Agreed. I simply feel no need to peddle on warez sites. Open source, freeware as well as low cost payware are abundant enough and fill the gaps for a decently low price. Why take the risk?
I've purchased 3 apps since switching to Mac last year. VMWare Fusion, an encoding app, and another to sync my gmail calendars to OS X Mail's calendars. Everything else I've needed has been free via Open Source sites found above. Gimp and OpenOffice handle the other basics.
Why would you need warez?
Actually this administration is very much checking on anti-competitive industries unlike the previous administration. It's unlikely this sort of thing would get approved.
The permanent injunction does not apply to Infringing or Future Word Products that:
open an XML file as plain text;
upon opening an XML file, applies a custom transformation that removes all custom XML elements;
providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any of the infringing products to open an XML file containing custom XML if that product was licensed or sold before the date of the permanent injunction, which was August 11, 2009.
Meaning you can simply open the XML and save it as a doc.
So every time you get a new employee they don't get the same Office software as all of the rest of your employees? I seriously doubt that, as any IT shop worth it's salt has a standard version that users get. Upgrading new users willy nilly with whatever flavor happens to be newest version would be a help desk disaster as your user base could have any number of versions. The version of Office you are currently licensed with won't be affected by this at all. It won't suddenly stop working after October.
Since that version will continue to work just fine after October 10th, including the ability to open, edit, and save XML files, then you have nothing to worry about unless you plan to upgrade and even then it would be a manual choice to upgrade.
I doubt it would affect licensing for an existing product. If you are purchasing an additional license, you already own the product itself. Your new employees would get the same version as everyone else in your company, which again wouldn't have this restriction. Only new products sold after October 10th.
Still a DOC format. DOCX on Office 2007. DOC on Office 2003. My point is that XML is not a default and you would have to go digging to change it to XML.
The summary said it doesn't affect products that have already been sold. You didn't even need to go into TFA to find that much.
These millions of customers won't even notice. Word also defaults to.DOC so it's unlikely it will have that much of an impact, even if they do remove.XML support from new products after Oct 10th. Unless someone goes out of their way to save or open an XML doc, they won't notice.
I meant locked in the fact that it has no orbital spin. No body in the solar system is static. I should have been more clear.
I think when it was initially formed, it probably did have orbital spin, but it was far closer to the earth then it is now. It would have been huge on the horizon if it was only 30,000 KM from the earth (it's something like 300,000+ now). Something that close could easily become tide locked once it started to solidify. I think if it had formed tide locked, it would have been more egg shaped than round once it solidified.
More likely the planet was captured in a drive-by of sorts from another star and didn't have enough velocity to escape the gravity of the local sun during the slingshot pass. It just happened to pass the sun on the wrong side and the slingshot effect grabbed it and forced it into the wrong direction.
I'm curious if the gravity well of the new local sun will eventually slow it's backwards orbit down and reverse it at some point or if it will end up like our moon in a locked orbit that never changes the side facing the planet? It's theorized that a black hole will actually drag the space time around it in the direction of it's spin. You would think that even a miniscule gravity well from a sun (comparatively speaking) would do the same to space-time and end up dragging the orbital momentum of the planet down to the point that it either slows it's retrograde orbit or starts orbiting in the proper direction (thinking in scales of billions of years).
I've even seen theories about Venus that are in a similar vein due to the fact that it's orbital rotation is actually backwards from the typical counter-clockwise rotation that all of our solar system planets follow. I'm not suggesting that it was 'captured' from a passing star, but perhaps it fell from farther out in our solar system and was 'captured' in the inner system in a similar way?
You forget that patent trolling wasn't such a big thing in the nineties. I'm surprised Big Blue hasn't done so though considering how vague some of these patent claims can be these days.
The patent is pretty vague. Lotus Notes/Domino has separated data from document (form) for years back into the early nineties. In other words, you could change the form or the view representing the data without affecting the underlying data itself.
From the patent abstract:
"A system and method for seperate manipulation of the archicture and content of a document particularly for data representation and transformations. The systems for use by the computer software developers removes the dependency on the document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced an provided and stored seperately from the document. The map indicates the locatino and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content storage efficieny of multiple versions and efficiency of operation."
Agreed. Any patent that can be duplicated just from hearing about the idea, is to my mind 'obvious' and should not be patentable. There are also rulings that allow for reverse engineering and in some cases, the courts even went so far to state that reverse engineering is desirable to innovation, and market competition.
Patents are out of control when you can patent "A system for categorizing information in a 'database like' structure for easy retrieval at a later date'". Note I totally made that up, but as far as I know such patents exist or are applied for on a regular basis. At some point, someone needs to step in and put on the Sanity Brakes.
