with Ryan here. I feel completely deceived by Google. I've been using the gadgets on iGoogle for years, but I always thought all of them - every single last gadget available - had been built by Firefly. I mean, they basically coined the phrase "gadget" and like I've said for years, people wouldn't even know what a gadget was nowadays if it wasn't for Firefly being so innovative!
Besides, Google has way too much money anyway. Why shouldn't Firefly get a piece of that for all their hard work (that paperwork can be tough)?
Yes and no. The pattern is very similar and there is a logo that's almost identical to the intertwined "LV," but it's actually an "LZ." That sure seems like a parody to me.
Before you tell someone to check their eyes, I think you should make it clear that it's not visible in the picture the other AC linked to, but it is clear when you pause the video in the right spot and you're watching it in higher quality.
It's funny you say that because I often pronounce the word like that, but I actually started using it in texts and emails with one of my friends years ago and I thought we came up with it ourselves. I haven't used it in a couple years and I honestly don't remember seeing it in writing anywhere else.
On a side note, AWDaholic, I'm interested in the site you referenced. I actually picked up a used A4 last year for well below the KBB value and while I haven't really done much looking for sites, I only knew about Audizine. I'll have to check out. I don't really live on the forums like I used to when I had my older cars.
It wasn't the exact same trailer, but yeah - that looks like the same movie. I definitely remember the guy who plays Link because I remember thinking to myself that he just doesn't seem like the right fit to play Link. Is this trailer for the movie from this story? Based on the title, it looks like it's just an April Fool's joke, but it seems way too detailed to be a prank.
Can someone please clarify?
Isn't it possible that Nintendo was fine with the idea until they actually saw the movie and then found something they didn't like about it? Such as the plot? Maybe the movie just sucked and Nintendo didn't want the Zelda name tarnished by it.
Btw, I remember seeing a trailer for a Zelda movie about a year or two ago. What I saw didn't look that great but I was intrigued and wanted to see it for nostalgic reasons. Could that trailer have been for this movie being discussed? Honestly, I just assumed it was an official movie being put out there by Nintendo.
I hate to take this conversation in a completely different direction, but I thought IMHO was short for in my honest opinion. I guess humble makes more sense... I always wondered why people would have to preface their statement with clarification that it was their honest opinion, as opposed to being some random bs.
I should point out that while I know the basics (LOL, ROFL, LMAO), I often have to look these things up (FUD, WYSIWYG) when people use them, so it kind of defeats the purpose of simplifying anything for me.