MF is much better than Altered Carbon and Broken Angels in terms of the sex scenes, but he loses points for having the protagonist wind up reading Altered Carbon at one point.
Market Forces wasn't bad, but I thought it broke down towards the end.
That's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? WMP is proprietary, unlike OpenGL (the example you used), so to emulate the WMP plugin you have to reverse-engineer it.
Nonsense. You have access to the documentation for the programming interfaces, hell, you can just load the objects and query them.
And that sentence there is why Microsoft is still in business and Bill Gates isn't in jail.
You misunderstand me. Your response indicated that the only reason to not use a company's built-in software was security. I disagree. And you never actually answered my point.
If that were the case then you should be EASILY able to write a plugin that could replace WMP, right?
Sure. Write a wrapper object with the same name as the WMP one, and have it hook to your own, or anybody else's; same way the OpenGL stuff works in Windows. You could do the same for the IE objects, too.
You just have to make damn sure you return in the same format and with the same result codes.
If the built-in one was the kind of security hole that ActiveX is, I'd worry about questions like that.
Who cares about security? What if I just want to compete, by writing a better PDF engine?
One of Window's main features has ALWAYS been DDE/OLE/ActiveX. I *like* the fact that simply by installing a properly made Windows program, I suddenly have programmatic COM access to all of it's bits, with the only hoops needing jumping through being the need to find documentation.
We live in a web-based world now, and I fail to see the problem with having an HTML rendering engine in your OS. Yes, the specific execution is a bit flawed, but the concept isn't.
Tell me, can I put my own PDF engine into MacOS X, in place of the built in one?
But the WMP control isn't a core function of the OS, and the software shouldn't be dependent on it.
Says who? Personally, I have certain expectations of my graphical operating systems, and in this day and age, those expectations include the ability to play sound and video out of the box.
Now, granted, as many people, myself included, have pointed out, WMP should be the default choice, but any old app should be able to register itself as the default player, and so long as it exposes a defined set of interfaces, work just fine. This also goes for the web browsing services, search functions, just about anything really.
But why is that nobody has ever complained that Windows 95's inclusion of a TCP/IP stack sent Trumpet Winsock away, but everybody complains that IE sent Netscape away?
If a cellphone can't dial 911, it's because it's out of the service range.
If a VoIP phone can't dial 911, it's because it's not tied into the phone system, doesn't route the calls to the 911 system, in other words, it's not a 'phone.'
There are strict legal requirements for what constitutes 'phone service,' and if VoIP doesn't want to be a 'phone,' fine, but they need to make people very very aware that they don't have a phone, they have a communicator that can often connect to other people's phones, but doesn't have things like 911 service.
so no, it really couldn't go either way. if a customer could prevail on such an argument, then it would become far too risky for any company to provide any kind of service to anyone, ever.
Which is, in my most humble opinion, where America is heading.
"But, Your Honor, the contract my opponent points out also states that the ISP blocks ports to prevent viruses from reaching my client's computer. Yet a virus did reach that computer. Therefore, rather than passing responsibility onto the user, the ISP accepted responsibility, and then failed to live up to it."
Could be, but you can't get something that you don't qualify for, and as soon as you start blocking some ports to prevent viruses, you're going to get blamed for the viruses that come in on the unblocked ports.
It's not the ISP's job to firewall. The clients are paying for an Internet connection, not a web-browsing service, so they get a damn Internet connection.
Besides, by doing some filtering, you take responsibility. You remember, common-carrier status and all that.
I's said it before, I's say it again. Mainly I say it in regards to ATMs, though.
Any authentication scheme can be beaten out of somebody some how, so give each person a 'duress' password which can be entered. Absoutely nothing on the user side would act any differently from a normal login/authentication, but it would raise all sorts of flags and alarms elsewhere.
Usually I talk about this in regards to ATMs; you don't get shot, but the video cameras all click on to record you with the gun to your head and the guy taking your money. But it could work for networks, too.
The main thing I'm trying to get across here is that the GPL is neither 'free as in beer' nor 'free as in speech;' it's an interesting way of using copyright law, and of allowing other people to use your code, but the requirements of repayment (of changes) and the no linking/'viral' nature is, or appears to be, non-free.
And I can understand some company getting confused that the 'free software' comes with strings attached.
Woah. I have no problem with the GPL per se; more the encompassing RMS/Open Source movement, such as the parent's (or another in this article) comment of 'only GPL code can link to GPL code' and the like.
You're more than correct; you can license your code all you want. But there are licenses, such as BSD, artistic, or plain old PD, which are 'free.' The GPL, while a perfectly good license, however, is just as restrictive as anything commercial; the cost is simply in a different coin.
Slashdot Mirror
And then there was Klingon Academy, which rocked the casbah.
Damn, that game is still damn fun.
MF is much better than Altered Carbon and Broken Angels in terms of the sex scenes, but he loses points for having the protagonist wind up reading Altered Carbon at one point.
Market Forces wasn't bad, but I thought it broke down towards the end.
Nonsense. You have access to the documentation for the programming interfaces, hell, you can just load the objects and query them.
