No, I wouldn't find that surprising at all. After all, women in computing certainly have a large selection of men to choose from (if that's their gender of preference). Of course, some will say it's quantity over quality...
Or as the saying goes... the odds are good but the goods are odd:)
You may be right... I only wonder then how ISPs would deal with a situation where it may be to their advantage to have machines infected with malware or trojans that covertly eat up bandwidth. ISPs would also benefit from spam because it means more money for them. The consumer would shoulder the cost rather than the ISP.
To eliminate bias, the choice screen is presented as a neutral window, not a full Internet Explorer window as Microsoft initially proposed, and the browsers are presented in random, rather than alphabetical, order. The five most popular browsers -- initially Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Opera -- will be displayed first, while users will be able to scroll the list to pick from seven others, initially AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The list will be reviewed every six months.
Going back ten years, likely not... but say, the last 5 years your systems probably would. Also, 24 hours a day for 365 days a year is probably more than they would normally run. One would imagine that lab computers would be off during school breaks, during the summer, etc.
So the if you want to use this connector in your devices then you give Apple the right to infringe any patent that you might have? So by contributing this Apple is basically buying the right to any implementor's patents, correct?
Another way to put it... say you can make the server produce 1% extra performance
A *very* conservative estimate of 100 000 servers (I'd be shocked if they didn't have many times that) means that you now have the capacity of an extra 1 000 servers, which means 1 000 less servers that have to be purchased, deployed and maintained.
Yes... but there is a connection between the two mail servers that most likely is not secure.
I would argue that paper mail is more secure because if somebody wants to grab data it involves walking from house to house to get it. Most likely more than once because you wouldn't necessarily know when that bill would arrive.
In addition, with an electronic mailing, you have no idea that it may have been sniffed out along the way, potentially with all of the people you contacted over the past month and when.
Now, I would fully support companies getting their act together and supporting encrypted email and educating users as to how they might go about doing that.
Or, as you suggest, making archives available, so that I don't necessarily need to get the PDF emailed to me every month. Instead, I know that it is available whenever I want it, and I can either click twelve links at the end of the year and download them, or instead grab an archive containing all my bills.
I hate that. But only because they get it wrong. O2 do that with the iphone accounts and you cannot get them to change it. I used my iphone for business and have to save the bills so I left them. I wouldn't have a problem if they simply gave you the option to receive the bills as pdf's via email, so the amount of work I have to save them is to just push a button. That would then be preferable to paper bills, however, forcing you to login and navigate their website and download them and if you forget one month do more work is just too much trouble to stay with the provider, so I left them for a provider which did provide paper bills.
Why can't they just get it right? It's not rocket science.
Because launching that sort of data all over the Internet in an unsecure channel isn't necessarily a good thing?
Agreed though that they do need a good way to do it.
I'll be glad when this particular patent expires. I think it's valid and non-trivial unlike 99.9% of software patents.
Interesting... most here dismiss the patent out of hand... do you have time to elaborate on what makes it valid? From the patent, it does seem to be not just regular XML, but exactly what it is, I'm not sure.
Yes, things broke under Vista, and Vista suffered backlash as a result. That was my point.
Customers often could not care in the least whose responsibility it is. All they know is that they upgraded to Vista and things broke. Vista has a reputation for being unstable at first. This was allegedly because of drivers. Is this Vista's fault? Possibly not. Does that matter to joe user? Not in the least.
I repeat again, this isn't about whose responsibility it *should* be, this is about what customers perceive.
But you are totally missing the point... If somebody has a Palm device that currently works and then it breaks, and the only thing that changed is Apple's software, it doesn't matter whose responsibility it *should* be, what matters is what the customer perceives.
The customer often doesn't care what is right and what is wrong. They care that it works. Ironically, that is Apple's motto 'it just works', and now for some reason, it doesn't.
You're clearly an Apple customer, but does that obligate Apple to support every piece of hardware that a customer might get?
Of course not, but that isn't the argument being made. The point is, it seems, that some Palm owners are running OS/X and it works. Now, if they upgrade, it will no longer work.