The title on this post is a little misleading. From TFA:
"In this case, the FTC said both defendants, who hire workers for railway and other transportation services, contracted with a consumer reporting agency to conduct background checks including criminal record reviews for employees and job applicants, and made hiring and firing decisions based on those background checks."
Note that the query also includes background checks including criminal records.
No where in the article does it state that they were denied a job due to credit history. It could have easily been due to a criminal record. The article doesn't say. Since these individuals are not in a financial industry I find the need to check credit history rather odd, unless they somehow think it reflects on character (I happen to disagree with that. Sometimes people just have shitty luck). I do agree with the fines levied however. I've worked for financial companies before and had to agree to a credit check even though I only work in IT. Perfectly acceptable and understandable if you work in that industry, although I've never been denied a job for that reason. I would definitely expect a notice to that effect with specific reasons as to why if I was turned down due to credit history.
Read a bit further down. They indicated that these processors were specifically crippled by Intel to offer a cheaper price which is why they couldn't be enabled in Bios. The Sony on the other hand doesn't even show an option to enable VT when the processor does support VT.
It actually does have VT support as already mentioned here. Intel purposely removed VT support on some OEM spec processors to make them available at cheaper prices to go into laptops that probably won't need VT.
Apple actually paid intel to include VT support in a p7350 processor that doesn't normally have it. "
Or more properly, get government regulation in place to stop the pricing schemes that all of the US providers are in cahoots with. There is no reason sending a text message should be so expensive or even a voice call once the infrastructure is in place.
Actually I said I haven't been using it for MORE than two years. Kindly pay attention to what you're reading before you start flaming.
Just because you may not experience the bug doesn't mean it does not exist. I have seen it on Windows XP, Vista, and Mac 10.5.x across multiple machines on both platforms.
Risking Karma here, but I have to agree. OSS as a rule simply doesn't have the polish that P2P software typically does (yes this is a generalization). It might run better, lighter, smaller footprint, etc, but as a whole product/pkg, it typically just doesn't have that sparkle that lets it compete with P2P.
Take Gimp for example. It mimics almost everything in Photoshop and it does a great job generally, but there are many things that are just downright glitchy. Things that would never fly in a pay product, but I suspect for OSS, they were categorized as 'good enough' and lowered in priority for other bug fixes. Things like having to sometimes click on a tool 2 or 3 times before it registers or you end up applying the wrong tool. I haven't been using gimp for oh..say more than 2 years give or take, but the problem still exists. Don't get me wrong. I love OSS. Without it I think the quality of P2P software would be poor at best. OSS keeps them on their toes in a way that other P2P software can't. Get it right, or lose out. It doesn't take much to push someone away from a product when you combine cost and poor quality.
OO.o tends to follow in MS's footsteps (scary thought). Although it might excel in some areas like ODF, it simply plays catch-up for the larger product. I think another part of the problem is we the user. I've caught myself far too many times saying "hey, it's free..why complain?".
Why isn't it perfectly legal for these folks to create their own reverse engineered methods of doing this? If their methods are so trivial to reproduce, or so logical that everyone is doing it after simply hearing the idea, then the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I know there are some specific areas where rulings have been made that makes reverse engineering perfectly legal and desirable to market competition and innovation:
Contextual menu's have been around forever and used by many different companies. Lotus is another one who used them quite a bit.
That said, does anyone else find the MS ribbon just a wee bit unintuitive? I've tried using Office 2007 and still end up digging through each one to find what I'm trying to do. If they do implement this in OO, I would prefer they do it intelligently with contexts that actually make sense both in verbiage, and in location.
The solar on a Prius produces about 215w. I'm not talking about running the entire car folks, I'm just talking about reducing loads on the battery. While searching for the watt/horse power ratio's, I stubmled on this. It says that a company has demonstrated a 29% increase in economy on a modified Prius.
It doesn't have to power the entire unit. It just has to help out when possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I simply feel no need to peddle on warez sites. Open source, freeware as well as low cost payware are abundant enough and fill the gaps for a decently low price. Why take the risk?
http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/
http://mac.softpedia.com/
http://www.opensourcemac.org/
http://www.macorchard.com/
http://www.macupdate.com/
I've purchased 3 apps since switching to Mac last year. VMWare Fusion, an encoding app, and another to sync my gmail calendars to OS X Mail's calendars. Everything else I've needed has been free via Open Source sites found above. Gimp and OpenOffice handle the other basics. Why would you need warez?