You misunderstand me. Your response indicated that the only reason to not use a company's built-in software was security. I disagree. And you never actually answered my point.
Sure. Write a wrapper object with the same name as the WMP one, and have it hook to your own, or anybody else's; same way the OpenGL stuff works in Windows. You could do the same for the IE objects, too.
You just have to make damn sure you return in the same format and with the same result codes.
Who cares about security? What if I just want to compete, by writing a better PDF engine?
One of Window's main features has ALWAYS been DDE/OLE/ActiveX. I *like* the fact that simply by installing a properly made Windows program, I suddenly have programmatic COM access to all of it's bits, with the only hoops needing jumping through being the need to find documentation.
We live in a web-based world now, and I fail to see the problem with having an HTML rendering engine in your OS. Yes, the specific execution is a bit flawed, but the concept isn't.Tell me, can I put my own PDF engine into MacOS X, in place of the built in one?
Says who? Personally, I have certain expectations of my graphical operating systems, and in this day and age, those expectations include the ability to play sound and video out of the box.
Now, granted, as many people, myself included, have pointed out, WMP should be the default choice, but any old app should be able to register itself as the default player, and so long as it exposes a defined set of interfaces, work just fine. This also goes for the web browsing services, search functions, just about anything really.
But why is that nobody has ever complained that Windows 95's inclusion of a TCP/IP stack sent Trumpet Winsock away, but everybody complains that IE sent Netscape away?
If the cables are passing pure analog, maybe. If the cables are passing digital, no. Flat out no.
If a cellphone can't dial 911, it's because it's out of the service range.
If a VoIP phone can't dial 911, it's because it's not tied into the phone system, doesn't route the calls to the 911 system, in other words, it's not a 'phone.'
There are strict legal requirements for what constitutes 'phone service,' and if VoIP doesn't want to be a 'phone,' fine, but they need to make people very very aware that they don't have a phone, they have a communicator that can often connect to other people's phones, but doesn't have things like 911 service.
No. A lot of places use separate machines for incoming and for outgoing mail.
Nah, the Law Offices of Bendim, Ower and Buggrum.
The layout of the board is copyrighted.
He is using their board layout without permission.
Hence, he is in the wrong.
I'm not arguing on behalf of anything; I'm merely pointing out the result I believe will most likely happen.
INTP, baby; I'm a natural born devil's advocate.
Which is, in my most humble opinion, where America is heading.
Of course, the pr0n industry is also coming to grips (ha ha) with HD in general, as there is such a thing as too much resolution.
"But, Your Honor, the contract my opponent points out also states that the ISP blocks ports to prevent viruses from reaching my client's computer. Yet a virus did reach that computer. Therefore, rather than passing responsibility onto the user, the ISP accepted responsibility, and then failed to live up to it."
Yes, it could go either way, but....
Ah, but there's blame, and there's legal responsibility.
"Your honor, my client had every reason to believe that the steps being taken by their ISP would be sufficent to protect them from viruses...."
Could be, but you can't get something that you don't qualify for, and as soon as you start blocking some ports to prevent viruses, you're going to get blamed for the viruses that come in on the unblocked ports.
It's not the ISP's job to firewall. The clients are paying for an Internet connection, not a web-browsing service, so they get a damn Internet connection.
Besides, by doing some filtering, you take responsibility. You remember, common-carrier status and all that.
The other question is, 'What will Microsoft's ending of support for VB6 mean to anybody?'
When was the last VS6 update? Years ago, as I recall. Will VB6 programs magically stop working? Nope. Will the documentation magically dry up? Nope.
Actually, it's been done.
I's said it before, I's say it again. Mainly I say it in regards to ATMs, though.
Any authentication scheme can be beaten out of somebody some how, so give each person a 'duress' password which can be entered. Absoutely nothing on the user side would act any differently from a normal login/authentication, but it would raise all sorts of flags and alarms elsewhere.
Usually I talk about this in regards to ATMs; you don't get shot, but the video cameras all click on to record you with the gun to your head and the guy taking your money. But it could work for networks, too.
Sorry, you're a few years too late; that was done with BattleTech: The Crescent Hawks Inception and the sequal who's name I forget.
No problem.
The main thing I'm trying to get across here is that the GPL is neither 'free as in beer' nor 'free as in speech;' it's an interesting way of using copyright law, and of allowing other people to use your code, but the requirements of repayment (of changes) and the no linking/'viral' nature is, or appears to be, non-free.
And I can understand some company getting confused that the 'free software' comes with strings attached.
Woah. I have no problem with the GPL per se; more the encompassing RMS/Open Source movement, such as the parent's (or another in this article) comment of 'only GPL code can link to GPL code' and the like.
You're more than correct; you can license your code all you want. But there are licenses, such as BSD, artistic, or plain old PD, which are 'free.' The GPL, while a perfectly good license, however, is just as restrictive as anything commercial; the cost is simply in a different coin.
But enforced 'freedom' isn't freedom. Maybe it's a level playing field, and maybe it's a good thing, but it's not 'free' and it's not 'open.'