Ok, and now suppose that the Judge rules that Microsoft must offer a modular version of Windows. In consequence, that would force them to remove Windows off the marketplace.
Now what would that do to the market? Suppose Microsoft even begins to work on a real modular version. That would take years, and then consumers, developers and software programmers would be left in a rift. Arguably, the software industry (both games and applications) would collapse.
People don't understand interoperability of software. For example, just think about how many games and consumer hardware would stop working on Windows if DirectX were removed! Similiary, the same thing would occur if it were possible to remove all remnants of Internet Explorer code.
And who exactly would be allowed to build specialized versions of the OS? Other vendors? You'd be kidding yourselves to conclude that the courts could force Microsoft to give up their intellectual property rights to other vendors.
Moreover, although modularity allows customizabilily, do you think that translates into something that would be more productive for the typical consumer??
Seriously, most typical Windows users don't know the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 98. Now would you expect them to be able to fully configure their own "Windows distribution"? Heck, there are enough problems with the numerous Linux distributions. Users need a desktop standard, not distribution after distribution.
Arguably speaking, the success of Windows lies on the fact that it is not fragmented nor modular as Linux is. The computer software industry would collapse if there were not any "standard" development platform in place. No software developer would invest significant R&D to write programs if there were 'n' possible versions of an operating systems on the market.
For Microsoft to even possibly offer a "modular" version of Windows will lead to significant fragmentation. How would it even be possible for them to sell their OS in the market?
Now about Microsoft's software monopoly, specifically, Internet Explorer(IE) and Office. IE is integrated with Windows because these days, a web browser is a necessity, just as a calculator, or CD player is. Don't tell me it's not a necessity, because it IS. How many of you out there use a CD Player or Calculator as much as you do a web browser? Most of you don't, and one could even interpret that as meaning a web browser is MORE of a necessity than a calculator. But I don't really think that. I do however think that Microsoft has the right to bundle and integrate IE with Windows, just as they have the right to bundle Disk Defragmenter. And if there's a superior product like Norton SpeedDisk, people will use that instead, without needing to have the ability to uninstall Microsoft's Disk Defragmenter.
I think that IE's integration with Windows is great. Take for example the thumbnails you get of webpages and images when you select a file. I think that most people love that. And if you don't like it, and it slows down your computer, you can turn it off for God's sake. IE is the reason you can now right-click on a file or directory in your start menu, select "Rename" and be happy that you don't have to right-click on the Start button, click "Open", navigate through to the file, then rename it. There are even cooler time-saving things you can do if you install PowerToys, but that's off-topic.
Let's say Internet Explorer is no longer bundled with Windows. I'm pretty sure that AOL is bundled with every Windows computer on sale today and that AOL installs IE ever since version 3.0. That kind of defeats the purpose of removing IE, doesn't it?
To allow remedies that would make Windows modular would simply force Microsoft to remove Windows off the market. It would require significant re-engineering of the entire product, a task that could take years.
Windows XP Embedded is totally different. It's not meant fot the desktop. Ok, so it's the Windows XP kernel. Big deal. I doubt one could make a modular version of Windows with simply the XP Embedded code, that could run *every* single application that Windows XP can.
If hypocrisy is needed to provide an unbiased view of the human genome, so be it. If you read the Celera paper in the 16 February 2001 Journal of Science (291), I think that fact is made clear. (p. 1308)
"One method invloves the computational combination of all sequence reads with shredded data from GenBank to generate an independent unbiased view of the genome. The second approach involves clustering all of the fragments to a region of chromosome on the basis of mapping information. The clustered data were then shredded and subjected to computational assembly. Both approaches provided essentially the same reconstruction of assembled DNA sequence with proper order and orientation. The second method provided slightly greater sequence coverage and was the principal sequence used for the analysis phase."
Celera could have done the job alone. If the Whole Genome Shotgun Assembly (WGA) method "failed", how is it that a comparable genome (in terms of size), the Mouse, was assembled without any public data? Furthermore, with the recent announcement of the Rice Genome(s), they too were sequenced and assembled using the WGA method.