Of course Apple is free to do this. Their reputation will suffer if: a. This affects a significant number of people (i.e. enough Mac owners also own Palms and find their devices no longer function) or b. People begin to question their motives and lose trust in Apple.
For b, it comes down to whether people give Apple the benefit of the doubt. Microsoft would have a hard time getting away with something like this because they've fostered enough ill will in the past that it automatically looks suspicious. The only reason, IMO, that this has garnered attention at all is that they have recently broken iTunes syncing with another Palm device. This begins to look suspicious and might lead one to wonder what else Apple will break or drop support for if it is convenient for them.
Though, when you think about that, it seems rather silly to do that before you start. Chances are it isn't going to be critical to install those updates before the browser starts. So why not go and check for updates when the browser/computer is sitting idle rather than going to look for them while I wait? Check for updates when I'm not going to notice, and ask if I want to install them when I shut down the browser.
This is actually one thing that Microsoft gets at least partly right. Downloading updates in the background and asking if I want to update before I shut down the computer is smart. I'm not using the computer, so I don't have to wait for it, and it shuts off when it is finished.
If someone can't remember 6-8 characters with a number thrown in there for good measure, perhaps they should not be on the internet.
Well... one 6-8 character password is fine... but as I look through my password safe, I see I have stored roughly 80-100 passwords. Some are used rather frequently, and so get remembered. Others are used quite seldom, and so the task of remembering not only the passwords, but which password belongs to which site can become quite onerous.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I wouldn't find that surprising at all. After all, women in computing certainly have a large selection of men to choose from (if that's their gender of preference). Of course, some will say it's quantity over quality...
Or as the saying goes... the odds are good but the goods are odd :)
You may be right... I only wonder then how ISPs would deal with a situation where it may be to their advantage to have machines infected with malware or trojans that covertly eat up bandwidth. ISPs would also benefit from spam because it means more money for them. The consumer would shoulder the cost rather than the ISP.
To eliminate bias, the choice screen is presented as a neutral window, not a full Internet Explorer window as Microsoft initially proposed, and the browsers are presented in random, rather than alphabetical, order. The five most popular browsers -- initially Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Opera -- will be displayed first, while users will be able to scroll the list to pick from seven others, initially AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The list will be reviewed every six months.
FTA (I know... nobody reads it)
So you waited until they won the case and didn't take issue with the fact that Apple made the motion in the first place?
Going back ten years, likely not... but say, the last 5 years your systems probably would. Also, 24 hours a day for 365 days a year is probably more than they would normally run. One would imagine that lab computers would be off during school breaks, during the summer, etc.
Many processors step down if idle, so yes, it costs less to keep a computer running idle.
No, but wouldn't regular anti-bacterial soap work on the molecular level?
If you could get all health-care workers to regularly put their hands in an autoclave, then maybe that would be a better solution.
And why is the spec almost 700 pages, and why does everybody I know who has tried to work with it cursed it up and down?
I wondered about that after I RTFA. I assumed the sites were checking the referrer and then setting a cookie appropriately. Other thoughts?
So the if you want to use this connector in your devices then you give Apple the right to infringe any patent that you might have? So by contributing this Apple is basically buying the right to any implementor's patents, correct?
I have an 8Mbps connection and if I do a speed test I can fairly routinely get 7.5Mbps or so... I have done downloads at 980KBPS.
Though agreed, advertised performance is often under ideal conditions.
Another way to put it... say you can make the server produce 1% extra performance
A *very* conservative estimate of 100 000 servers (I'd be shocked if they didn't have many times that) means that you now have the capacity of an extra 1 000 servers, which means 1 000 less servers that have to be purchased, deployed and maintained.
I think he was referring to the URL rather than the actual site.
http://download.openoffice.org/other.html#en-US
Has a list of binaries to download for multiple platforms, including Debian/Ubuntu Linux.
Ian
Yes... but there is a connection between the two mail servers that most likely is not secure.
I would argue that paper mail is more secure because if somebody wants to grab data it involves walking from house to house to get it. Most likely more than once because you wouldn't necessarily know when that bill would arrive.
