Knowing Microsoft, I wouldn't be surprised if simply wrote code that checked if IE was available and, if not, added a "sleep".
Sounds crazy? Didn't they add a module that checked if DRDOS was in use and issue a "warning".
But the truth is that it is just slow. From another article:
In a climax worthy of Perry Mason, Boies then asked: "So, this video you brought in here and vouched for, it's just wrong. [Degradation is] not due to the Felton program, it's just how Windows 98 works?"
Boies charged - and Allchin acknowledged - the change indicated that the test actually was completed using a version of Windows unaffected by the government's modifications.
They admit it. What more evidence do they need. They claim it was a mistake, not perjury. Don't understand that, though. "Yeah, we made a doctored version of the test, but we intended to use the real version".
Interesting. What percentage of wills created by lawyers are "invalid"?
> including ones done with will-making software.
Could it be that the ones done with the software are the 20% that are valid? Since the judge is only trying to ban software, shouldn't your "statistic" include ONLY wills made with software?
By "invalid" do you mean that they were succesfully contested? Or just that your mother thought they wouldn't stand up *if* they were contested? I can't imagine 80% of wills are contested to begin with. Seems high to me.
Can you give us some more blatant assertions to shore up your case a little better?
I reread my post. I thought I stated the facts clearly. Education was funded by property taxes on local districts and the new plan is to pool the taxes and split it equally. Those who once had some of the best schools in the country will lose money. All in the name of equality.
The only way to achieve equality, in my view and experience, is to go to the lowest common denominator.
> triumph of emotion over logic
Pot, kettle, black. I mean, all your ranting about slogans and lynching the strawmen. Please. Take a chill pill and think about it. You think it will improve education to lower funding where it is doing the best and eliminate one of the motivations to become rich in the first case (namely that you don't have to send your kids to crappy schools).
> Liberals want to deal with reality as they find it
You mean they see money that they don't have and spend it where they please.
> It sounded like he was saying that rich districts were paying less taxes than poor districts, but getting more money for their schools.
Rich folks have fewer kids so each dollar goes further. They have lower property tax RATES, but they also have more expensive property.
> So then... doesn't this mean that the wealthy are being given other peoples money [...]
No. School funding was derived from property taxes within the county. If there are fewer kids and more expensive property, you can lower your tax rate and give your students a great education. The New Idea is to collect all the property taxes and distribute it "equally" among all students. This way, everyone can have a bad education and hopefully no one will ever be rich again.
What if you buy a medical book and misdiagnose yourself? Should all medical knowledge be outlawed by unlicensed professionals? And what if someone reads "The Rules," follows the advice, and ends up with an abusive spouse? Shouldn't all advice only be given by licensed professionals who have paid their registration fees?
Why does the regulation state take no responsibility for improper certification. What if I go to a lawyer who passed the bar and he gives me bad advice because of his poor legal education? Why can't I sue to bar for letting him pass? Why doesn't the AMA get sued for letting doctors practice malpractice?
> If they own it, it's theirs, to do with as they please. Period. End of story.
Dude! The question is if they own it. You can't walk into my house and claim YOU own my cat. They can't walk onto the net and claim that THEY invented downloading music files. They didn't. Prior art.
Look, we all know that the patent office will apaprently patent anything and then let the courts decide if they should have done it.
So why not, seriously, compile a list of things that we all know have obvious prior art, and apply for patents. The patent office will surely grant a large handful.
Once they do grant patents for things that the applicants KNEW were not original ideas, go to the press and point out how irresponsible they are.
I don't think the patents should be used to harass anyone other than the patent office itself.
Try and patent EVERYTHING. Mice, keyboards, infrared, color dithering, widgets, URL parsing, RFC822, etc.
So you'd be willing to pay extra to have a proprietory OS like Windows CE installed?
> The average person still has the need to be able to hold music (CD, tape, 8 track!)
In their car? I think most people just listen to the radio because of the hassle of swapping tapes or CDs. Or they listen to the same tape over and over and over. Having had tapes stolen from my car, I have no "need" to store them there anymore and don't really want to have to carry them back and forth, either.
Sure, you can get a multi-CD changer installed in your trunk, but then if you wanna listen to them at home, you either need to bring them back and forth or make tapes of them. Of course, you could burn MP3s at home, but then that defeats the "need to be able to hold music".
Most people, while driving, aren't reading liner notes.
1. Software manafacturers and ECommerce sites will never be able to REQUIRE the use of the ID - there will still be computers around for many years to come that don't have the ID, and also many new CPUs that don't use IDs.
But some ECommerce sites already make their pages only available if you use cookies, frames, IE4 or netscape. I don't know WHY they close their doors to potential customers, but they DO.
And what's to keep CDA v.3 of requiring all sites that offer "adult information" (i.e. anything other than Sesame Street) to keep and track CPU ids ("to protect the children").
3. Licensing software to a particular CPU is just stupid....what happens when you upgrade? You have to get a new licence.... HOW ANNOYING
Annoying to us, yes. Profitable to them? For sure. MicroSoft will be an early adopter and yes, if you upgrade your CPU, they will want you to buy a new license. From my reading of the EULA in recent days, it seems that MicroSoft already requires that you buy a new "license" if you upgrade your computer. They haven't been able to enforce that yet, but I'm sure they'd love to. They might even make a "cpu-upgrade license" package available for the low-low cost of $50.