Well, I don't see any problem with Celera using the public data. In fact, since it was a publicly funded effort, some of their tax dollars, as well as our own went to the effort. The Whole Genome Shotgun method of sequencing does in fact work. If Celera had failed, how would one explain the fact that the Fruit Fly, Mouse, and Rice genomes were all sequenced with the same method?
I agree that a physical map of the genome is helpful, but the purpose of the shotgun method is to bypass this step, which allows for a significantly faster sequencing timeframe. The fact that the random clones overlap is of significant statistical significance. You have A, C, T, and G, and when you have a clone, match up with another clone on the order of 40 or more base pairs, the number you get is astronomically large (4^40). I also find it interesting that the supercomputer that assembled the genome was running on Alpha CPU's, running Tru64 UNIX:)
Even if Dr. Venter had a remote chance of winning the Nobel Prize someday, I think this flagrant, and egotistical action will not go well with his fellow scientists.
On his scientific merits alone, I believe he should be in the running for a Nobel Prize at some future date. This admission, however, isn't really going to look all too good on his resume.
Personally, I think I would have liked my genome to be sequenced, but because this was the first time it was done in history, I don't think it would have been beneficial to society if they knew it was *my* genome.
Cheating is part of the system, especially in CS. My university (University of Toronto) uses a program MOSS to compare assignments submitted to one another. It's a pretty good system, but the fact is, many students are gonna have similar code. When you think about it, there are only so many possible variations to write the short bits of code that are required for the assignment. And when you consider that over 1,000 students are taking some of the first year undergraduate classes (eg: CSC108H), chances are some students may get "caught" for cheeting, even if they didn't.
There's also the ability cheat they programs involved in checking for your similar code. Obviously most first year students don't know how to, or even realize how to, but it's really trivial. And if the administration really thinks that there's no cheating going on, they're dearly mistaken. Honestly, best thing to do is to catch them on the midterm and/or final. Funny how some students do very well on their assignments, but can't even manage to pass the midterm and final exam.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, and now suppose that the Judge rules that Microsoft must offer a modular version of Windows. In consequence, that would force them to remove Windows off the marketplace.
Now what would that do to the market? Suppose Microsoft even begins to work on a real modular version. That would take years, and then consumers, developers and software programmers would be left in a rift. Arguably, the software industry (both games and applications) would collapse.
People don't understand interoperability of software. For example, just think about how many games and consumer hardware would stop working on Windows if DirectX were removed! Similiary, the same thing would occur if it were possible to remove all remnants of Internet Explorer code.
And who exactly would be allowed to build specialized versions of the OS? Other vendors? You'd be kidding yourselves to conclude that the courts could force Microsoft to give up their intellectual property rights to other vendors.
Moreover, although modularity allows customizabilily, do you think that translates into something that would be more productive for the typical consumer??
Seriously, most typical Windows users don't know the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 98. Now would you expect them to be able to fully configure their own "Windows distribution"? Heck, there are enough problems with the numerous Linux distributions. Users need a desktop standard, not distribution after distribution.
Arguably speaking, the success of Windows lies on the fact that it is not fragmented nor modular as Linux is. The computer software industry would collapse if there were not any "standard" development platform in place. No software developer would invest significant R&D to write programs if there were 'n' possible versions of an operating systems on the market.
For Microsoft to even possibly offer a "modular" version of Windows will lead to significant fragmentation. How would it even be possible for them to sell their OS in the market?
Now about Microsoft's software monopoly, specifically, Internet Explorer(IE) and Office. IE is integrated with Windows because these days, a web browser is a necessity, just as a calculator, or CD player is. Don't tell me it's not a necessity, because it IS. How many of you out there use a CD Player or Calculator as much as you do a web browser? Most of you don't, and one could even interpret that as meaning a web browser is MORE of a necessity than a calculator. But I don't really think that. I do however think that Microsoft has the right to bundle and integrate IE with Windows, just as they have the right to bundle Disk Defragmenter. And if there's a superior product like Norton SpeedDisk, people will use that instead, without needing to have the ability to uninstall Microsoft's Disk Defragmenter.