In addition, with an electronic mailing, you have no idea that it may have been sniffed out along the way, potentially with all of the people you contacted over the past month and when.
Now, I would fully support companies getting their act together and supporting encrypted email and educating users as to how they might go about doing that.
Or, as you suggest, making archives available, so that I don't necessarily need to get the PDF emailed to me every month. Instead, I know that it is available whenever I want it, and I can either click twelve links at the end of the year and download them, or instead grab an archive containing all my bills.
I hate that. But only because they get it wrong. O2 do that with the iphone accounts and you cannot get them to change it. I used my iphone for business and have to save the bills so I left them. I wouldn't have a problem if they simply gave you the option to receive the bills as pdf's via email, so the amount of work I have to save them is to just push a button. That would then be preferable to paper bills, however, forcing you to login and navigate their website and download them and if you forget one month do more work is just too much trouble to stay with the provider, so I left them for a provider which did provide paper bills.
Why can't they just get it right? It's not rocket science.
Because launching that sort of data all over the Internet in an unsecure channel isn't necessarily a good thing?
Agreed though that they do need a good way to do it.
Ian
I'll be glad when this particular patent expires. I think it's valid and non-trivial unlike 99.9% of software patents.
Interesting... most here dismiss the patent out of hand... do you have time to elaborate on what makes it valid? From the patent, it does seem to be not just regular XML, but exactly what it is, I'm not sure.
Yes, things broke under Vista, and Vista suffered backlash as a result. That was my point.
Customers often could not care in the least whose responsibility it is. All they know is that they upgraded to Vista and things broke. Vista has a reputation for being unstable at first. This was allegedly because of drivers. Is this Vista's fault? Possibly not. Does that matter to joe user? Not in the least.
I repeat again, this isn't about whose responsibility it *should* be, this is about what customers perceive.
But you are totally missing the point... If somebody has a Palm device that currently works and then it breaks, and the only thing that changed is Apple's software, it doesn't matter whose responsibility it *should* be, what matters is what the customer perceives.
The customer often doesn't care what is right and what is wrong. They care that it works. Ironically, that is Apple's motto 'it just works', and now for some reason, it doesn't.
.... whose customer am I?....
You're clearly an Apple customer, but does that obligate Apple to support every piece of hardware that a customer might get?
Of course not, but that isn't the argument being made. The point is, it seems, that some Palm owners are running OS/X and it works. Now, if they upgrade, it will no longer work.
Of course Apple is free to do this. Their reputation will suffer if:
a. This affects a significant number of people (i.e. enough Mac owners also own Palms and find their devices no longer function) or
b. People begin to question their motives and lose trust in Apple.
For b, it comes down to whether people give Apple the benefit of the doubt. Microsoft would have a hard time getting away with something like this because they've fostered enough ill will in the past that it automatically looks suspicious. The only reason, IMO, that this has garnered attention at all is that they have recently broken iTunes syncing with another Palm device. This begins to look suspicious and might lead one to wonder what else Apple will break or drop support for if it is convenient for them.
Though, when you think about that, it seems rather silly to do that before you start. Chances are it isn't going to be critical to install those updates before the browser starts. So why not go and check for updates when the browser/computer is sitting idle rather than going to look for them while I wait? Check for updates when I'm not going to notice, and ask if I want to install them when I shut down the browser.
This is actually one thing that Microsoft gets at least partly right. Downloading updates in the background and asking if I want to update before I shut down the computer is smart. I'm not using the computer, so I don't have to wait for it, and it shuts off when it is finished.
I don't see how there can be a conflict of interest here - Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
I believe that is why he said 'This effectively replaced copyright as the entity restricting my right to use the works.'
If someone can't remember 6-8 characters with a number thrown in there for good measure, perhaps they should not be on the internet.
Well... one 6-8 character password is fine... but as I look through my password safe, I see I have stored roughly 80-100 passwords. Some are used rather frequently, and so get remembered. Others are used quite seldom, and so the task of remembering not only the passwords, but which password belongs to which site can become quite onerous.
Or perhaps they just weren't targetting men with that particular ad?
Ian