> So if your vendor isn't responsive, you get a new vendor.
And if your vendor is MicroSoft?
Seriously, did you read the article. It's not THAT long. Competition is EXACTLY what he's talking about. If your vendor is Redhat, go to Debian.
Closed source software, especially once it has become entrenched, does NOT have competition. How do you change vendors if every document you've produced for the last 5 years can only be read by your current vendors software?
Netscape didn't write an OS, they wrote an application. Microsoft leveraged Windows to gain market share over netscape. Microsoft's OS *IS* the barrier to entry in the app market, in that they can use the market share of their OS to keep other apps from competing. That alone is a violation of anti-trust laws.
That still leaves to question of barriers and the OS. The fact that others *don't* compete is surely not enough to indicate that they are a monopoly. The remaining question is "has Microsoft prevented other OS's from competing"?
Let's take DRDOS as an example. They created an error message in Windows to make it APPEAR as if DRDOS was not compatible. That seems like a barrier to me.
Linux's biggest barrier to entry has been a lack of supported applications. It may be true that anyone can create and sell an OS, but no one will WANT one if it can't run apps. If Microsoft tried to stop apps from being developed for competing OS's, then they created barriers to entry.
Hello java! The first real threat to Microsoft's OS monopoly, because it would allow developers to create apps that run anywhere. Microsoft created an "improved" version of Java which, incidentally, blunted its cross-platform nature and thus made the OS still important. They did this so that developers would not create apps that run on other machines. Whether their attempt was successful or not is really irrelevant. They did create a barrier to entry in the OS market when they broke java.
In fact, everytime they've "adopted and extended," it has been for the purpose of creating barriers. The entire Halloween memo goes into great detail of their proposals to "compete" with Linux and open source by leveraging the fact many people CURRENTLY use their OS. If they make it expensive to change, they create barriers.
This might not help you at ALL, and certainly doesn't answer your question, but...
If you have a fax modem AND an external fax machine, I believe the mgetty+sendfax manual describes how to set up an external fax machine as a scanner.
You say that the quality is not so important, so if you already have that equipment, that might do it for you. Of course, if you already have a faxmodem, I dunno why you'd buy an external fax machine, but you might already have one...
Slashdot Mirror
> If their product really did what they say it does, then ANY os would work on it, not just WinNT and Linux.
:)
So you didn't read the web page either? Linux or NT are just the HOST NT. With the Linux version, you can indeed run ANY OS.
> I wonder if they're claiming a patent on it... I know I've got a whole notebook of notes sitting around on the idea.
As, I'm sure, does IBM. Perhaps something about their IMPLEMENTATION is patentable, but not the notion of Virtual Machines.
Sounds crazy? Didn't they add a module that checked if DRDOS was in use and issue a "warning".
But the truth is that it is just slow. From another article:
In a climax worthy of Perry Mason, Boies then asked: "So, this video you brought in here and vouched for, it's just wrong. [Degradation is] not due to the Felton program, it's just how Windows 98 works?"
Boies charged - and Allchin acknowledged - the change indicated that the test actually was completed using a version of Windows unaffected by the government's modifications.
They admit it. What more evidence do they need. They claim it was a mistake, not perjury. Don't understand that, though. "Yeah, we made a doctored version of the test, but we intended to use the real version".
> over 80% of DIY wills are invalid
Interesting. What percentage of wills created by lawyers are "invalid"?
> including ones done with will-making software.
Could it be that the ones done with the software are the 20% that are valid? Since the judge is only trying to ban software, shouldn't your "statistic" include ONLY wills made with software?
By "invalid" do you mean that they were succesfully contested? Or just that your mother thought they wouldn't stand up *if* they were contested? I can't imagine 80% of wills are contested to begin with. Seems high to me.
Can you give us some more blatant assertions to shore up your case a little better?
> when you actually look at the facts
I reread my post. I thought I stated the facts clearly. Education was funded by property taxes on local districts and the new plan is to pool the taxes and split it equally. Those who once had some of the best schools in the country will lose money. All in the name of equality.
The only way to achieve equality, in my view and experience, is to go to the lowest common denominator.
> triumph of emotion over logic
Pot, kettle, black. I mean, all your ranting about slogans and lynching the strawmen. Please. Take a chill pill and think about it. You think it will improve education to lower funding where it is doing the best and eliminate one of the motivations to become rich in the first case (namely that you don't have to send your kids to crappy schools).
> Liberals want to deal with reality as they find it
You mean they see money that they don't have and spend it where they please.
> It sounded like he was saying that rich districts were paying less taxes than poor districts, but getting more money for their schools.
Rich folks have fewer kids so each dollar goes further. They have lower property tax RATES, but they also have more expensive property.
> So then... doesn't this mean that the wealthy are being given other peoples money [...]
No. School funding was derived from property taxes within the county. If there are fewer kids and more expensive property, you can lower your tax rate and give your students a great education. The New Idea is to collect all the property taxes and distribute it "equally" among all students. This way, everyone can have a bad education and hopefully no one will ever be rich again.