Actually this administration is very much checking on anti-competitive industries unlike the previous administration. It's unlikely this sort of thing would get approved.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101189.html
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/31/fcc-takes-on-apple-and-att-over-google-voice-rejection/
It's already shining a light on many major companies like Google, AT&T, Apple, and Microsoft.
Here's the text of the judgment if your curious:
Link
The exclusions are at the bottom.
The permanent injunction does not apply to Infringing or Future Word Products that:
open an XML file as plain text;
upon opening an XML file, applies a custom transformation that removes all custom XML elements;
providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any of the infringing products to open an XML file containing custom XML if that product was licensed or sold before the date of the permanent injunction, which was August 11, 2009.
Meaning you can simply open the XML and save it as a doc.
So every time you get a new employee they don't get the same Office software as all of the rest of your employees? I seriously doubt that, as any IT shop worth it's salt has a standard version that users get. Upgrading new users willy nilly with whatever flavor happens to be newest version would be a help desk disaster as your user base could have any number of versions. The version of Office you are currently licensed with won't be affected by this at all. It won't suddenly stop working after October.
Since that version will continue to work just fine after October 10th, including the ability to open, edit, and save XML files, then you have nothing to worry about unless you plan to upgrade and even then it would be a manual choice to upgrade.
Irrelevant to existing installs. Again, it only affects new products sold after Oct 10th. Any existing Office 2007 products will be unaffected.
I doubt it would affect licensing for an existing product. If you are purchasing an additional license, you already own the product itself. Your new employees would get the same version as everyone else in your company, which again wouldn't have this restriction. Only new products sold after October 10th.
Still a DOC format. DOCX on Office 2007. DOC on Office 2003. My point is that XML is not a default and you would have to go digging to change it to XML.
The summary said it doesn't affect products that have already been sold. You didn't even need to go into TFA to find that much.
.DOC so it's unlikely it will have that much of an impact, even if they do remove .XML support from new products after Oct 10th. Unless someone goes out of their way to save or open an XML doc, they won't notice.
These millions of customers won't even notice. Word also defaults to
I meant locked in the fact that it has no orbital spin. No body in the solar system is static. I should have been more clear.
I think when it was initially formed, it probably did have orbital spin, but it was far closer to the earth then it is now. It would have been huge on the horizon if it was only 30,000 KM from the earth (it's something like 300,000+ now). Something that close could easily become tide locked once it started to solidify. I think if it had formed tide locked, it would have been more egg shaped than round once it solidified.
More likely the planet was captured in a drive-by of sorts from another star and didn't have enough velocity to escape the gravity of the local sun during the slingshot pass. It just happened to pass the sun on the wrong side and the slingshot effect grabbed it and forced it into the wrong direction.
I'm curious if the gravity well of the new local sun will eventually slow it's backwards orbit down and reverse it at some point or if it will end up like our moon in a locked orbit that never changes the side facing the planet? It's theorized that a black hole will actually drag the space time around it in the direction of it's spin. You would think that even a miniscule gravity well from a sun (comparatively speaking) would do the same to space-time and end up dragging the orbital momentum of the planet down to the point that it either slows it's retrograde orbit or starts orbiting in the proper direction (thinking in scales of billions of years).
I've even seen theories about Venus that are in a similar vein due to the fact that it's orbital rotation is actually backwards from the typical counter-clockwise rotation that all of our solar system planets follow. I'm not suggesting that it was 'captured' from a passing star, but perhaps it fell from farther out in our solar system and was 'captured' in the inner system in a similar way?
You'll find about 10 variations of the quote on the web, and all of them considered relatively accurate ;)
If they had only used DAT tapes..
You forget that patent trolling wasn't such a big thing in the nineties. I'm surprised Big Blue hasn't done so though considering how vague some of these patent claims can be these days.
The patent is pretty vague. Lotus Notes/Domino has separated data from document (form) for years back into the early nineties. In other words, you could change the form or the view representing the data without affecting the underlying data itself.
From the patent abstract:
"A system and method for seperate manipulation of the archicture and content of a document particularly for data representation and transformations. The systems for use by the computer software developers removes the dependency on the document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced an provided and stored seperately from the document. The map indicates the locatino and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content storage efficieny of multiple versions and efficiency of operation."
Agreed. Any patent that can be duplicated just from hearing about the idea, is to my mind 'obvious' and should not be patentable. There are also rulings that allow for reverse engineering and in some cases, the courts even went so far to state that reverse engineering is desirable to innovation, and market competition.