I think that IE's integration with Windows is great. Take for example the thumbnails you get of webpages and images when you select a file. I think that most people love that. And if you don't like it, and it slows down your computer, you can turn it off for God's sake. IE is the reason you can now right-click on a file or directory in your start menu, select "Rename" and be happy that you don't have to right-click on the Start button, click "Open", navigate through to the file, then rename it. There are even cooler time-saving things you can do if you install PowerToys, but that's off-topic.
Let's say Internet Explorer is no longer bundled with Windows. I'm pretty sure that AOL is bundled with every Windows computer on sale today and that AOL installs IE ever since version 3.0. That kind of defeats the purpose of removing IE, doesn't it?
To allow remedies that would make Windows modular would simply force Microsoft to remove Windows off the market. It would require significant re-engineering of the entire product, a task that could take years.
Windows XP Embedded is totally different. It's not meant fot the desktop. Ok, so it's the Windows XP kernel. Big deal. I doubt one could make a modular version of Windows with simply the XP Embedded code, that could run *every* single application that Windows XP can.
If hypocrisy is needed to provide an unbiased view of the human genome, so be it. If you read the Celera paper in the 16 February 2001 Journal of Science (291), I think that fact is made clear. (p. 1308)
"One method invloves the computational combination of all sequence reads with shredded data from GenBank to generate an independent unbiased view of the genome. The second approach involves clustering all of the fragments to a region of chromosome on the basis of mapping information. The clustered data were then shredded and subjected to computational assembly. Both approaches provided essentially the same reconstruction of assembled DNA sequence with proper order and orientation. The second method provided slightly greater sequence coverage and was the principal sequence used for the analysis phase."
Celera could have done the job alone. If the Whole Genome Shotgun Assembly (WGA) method "failed", how is it that a comparable genome (in terms of size), the Mouse, was assembled without any public data? Furthermore, with the recent announcement of the Rice Genome(s), they too were sequenced and assembled using the WGA method.
Well, I don't see any problem with Celera using the public data. In fact, since it was a publicly funded effort, some of their tax dollars, as well as our own went to the effort. The Whole Genome Shotgun method of sequencing does in fact work. If Celera had failed, how would one explain the fact that the Fruit Fly, Mouse, and Rice genomes were all sequenced with the same method?
:)
I agree that a physical map of the genome is helpful, but the purpose of the shotgun method is to bypass this step, which allows for a significantly faster sequencing timeframe. The fact that the random clones overlap is of significant statistical significance. You have A, C, T, and G, and when you have a clone, match up with another clone on the order of 40 or more base pairs, the number you get is astronomically large (4^40). I also find it interesting that the supercomputer that assembled the genome was running on Alpha CPU's, running Tru64 UNIX
Even if Dr. Venter had a remote chance of winning the Nobel Prize someday, I think this flagrant, and egotistical action will not go well with his fellow scientists.
On his scientific merits alone, I believe he should be in the running for a Nobel Prize at some future date. This admission, however, isn't really going to look all too good on his resume.
Personally, I think I would have liked my genome to be sequenced, but because this was the first time it was done in history, I don't think it would have been beneficial to society if they knew it was *my* genome.
Cheating is part of the system, especially in CS. My university (University of Toronto) uses a program MOSS to compare assignments submitted to one another. It's a pretty good system, but the fact is, many students are gonna have similar code. When you think about it, there are only so many possible variations to write the short bits of code that are required for the assignment. And when you consider that over 1,000 students are taking some of the first year undergraduate classes (eg: CSC108H), chances are some students may get "caught" for cheeting, even if they didn't.
There's also the ability cheat they programs involved in checking for your similar code. Obviously most first year students don't know how to, or even realize how to, but it's really trivial. And if the administration really thinks that there's no cheating going on, they're dearly mistaken. Honestly, best thing to do is to catch them on the midterm and/or final. Funny how some students do very well on their assignments, but can't even manage to pass the midterm and final exam.