What if you buy a medical book and misdiagnose yourself? Should all medical knowledge be outlawed by unlicensed professionals? And what if someone reads "The Rules," follows the advice, and ends up with an abusive spouse? Shouldn't all advice only be given by licensed professionals who have paid their registration fees?
Why does the regulation state take no responsibility for improper certification. What if I go to a lawyer who passed the bar and he gives me bad advice because of his poor legal education? Why can't I sue to bar for letting him pass? Why doesn't the AMA get sued for letting doctors practice malpractice?
Why are all my sentences questions?
> If they own it, it's theirs, to do with as they please. Period. End of story.
Dude! The question is if they own it. You can't walk into my house and claim YOU own my cat. They can't walk onto the net and claim that THEY invented downloading music files. They didn't. Prior art.
Look, we all know that the patent office will apaprently patent anything and then let the courts decide if they should have done it.
So why not, seriously, compile a list of things that we all know have obvious prior art, and apply for patents. The patent office will surely grant a large handful.
Once they do grant patents for things that the applicants KNEW were not original ideas, go to the press and point out how irresponsible they are.
I don't think the patents should be used to harass anyone other than the patent office itself.
Try and patent EVERYTHING. Mice, keyboards, infrared, color dithering, widgets, URL parsing, RFC822, etc.
> Otherwise I could care less which OS it used.
So you'd be willing to pay extra to have a proprietory OS like Windows CE installed?
> The average person still has the need to be able to hold music (CD, tape, 8 track!)
In their car? I think most people just listen to the radio because of the hassle of swapping tapes or CDs. Or they listen to the same tape over and over and over. Having had tapes stolen from my car, I have no "need" to store them there anymore and don't really want to have to carry them back and forth, either.
Sure, you can get a multi-CD changer installed in your trunk, but then if you wanna listen to them at home, you either need to bring them back and forth or make tapes of them. Of course, you could burn MP3s at home, but then that defeats the "need to be able to hold music".
Most people, while driving, aren't reading liner notes.
But some ECommerce sites already make their pages only available if you use cookies, frames, IE4 or netscape. I don't know WHY they close their doors to potential customers, but they DO.
And what's to keep CDA v.3 of requiring all sites that offer "adult information" (i.e. anything other than Sesame Street) to keep and track CPU ids ("to protect the children").
3. Licensing software to a particular CPU is just stupid....what happens when you upgrade? You have to get a new licence.... HOW ANNOYING
Annoying to us, yes. Profitable to them? For sure. MicroSoft will be an early adopter and yes, if you upgrade your CPU, they will want you to buy a new license. From my reading of the EULA in recent days, it seems that MicroSoft already requires that you buy a new "license" if you upgrade your computer. They haven't been able to enforce that yet, but I'm sure they'd love to. They might even make a "cpu-upgrade license" package available for the low-low cost of $50.
> So if your vendor isn't responsive, you get a new vendor.
And if your vendor is MicroSoft?
Seriously, did you read the article. It's not THAT long. Competition is EXACTLY what he's talking about. If your vendor is Redhat, go to Debian.
Closed source software, especially once it has become entrenched, does NOT have competition. How do you change vendors if every document you've produced for the last 5 years can only be read by your current vendors software?
Netscape didn't write an OS, they wrote an application. Microsoft leveraged Windows to gain market share over netscape. Microsoft's OS *IS* the barrier to entry in the app market, in that they can use the market share of their OS to keep other apps from competing. That alone is a violation of anti-trust laws.
That still leaves to question of barriers and the OS. The fact that others *don't* compete is surely not enough to indicate that they are a monopoly. The remaining question is "has Microsoft prevented other OS's from competing"?
Let's take DRDOS as an example. They created an error message in Windows to make it APPEAR as if DRDOS was not compatible. That seems like a barrier to me.
Linux's biggest barrier to entry has been a lack of supported applications. It may be true that anyone can create and sell an OS, but no one will WANT one if it can't run apps. If Microsoft tried to stop apps from being developed for competing OS's, then they created barriers to entry.
Hello java! The first real threat to Microsoft's OS monopoly, because it would allow developers to create apps that run anywhere. Microsoft created an "improved" version of Java which, incidentally, blunted its cross-platform nature and thus made the OS still important. They did this so that developers would not create apps that run on other machines. Whether their attempt was successful or not is really irrelevant. They did create a barrier to entry in the OS market when they broke java.
In fact, everytime they've "adopted and extended," it has been for the purpose of creating barriers. The entire Halloween memo goes into great detail of their proposals to "compete" with Linux and open source by leveraging the fact many people CURRENTLY use their OS. If they make it expensive to change, they create barriers.
This might not help you at ALL, and certainly doesn't answer your question, but...
If you have a fax modem AND an external fax machine, I believe the mgetty+sendfax manual describes how to set up an external fax machine as a scanner.
You say that the quality is not so important, so if you already have that equipment, that might do it for you. Of course, if you already have a faxmodem, I dunno why you'd buy an external fax machine, but you might already have one...