Is Reverse Engineering Legal
Patents are out of control when you can patent "A system for categorizing information in a 'database like' structure for easy retrieval at a later date'". Note I totally made that up, but as far as I know such patents exist or are applied for on a regular basis. At some point, someone needs to step in and put on the Sanity Brakes.
The title on this post is a little misleading. From TFA:
"In this case, the FTC said both defendants, who hire workers for railway and other transportation services, contracted with a consumer reporting agency to conduct background checks including criminal record reviews for employees and job applicants, and made hiring and firing decisions based on those background checks."
Note that the query also includes background checks including criminal records.
No where in the article does it state that they were denied a job due to credit history. It could have easily been due to a criminal record. The article doesn't say. Since these individuals are not in a financial industry I find the need to check credit history rather odd, unless they somehow think it reflects on character (I happen to disagree with that. Sometimes people just have shitty luck). I do agree with the fines levied however. I've worked for financial companies before and had to agree to a credit check even though I only work in IT. Perfectly acceptable and understandable if you work in that industry, although I've never been denied a job for that reason. I would definitely expect a notice to that effect with specific reasons as to why if I was turned down due to credit history.
That doesn't make it a good law. There comes a point where the end does not justify the means.
My favorite quote from Benjamin Franklin is still one of my favorites, and still very relevant even today:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Read a bit further down. They indicated that these processors were specifically crippled by Intel to offer a cheaper price which is why they couldn't be enabled in Bios. The Sony on the other hand doesn't even show an option to enable VT when the processor does support VT.
"Actually, not every dual core mobile processor supports VT. Here are the specs for the p7450 in the y450. http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB54
You'll notice there is no mention of VT support. But if you look at the p8600 here:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB3S
It actually does have VT support as already mentioned here. Intel purposely removed VT support on some OEM spec processors to make them available at cheaper prices to go into laptops that probably won't need VT.
Apple actually paid intel to include VT support in a p7350 processor that doesn't normally have it. "
Or more properly, get government regulation in place to stop the pricing schemes that all of the US providers are in cahoots with. There is no reason sending a text message should be so expensive or even a voice call once the infrastructure is in place.
n/t
Actually I said I haven't been using it for MORE than two years. Kindly pay attention to what you're reading before you start flaming.
Just because you may not experience the bug doesn't mean it does not exist. I have seen it on Windows XP, Vista, and Mac 10.5.x across multiple machines on both platforms.
Risking Karma here, but I have to agree. OSS as a rule simply doesn't have the polish that P2P software typically does (yes this is a generalization). It might run better, lighter, smaller footprint, etc, but as a whole product/pkg, it typically just doesn't have that sparkle that lets it compete with P2P.
Take Gimp for example. It mimics almost everything in Photoshop and it does a great job generally, but there are many things that are just downright glitchy. Things that would never fly in a pay product, but I suspect for OSS, they were categorized as 'good enough' and lowered in priority for other bug fixes. Things like having to sometimes click on a tool 2 or 3 times before it registers or you end up applying the wrong tool. I haven't been using gimp for oh..say more than 2 years give or take, but the problem still exists. Don't get me wrong. I love OSS. Without it I think the quality of P2P software would be poor at best. OSS keeps them on their toes in a way that other P2P software can't. Get it right, or lose out. It doesn't take much to push someone away from a product when you combine cost and poor quality.
OO.o tends to follow in MS's footsteps (scary thought). Although it might excel in some areas like ODF, it simply plays catch-up for the larger product. I think another part of the problem is we the user. I've caught myself far too many times saying "hey, it's free..why complain?".
Why isn't it perfectly legal for these folks to create their own reverse engineered methods of doing this? If their methods are so trivial to reproduce, or so logical that everyone is doing it after simply hearing the idea, then the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I know there are some specific areas where rulings have been made that makes reverse engineering perfectly legal and desirable to market competition and innovation:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID195
They need to stop rubber stamping these 'ideas' or actions that are common sense and start requiring actual innovation before handing out a patent.
Contextual menu's have been around forever and used by many different companies. Lotus is another one who used them quite a bit.
That said, does anyone else find the MS ribbon just a wee bit unintuitive? I've tried using Office 2007 and still end up digging through each one to find what I'm trying to do. If they do implement this in OO, I would prefer they do it intelligently with contexts that actually make sense both in verbiage, and in location.
The solar on a Prius produces about 215w. I'm not talking about running the entire car folks, I'm just talking about reducing loads on the battery. While searching for the watt/horse power ratio's, I stubmled on this. It says that a company has demonstrated a 29% increase in economy on a modified Prius.
It doesn't have to power the entire unit. It just has to help out when possible.